Thou shalt not be a band of stupid, stupid asses

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

In a stroke of pure genius, the Supreme Court has decided to forego sanity and take the plunge into complete irrelevancy. Somehow those yahoos in black "interpreted" the Constitution to say that what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. I used to be convinced that the paragon of secular humanism was logic, but the Court definitely blew that ideal away as they conveniently ignored the pesky little Law of Non-contradiction. I swear, you could probably get a more rational pair of rulings from a donkey dick with a crayon.

See, the fact that the Decalogue statue in Austin stands amid several other non-religious monuments implies that, to Texans, the Ten Commandments are simply representative of a pleasant little page out of history. "They shall stand!" ruleth the Court. Yet when displayed all alone with no friends to play with - like they are in Kentucky - the undeniable implication is that those silly Blue Grassers ignore any and every law that doesn't begin with "Thou shalt." Sayeth the Court: "Tear them down!" Then there's also the "jackass" rule. I will give them this: it took some mental prowess and a definite love of humor to come up with such a brilliant comedy of absurdities.

Call me silly, but a just law is a just law. Justice is still one of the few things left in this country that relativists haven't completely slaughtered into meaninglesness. That is to say, it is objective. Therefore, a law, qualified as secular or religious or whatever you so choose, if it IS a good (=just) law, will not contradict other good (=just) laws. *SHOCK GASP* Wait a sec, Blackwood, are you telling me that there is a chance that religiously inspired and man-made laws don't necessarily contradict, that they're not necessarily mutually exclusive? To which I respond, Bingo, with the caveat being that both sets are truly just.

So regarding the case in point - are they both just? It would probably take a few lifetimes to go through all bazillion and a half laws that have been passed since this country's inception, but for the most part yes, they are all just. Of course, a few stick out like sore thumbs (and hey - how convenient that they just happen to contradict religious law) but this is not the time to discuss them. So what about the religious law in this case, the good ol' Decalogue? Again, I think that if you take an honest look at them, the ones that are relevant under the Establishment Clause (all but Nos. 1-4) are without a doubt just.

Still, Nos. 1-4 should be allowed to stand, since even though they acknowledge the existence of God, they are in no way legally binding nor do they in any way establish a state religion. And, yes, they are also most definitely historically significant with regards to this country (but I'm still displeased that that was the best reason we got as to why they could stand in Texas). Regardless of what an atheist will tell you, it is not intolerant for the overwhelming majority of the population - this includes people of ALL religions - to pay lip service to God on government ground. The majority wills it, and the democratic machine rolls on, as is the nature of the beast. As my more uncouth brethren on the hard right are fond of saying, "Love it or leave it, buddy."

My message to those who feel the need to protest with all their being something which is far more relevant than, say, mass murder , is this: get a clue. I realize that as a secular humanist you are searching for something to make you feel like your life has a purpose, but this battle is not the way to do that. Why don't you give up the ridiculous notion that the world revolves around you and use your exuberance and energy to help someone out in a corporal fashion. Make a positive difference by building up, and give up the demoralizing debunking. Wow, what a concept. And my parting words to the Grand Almighty Supreme Court (and somewhat of a mantra directed towards them at this point): what the fuck are YOU thinking?