Someone Call the Wahhhhmbulance for Don Wildmon

Ol' Donnie has finally lost it. He's now convinced America is an "atheist nation." I'm not sure what it means to be an "atheist nation," but hey, if I have Don Wildmon's permission, I'll take it! Apparently an Alabama federal judge has determined that another judge, Roy "Crazy-as-a-Bedbug" Moore, can't put his Ten Commandments statue up in the state courthouse. You won't find any of this in the article, I had to Google it. Here's the decision I'll be referring to, Glassroth v. Moore. Keep in mind, it's 78 pages long. I don't expect you to read it. I didn't read it all myself, but it's there in case anyone wants to critique my or Don's reading of it.

Wildmon's insane rantings are published on the AFA Journal. Read them here. Incidentally, this case was decided late in 2002 and the article written in September 2003. I have no idea why it's being put up on the AFA mainpage again. What gives? Is the AFA running out of steam, or what?

The issue isn’t a granite stone with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it. Never has been. The issue is much more diverse and important than a piece of stone.

Did he just denigrate the Ten Commandments? "A piece of stone?" Wow, Don, you're really coming apart at the seams today!

The issue was best stated by none other than Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who said that a display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments and a host of other historical quotations is illegal. The disputed display was in the Alabama State Judicial Building.

Okay, then, he said putting it up in a state courthouse was illegal. Don, don't lie. Or at least, don't lie and then in the next breath show us that you're lying.

Thompson said the central, most important issue was this: “Can the state acknowledge God?”

After asking the question, he went on to answer it: “No.”

Great. Now can we put the issue to rest?

That is the issue. Lest we fail to understand what has occurred here, let me explain.

Why, do you think we're too dumb to understand it without your help?

A single lower court federal judge has bluntly told every American that America is now officially an atheist nation.

Okay, that's either another lie or Don just not knowing what he's talking about. Judge Thompson's decision was only on the district (lowest) level of federal courts, which means it doesn't apply anywhere outside his district, namely, the Middle District of Alabama.

However, the decision was appealed to the United States' 11th Circuit, who upheld the decision. Now the entire 11th Circuit requires that no Decalogue monuments be put up anywhere within the circuit. And that has nothing to do with Myron Thompson, other than to say he was right in the first place.

In one swift stroke of the pen, Judge Thompson tossed out more than 225 years of American history and law.

No. No legal precedent has lasted for 225 years without being touched. In the Court used precedent established in Glassroth v. Moore,Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. That case established that a public display of a religious artifact had to have some secular purpose. Now, I didn't Google Lemon, but how much you wanna bet that it, too, relies on earlier case precedent? Which relieso on still earlier precedent?

Of course, even if I hadn't just proven Don Wildmon to be a confused liar, he'd still be full of shit. How old does something have to be before it's no longer debatable? Slavery was thousands of years old before Lincoln abolished it in 1863; was he out of line as well? Or maybe he was just following Britain's example, and they were the real "judicial activists," right Don?

What about giving women the right to vote, in 1920? Women hadn't had suffrage in the U.S. since its inception (with the exception of a brief period in New Jersey). Should we not have given them the right to vote because they never had it before? Actually, never mind; I don't want to know how Don would answer that.

In one swift stroke of the pen, he has instituted a new form of law based on what he wants it to be. Rex has become lex – the king has become law. He wears a black robe and he says he is the law.

Spoken like a true moron who knows nothing about the law. Don, did you even bother to read the case, or are you just spouting your opinions with nothing to back them up?

Go back and read the First Amendment, the one Judge Thompson destroyed in the name of preserving it.

Except that he didn't do that.

Then go back and read the 225+ years of case law that followed it. Go ahead, I'll wait.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion.

Except that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States. Nice try, though.

But what Congress refused to do, indeed, because Congress refused to do it, Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.

Yes, Don, thank you. I know what atheism is, and I know that Judge Thompson (and later the 11th Circuit) didn't do that. He simply stated that there can be no endorsement of any religion by the government. That means that if some atheist judge wants to hang a rock over his bench that says "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!" he wouldn't be permitted to do that either. Why is it fundies not only can't handle someone endorsing something other than Christianity, but they can't handle any place that DOESN'T endorse Christianity? How Goddamned sanctimonious can you be?

Not only did Judge Thompson usurp the power of Congress, he also took away the rights of every individual and state.

Sigh, once again, Don, no. Thompson's decision doesn't affect anyone outside of the Middle District of Alabama.

But further, what is Donnie talking about, "took away the rights of every individual and state"? Does every citizen have the right to look at a giant monument to God in a courthouse? Do they not have the right to waive that right?

The second half of the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Oh, I see now! You're talking about the right of every citizen to put a giant religious statue on public property! Okay, I get it now. Public property only belongs to Christians, and everyone else can just get the hell off and stop complaining.

Well, Don, when you find the commandment that says "Thou shalt put a big stone monument to God's glory on public property," let me know. I must have missed that one, because I didn't know that you had to do that in order to practice your religion.

This is precisely what one lower federal judge has done.

Yeah, you've already said that, and it's still wrong.

He told Americans who disagree with his official state religion of atheism that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion – unless, of course, that religion is atheism.

Yes, we've been over this, Don. Are you being paid by the word or something?

He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.

No less wrong than the first time you said it...

From this day forward, our entire judicial system must be based on the religion of atheism.

Well, the scope of your paranoid delusions is still wrong, and nobody has or is trying to establish atheism as the official state religion.

Follow that to its logical conclusion.

Follow your erroneous premise to its logical conclusion? Okay, I guess we're going to take a ride on the Slip 'n' Slope now.

In the future there will be no frame of reference from which to decide law. Law will become what any judge wearing a black robe and sitting in court desires it to be.

Really? Cuz I had this crazy idea there was this thing called "law" that judges have to use. You've heard of it, right Don? Statutes, case law, and constitutions? You know anything about those? (On second thought, I doubt it...)

Okay, fine, you win Don. There is no such thing as law anymore. All because one single solitary judge made a ruling that Don Wilmdon disagrees with, the entire body of American law magically disappears.

I don't even have to make Wildmon look like an idiot; he does it all by himself.

The First Amendment has been ripped apart in the name of upholding it. Orwell’s 1984 has arrived.

Melodramatic much, Wild Man? Jesus, not only have you demonstrated your complete lack of comprehension about the law, you seem completely oblivious about literature as well.

1984 (you italicize book titles, I might add) was about government intrusion into everyday life. The government mandated atheism, not refusing to bludgeon people with Christianity. They also spied on the citizens, day in and day out. 1984 was probably a lot closer to what fundies want to see than Judge Myron Thompson.

No, you will not notice any drastic changes immediately.

Hell, it's 3 years after your article and I still haven't seen much change.

There is still a remnant of citizens who grasp the truth.

Actually, there are lots of people who "grasp the truth," and they sure as shit ain't people like you.

But when that remnant dies out, those who come after us will see a big difference.

Lord I hope so.

The state will become intolerant of any religion other than atheism.

Except there's still that pesky First Amendment which you seem to believe only applies to you. Huh, imagine that.

That, of course, will come into conflict with people of conscience whose religion differs from that of the state. That is when the persecution, quite legal I might add, will start.

I um, have this nice hat. It's made of pretty tinfoil. Would you like to try it on?

It was the atheist Santayana who said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Oh, so I guess atheists aren't that bad after all. I mean, if you're quoting one, we must know something, right?

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Indeed, Santayana and Jefferson were right.

Well, if Thomas Jefferson (a deist, by the way) gives judges permission, then why the hell not?

Don, you have proven that you know nothing about law. You've proven that you don't understand literature. You can't even grasp quotations or form a coherent argument. The only thing you seem to be good at is ranting like a paranoid lunatic and whining like a crybaby.

Congratulations on pissing away the last of your credibility.