Texas Man Threatens Lawsuit For the Stuffing of Two Asses
September 25, 2012
The use of the word ass to describe a donkey or a mule is Biblical. And I bring the Biblical aspect to this story because the subject of this article claims to have converted from being an atheist and animal rights activist to a “christian”.
But first, to put this entire inane topic into perspective, let me pass on an ass story of old. On a military base in Texas, two privates were given orders to go out in the corner of a field and dig a hole big enough to bury a donkey in. As the men got digging, they began discussing the donkey. As the men dug, they argued whether the animal was a donkey or a mule. Their debate reached the point where the two men were about to come to blows over it, when the base chaplain passed by where the two men were working. He heard the very loud arguing and stepped over to the edge of the hole and looked down in and interrupted the two men. “What on earth are you two men doing and what are you fighting about?”
One man said quickly, “Oh, we’re digging a donkey hole.” The other yelled, “No! It’s a mule hole!” To which the chaplain followed with a question, “What may I ask is a donkey hole and a mule hole?” Then the two men explained the reason they were there digging a hole; to bury a dead donkey in.
“But why the terrible arguing?” the chaplain asked. One man returns, “We were fighting over whether that donkey should be called a donkey or a mule!”
Being a chaplain, he took the opportunity to use Bible references to explain that God called the animal an ass and that according to his teachings, it should be called an ass.
Content, the two men went back to work digging and the chaplain left. A few minutes later, the base commander came walking by, stopped and asked the two men, “Are you digging a donkey hole?” To which one man quickly answered, “Not according to the chaplain! We’re digging an ass hole!”
According to Fox News34 in Lubbock, Texas, Patrick Greene, noted for being an atheist and animal rights activist, is threatening to sue the American Museum of Agriculture located in that city. The reason is because the museum had two old mules, destined for the slaughter house, euthanized to be stuffed and put on display in the museum shown pulling a wagon. Greene calls the action by the museum, “offensive and immoral, and also illegal”.
Greene also said, “They did it for the worst reason of all, for a display in the museum. That is an incredibly horrible reason to do it. So people can look and stare and gawk?”
Oddly enough, back in April of this year, the Huffington Post reported that Greene had seen the light……or maybe he just didn’t know if he was digging a donkey hole or an ass hole. Huffington said that once Greene had fought to have a Nativity scene removed in a Texas county because of his atheism but now had decided to convert to Christianity and to become a pastor.
The report said that after losing his job and getting into some financial difficulty, a Christian organization raised $400 to help him out. That’s what got him to thinking and prompted his so-called “conversion” to Christianity. Once “converted” he began rethinking his positions on evolution and animals. He told one reporter, “There’s been one lingering thought in the back of my head my entire life, and it’s one thought that I’ve never been able to reconcile, and that is the vast difference between all the animals and us.”
Well, evidently Mr. Greene hasn’t thought quite hard enough. I think he best return to the hole until he can determine the difference between a donkey and an ass.
However, the reader who sent me this information, also sent with it a few questions of which I am not in any position to answer, but other readers might have thoughts on them…… or even a snicker.
Did the mules get their own lawyers?
If not, what communal interest can a plaintiff assert?
Is this a sue and settle tactic similar to what the environmentalists do to avoid scrutiny of their lousy science?
Or,is this something that Saul Alinsky mentioned in his book Rules for Radicals in which the threat might be just as effective as the actual action taken?
(In this instance, getting a settlement when no court would order a settlement, might actually cause the threat to gain more than actually suing.)