Reply #126: Please don't mix apples and oranges. It leads to a mash up of issues that should be separate and

[No Elephants]

distinct.

A funeral is a private event. No laws govern what may or may not legally be said there. As far as propriety (as opposed to legality), it was for his surviving family. and them alone, to decide what should or should not have been said there, not for the Republican Party to decide.

The Republicans were WAY out of order prsuming to decide for his family what should have been said, especially by his own family members, ffs. Saying "we" should have owned that venue, however, seems to miss the point as much as the Republicans did. A funeral is not a venue and the only ones who should "own" it are the family. (And, they refused to allow the WH designeed, Cheney, to attend and seemed fine with the remarks made at the service.)

Contradisctively, the highest law of this nation, the Constitution of the United States, as construed for over a half century by the Supreme Court of the United States, says that a public school should not appear to sponsor religion or force people to choose between attending a school event and their right to be free from religion.

The valedictorian's mike was turned off because (a) she knowingly and deliberately violated school policy on student speeches; and (b) the school was conscientiously trying not to violate the Establishment Clause of Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS since the school prayer cases of the 1950's.

Turning off a mike to avoid violating the Constituiton is not remotely like shooting the valedictorian. Even Republicans overstepping by presuming to decide what should be said at a funeral is not remotely like shooting those who spoke at the funeral.

I do agree with you that Democrats need to learn that they must NEVER let what Republicans say, or fear of what Republicans might say, determine the actions of Democrats. That's tantamouont to insanity, IMO.