The American Communist Lawyers Union is at it again.

Saw this on the ACLU's website. Why was I there? simple. I like to check up on the enemy every once in a while. Why do I consider them the enemy? simple. because they push their agenda on others. This might seem a bit hypocritical, seeing as how I consider myself to be an Evangelical Born-Again Christian, but it's not. While some of my spiritual brethren might push God on others, I don't, nor do I agree with their way of doing things. When I'm out doing the whole Spreading The Word thing, I try not to be pushy. If I come across that way, it's not my attention. The ACLU (which stands for American Civil Liberties Union by the way. I just think my name for them is more accurate) thinks differently. If you don't agree with them, you are wrong and they will sue you if the can. Don't believe me? Check this out.

There is no law saying that you can't teach Creation, nor is there a law that says you have to teach Evolution.To the best of my knowledge the only law on this subject is in Louisiana (I might be wrong, but I think that's where it is) but that just states that you can not teach just Creation. you have to give equal time to both theories. But the ACLU supports Evolution and if they find out that your teaching Creation, they will sue you. They can't win, but school are forced to spend so much on the lawsuit that they encourage they teachers not to teach Creation. Not because they will get in trouble, but because they will have to spend too much money.

The ACLU has struck again, this time pushing their agenda on the Terrie Schivo case. Not only are they helping her husband and possibly ignoring her civil liberties, they are also trying to get "Terri's Law 1" over turned on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Here's a link to the Constitution. Near as I can tell, there nothing in the Constitution one way or another regarding this case, so how can it be unconstitutional. In fact, the only thing in that article that I agree with is the fact that you should let lots of people know and have a living will if you don't want to be kept alive in situations such as this.

One mistake they make is, from the sound of the article, they assume that she said she didn't want to live. Since there is no documented evidence to support this, and the only one she "told" is her husband, they relly have no ground to stand on. She very well may want to live, but she is not dieing a slow death.

I don't want to start a debate about this. If you think she should die, that's your opinion. Personally I think she should live, but in the end our opinions don't matter. As long as groups like the ACLU are around, we either agree with them, or we are wrong. There is no middle ground.