Ipso Facto Comic

Zero Income Tax and Zero Payroll Tax

Opera: simply the best internet experience

Download Opera

Just Google It

victory

porkbustersNo More Jean Fraud sKerry Bullshit

Open Trackback Alliance

Get the code for this blogroll


Add to My Yahoo!


Free John Kerry's SF-180 Blogroll

twalogo

The Community for Life, Liberty, Property

Guard the Borders

Email Me

If you're using Internet Exploder to view this blog, tough. Get a real browser. :-)

Ignore the Blogspot "profile"—here's the real scoop

What's this blog about, anyway?

Comment-Trackback Policy

Stop the ACLU Blogburst Blogroll

Powered by Blogger

Anti-PC League

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Slap the ACLU *heh*

And I'm feeling... ambivalence.

"Commandments display is upheld
No religious intent in Mercer, court says"

Thumbs up on the first part. Thumbs down on the dumb part. (I'll explain in a bit.)

A federal appeals court has ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments in the Mercer County, Kentucky courthouse is hunky dory... for the wrong reasons. Folks: the Ten Commandments are central to two religions. They are a religious "document" BUT displaying them in or on a public building does not comprise "establishment of religion" by any portion of civil government. THAT'S what the court would have ruled if it hadn't had half its head stuck where the sun don't shine.

Nevertheless,

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said the ACLU brought "tiresome" arguments about the "wall of separation" between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a "reasonable person."

Well, duh. At least the judge had that much sense. Not to belabor the obvious, but anyone with two active brain cells could have discerned that lil factoid.

*sigh*

The decision was issued by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati. It upheld a lower-court decision that allowed Mercer County to continue displaying the Ten Commandments along with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner" and other documents.


Of course, earlier in the year, similar displays in another Kentucky county were ruled unconstitutional by a non compos mentis Supreme Communistas of the United States, because those who posted them stated their religious views.

Jackasses (OK, and a coupla hinny asses).

At least in Mercer, the document is left displayed.

But at what cost? Once again, the ACLU-even in "losing"-reinforces the idea that religious statements or displays in public fora are "unconstitutional" unless they are rendered non-religious, secular symbols with no religious intent.

Once again, let me refer you to Tuesday's "somewhat rambling essay" by Jerry Pournelle.

Note that Congress has incorporated the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederacy (*sigh* wouldn't that have been nice?) Confederation that preceded the Constitution as foundational documents of our nation. They are an integral part of Constitutional law. Note also,

The United States in its founding document proclaims that it is self evident that all men are created equal, they are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is clear that the document does not recognize "unjust" powers, and it proceeds to enumerate a number of powers it considers unjust. _*_

And

...one of the major issues in this nation [slavery-ed.] was decided because religious principles prevailed over Rule of Law, either Strict or Liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and over the will of the legislatures both national and State which sought compromises to avoid war. To say that religion ought to play no part in national policies in the face of that one great truth appears to be absurd._*_

The modern effort by the ACLU and others to extirpate all religious practice and expression from the public arena, or at the very least to marginalize it by embedding the meme that it is merely an unecessary historical appendix, is in some ways more dangerous than the physical threat of another Islamic terrorist attack. Beacuse the terrorist attack can only kill a few of us compared to the ACLU and their ilk killing our whiole society as they become bolder in emulation of the Taliban...

Catch the picture: the ACLU as a disingenuous communist "Taliban". Probably the best characterization of the organization I know.

But at least this time a judge did say the ACLU's arguments were tiresome and that it did not represent a "reasonable person". Nice slap. Next time with a clubat?

See Stop the ACLU for John's take. And do check the other blogs in the Stop the ACLU blogroll to your right.

Merry Christmas, ACLU!

Wrapped and placed under the tree with a BIG RED BOW at TMH's Bacon Bits.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
|