The ACLU is full of crybaby, sissy, communists who whine and moan everytime anything that promotes absolute standards rears it's head. What is the ACLU whining about and trying to ruin this time? They want to ban the 23rd Psalm from being posted in courthouses (this is happening in Georgia right now but I'm sure it will happen elswhere soon enough). It wasn't enough for them to gripe about the 10 Commandments (God forbid we post those since they're pretty much the foundation for every law we have today in America) now they have to whine about Psalm 23. For those who aren't familiar with Psalm 23, here it is:
PSALM 23
1: The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2: He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters
3: He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name�s sake.
4: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5: Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6: Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
Let me give you a brief explanation of this just in case you didn't figure it out for yourself. The psalmist David (who was king of Israel as well as the father of the wisest man to walk the Earth outside of Christ, Solomon) is saying that God is his protector (much like a shepherd protects his sheep) and will therefore have need of nothing since he will be provided for. Much of the psalm carries on in this fashion using the metaphor of the Shepherd/sheep relationship to demonstrate the way God provides for those who do his will. That's basically the psalm in a nutshell. I could go a lot deeper into it but I don't have time for that and that isn't what this rant is about. Now the ACLU is moaning about separation of church and state once again as they pull bad arguments out of their abyssal sausage holes once again. I'm sure that most of you already know this but the phrase "separation of church and state" is found absolutely nowhere in the constitution. The ACLU says that by having the 23rd Psalm on display the government is promoting one religion over another. Big deal. First of all that's a load of crap anyways. Just because a post of the 23rd Psalm is in a courthouse doesn't mean the government is promoting one religion over another. Even if they were to do that, the 23rd Psalm has nothing in it that could offend anybody (unless you're an athiest which has the God of humanity). All it states is that if you serve God and do His will He'll provide for and care for you. What's so offensive about that? Regardless of the absurdity of taking down something that promotes something great like what the 23rd Psalm promotes, the government is only banned from establishing a state religion like what the Puritans basically did in a lot of ways. What does The Constitution actually say? Here it is: I'll let that sink in for just a second. First of all, having a post of the 23rd Psalm in no way constitutes a law promoting religion. No matter how you look at it, that isn't the case. Just because a single courthouse decides to post a religious object doesn't mean that it reflects the views of the government as a whole and it certainly doesn't qualify as a law. It violates nobody's constitutional rights. What right is being violated here is the free exercise clause of the first ammendment. This is clearly "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. The same would be true if a courthouse wanted to post something from the Koran or any other religious writings. The ACLU however is so communistic in their ideology though that anything that has any sort of Christian value to it must be torn down. Why am I so sure that they single out Christianity? When was the last time you ever heard of the ACLU fighting against anybody promoting Atheism, Islam, Bhuddism, etc., etc.? My guess is never. They will fight for anything that goes against Christians and against anything that isn't politically correct. If you try and censor somebody for being lewd and obscene in public or in a public setting much like a university campus then the ACLU will fight for their right to be that way to the death, but the moment somebody promotes anything tied to Christianity if only in reference than the ACLU might as well have a lynch mob waiting outside their door ready to silence them. The main logic that the ACLU is using is that "This passage is distinctly religious" (ACLU-Georgia Legal Director Gerry Webber). Of course it's distinctly religious you dolt, it happens to be from the HOLY BIBLE. How can it not be distinctly religious? What's ironic though is that even the Supreme Court can't make up its mind concerning whether or not such displays can be allowed. In June, the Supreme Court issued two rulings concerning posts of the Ten Commandments. Apparently it's okay for the state capitol of Kentucky to post them but two other courthouses in the state were banned from doing so. Apparently the capitol building display promoted the nations legal history but the courthouses only served as religious displays? What's the difference you morons? It's the same frickin' display in both places. You can't have it both ways. According to Justice David H. Souter: What the Supreme Court has been doing concerning the Ten Commandments as well as the 23rd Psalm is to undermine the values that this country was founded on. Obviously not all of the founding fathers were Bible believing Christians. They were actually mostly Deists, but they at least had a strong respect for the Bible and everything in it. George Washington said himself that if you try and remove the pillars on which this nation was founded (referring to Biblical or at least religious principle) than you are in fact an enemy of this country. After all, how you can you claim to love this country and do everything in the world to remove it's founding standards? It's impossible. You can't do that and truly be a patriot of this country. The Supreme Court is getting out of hand and is becoming more and more power hungry and more Socialistic. Again, according to Scalia:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality."
The other flaming liberal, socialist judges on the bench agreed. Big surprise. Again, the first ammendment only states that the government cannot establish a state church by law. It does not imply government abandonment of any and all religious references and/or standards. It does not say that the government cannot show partiality to one religion or another. The only way that would be unconstitutional is if it was a law benefiting members of one religion over another. The Constitution is written the way it is with the words it is written in for a reason. The founding fathers didn't want people to read anything into it and so the words they wrote are meant to be taken at face value. When they say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," they mean that you can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion or stopping people from freely exercising and sharing their beliefs, nothing more and certainly nothing less. Appropriately Justice Antonin Scalia (who, like John Roberts, is also the man) said that the Commandments "have a proper place in our civil history."He went on to add that:"In the court's view, the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable. Surely that cannot be."
I couldn't have said it better myself. It's a shame that more people can't understand that. "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."
The Supreme Court is clearly not being consistent and is clearly getting out of line and it is ruining our country. The American people have for too long tolerated politically correct garbage and socialist propoganda in the school system and the end result is getting communistic, politically-correct obsessed judges such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David H. Souter. If the American people would get back to their roots (i.e, go back to the principles this nation was founded on) we wouldn't have an out of control Supreme Court that deems any and all religious references as un-constitutional. This is absurd people, and the more that we tolerate this garbage, the worse things will get. It's that simple.
