Brain Fertilizer

Is it just me, or has the ACLU been taking "uppers" or eating their Wheaties.

They seem to be sueing everyone since Bush won the election earlier this month.

Well, I'm assuming it's because the progressive/atheist/secular agenda is being rejected by greater and greater numbers of citizens and voters. They've been able to use activist judges to impose some items, but even those (like Roe v Wade) are imperiled by Supreme Court retirements while a Republican is in the White House. And President Bush made an extremely important move by sending a clear message that democracy will be served; he threatened to throw his support behind a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as only between opposite genders. [please note: the pro-SSM activists distort what he actually said and did, don't they?] The 11 states that amended their state constitutions indicate that President Bush might have the political capital to pull it off over the objections of a distinct but vocal minority...so they've backed off and decided that if they can't win the debate, make sure the debate is never allowed to happen.

Eradicating freedom of religious expression is an appropriate pre-emptive strike, considering their ultimate goals.

I'm just thinking about the backlash in public opinion. The ACLU is getting some bad press (even when its "good press" in the NYTimes - because I believe the Average American can read between the spinlines of the press.) (At least I hope that is true.)

So what would happen if the majority of the public rejects the ACLU (a non-government entity)?

That could be the ultimate end to this path were on.

Personally, I just like to see the sheer ignorance behind statements such as "atheists/secularists were trying to sanitize society for their own sensibilities" - gosh, I never knew I was doing that, particularly given that I think handing out historical American documents, in the context of an American history class (assuming this was the case), is perfectly acceptable and what anyone with a functioning brain might expect.

Now, Andy, don't jump at generalizations. That doesn't advance the discussion at all.

But for the sake of argument, who should I name as the ones trying to suppress free expression of religious values? It's more than just the ACLU. I didn't think George Soros was behind this, too, but there is a disorganized but increasingly coherent attempt to establish an atheist default. Should I blame the van Pattons?
Naming a group is just verbal shorthand for ease of discussion, and should not ever be taken to mean "100% of all people who consider using this term to describe themselves 100% of the time".

For example, remember the flap over Judge Moore's statue/monument of the 10 Commandments? While I disapproved of his refusal to comply with a court order, the complaint was brought by a supposedly-adult lawyer who said she couldn't even bear to see the statue, it upset her so much.

That is exactly the sanitization of a public display for the sensibility of an atheist and/or secularist.

As is someone complaining to remove a nativity scene from City Hall grounds.

As is calling a Christmas tree a "holiday tree".

As is saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

As is removing the words "Under God" from the Pledge.

So it's not all atheists, but pretending to not comprehend an easily-understood speech generalization doesn't do anyone any good.

One last reminder: You may be convinced those attempts are all good and proper and in line with the intent of the forefathers in the 1st Amendment. Some legal scholars think so. Enough don't, however, that the standard ACLU opinion of Separation of Church and State is never a slam-dunk, the ACLU's victory against the Boy Scouts notwithstanding.

I think the tide may be turning, however, and future rulings that nativity scenes must be removed and you can't sing Christmas songs in school programs may be considered as ridiculous as some of the "Zero Tolerance" rules that get kids suspended for bring 1" plastic guns to school or for saving someone's life by sharing an asthma inhaler.
It's going to be an interesting and probably messy couple of years, I think...maybe the whole rest of the decade.