I usually ignore Mr. Liddick's column. But, when an incorrect assertion of history (my passion) is used as a metaphor in polemic regarding civil unions incorporated with a personal attack, it bothers me. Mr. Liddick refers to Sir Thomas Moore (sic). The person Mr. Liddick is referencing was knighted Sir Thomas More. Mr. Thomas "Moore" was an Irish poet born 250 years later. Sir Thomas More was hardly a saint in his own time - it took 500 years to figure his sainthood out by Pope Pius XI in the 1935 but this small fact was left out of Mr. Liddick's rant. As Chancellor of England, More had a legal and moral duty to dispense justice. It is written that he participated passively, if not actively, in causing the burning of Protestants at the stake; the burning and banning of Lutheran holy books; and in directing vulgar and potty mouth-written insults at Martin Luther, personally and at his doctrines. He vigorously opposed the Protestant Reformation, he opposed King Henry VIII his king, he insulted Queen Anne Boleyn, he cajoled the then Roman Catholic Pope against the English king his employer, stood four-square for the one-and-only church, the Roman Catholic Church and against the right to practice other religious faiths of the day. I do agree he does appear to be a good metaphor for Mr. Liddick's world view wherein the civil union discussion may be the synonym of the Protestant Reformation and Mr. Liddick's written insults seem to be out of the potty mouth of Sir Thomas More. More, by the way, lost his head physically. Luckily Mr. Liddick's loss is only a figurative loss. Better homework for your next polemic, Mr. Liddick.
Jim Bull, Frisco