Intelligent Design On Trial

The ACLU has challenged a Pennsylvania school board that has chosen to endorse Intelligent Design. (a news release can be found here. Sadly the school district will probably give in, unwilling or unable to afford the cost of the trial. This is too bad really, because it would win and prevent the further brainwashing of the youth of America. The ACLU will most likely say that it violates separation of church and state, and if you can show me where the Constitution says that phrase, I will agree with you. Unfortunately it does not. In fact, if I remember correctly, the phrase appeared in a letter Jefferson was writing to a friend, and he used it to explain that the freedom of religion part is to prevent a state sponsored religion.

I can understand why some people might have a problem with Intelligent Design, but I have a solution that can make both sides of this debate happy. ID is not science. I know plenty of people who would say otherwise, but it isn't. In order to be considered science, it has to be proven using the scientific method. Until then it is a theory. ID and Evolution are both THEORIES! By teaching evolution as a theory instead of as science, and teaching ID as a theory, everyone will be happy, or at least slightly less mad. Not only that, but then the kids can decide for themselves which one to believe.

ACLU Surrenders!

Found this on Stop The ACLU (I love this site) I think I will take the same route as them and let the press release speaak for it's self (with just a little info from them.

"Saying that ACLU Nebraska “was just out of options,” executive director Tim Butz said it won’t take the Plattsmouth Ten Commandments case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unless the ACLU’s Plattsmouth client finds another legal team to make a final appeal to the high court, the tombstone-shaped monument can remain in a city park in Plattsmouth, about 20 miles south of Omaha.

The 14 board members who attended a meeting voted unanimously not to fight the Aug. 19 appellate ruling."

The original case was filed by an athiest coward too scared to reveal their identity, who was offended by it because they could see it on their way to work. Apparantly looking away was impossible. The defenders of the commandments argued that the commandments were not an endorsement of religion since they were a gift donated in 1950s and 1960s by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

I’m not going to expound very much on this other than to say it is a victory for religious freedom. Besides, Jefferson Downing, who had served as local counsel for Plattsmouth at each level of the case summed up my feelings nicely in one sentence.

“Those monuments aren’t a threat to America,” Downing said, “but the ACLU is a threat to our small towns.”

Amen to that brother!

Good Guys 1, Commie Lawyers...sorry ACLU 0

Boo Yeah

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.