Reply #16: Fine... okay, they're a... [View All]

[punpirate]

... non-profit educational institution. They truly are not, regardless of what they say--and if it were to come to court (which it won't), it could be quickly established that their intent is markedly different from their charter--that it is fundamentally religious in nature. Intent does count in such instances--but, I don't think anyone has yet challenged that 501(c)3 status (and, yup, someone probably should--it would have been wonderful if the Smithsonian had).

But, in my differences with you, I describe to you what I know them to be, while you describe to me what they say they are--which has not been challenged, as far as I know.

As for believing their version, at least of what they describe themselves to be, and their intentions, I most certainly don't. I just would have liked the Smithsonian to be free of all such tugs and influences--including corporate interposition in what is the nation's science museum--that pisses me off more than I can say. We've always had the money to support that museum without outside interference--until the conservatives took charge--and this brouhaha with DI is the result of that corruption of the museum--and, I think it's intentional.

What's next? Prudential sponsors the Lincoln Memorial? See Monticello(TM), a Better Homes and Gardens subsidiary?

Cheers.

Edit for syntax.