by Rubenchito

Headline of a local newspaper article:

“Intolerance at the Capitol”


… usually don’t talk religion with my parrot; Socrates got his own opinion an’ I got mine. However, we both had a good laugh over uh editorial in the Star Trib the other day under the title: Intolerance at the Capitol.

Seems the Minnesota legis late ive House, in the spirit uh keepin’ church an’ state separate, starts off each session with a prayer from a visitin’ holy man or their own chaplain. An’, on the occasion in question, the invited pastor invoked the name uh his particular deity who, he intimated, our President didn’t acknowledge. Ohmahgosh! Our lawmakin’ body went inta full Tizzy Mode, the Speaker “took immediate responsibility,” “apologized to his colleagues,” an’ asked for their “forgiveness.”

What’d they think a preacher was gonna pray about, canned tomatoes? An’ if he did, it’d sure be about his own brand.

However, it seems legis late tive contrition ain’t good enough fer the Trib editorial writer who opined, “a similar incident could happen again without effective vetting. … a quick background check would have uncovered Dean’s [the pastor] controversial radio remarks.”  Holy haranguing an’ sanctimonious speechifyin’! They ought uh knowed better than get a prayin’ man that committed uh “controversial” re-mark – just proves how intolerant he is. You gotta vet them “controversial” guys real careful on account of them sneakin’ in some sort uh in-tolerance, which, reading between the lines, must mean something legis late tors or editorial writers disagree with.

Come t’ think, some uh that in-tolerance stuff musta snuck outta the Capitol an’ found its way t’ the Trib’s editorial department.