Archive for the ACLU Category

Graduates? They ain’t got (an official) prayer.

Posted in ACLU, atheism, atheists, common sense, False religion, prayer, public schools, religion, toleration with tags , , on May 28, 2011 by devilbloggger

Graduation.

Dangerous piece out there today, folks.  And from one of our own.  Well, not really mine because he does not believe in me any more than he believes in God, but when it comes to kingdom building, this one is mine.

Good piece, I’ll admit; but dangerous piece nonetheless. 

You know, my servants, especially my American friends, that this time of year brings a rash of rash behavior in the form of public gyrations around high school graduation prayers.  In the good ol’ days before I found lone offendees to screw up what was right, prayers were an official part of the whole shebang.  Everyone, even foolish unbelievers, were not so foolish as to be disrespectful of others.

But, of course, I have won in the public sphere largely through those lone offendees, or at least those who feign offense to feed the NCACLU machine.  Now graduates are not even allowed to see a cross in the vicinity of their graduation, much less hear a short prayer.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Am I good, or what?

But if people read today’s opinion piece by Bruce Ledewitz over at Religion Dispatches entitled “It’s Time to Reconsider Graduation Prayer in Public High Schools,” the gig might be over.  You see, Mr. Ledewitz, who, according to God is a fool, is nevertheless intelligent enough to make some key insights into what my servants on earth have done to graduation prayers.

I can’t set up the issue better than he did, so bear with his long opening quote; it’s worth the read:

It happens every year around this time: a public high school in a small town schedules a graduation prayer in plain violation of the 1992 Supreme Court case prohibiting such prayers, Lee v. Weisman; then a local student steps up to demand that the prayer be dropped and a moment of silence, or other invocation, be substituted. There is local outrage but the school board’s attorney recommends compliance to save litigation costs. In the end, the local community is fodder for sophisticated national ridicule. It’s the Scopes Monkey Trial all over again.

You got the picture, right?  It’s actually a wonderful sight each year.  We look forward to it.

Mr. Ledewitz points out one of this year’s shows in Bastrop, Louisiana, where the local atheist tool was a dude named Damon Fowler.  It only takes one, and this time My One, backed up by my NCACLU, forced the prayer to be dropped in favor of a moment of silence. 

Mr. Ledewitz says “no one” can criticize Fowler, characterizing My One as “courageous” for “standing up for his beliefs.”

Oh yeah?  Courageous

Ha ha ha ha ha.

It is not courage, my friends, but spite, bitterness, and a general propensity to be a jerk that usually drive My Ones on earth in this regard.  Who in their right mind believe it is civil and generally un-jerky to make many offended for the sake of one selfish jerk who might be offended?

Well, I know the NCACLU; my question was rhetorical. 

What is the problem with forcing a clear majority of happy Americans with their long-standing happy traditions at special occasions to sit down and shut up in a moment of silence? 

Mr. Ledewitz tells us:

The ban tends to push prayer into the unofficial remarks of student speakers, which is what happened Friday at the Bastrop High School graduation ceremony; when graduating senior Laci Mae Mattice stood up to lead the planned moment of silence, she invited the audience to join her in the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.

Yes, I heard that.  Wow, that girl Laci’s prayer just about took our breath away!

Sometimes I think it was better when some boring “clergy” stood up and droned on for a few moments of mass thought-wandering in the audience.

In any event, as Mr. Ledewitz notes, no US courts have succeeded in making all graduation prayers illegal.  The courts have merely shifted the focus from meaningless clergy-led pauses in the program to passionate student-led highlights of the program.

Mr. Ledewitz worries that if the Americans keep pounding this issue, dragging Christian students off stages as they yell Jesus’s name, those of more common sense might pass a constitutional amendment protecting the right of pubic prayer.

Again, am I good, my servants?  Can you believe that there is even talk about a constitutional amendment to protect the right of public prayer.  The people who wrote the constitution were public prayers of the highest order.  The first President and Congress made public prayers a major focus of all he/they did.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

A constitutional amendment.

Sorry, but that just shows how good I am — ha ha ha ha ha!

OK, let me compose myself, because I need to address some of Mr. Ledewitz’s errors.  Because he is swerving into some common sense truth that is inconsistent with his own professed belief, and dangerous to my kingdom.

Mr. Ledewitz suggests that the court decisions that caused official graduation prayers to cease should be reconsidered. 

Why?

Because he recognizes the obvious that Americans have sacrificed a “communal expression of meaning” by promoting a “radical individualism.”  And Mr. Ledewitz believes that some form of “communal expression” is good, because “community requires some kind of creed–though not of course necessarily a religious creed.”

Of course.

This is where my servants go wrong, my friends.  This is going to get ugly, but follow me on this one.

Mr. Ledewitz notes that one of the Supreme Court justices responsible for today’s predicament even noted that “this dearth of communal meaning in the public square was admitted.”  And another guilty justice stated,

. . . that the government could not undertake the task of prayer even to express “the shared conviction that there is an ethic and a morality which transcend human invention.”

But Mr. Ledewitz, no doubt with a glimmer of flickering light that exists in all created image bearers, disagrees.

This is where it gets dangerous.

Mr. Ledewitz, you are a “non-believer” which means you are an atheist.  What, exactly, can possibly “transcend human invention” in the context of prayer?

No, really, what?

To make matters worse, Mr. Ledewitz quotes another of my favorite useful fools, atheist Sam Harris, for insisting in his recent book The Moral Landscape that “there is an objective morality that goes beyond human invention.”

Mr. Ledewitz, swept up in a fit of unrecognized truth concludes:

But whatever the separation of church and state might mean, whatever government neutrality involves, it cannot forbid government from asserting that moral values are real.

Real?  Yes, but where do they come from, Mr. Ledewitz?

Just because this has been a traditionally religious position is no reason for secular people to give up on objective values.

Blechhh!  The darkened mind speaks unrecognized truth!

Objective values?  Do you know what these words mean, my servants?  Must I tell you?

No, I’ll let you figure it out yourself.  Go study the difference between “subjective” values and “objective” values.  (Hint for the lazy: if there is no God, there can be nothing transcendent or objective.)  

Stop, Mr. Ledewitz.  Just stop.

This entire discussion is leading to one conclusion, which is true: everyone is religious.  Some people are atheistically religious, with a theology of atheism (Mr. Ledewitz’ piece is under a heading of (A)theology).  Others are theistically religious. 

To start opining about “transcendent” “objective” values is to recognize that only theistic religions can possibly be true. Which makes atheists fools.

And a world where this truth is known is a world in which my kingdom suffers.

Mr. Ledewitz concludes with this mindless collision with kingdom destroying truth:

If the government is indeed establishing religion, by all means, let us object. But let us also be sensitive and willing to compromise, understanding that the yearning for transcendent meaning is not confined to religious believers.

Yes, it is, my friend Ledewitz.  It just depends on which religion is being believed.

I have worked hard to get government endorsement for atheistic religion in all areas of public life.

Don’t muck it up.

Advertisements

Promoting the wrong religion in Tennessee

Posted in ACLU, religion with tags , , on April 28, 2011 by devilbloggger

ACLU

I love the ACLU, my servants.  Although they are missing two letters in their initials, the Non-Christian American Civil Liberties Union comes to my rescue over and over again.  And they are doing my bidding once more to protect the civil liberties of only non-Christians. 

It is a beautiful thing.

Did you read, my servants, about the little Constitution-tramplers in little Sumner County, Tennessee, in the United States?  Of course not, because you are not paying attention.  But my NCACLU is.  You can read about in today’s AP article entitled, “ACLU [sic] complaint claims Sumner schools promote religion.”

According to the AP article:

A complaint made by American Civil Liberties Union [sic] of Tennessee on behalf of three Sumner County families accuses the county school board of promoting Christianity in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

What did the NCACLU find objectionable?  Again, according to the AP article:

The complaint cites several examples of the school system promoting Christianity, including the distribution of Bibles in at least two schools; a teacher who displayed a cross on a classroom wall; sectarian prayers over school loudspeakers and at school events; and holding graduation ceremonies for three high schools at Long Hollow Baptist Church.

Yes, my servants.  Such establishments of religion are clearly a violation of Constitutional rights to a Godless (but not godless) existence.  Go NCACLU!

But here is what I love about these issues, my servants: Sumner County schools already promotes religion–it’s just a different religion.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you understand?

No?

Let me spell it out.  American schools everywhere, my servants, already promote atheistic religious concepts; in fact, they are the only concepts allowed to be taught.   Every subject of study, every notion of ethics or morality, every angle of every topic must be taught from a strictly atheistic perspective.

And make no mistake, atheism is the theology of many, many recognized religions.

The Sumner County educators, therefore, are merely promoting a different religion, one which all my servants, including the NCACLU despise.

And so the dispute.

Who will win?

I will, of course.  Only my religious concepts are allowed to be taught in American public schools under the doctrine of Separation of Christian Church and State.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Winning!

Go NCACLU.

ACLU should be NCACLU

Posted in ACLU, homosexuality, political correctness, Uncategorized with tags , , on February 21, 2011 by devilbloggger

Non-Christian-American Civil Liberties Union.

I like the sound of that.  And I hear it almost all the time.  For my non-American friends, I’m speaking of a large, well-funded US legal group that defends the civil rights of all Americans except Christians and some other religious people.   In fact, this group of attorneys seems to look for reasons to poke sharp sticks in the eyes of Christians, Orthodox Jews, or anyone with traditional views of sex and marriage, among other things.

Am I good, or what?

Come on, folks, I can’t hear you.  Am I good?

That’s better.  Ha ha ha ha ha.

I worried when the ACLU, the pre-cursor to the NCACLU, first formed.  You see, my servants, I am against all true liberties, civil or otherwise.  That’s why I’m against truth.  Because truth always brings true liberty and sets people free.  So when I saw a group forming to protect civil liberties, I immediately moved in with my lies to ensure that “civil liberties” meant “uncivil lasciviousness” whenever and wherever Christianity raised its oppressive head.

Let me share some kingdom knowledge with you, my servants.  Please keep this confidential.  Basically my lie runs like this: “liberty” means the ability to do anything one desires sexually without constraint regardless of the destructive consequences to self or others.  Sexual “freedom” (which is the main “freedom” defended by the likes of the NCACLU) means constraint-free practice of whatever behavior makes one feel good. 

If it feels good do it; that’s what I say!  And, more importantly, I and the ACLU say if it makes someone feel guilty for doing what feels good, don’t do it!

And the delicious irony, my servants, is that my “liberty” is merely lie-disguised bondage.  Ask anyone reaping the fruit of a life given over selfishly to the lust of the flesh if they would not rewind the clock if they could.

I ask them all the time.  Just for fun.  Ha ha ha ha ha.  No clocks here, fellow rebels.

Fortunately for those still on earth I infiltrated every aspect of modern, pluralistic, relativistic American culture, including the legal system with my lies of sexual freedom.  It is no secret at this point that the American Constitution has become the tool of choice for every person wishing to lawfully practice a perversion against all traditional private morals or public constraints.  Where democracy fails, the judicial system delivers. 

But the judicial system does not deliver without a delivery boy, and my go-to boy has become the NCACLU.  I can always depend on the NCACLU to fight for my kingdom on earth as it is in Hell. 

The latest defense of my kingdom is detailed in today’s Washington Examiner in a story by Robert Knight entitled, “Freedom to be Christian but banned from acting Christian.”  Hey, don’t you love that title?  That title almost describes the actual state of Christianity in America: free to be, but refusing to act.

But every once in a while a Christian acts like a Christian, and in today’s modern sexually free America, such action must be banned by the force of law.  Thankfully, as Mr. Knight notes, the NCACLU is falling in line right on cue to defend me in a case involving a graduate student in the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University.  It seems some Godpunk named Julea Ward,

“. . . had asked that another student take the case of a homosexual suffering from depression because, being a Christian, she could not affirm the person’s sexual relationships.”

She was rightly canned for her blatant liberty-crushing viewpoint.  Of course she sued charging unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, religious discrimination and compelled speech, but she lost and is now appealing her loss to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Good luck, goody two-shoes; I got the NCACLU on the case.

We’ll see just who’s civil liberties trump, Miss Ward: your religious and free speech liberties, or my boyboy-sex-in-your-pretty-little-face liberties.

Ha ha ha ha ha. 

I’m betting on boyboysex because the NCACLU’s brief cites last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which upheld the decision by Hastings College of the Law at the University of California at Berkeley to eject a Christian legal group for not allowing open homosexuals in leadership positions. Writing for the majority in that case, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:

“Condemnation of same-sex intimacy is, in fact, a condemnation of gay people,” and “our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.”

I love it.  Do you see, my servants, how a darkened, foolish heart reasons?  No distinction between status and conduct in this context? What “context” is that?  And why is that “context” entitled so?

Hey, I wonder if condemnation of opposite sex intimacy by married adulterers is a condemnation of married people. 

I wonder if condemnation of bestiality is a condemnation of beasts. 

I wonder if condemnation of necrophilia is a condemnation of dead people. 

I wonder if condemnation of incestuous intimacy is a condemnation of family members. 

I wonder if condemnation of child sex is a condemnation of children.

But what I really wonder is this: Is condemnation of refusal to counsel against conscience a condemnation of the person of conscience?

Why isn’t it, Ms. Ginsburg?

No, really, why isn’t it?

Ha ha ha ha ha .

I wonder if condemnation of egregious judicial rulings is a condemnation of all judges.

I hope not.

%d bloggers like this: