by Edd Doerr
Below is the comment that I posted in the Washington Post on line on 4/16/12 ----
Today (April 16) the Post rightly blasts a new Tennessee law that "seems designed to encourage teachers who would introduce pseudo-scientific criticisms inspired by religion or ideology into descriptions of the current state of evolution or climate science." Yet on April 11 the Post editorialized in favor of tax support, through school vouchers, of private schools many of which teach kids "pseudo-science . . . inspired by religion or ideology" with regard to "evolution or climate science." Does the right hand at the Post know what the left hand is writing? Is it possible to entertain contradictory viewpoints before breakfast is finished? Can someone please explain this?
Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty