I don’t know who dumped Phyllis Schlafly when she was a teenager, but it totally messed up her brain. I do want to know who that twisted withered harpy thinks made her the arbiter not only of morality but also of the term “American”?

Her most recent article, excreted from the multi-purpose vent at the back end of the Eagle Forum, lands square in the middle of the windshield of reason. To this sick bint, the first Amendment is just another vole to be eviscerated, devoured and regurgitated into the mouths of her foul offspring. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but I share a sentiment expressed by Kurt Vonnegut, who is now up in heaven, that there are far too many people [Vonnegut said “lawyers”] perfectly willing to destroy the First Amendment.

This awful gangrenous uberbiotch (can you say uberbiotch on the Internet?) presents us with “Atheism Back in Court Again,” a delightful romp through the heart of darkness. According to this disreputable diaper load, the 9th Court of Appeals is hearing whether or not “under God” should be in the Pledge of Allegiance:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is notoriously hostile to religion, so it could give us another anti-pledge decision. Atheism has spread in influence to where it controls many federal courts, many public schools, and now even Hollywood, with the atheistic movie “The Golden Compass” promoted for Christmastime entertainment.

You know, it seems to me that this is setting up a false expectation and prepares the way for her reaction to each of the two possible outcomes: If her side loses, it will only confirm what she said about the Court. If her side wins, she will crow divine intervention. Either way she’s unpleasant.

She is worried that the 9th Court Judge, Robert S. Lasnik, is hearing the case.

Lasnik was the same judge who struck down a Washington state law banning video games that demonstrated how to kill policemen and wrote in his decision that violent video games are “as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.”

It is positively disturbing that someone who finds this to be a shocking implication of the First Amendment could possibly become prominent.

The intolerance of atheists and their allies has now placed the “best of” music off limits to public school performers. Goodbye to many of the great works of Bach, Haydn, Handel, Beethoven and Mozart.

Hey!  I figured out why she was against the ERA. Because it takes brass balls the size of Hickory Farm Spiral Sliced Hams for her to talk about “tolerance.”

It is not only courts on the West Coast that are promoting atheism. In New Jersey, an award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered in 2005 by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or “take a knee” during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue.

So the hell what if he is award-winning? That has nothing to do with the fact that as a public servant in a position of authority of kids he is obliged to not endorse or give the appearance of endorsing any particular religion. And does he actually think that any useful god gives a flying shit about a football game? And if he could not do his job to the satisfaction of his employers, he did the right thing by leaving. He had no business there.

[…]

Atheism has been growing ever since the U.S. Supreme Court censored school prayer in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. That decision failed to cite a single precedent as authority.

Yeah, you seem not to remember that whole big George Bush getting elected thing, do you? Or the Christian Talibanization of the Texas Republican Party. You live in a world of dishonest assertions, and it would probably be better for everyone if you sealed yourself in an abandoned gold mine.

The high court held decades ago that free speech includes prayer, yet lower courts continue to drive it from public places. In Faith Center v. Glover, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of a Christian group from using a public library because some aspects of the group’s speech might be described as worship.

Chalk another one up for the good guys!

The results in these cases point the way for Congress to save the Pledge of Allegiance:

I believe she means “restore the pledge of allegiance.” The ill-advised and poetically dubious addition to the Pledge was inserted for reasons purely ridiculous during the Cold War as way to make it appear that Americans were different from godless Soviets. History means little to demagogues.

Withdraw jurisdiction from the courts over acknowledgment-of-God cases by passing the We the People Act, or H.R. 300.

What she is saying is that there is precedent and she realizes this. As a practicing (heh) atheist, I find it disheartening that I need to invoke the deity every time I buy a soda from the machine. Stripping the courts of their authority over God cases is simply wrong. It would allow populism to trump constitutionality. I could never, ever stand for that. I don’t know how this dessicated glob of lung butter sleeps at night.

HJ

[poll id=”

23

“]