As “The” former neighbor to Ben Franks, Candidate for Justice, Sixth Court of Appeals, (as referred to in her blog of Oct 31) I can affirm that I have never commented, publicly or privately, about my neighbor’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. In fact, in an earlier letter to potential supporters of Bailey Moseley, I remarked that Mr. Franks is a nice guy. I believe in the freedom of religion and if he chooses to not to believe in a higher power and creator, then so be it.

My sole issue, both publicly and privately, with this candidate is the classic plaintiff lawyer versus businessman view. Franks has stated his goal on the bench is to reverse tort reform which has been duly enacted by the Texas Legislature. I disagree with attempting to legislate from the Bench and I submit that a Justice should only interpret existing laws. If he wishes to reverse tort reform measures, Mr. Franks should run for the legislature. This is not even a Democrat versus “straight Republican” issue, as suggested by Mrs. Franks. Many Democrats will disagree,as well, with Mr. Franks on this issue of legislating from the bench.

Respectfully,
Don Morriss

While it is true that quotes should be used when repeating someone’s exact words, it is not the case that this is the only allowed use.

Bypassing for now the small fact that most of the world does not have the benefit of an official governmental agency deciding what is, and is not, “allowed meaning”. . .

. . .quotation marks are frequently used, even in formal peer-reviewed journals, to indicate phrases or words in which the definition or use is the point of disagreement.

Further, in the way-less-formal-than-that world of e-communication (what a wretched term) punctuation usage rules are primarily assumed to be utilized for the benefit of the reader’s understanding.

Sometimes, it is just helpful to have that extra bit of indication–the e-world is full of misunderstanding as it is, and much of this is do to overly quickly written and thus easily misunderstood grammar. And sentence fragments, even!

You certainly have a point about the misuse of “scare quotes” to help demonize their target, but I do believe the Texas Republicans’ (note the lack of a plural possessive terminal “s”) intents, actions and *probably illegal* behavior is a much bigger target than is their grammar.

“Dude if they said a Christian couldn’t be a judge or a mormon or something, it’d be a national scandal and an outrage. Heck, if they said a Jew or a Muslim couldn’t, it’d be on FoxNews right now.”

Actually, (with sadness and an ache in my spirit) I would imagine it easier for an avowed atheist to get elected in these United States than for a professed Muslim to win office.

In a strange sort of way I wish the point were true–that it was only a matter of religion, and not a piece of a much larger cultural hubris and stupidity–but I fear it is not.

In each election, from the time Jefferson hired a soundrel to write ferocious and untrue things about his opponent, John Adams to the latest in which you could pretty much tell someone’s party affiliation based on whether they “believed” Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (I think I got the name right).

Those who are different in “politically salient ways” from the majority have always had a tough time of things.

This is not, by the way, a US phenomenon. Right now Hindus and Muslims are killing one another (and killing Christians) in Northern India. A friend of mine is there now, and just reported back on the difficulties trying to avoid being shot or tortured by both the Maoists and the Hindus.

(Hey, aren’t the Maoists atheists?) . . .ducking and running. . .

I am one, and I won’t. I wouldn’t even “affirm” when testifying before a grand jury. It took longer to explain why substituting the word “affirm” for “swear” didn’t make a difference.

Seems only the judge who talked about it later saw the point. If I “swear” or “affirm” that I am telling the truth in this specific situation, then I (logically) must be saying that one should not expect me to tell the truth in another situation.

I believe it is of utmost importance to live a life of integrity, and telling lies–before grand juries or before my son, cannot be a part of that life. I am unwilling to do anything that would indicate otherwise.

I’ll say I’m pulling for him.

This has been taken totally out of context….. I know Ben Franks and I work with his wife, as usual the Republican Party is doing its far share of fear tacticts. And He will win I believe!!!!!!!! YEAH!

I think it should be noted that there have been many religious people in office who have done things most people would consider wrong. So to use Franks supposed atheism as a reason not to vote for him seems like a weak ploy by the Texas Republicans.