Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


HHS Regs: Patients should come first

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn



HHS Secretary Leavitt’s explanation of his actions is, quitefrankly, mindboggling.  “Freedom ofexpression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a healthcare degree,” he notes.  The real issuehas nothing to do with gaining a credential; it has everything to do withholding yourself out as a licensed health care provider to the public.  It is the public, as in the individualpatient, whose needs come first.

Moreover,certainly with regard to public employment, the Supreme Court has even upheldthe right for the government to bar “speech” with which it disagrees.  I’m sure you remember, and probablyapplauded, a 1991 decision in he case of Rustv. Sullivan. In it, the Supreme Court upheld HHS regulations that barredrecipients of federal funds from even discussing the option of terminating apregnancy or referring women to doctors who would perform abortions. The lawalready barred the use of federal funds to perform them directly. Would youhave defended a doctor’s right to say “my faith impels me to tell you about anoption which I believe is morally acceptable: abortion”? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

Finally,Leavitt’s comments about how people can go to someone who does not “assert aconflict of conscience” reminds me of another analogy.  Novelist Anatole France once noted sarcastically: “Thelaw, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleepunder bridges, beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”  In today’s climate of “pro-life” tactics ofintimidation and sometimes violence, no one’s rights even to obtain birthcontrol should be considered safe.

 

People cancomment on these proposed regulations for a few more weeks.  I’d suggest they do so if they want toprotect not just the right to choose, but sound medical practice as well.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(32)
post a comment
jimbino

posted September 8, 2008 at 8:22 pm


While I applaud your sentiments regarding separation of state and church, I find you unjustifiably weak in support of separation of state and church in sex and family life, state and education, state and medical care, and state and retirement.
Any time we let the state get its foot in the door of our private lives, whether by prayer, posting of the ten commandments and moments of silence, we comprise our freedom to our religious beliefs. You understand that.
But what I think you don’t understand is that when we let the government institute a system of:
1. Certifying medical practitioners, we give up our rights to physicians of our choice and practitioners give up rights to choose their patients,
2. Public education, we give up our rights to give our kids a real education,
3. Social Security, we give up our rights to put food on the table and gain an education,
4. Medicare, we give up our rights to choose our physicians, our drugs and even to medical care if we happen to be in a foreign country.
The problem is the government involvement in all of these. If the government chose our sex partners (not far off) we’d all be lobbying congress and blogging about loss of rights to choose sex partners.
I say, let the government do what it does best: invade other countries and pick up the garbage. What it needs to get out of are religion, sex, family life, drug life, medical care, retirement and, above all, trying to educate our children.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 8, 2008 at 10:41 pm


Jimbino said: While I applaud your sentiments regarding separation of state and church, I find you unjustifiably weak in support of separation of state and church in sex and family life, state and education, state and medical care, and state and retirement.
Boris says: Where does the Constitution guarantee separation of state and education, state and medical care and state and retirement?
Jimbino said: Any time we let the state get its foot in the door of our private lives, whether by prayer, posting of the ten commandments and moments of silence, we comprise our freedom to our religious beliefs. You understand that.
Boris says: Any time we let the state get its foot in the door of our private lives we compromise our freedom? You mean like when our house is on fire or we’re being robbed or when the mailman comes or the Health Department makes sure the local food establishments aren’t going to make people sick? You absolutist anti-logic is typical of someone who hasn’t given these subjects any real thought.
Jimbino said: But what I think you don’t understand is that when we let the government institute a system of:
Certifying medical practitioners, we give up our rights to physicians of our choice and practitioners give up rights to choose their patients,
Boris says: That is post hoc nonsense. If we certify then we take away certain rights. How does that follow exactly?
Jimbino said: Public education, we give up our rights to give our kids a real education,
Boris says: A decent education is something every child not only deserves but is necessary for the very survival of any nation in today’s age of information. No one legally has to send their children to public schools but for many people it’s their only choice. No one should legally be able to teach science to any child in such a way as to make them more open to a certain religion. That crime isn’t committed in public schools but by homeschooling Christian parents and Christians schools.
Jimbino said: Social Security, we give up our rights to put food on the table and gain an education,
Boris says: Social Security PUTS food on people’s tables, and has been for decades, who otherwise wouldn’t have it.
Jimbino said: Medicare, we give up our rights to choose our physicians, our drugs and even to medical care if we happen to be in a foreign country.
Boris says: We’ve has Medicare for a while now and people are still choosing their own physicians. Again post hoc nonsense.
Jimbino said: The problem is the government involvement in all of these. If the government chose our sex partners (not far off) we’d all be lobbying congress and blogging about loss of rights to choose sex partners.
Boris says: It isn’t the government that is doing all these things that paranoid conspiracy enthusiasts like this blogger Jimbino are talking about. The government is just people. It’s a matter of who is controlling the government and that would be the major medical and drug companies first and foremost, the Military Industrial Complex and they have more power through their lobbyists than even big oil. They’re who are invading our lives and using our government, the media. The market and everything else they can to do it. Don’t believe me? Turn on your TV and listen to how many times you’re told to ask your doctor and for just how many maladies there are no one ever even heard of forty years ago.
Jimbino said: I say, let the government do what it does best: invade other countries and pick up the garbage. What it needs to get out of are religion, sex, family life, drug life, medical care, retirement and, above all, trying to educate our children.
Boris says: Our government has no business invading other countries and the last time I checked the Mafia still had control of some of the major trash collectors in the US. I guess this blogger thinks we should just let Big Business (which already controls our government) offer unregulated medical care, retirement and education to us all. President Eisenhower warned future generations about letting the Military Industrial Complex get so powerful that it could influence politicians to go to war. He also commented in a letter to his brother about the kind of right-wing lunacy expressed by the blogger Jimbino:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. – President Dwight D. Eisenhower



report abuse
 

Jesse

posted September 9, 2008 at 4:09 am


Quotes are from Lynn post.
It is the public, as in the individual patient, whose needs come first.
Which patient? When a pregnant woman comes to see her doctor, he’s got two patients in his office. The mother and the baby. Which patient are you talking about? The one with more money – the one that might want to hire the “doctor” to kill the one with less money?
Moreover, certainly with regard to public employment, the Supreme Court has even upheld the right for the government to bar “speech” with which it disagrees.
“Speech” as it advocating what is murder?
An unborn human fetus is technically scientifically Human, Life, Unique, and Innocent. Abortion thereof is the killing of an innocent human life – which is murder.
So yes, some speech is not protected. Murder is not free speech. Loudly and urgently describing a “massive case of combustion” within the area of a fully utilized cinematic seating structure is also not protected speech.
And think about this – advising murder is not protected speech either.
I’m sure you remember, and probably applauded, a 1991 decision in he case of Rust v. Sullivan. In it, the Supreme Court upheld HHS regulations that barred recipients of federal funds from even discussing the option of terminating a pregnancy or referring women to doctors who would perform abortions.
If we look at abortion as murder, then it makes perfect sense that HHS regulations would be a recipient of federal funds from even suggesting murder as a possible solution to a problem.
-Jesse



report abuse
 

Argon

posted September 9, 2008 at 10:08 am


People get a pass on sterilization too? I noticed that gets protected status as well.



report abuse
 

James

posted September 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm


“No one should legally be able to teach science to any child in such a way as to make them more open to a certain religion. That crime isn’t committed in public schools but by homeschooling Christian parents and Christians schools.”
This is not a crime. Thankfully it’s only your opinion; and you forgot to mention just about every other homeschooling ‘religion’ besides Christianity.
Boris, why such a bent specifically on Christians? Were you burnt by a church when you were younger? Did some Christian pass judgement on you? Why all the hate? There must be something from your past…



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted September 9, 2008 at 6:33 pm


Boris is a great target for a rational humanist!
Boris says: Where does the Constitution guarantee separation of state and education, state and medical care and state and retirement?
Jimbino says: I didn’t speak of Constitutional guarantees, but while we’re on the subject, I’ll point out that, while the constitution grants many powers to the Feds, like waging war, among them are NOT the power to screw up our education, medical care and retirement. Those are powers reserved to the people by Amendments IX and X. Read them.
Boris says: Any time we let the state get its foot in the door of our private lives we compromise our freedom? You mean like when our house is on fire or we’re being robbed or when the mailman comes or the Health Department makes sure the local food establishments aren’t going to make people sick? You absolutist anti-logic is typical of someone who hasn’t given these subjects any real thought.
Jimbino says: Right Boris, I don’t need the Health Department to check my food any more than I need it to check my dates for STDs. I can handle both myself if I wish, or with help from Underwriter’s Labs or Consumer’s Union. Yes, I would like to improve firefighting and mail delivery and garbage pickup by privatizing them. That has been done in many local jurisdictions, but not in my city of Austin, where the socialist government forces me to participate in their trash pickup and recycling!
Boris says: That is post hoc nonsense. If we certify (medical practitioners) then we take away certain rights. How does that follow exactly?
Jimbino says: If I want to buy Viagra, why should I have to go to a doctor or teacher certified by the gummint? You may not know it, but in many places in the world, like Brazil, I can walk into a pharmacy and buy Viagra over the counter. Why should a woman not have the right to a midwife of her choice? Amerikans are far from free, in that they have fewer choices in medical care and education than do citizens of many other countries, though Amerikans are learning that they can actually get cheaper and better medical care and education for their kids by simply leaving! The problem is that our socialist gummint makes them pay for services they do not wish to use.
Boris says: A decent education is something every child not only deserves but is necessary for the very survival of any nation in today’s age of information. No one legally has to send their children to public schools but for many people it’s their only choice. No one should legally be able to teach science to any child in such a way as to make them more open to a certain religion. That crime isn’t committed in public schools but by homeschooling Christian parents and Christians schools.
Jimbino says: Yes, Boris a decent education is very important, just like our choice of religion and mates. That’s exactly why the government should get the hell out! The reason many folks can’t afford to educate their children is that they are taxed up the wazoo for public schools— a tax that covers an expenditure amounting to $10,000 per kid in 9 months! A private tutor like Jesus or Socrates could earn $100,000 annually giving a small class of 7.5 kids a far better education than our unionized teachers do!
Boris says: Social Security PUTS food on people’s tables, and has been for decades, who otherwise wouldn’t have it.
Jimbino says: Social security and medicare take over 15% of a poor Black Amerikan’s pay for 45 years. His life expectancy at birth is about 69, allowing him only 2 years of full benefits. Had he invested what he’d paid to the socialist gummint in monthly SS premiums in the S&P 500 for the same 45 years, he would die leaving over $2,000,000 to his heirs instead of nothing.
Boris says: We’ve has Medicare for a while now and people are still choosing their own physicians. Again post hoc nonsense.
Jimbino says: Explain to me Boris, how an Amerikan expatriate living in France or Brazil manages to have Medicare pay for either his Part A, Part B or Part D expenses. You must come from a different planet! Furthermore, in Austin where I live, it is VERY HARD to find a physician who will take on new Medicare patients. I’m not complaining, since I see this trend as a path leading to eventual destruction of socialist Medicare.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 9, 2008 at 10:56 pm


Jimbino says: Boris is a great target for a rational humanist!
Boris says: Jimbino is a great target for an irrational religionist. Watch this:
Jimbino says: I didn’t speak of Constitutional guarantees,
Boris says: You asked Reverend Lynn why he didn’t support separation of state and other things besides religion. The main reason is because separation of church and state is a constitutional issue as he has previously explained.
Jimbino says: but while we’re on the subject, I’ll point out that, while the constitution grants many powers to the Feds, like waging war, among them are NOT the power to screw up our education, medical care and retirement. Those are powers reserved to the people by Amendments IX and X. Read them.
Boris says: As far as the Feds “screwing up our education, medical care and retirement” that is simply your opinion, and it happens to be a minority opinion and do you know how we know this? Who do you think the “Feds” are? The “Feds” ARE the people who power is reserved to. If the majority of the people in this country felt the same way you did then the government wouldn’t be involved in these things. But since they are you have to rationalize that it’s Big Brother who is keeping you down instead of facing the truth, which is of course, that you are in a small minority of right-wing zealots and you live in a country where the majority rules and the majority disagrees with you. Get over it or leave the country.
Jimbino says: Right Boris, I don’t need the Health Department to check my food any more than I need it to check my dates for STDs. I can handle both myself if I wish, or with help from Underwriter’s Labs or Consumer’s Union.
Boris says: Who is going to keep Underwriter’s Labs or Consumer’s Union or their employees honest and not bought off by big corporations with shoddy products may I ask?
Jimbino says: Yes, I would like to improve firefighting and mail delivery and garbage pickup by privatizing them. That has been done in many local jurisdictions, but not in my city of Austin, where the socialist government forces me to participate in their trash pickup and recycling!
Boris says: Again it is your neighbors who are forcing you to act like a responsible citizen, not the government. If your neighbors felt the same way you did you would not have to participate in trash pick-up and recycling. Then your city would be a very undesirable place to live and then you would complain that it was the government who caused the value of your house to decline rather than blame your own fascist ideas.
Jimbino says: If I want to buy Viagra, why should I have to go to a doctor or teacher certified by the gummint? You may not know it, but in many places in the world, like Brazil, I can walk into a pharmacy and buy Viagra over the counter. Why should a woman not have the right to a midwife of her choice? Amerikans are far from free, in that they have fewer choices in medical care and education than do citizens of many other countries, though Amerikans are learning that they can actually get cheaper and better medical care and education for their kids by simply leaving! The problem is that our socialist gummint makes them pay for services they do not wish to use.
Boris says: The services we pay for that we don’t use directly still benefit the society we live in. Only someone who is shortsighted could possibly be unable to see why we should all gladly pay for services that make our society a better place for everyone. Your Christianity is showing.
Jimbino says: Yes, Boris a decent education is very important, just like our choice of religion and mates. That’s exactly why the government should get the hell out! The reason many folks can’t afford to educate their children is that they are taxed up the wazoo for public schools— a tax that covers an expenditure amounting to $10,000 per kid in 9 months! A private tutor like Jesus or Socrates could earn $100,000 annually giving a small class of 7.5 kids a far better education than our unionized teachers do!
Boris says: I live in a state whose majority feels they way you do about education so it finances the public schools with the state lottery take, not income or sales tax. Perhaps you should move to Virginia. I did some checking and there are several other states that use this and other innovative ways to finance public education besides taxes.
Jimbino says: Social security and medicare take over 15% of a poor Black Amerikan’s pay for 45 years. His life expectancy at birth is about 69, allowing him only 2 years of full benefits. Had he invested what he’d paid to the socialist gummint in monthly SS premiums in the S&P 500 for the same 45 years, he would die leaving over $2,000,000 to his heirs instead of nothing.
Boris says: If he invested in say Enron, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or a few other thousands of companies that were and are run like that, how much do you calculate he would be leaving to his heirs?
Jimbino says: Explain to me Boris, how an Amerikan expatriate living in France or Brazil manages to have Medicare pay for either his Part A, Part B or Part D expenses. You must come from a different planet!
Boris says: Have you ever been out of the country and needed medical assistance or a prescription? They have socialized medicine everywhere but in this backward country. An American doesn’t need Medicare in a foreign country. He’ll be well taken care of for almost nothing out of pocket. Explain to me Jimbino, how an Amerikan expatriate living in France or Brazil would ever even need to have Medicare pay for either his Part A, Part B or Part D expenses. You must come from America and must have never been outside of it!
.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 9, 2008 at 11:22 pm


James,
You said: This is not a crime. Thankfully it’s only your opinion; and you forgot to mention just about every other homeschooling ‘religion’ besides Christianity.
Boris says: What other homeschooling religion? Christians are the ones homeschooling their children in order to brainwash them about modern science so they’ll be susceptible to religious delusions. That isn’t a crime but it should be.
You said: Boris, why such a bent specifically on Christians?
Boris says: I have nothing against Christians. It’s religion I have a problem with and not just Christianity of course. Love the Christian hate the Christianity I always say.
You said: Were you burnt by a church when you were younger?
Boris says: No, my mother was Jewish to Christian convert. I was extremely bored by the church but not burnt. It’s where I learned how much fun it can be to mock and upset religious people.
You said: Did some Christian pass judgement on you?
Boris says: I wouldn’t care if they did. Would you?
You said: Why all the hate? There must be something from your past…
Boris says: There is nothing from my past bothering me about anything. There are things about the history of the world that are very disturbing as far as religion (again not just Christianity) is concerned. I’m concerned with my future and the future of the world which would clearly be a better place if it had no religion in it.



report abuse
 

James

posted September 10, 2008 at 10:11 am


Boris, thanks for the honesty…
Just curious: Since you’re mom is a now a Christian, do you mock her? :)
I do agree with one your statements: “the world which would clearly be a better place if it had no religion in it”. True Biblical Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. People just make it that way, unfortunately.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 10, 2008 at 10:25 am


James,
My mother is dead but she was a Bible scholar and teacher and my Sunday School teacher for a while. She never gave me any reason to mock her because she never told me what she believed or that I should believe anything. In fact she used to mock the Bible herself and told me I was “a card” when I did it too. She used to quote the George Gershwin song from the thirties: “It ain’t necessarily so. The things you’re liable to read in the Bible, it ain’t necessarily so.” All Bible teachers should begin their lessons with that line don’t you think?
As far as my statement about a world with no religion, this was a widely held opinion among our founders. “Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out: This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” – John Adams.
Creationists always not only disagree with everything our founders believed, they always ignore their ant-Christian sentiments and make up lies about our founders being Bible believing Christians. Nothing could be further from the truth. But we can say that about the Chritian religion itself.



report abuse
 

James

posted September 10, 2008 at 1:01 pm


Boris,
Sorry to hear about your mom. It’s intersting that she wsa a Bible scholar though…not many people can say that about their moms.
The quote from John Adams is quite fitting with what I described in may last post regarding true Biblical Christianity. It’s not supposed to be a religion and I’m sure that was the sentiment Mr. Adams was proclaiming. It makes sense since religion was forced down their throats back in Europe…and the Catholic Church was beinging its stronghold in the newly formed US.
There are plenty of quotes from John Adams that strongly suggest he was a believer in God & religion. For example: “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity…” – John Adams (quote from The Works of John Adams (1854), vol III, p 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.)
and
“My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho’ but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion.” – John Adams (letter to Thomas Jefferson).
Similar quotes can virtuably be found made by many of the founders of the US. There is a strong case that this country was founded primarily by men and women of the Christian faith (or some flavor of it). I’d say their faith layed a very strong and important foundation that has allow the US to prosper for over 200 years.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 10, 2008 at 10:37 pm


James,
The people who originally settled in North America were mostly Christians. By the time of the Revolution most of the more educated people in America had adopted some form of deism. I challenge you to provide some kind of proof that any of the founders of the United States were Bible believing Christians. The men who founded this country were deists, not Christians. 50 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons which meant automatic excommunication from both Protestant and Catholic churches back then and as far as I know still does.
Did you know that Jefferson’s first draft of the declaration of Independence contained no reference at all to any “creator?” Furthermore, neither Jefferson nor the other deists among the founders considered their creator a Christian one.
Now here’s the first draft, as quoted in_Jefferson, Champion of the Free Mind_:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive inherent and inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson to Thomas Law in 1814:
“Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. Whence, then, arises the morality of the Atheist? . . . Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.”
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses….”
[John Adams, "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788] from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 258]
You really should not believe Christian historical revisionist propaganda. You might want to try the public library for your science and history information rather than your local Christian bookstore.



report abuse
 

Jesse

posted September 11, 2008 at 1:34 am


Re: Posted by: Boris | September 10, 2008 10:25 AM
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out: This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” – John Adams.
Heh, I’m assuming that you didn’t know that the above quote is taken dishonestly out of context in such a way as to mean the opposite of what it really meant.
So here’s the quote in context: (with the part you didn’t include bolded.)


…The Parson and the Pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day, when the Schoolmaster had been more that commonly fanatical and declared if he were a Monarch, He would have but one Religion in his Dominion. The Parson cooly replied ‘Cleverly! You would be the best man in the world, if you had no religion.’

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!’ But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell…

Read the whole letter (scanned) here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
and see a scanned page of it here:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc6646th.jpg
Just thought you would like to know the facts of the case.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 11, 2008 at 10:52 am


Jesse,
By changing the subject of abortion to politics and history you have admitted that I proved your claim that abortion is murder to be false. Like a typical fundamentalist you refuse to admit that you are wrong. Fundamentalists like you can NEVER admit they are wrong about ANYTHING. That’s because they know that their belief system is really only as strong as its weakest link. If you admit you are wrong about something you know the next question is how do you know you’re not wrong about your religion too? You haven’t got the nerve to face THAT question honestly so you just change the subject. Once again Jesse; YOU ARE BUSTED!
Now to destroy your propagandizing about John Adams:
What Adams was saying, in its actual context:
Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.
– John Adams, quoted from Charles Francis Adams, ed, Works of John Adams (1856), vol. X, p. 254
John Adams is here describing to Thomas Jefferson what he sees as an emotion-based ejaculatory thought that keeps coming to him. This was not his reasoned opinion. Although John Adams often felt an urge to advocate atheism as a popular world view (because of the sheer abuses perpetrated by religious charlatans), he was of the firm and reasoned opinion (basically undisputed in his day) that religion is essential to the goal of keeping the masses in line.
Knowing what we know today, to say this is pure slander against atheists. And yet it is still quite popular, especially among the uneducated, the widespread acknowledgment of its falsehood notwithstanding.
Thus, Adams was not above presenting such travesties as his National Day of Prayer and Fasting proclamation. These acts reflected his view that the masses needed religion to keep this world from becoming a bedlam. However, Adams, like Washington and Jefferson, did not apply this reasoning to himself — as we can plainly see from the other quotations Adams made: religion was good for the masses but not for John Adams (for the most part), who was above all that and needed no piety in order to maintain his own sense of civility.
The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.– John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church
“We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions … shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power … we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.– John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785, quoted from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom (1991)
Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.– John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning…. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.– John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted in Norman Cousins, In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (1958), p. 108, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.– John Adams, “this awful blashpemy” that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu.– John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. From Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 234. Quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church.” Wilson: Early Presidents Not Religious”The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.” — The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831. One might expect a modern defender of the Evangelical to play with the meaning of “Christianity,” making it refer only to a specific brand of orthodoxy, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15
The Treaty of Tripoli: Signed by John Adams”As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries…. “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.” — Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)



report abuse
 

Jesse

posted September 12, 2008 at 3:49 am


Re: Posted by: Boris | September 11, 2008 10:52 AM
I’m going to try to keep this short because long ones take a loooooong time to show up.
Said Boris: Jesse,
By changing the subject of abortion to politics and history you have admitted that I proved your claim that abortion is murder to be false. Like a typical fundamentalist you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

First, I don’t remember changing any subject. What are you talking about? You quoted Adams OOC (Out of Context) and I provided the information you had neglected to include.
Second, nowhere did I admit that my claim was false that abortion is murder.
Thirdly, it is my goal to know and speak the truth. If I come to see that I’ve been wrong, I will eagerly state how I was wrong and apologize. You just haven’t yet shown that anything I said was actually wrong.
Speaking of people who won’t admit it when they are wrong – I noticed that you haven’t done any such thing. The fact is that you unquestionably quoted Adams as saying that the world would be better with no religion, but neglected to quote the very next sentence in which he countered that that without religion it would be hell. I thought you would want to know the truth.
Once again Jesse; YOU ARE BUSTED!
Saying it doesn’t make it so :-)

Now to destroy your propagandizing about John Adams:

Sorry dood, you’ve already unashamedly quoted Adams out of context, you’ve claimed that a human fetus is not a human being even though it is both human and in the state of being, you have claimed repeatedly that I’m busted without showing why any of my statements are false and you have claimed that the concept of murder only applies to cases where physical force is used (which isn’t true since poisoning can be murder too).
In short, the one item you listed in your long list which I did look up was taken out of context and I have no doubt that the rest are too and you don’t care. And besides my main point here is that abortion is murder – and I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re trying to distract me from that.
So again I ask – is a fetus not human? or not life? or not innocent? or not unique?
I’m here to tell you it is an innocent unique human life, and killing murder!
I mean if you think I’m wrong just tell me which of my facts are wrong or why my conclusion is wrong!
Under no other circumstances do we allow much less federally fund (companies which perform) the taking of an innocent human life.
Sincerely,
-Jesse



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 12, 2008 at 9:58 am


Jesse,
The problem with fundamentalists like you Jesse, is that you have already been proved wrong and simply refuse to admit it.
You said: So again I ask – is a fetus not human? or not life? or not innocent? or not unique?
I’m here to tell you it is an innocent unique human life, and killing it is murder!
I mean if you think I’m wrong just tell me which of my facts are wrong or why my conclusion is wrong!
Boris says: I already proved that a fetus is not a human life but a potential human. Now below I prove you wrong AGAIN.
There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn’t bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being–if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on–but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants–but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.
What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman’s life to human potential of the most primitive kind? There can be no rational justification for such a position–certainly not a genuine concern for human life. The ultimate “justification” of the “pro-life” position is religious dogma. Led by the American Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists, the movement’s basic tenet, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that an embryo must be treated “from conception as a person” created by the “action of God.” What about the fact that an embryo is manifestly not a person, and treating it as such inflicts mass suffering on real people? This tenet is not subject to rational scrutiny; it is a dogma that must be accepted on faith.
The “pro-life” movement tries to obscure the religious nature of its position by endlessly focusing on the medical details of late-term abortions (although it seldom mentions that “partial birth” abortions are extremely rare, and often involve a malformed fetus or a threat to the life of the mother). But one must not allow this smokescreen to distract one from the real issue: the “pro-life” movement is on a faith-based crusade to ban abortion no matter the consequences to actual human life–part of what the Pro-Life Alliance calls the “absolute moral duty to do everything possible to stop abortion, even if in the first instance we are only able to chip away at the existing legislation.” This is why it supports the South Dakota law, which is the closest the movement has come to achieving its avowed goal: to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including the first trimester–when 90 percent of abortions take place. As the Pro-Life Alliance puts it: “We continue to campaign for total abolition.”
The “pro-life” movement is not a defender of human life–it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness. Its goal is to turn women into breeding mares whose bodies are owned by the state and whose rights, health and pursuit of happiness are sacrificed en mass–all in the name of dogmatic sacrifice to the pre-human.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 12, 2008 at 10:06 am


Abortion was completely illegal in the U.S. until 1973.
Abortion was legal in the United States from the establishment of Jamestown in 1607, until state legislatures began banning abortion in the early 1800s. Having evolved from the British common law, abortion was legal provided that it was performed before “quickening.” Quickening is the term used for the point where a woman first notices fetal movement, and usually occurs at about 16-18 weeks into the pregnancy. Not only was abortion legal, it was also not entirely uncommon, and many newspapers, including some church publications, provided advertisements for drugs to induce abortions.
In 1821, Connecticut became the first state to enact abortion legislation for women who had reached quickening, but abortion before quickening did not become illegal in Connecticut until 1860. New York, in 1828, adopted legislation that was followed by many states between 1830 and 1850; most of these statutes dealt more severely with abortion after quickening than before.
These anti-abortion laws were enacted for three basic reasons: a Victorian obsession to discourage illicit sexual conduct; a health concern, because at the time abortions were dangerous; and a new-found interest in protecting prenatal life. By the end of the 1950s, however, a large majority of states had banned all abortion except for instances where the woman’s life was in danger.
Let’s imagine a scenario in which two men go deer hunting. One man mistakes his friend for a deer, shoots him, and accidentally kills him. As long as we all agreed on the facts of the case, it’s hard to imagine that any reasonable person would describe this as murder–even though we would all know for certain that a real, sentient human person was killed. Why? Because the shooter thought he was killing a deer–something other than a real, sentient human person.
Now consider the example of abortion. If a woman and her physician think they’re killing a non-sentient organism, then–even if the embryo or fetus were, unbeknownst to them, a sentient human person–they would not be committing murder. At most, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. But even involuntary manslaughter involves criminal negligence, and it would be very hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing that a pre-viable embryo or fetus is a sentient human person when we don’t actually know this to be the case.
From the point of view of someone who believes that every fertilized egg is a sentient human person, abortion would be horrific. Tragic. Lethal. But it would be no more murderous than any other kind of accidental death.



report abuse
 

Jesse

posted September 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm


Re: Posted by: Boris | September 12, 2008 9:58 AM
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 12, 2008 10:06 AM
Said Boris: Jesse,
The problem with fundamentalists like you Jesse, is that you have already been proved wrong and simply refuse to admit it.

There’s no particular reason to keep up the ad hominem arguments here. Argue with the facts instead of my character! Unless there aren’t any facts to argue with.
Boris says: I already proved that a fetus is not a human life but a potential human.
But you haven’t proved any such thing – you merrily claimed it – but claiming it does not prove it! The scientific facts are that a fetus is both human AND life! Every single cell in it is a HUMAN cell. DNA research proves this. And it’s alive; it’s growing — it is life!
There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being.
You mean besides the scientific fact that it’s human and it’s in the state of being?
Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn’t bear the remotest similarity to a human being.
So? A 5 year old has way less brain development then a grownup too. Many people are mentally handicapped as well. Are you saying that below a certain level of mental development it’s okay to kill someone without it being murder? What about a newborn just 5 minutes breathing air — do you believe it is a human being? I guess my question is “Where do you draw the line between human and not human? How do you decide?”
What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman’s life to human potential of the most primitive kind?
What are you saying? Are you straw-manning again and saying that I’m saying that the mother should be killed in order to save the fetus? that’s absurd! But what else can you mean by “The sacrifice of an actual woman’s life…?”
There can be no rational justification for such a position–certainly not a genuine concern for human life.
I never said or held the position that the Mother’s life should be killed to save the fetus. I’m talking about your average abortion here where both lives would live on if neither was terminated.
Cases where one or the other has to die due to circumstances which were not brought about by the desire to kill the fetus. In the case that either the mother or the baby has to die due to other causes fits into the category of when a house is burning and the fireman can only get out so many people and he has to get some to live and others die, and the like. It’s an entirely different issue as compared to where neither has to die — except one wants to kill the other.
Now consider the example of abortion. If a woman and her physician think they’re killing a non-sentient organism, then–even if the embryo or fetus were, unbeknownst to them, a sentient human person–they would not be committing murder.
Like I said before, a hundred years ago that line of reasoning may have stood fine. But science and technology has advanced significantly since then: We now know, without a shadow of a doubt, that a human fetus is human and alive.
At most, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. But even involuntary manslaughter involves criminal negligence, and it would be very hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing …
With modern science, we don’t have to believe – we can know that a fetus is human and is alive.
… that a pre-viable embryo or fetus …
What has viability got to do with it? Not a grown man alive today is viable stark u n c l a d on the north pole in the middle of winter’s long night, or in a room devoid of oxygen, or devoid of food or water – and anybody who puts him in such a situation with the intent to kill him without a trial will be guilty of murder.
… is a sentient human person when we don’t actually know this to be the case.
Are you saying that if a person is below a certain level of sentience that it’s not murder to kill them?
By the way I still would like to know how you determine when killing is murder and when not. Is it based on your religious or non-religious sincerely held internal whims? or on what?
You say that you proved that a fetus is not a human life. But you only claimed that it wasn’t a human life. I could claim that the moon was hollow or better yet made of cheese – but that doesn’t prove it!
But “human life” is a short phrase, containing two words. If a fetus is not a “human life” then either it is not human or it is not alive (or both) but science clearly demonstrates that it’s both human and life.
Are you saying that there’s more to being human then being human and alive?
Who made you the judge to determine who was smart enough to live :-)
-Jesse



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 12, 2008 at 9:38 pm


Jesse,
Abortion is not murder and a fetus is only a potential human being.
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body — and not the fetus’s body, and certainly not the government’s body.
To give a fetus “rights” superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman’s right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called “pro-lifers” as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 12, 2008 at 11:31 pm


Jesse,Specific words are usurped and misused by fundamentalist Christians, with the desire to effect a changing and shaping of basic assumptions. This is why people like you attempt to redefine abortion by calling it murder. In Christian circles and in the Bible many words are used in unique ways, which seem innocent in the beginning but through repetition control a believer’s thoughts. I know you think abortion is murder because the thought manipulation of your religion is very powerful and nearly invisible. But I am aware of how Christianity and Christians distort the language for the purpose of thought control. I’ll give some examples:
Wisdom is used so as to exclude any basis except divine commandment. Human wisdom is disparaged as “foolishness” and equated with wickedness (cf. 1Cor 1:19-21). The definition of wisdom in this system is a simple tautology: Since wisdom is the province of God, anything God odes is “just,” “wise,” and, “righteous,” even though it seems wrong to humans. God is defined in terms of these words and they are all redefined in terms of him. Any wisdom from other sources is declared null and void.
Likewise truth in the Bible does not refer to facts or sincerity but rather correct scriptural doctrine: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” (1John 2:22). The use of the word truth to mean acceptable doctrine makes the doctrine more attractive to a potential convert, while lie serves to alienate believers from the surrounding world.
Freedom in the Bible also means something very different from our usual notion of being able to make choices. It compares more closely to being free of lice. In Romans 6:17-18 it is clear that the believer is no closer to having free will. Freedom simply means “available for subjection to God” instead of to sin.
Another potent example of this manipulation of language is the use of love, which translates to obedience: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments…He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me” (John 14:15, 21). Just as truth is torn away from the realm of fact, love is removed from the realm of human affections. Human love is disparaged as frail and fickle, while agape – unselfish, altruistic love that is from God love – is held up as ideal. This can appeal greatly to converts disappointed with human relationships. Yet, it has little to do with what we usually think of love: affection, sharing thoughts and feelings, caring accepting, forgiving, empathizing touching listening, giving, respecting, helping, appreciating, supporting, and so on. It is a mental activity of adhering to a code.
So once again I must point out: YOU’RE BUSTED. (I’d drop it if I were you before I’m forced to blow the lid off of more of your religion’s dirty little secrets.)



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 13, 2008 at 10:23 am


Jesse,
Here are the Bible passages that clearly state the Earth is flat and immovable:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by flat-earthers is as immovable as any geocentrist could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly cited by geocentrists have also been cited by flat-earthers. The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu’s question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “…who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]…”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “…the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine…”
Isaiah 48:13, “…with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]…”
You thought in your own mind, I will scale the heavens; I will set my throne high above the stars of God, I will sit on the mountain where the gods meet in the far recesses of the north. I will rise high above the cloud-banks and make myself like the most high (Isaiah 14:13-14).
Deuteronomy 4:15-19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that they were created for other peoples to worship.
Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:
…the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up…they called out to the mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne…”
Likewise, flat-earthers frequently cite the numerous Old Testament verses referring to the earth’s foundations (see 2 Samuel 22:16, Job 38:4, Psalm 18:15, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, and numerous others). Foundations are, however, fairly well-covered by geocentricity. No one would argue for a flat-earth solely on the basis of “foundations” quotes.
I must warn you that if you attempt to dispute that the Bible says the Earth is flat I will post a myriad of other bad science in the Bible for your further humiliation. ROFL! Oh the nonsense you people have bought into!



report abuse
 

Sheila

posted September 13, 2008 at 11:36 am


The modern tech. has opened my eyes to alot. At just a few weeks into my sister in laws pregnacy she had a Ultra Sound and I was amazed. You could see the fist, legs, nose, etc…and even hear the heart beat. There was no question that this was a tiny “HUMAN BEING”.
Boris, I don’t mean this wrong in any way… but the more I have come across your posts… the more I feel saddened for you. I really don’t think you yourself can see it.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
If someone were to say to me..”open the eyes of your heart”… I would not then think that my heart had actual eyes … but to let my heart lead me.
I do not hate people that have had abortions, for in fact I know several who have made that choice. BUT .. ALL of them have regrested their choice later in life.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 13, 2008 at 11:32 pm


Sheila,
You said: The modern tech. has opened my eyes to alot. At just a few weeks into my sister in laws pregnacy she had a Ultra Sound and I was amazed. You could see the fist, legs, nose, etc…and even hear the heart beat. There was no question that this was a tiny “HUMAN BEING”.
Boris says: It’s a potential human being. It can’t yet live apart from your sister-in-law. Therefore it has no rights that supersede your sister-in-law’s rights. Rights cannot contradict other rights.
You said: Boris, I don’t mean this wrong in any way… but the more I have come across your posts… the more I feel saddened for you. I really don’t think you yourself can see it.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
If someone were to say to me..”open the eyes of your heart”… I would not then think that my heart had actual eyes … but to let my heart lead me.
Boris says: That is one of the Bible’s many defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. Too bad you haven’t yet opened YOUR eyes to that fact. Your thoughts are being controlled by the dogma in your paper idol. Think about it. Free your mind. THINK don’t believe.
You said: I do not hate people that have had abortions, for in fact I know several who have made that choice. BUT .. ALL of them have regrested their choice later in life.
Boris says: I happen to know three women who have had abortions and are very glad they did and have never regretted it. Of course I have to think they regretted getting into that position in the first place.
I personally don’t think people should be getting abortions after three months but I’m not willing to support any laws that would restrict abortions. That’s because most late-term abortions are done because there are some kind of complications, a fact anti-choice people always fail to mention.



report abuse
 

Sheila

posted September 14, 2008 at 12:25 am


Boris, I disagree.. for I feel that only when a child is aborted is when it becomes what was a “potential human being”. Even after a child is born, it cannot survive without a mother (caretaker) for it depends on that person to feed them and keep them warm. I can see how thinking it was a “potential human” would make it easier to find false comfort. Let us disagree, agreeably.. for we all have an opinion, conviction or something that makes us feel the way we do.
Boris says: That is one of the Bible’s many defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. Too bad you haven’t yet opened YOUR eyes to that fact. Your thoughts are being controlled by the dogma in your paper idol. Think about it. Free your mind. THINK don’t believe.
But Boris, I use to think and not believe. I would argue with Christians and as crazy as it sounds, reading yours and Ann’s postings has made me realize so much. I seek a greater relationship with God and to know more about(paper idol as you call it)HIM. I am humbled that God loved me… in spite of me.
Thanks Boris and Ann… As crazy as it sounds, you have ministered to me.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 14, 2008 at 1:59 am


Sheila,
It is you who is must find false comfort by denying the definition of a fetus because your opinion is not only a minority opinion, but baseless scientifically, legally, morally and logically. You used to think but now you believe. That’s because when it comes to this subject there are only two kinds of people in the world – thinkers and believers. Thinkers don’t believe and believers don’t think. Yes it does sound crazy to see someone admit they don’t think. It’s frightening that there are millions of people like you in this country and they have the right to vote.



report abuse
 

Jesse

posted September 14, 2008 at 5:42 am


In this issue:
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 12, 2008 9:38 PM
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 12, 2008 11:31 PM
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 13, 2008 10:23 AM
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 13, 2008 11:32 PM
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 14, 2008 1:59 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 12, 2008 9:38 PM
Are you an atheist? You know if I didn’t know any better, I’d say that your atheism is your religion, and it goads you to believe a lie when you see with and not through the eye. (Probably William Blake)
Why else would the termination of an innocent unique human life be murder in all cases except this one?
Said Boris:Abortion is not murder and a fetus is only a potential human being.
You keep saying that but science proves you wrong. A fetus is both human and is in the state of being. It’s a human being! Are my facts or my conclusion wrong on this one?
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman,
Does a 1year old have a right to be in any home of its parents? Can they too just vacuum it up when they decide they don’t want it?
And just what do you base your assertion on – your assertion that the fetus does not have a right to be in a place where it can live? God whispered it to you? or are you talking about law? what law? (or are you talking about one of the judges who agree with you?)
but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time.
Anytime before birth, right? and why in tarzan not after birth?
To give a fetus “rights” superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman’s right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, …
Any right that contradicts the right of another is not right..? So lets say you have the right to drive your car down your driveway. If one of the kids from next door gets lost and wanders to your driveway and sits down and won’t move, do you still have the right to intentionally drive over him, knowing full well that it will kill him?
Does not the right to life preempt comparatively trivial rights? I’m certain that one would be charged with intentional brutal manslaughter even though they were well within their rights (besides the fact that they know that their action of driving down their driveway would cause the death of an innocent person.)
as rights form an integrated whole.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 12, 2008 11:31 PM
Said Boris: Jesse,Specific words are usurped and misused by fundamentalist Christians,…
Why do you go on such about other people? Why not show me the error in MY facts or conclusion? (You many times said it was wrong but have not shown how or why.)
This is why people like you attempt to redefine abortion by calling it murder.
I didn’t try to redefine anything. I’m just going on the facts, and those facts are that a human fetus is a unique innocent live human being, and that under any other circumstances the killing of an innocent human being is illegal as being murder. I’m not making any of this up!
In Christian circles and in the Bible many words are used in unique ways, ….
Why is it you keep talking about OTHER people? Why not talk about my argument? I don’t see what anyone else’s past actions have to do with my argument. Either my facts are right or wrong. Either my conclusion is right or wrong. If you’re saying that I came to the wrong conclusion then explain not that it is, but why it is wrong!
So once again I must point out: YOU’RE BUSTED. (I’d drop it if I were you before I’m forced to blow the lid off of more of your religion’s dirty little secrets.)

Yeah yeah always busted you say. You know that word won’t have any meaning by the time I actually do get busted :-)
But I don’t want to drop it. I want to know why killing an innocent live human being is murder in all other circumstances. I don’t know what the secrets of anyone’s religion have to do with this – I think it’s a matter of science and law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 13, 2008 10:23 AM
Said BorisJesse,
Here are the Bible passages that clearly state the Earth is flat and immovable:
Ha ha that’s funny. You just pasted a big chunk of text probably from:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
without actually reading through to see if the text you pasted contained any references to the Bible actually claiming a flat earth! I would still like a reference to the Bible clearly stating that the earth is flat as you say.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by flat-earthers is as immovable as any geocentrist could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly cited by geocentrists have also been cited by flat-earthers. The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.

Now wait a second. We’re talking about what the Bible says – how come you/they are talking about alledged “flat earthers”?! You told me that the Bible says that the earth is flat!
As to the earth being fixed, what is your problem? I fixed a GPS antenna on my car roof. It has a strong magnet. It stays in the same place even at 70mph. Right in the center of my roof, where I put it. It’s on a foundation that holds it exactly where it needs to be.
I don’t see the problem you’re having with the Bible describing the earth being on a foundation where it is fixed. It is! It’s on a orbital foundation – even though it is moving through space at around 67K miles per hour, it’s on a predetermined path and is held right where it needs to be – just the right distance from the Sun. What is your problem with the the scripture passages you quote? You claim they are absurd, and you quote them, then you proceed to strawmanify about other people that don’t have anything to do with the Bible.
I’m skipping the rest of this topic in this message because it’s no more useful then the first part you provided.
Like my grandpa could have but probably didn’t say, if a man can’t make his own point, he probably doesn’t have one!
(I noticed that you just copy and pasted a bunch of stuff from other anti-Christian websites without give them credit.)
….
I must warn you that if you attempt to dispute that the Bible says the Earth is flat I will post a myriad of other bad science in the Bible for your further humiliation. ROFL! Oh the nonsense you people have bought into!
Considered me warned – now even though you’re trying hard to siderail this off of the topic of abortion, you did claim that the Bible states that the earth is flat but as far as I can tell you have not provided any evidence of that – so please do! I’m sure you well may have the info but just accidentally neglected to post it. As I said, my goal is to learn and speak the truth. If the Bible says that the earth is flat, I want to know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 13, 2008 11:32 PM – Boris to Sheila
Boris says: It’s a potential human being.
Correction: It is 100% human and 100% in the state of being. (existence.)
It can’t yet live apart from your sister-in-law.
Boris, you don’t know that for sure. Not that facts get in your way. But if they could see the fists and the nose on the ultrasound, it may be old enough to live in air. And in any case, it may be possible to move it from one woman’s womb to another’s, so it may be true to say that “it cannot live apart from your sister-in-law.” And besides, a 4 year old can’t live apart from somebody providing for and protecting it either – does that mean it’s not murder to kill it?
Therefore it has no rights that supersede your sister-in-law’s rights. Rights cannot contradict other rights.

If I’m driving out my driveway and I’m late on my way to the movies, and there’s a 5 year old in my driveway and won’t move, does it’s right to live supersede my right to drive out my driveway or not?
Boris says: I happen to know three women who have had abortions and are very glad they did and have never regretted it.
Wow, you only know three women who had abortions? or were there others that you know too? If some you knew did regret it, would you tell us that too?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Re: Posted by: Boris | September 14, 2008 1:59 AM – Boris to Sheila
Said Boris: You used to think but now you believe. That’s because when it comes to this subject there are only two kinds of people in the world – thinkers and believers. Thinkers don’t believe and believers don’t think.
Boris, are you in the thinking or the believing category? Now keep in mind that you can still be in the believing category but believe not in God or the Bible but in other things like Evolution and Humanism or any number of other things.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were a believer (but not in the Bible) I mean, you keep reasserting that abortion is not murder, and you keep saying that a fetus is not a human being even though it is unquestionably human and in the state of being, and you’ve said that to kill without physical force is not murder even though murder can be committed with poison and in spite of the fact that many forms of abortion do use physical force against the unborn baby by suction and tongs and you’ve stated that the Bible clearly states that the earth is flat but as far as I can tell provided no proof thereof.
Now I have no doubt that you believe all these things with all your heart – but you won’t provide facts to prove them true! And some of them are obviously wrong (like physical force being required for murder to have been committed.)
I’ve pointed out many times that your statements are obviously wrong and do you admit it and stop making them? No, you don’t. Would you admit it if you realized you were wrong, I wonder? I have my doubts.

It’s frightening that there are millions of people like you in this country and they have the right to vote.

Heh, it’s frightening that there are dozens of people like you in this country who think that murder cannot be committed without physical force, or that something can be both human and be in the state of being without being a human being, and they have the right to vote :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you like, I would be delighted to discuss Biblical accuracy with you but right now perhaps we can try to more on topic of abortion. (But you did say you provided references for the Bible “clearly stating” that the earth was flat – I still would like that answer eventually.)
Either abortion does meet all the requirements for murder or it doesn’t. I think the facts clearly indicate that it does. You seem to think not. I’m trying to figure out how we come to such different conclusions. Does your sincerely held Atheism influence your conclusion at all? Which of my facts do you dispute? that a human fetus that’s about to be aborted is human? or that it’s alive? or that it’s innocent? or that it’s unique? or that there are other areas where it is legal to kill an innocent human without a trial and with premeditation?
My line of reasoning seems to be a very logical one and the conclusion as best I can tell is based purely on the facts and on science.
How did you arrive at your position?
Sincerely,
-Jesse



report abuse
 

Sheila

posted September 14, 2008 at 11:16 am


Boris replied and said…there are millions of people like you in this country and they have the right to vote.
I am so happy to know that!
Boris, Boris,……Because a Person Believes does NOT stop them from Thinking. You have to know better than that! I was speaking in reference to when all I did was think and question the reality of God.
Reading all of the postings, I see “Believers” that are also “Thinkers”
Conclusion, I do NOT believe that Abortion is morally acceptable



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 14, 2008 at 2:49 pm


Jesse,
You said: Are you an atheist? You know if I didn’t know any better, I’d say that your atheism is your religion, and it goads you to believe a lie when you see with and not through the eye. (Probably William Blake)
Boris says: Atheists don’t need strength in numbers to confirm what they don’t believe. Atheists don’t get together once a week and throw their hands in the air and scream and shout and sing about what they believe or don’t believe. Atheists don’t try to explain naturalistic occurrences with supernatural mysticism and magic. That’s what YOU religious people do! ROFL!
You said: Why else would the termination of an innocent unique human life be murder in all cases except this one?
Boris says: Because you are distorting the language by incorrectly calling a potential human life an innocent unique human life in order to promote your religion’s false doctrines. What is your response to my proof that you routinely distort the language to promote the lies of Christianity?
You said: You keep saying that but science proves you wrong. A fetus is both human and is in the state of being. It’s a human being! Are my facts or my conclusion wrong on this one?
Boris says: Science and the law disagree with you and most importantly the majority of people in the world disagree with you.
You said: Does a 1year old have a right to be in any home of its parents? Can they too just vacuum it up when they decide they don’t want it?
Boris says: A 1 year old is not a potential human being. You distort the language and then believe your own crap.
You said: And just what do you base your assertion on – your assertion that the fetus does not have a right to be in a place where it can live? God whispered it to you? or are you talking about law? what law? (or are you talking about one of the judges who agree with you?)
Boris says: The fetus does NOT have rights that contradict the rights of the mother. That is what the law and the judges say. Too bad for you and your desire to control women and turn them into second class breeding pigs.
You said: Anytime before birth, right? and why in tarzan not after birth?
Boris says: Birth is the difference between a human and a potential one.
You said: Any right that contradicts the right of another is not right..? So lets say you have the right to drive your car down your driveway. If one of the kids from next door gets lost and wanders to your driveway and sits down and won’t move, do you still have the right to intentionally drive over him, knowing full well that it will kill him?
Does not the right to life preempt comparatively trivial rights? I’m certain that one would be charged with intentional brutal manslaughter even though they were well within their rights (besides the fact that they know that their action of driving down their driveway would cause the death of an innocent person.)
Boris says: No one has the “right” to drive anywhere in this country. Wow, you really are frighteningly ignorant of the laws in this country. Driving a car is a privilege, which is earned by passing a test and obeying the traffic laws, NOT a right. No one has the “right” to drive down any driveway, even their own.
You said: Why do you go on such about other people? Why not show me the error in MY facts or conclusion? (You many times said it was wrong but have not shown how or why.)
Boris says: I proved you wrong, proved how and why you distort the language. Do you stomp your foot when you say it ain’t so? Everyone on this blog can see how and why you are wrong sir. Everyone.
You said: I didn’t try to redefine anything. I’m just going on the facts, and those facts are that a human fetus is a unique innocent live human being, and that under any other circumstances the killing of an innocent human being is illegal as being murder. I’m not making any of this up!
Boris says: You either made ALL of that up or heard it from one of your cult leaders. Science and the courts disagree with you. If they didn’t we wouldn’t even be having this conversation now would we?
You said: Why is it you keep talking about OTHER people? Why not talk about my argument? I don’t see what anyone else’s past actions have to do with my argument. Either my facts are right or wrong. Either my conclusion is right or wrong. If you’re saying that I came to the wrong conclusion then explain not that it is, but why it is wrong!
Boris says: I’m not talking about other people when I show how YOU distort the language to make points that aren’t valid.
You said: Yeah yeah always busted you say. You know that word won’t have any meaning by the time I actually do get busted :-)
But I don’t want to drop it. I want to know why killing an innocent live human being is murder in all other circumstances. I don’t know what the secrets of anyone’s religion have to do with this – I think it’s a matter of science and law.
Boris says: If you thought it was a matter of science and law then why can’t you accept the fact that science and law disagree with you?
You said: Ha ha that’s funny. You just pasted a big chunk of text probably from:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
without actually reading through to see if the text you pasted contained any references to the Bible actually claiming a flat earth! I would still like a reference to the Bible clearly stating that the earth is flat as you say.
You said: Now wait a second. We’re talking about what the Bible says – how come you/they are talking about alledged “flat earthers”?! You told me that the Bible says that the earth is flat!
As to the earth being fixed, what is your problem? I fixed a GPS antenna on my car roof. It has a strong magnet. It stays in the same place even at 70mph. Right in the center of my roof, where I put it. It’s on a foundation that holds it exactly where it needs to be.
I don’t see the problem you’re having with the Bible describing the earth being on a foundation where it is fixed. It is! It’s on a orbital foundation – even though it is moving through space at around 67K miles per hour, it’s on a predetermined path and is held right where it needs to be – just the right distance from the Sun. What is your problem with the the scripture passages you quote? You claim they are absurd, and you quote them, then you proceed to strawmanify about other people that don’t have anything to do with the Bible.
Boris says: I can tell you get all your science from other creationist instead of real scientists. No planet travels in a perfectly circular orbit. Each planet’s orbit has a different shape from all the other planets’, and no planet even maintains a constant distance from the sun. Moreover the sun is moving and is not at the center of any planet’s orbit and no planet repeats the same orbit twice. So the Bible could not be more wrong and neither could you. ROFL!
You said: I’m skipping the rest of this topic in this message because it’s no more useful then the first part you provided.
Like my grandpa could have but probably didn’t say, if a man can’t make his own point, he probably doesn’t have one!
(I noticed that you just copy and pasted a bunch of stuff from other anti-Christian websites without having the decency to give them credit.)
Considered me warned – now even though you’re trying hard to siderail this off of the topic of abortion, you did claim that the Bible states that the earth is flat but as far as I can tell you have not provided any evidence of that – so please do! I’m sure you well may have the info but just accidentally neglected to post it. As I said, my goal is to learn and speak the truth. If the Bible says that the earth is flat, I want to know.
Boris says: Why did the Church leaders tell Columbus he would fall off the edge of the flat earth? Why does the Association for Biblical Astronomy use the Bible to prove the Earth is flat and never moves?
You said: Correction: It is 100% human and 100% in the state of being. (existence.)
Boris says: Correction: This is a lie as I’ve already proved. Do you think if you keep chanting your lies that will make them come true some day?
You said: Boris, you don’t know that for sure. Not that facts get in your way. But if they could see the fists and the nose on the ultrasound, it may be old enough to live in air. And in any case, it may be possible to move it from one woman’s womb to another’s, so it may be true to say that “it cannot live apart from your sister-in-law.” And besides, a 4 year old can’t live apart from somebody providing for and protecting it either – does that mean it’s not murder to kill it?
Boris says: If abortion were really murder then people would go to jail for doing or having them. But they DON’T do they? So your whole case is shot down in flames isn’t it? The majority rules and you aren’t part of the majority, but rather in a minority populated by religious fanatics.
You said: If I’m driving out my driveway and I’m late on my way to the movies, and there’s a 5 year old in my driveway and won’t move, does it’s right to live supersede my right to drive out my driveway or not?
Boris says: Again driving is NOT a right. You’re just repeating yourself now because you have nothing important or even true to say.
You said: Wow, you only know three women who had abortions? or were there others that you know too? If some you knew did regret it, would you tell us that too?
Boris says: I’m an atheist so, unlike Christians, I always tell the truth.
You said: Boris, are you in the thinking or the believing category? Now keep in mind that you can still be in the believing category but believe not in God or the Bible but in other things like Evolution and Humanism or any number of other things.
Boris says: Truth doesn’t demand belief. Your religion does though which proves that it isn’t true. I’m a thinker and you’re a believer in what others tell you to believe.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm


You said: If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were a believer (but not in the Bible). I mean, you keep reasserting that abortion is not murder, and you keep saying that a fetus is not a human being even though it is unquestionably human and in the state of being, and you’ve said that to kill without physical force is not murder even though murder can be committed with poison and in spite of the fact that many forms of abortion do use physical force against the unborn baby by suction and tongs and you’ve stated that the Bible clearly states that the earth is flat but as far as I can tell provided no proof thereof.
Boris says: Where exactly, does the Bible come out against abortion Mr. Bible man? Show me. Not there is it? You just got caught with your citations down. ROFL!
You said: Now I have no doubt that you believe all these things with all your heart – but you won’t provide facts to prove them true! And some of them are obviously wrong (like physical force being required for murder to have been committed.)
Boris says: Why is it that Christians are told to believe things with their hearts? I use my HEAD to think, not my emotions, previous brainwashing and adherence to blind faith dogma.
You said: I’ve pointed out many times that your statements are obviously wrong and do you admit it and stop making them? No, you don’t. Would you admit it if you realized you were wrong, I wonder? I have my doubts.
Boris says: Like a typical Christian you get proved wrong and refuse to admit it. You have NOT proved one word I’ve posted wrong and you know it. Your wish thinking is out of control. If I was wrong, the laws of the land would reflect this but they prove you wrong now don’t they? How come you cannot admit that the law disagrees with you? If the law agreed with you then why are you trying to change it?
You said: Heh, it’s frightening that there are dozens of people like you in this country who think that murder cannot be committed without physical force, or that something can be both human and be in the state of being without being a human being, and they have the right to vote :-)
If you like, I would be delighted to discuss Biblical accuracy with you but right now perhaps we can try to more on topic of abortion. (But you did say you provided references for the Bible “clearly stating” that the earth was flat – I still would like that answer eventually.)
Boris says: Oh come on. The Bible says the earth was created in six days and there was vegetation on the earth BEFORE the sun even existed. The Bible says the first woman was from a rib. If you think that is accurate go ahead and prove it. Your attempts at proving things are absolutely hilarious and your willful ignorance and lack of any science education are just off the charts! Your knowledge of the Bible is non-existent.
You said: Either abortion does meet all the requirements for murder or it doesn’t. I think the facts clearly indicate that it does. You seem to think not. I’m trying to figure out how we come to such different conclusions. Does your sincerely held Atheism influence your conclusion at all? Which of my facts do you dispute? that a human fetus that’s about to be aborted is human? or that it’s alive? or that it’s innocent? or that it’s unique? or that there are other areas where it is legal to kill an innocent human without a trial and with premeditation?
Boris says: If abortion meant the requirements for murder then it would be. But by law it isn’t. So you are wrong now aren’t you?
You said: My line of reasoning seems to be a very logical one and the conclusion as best I can tell is based purely on the facts and on science.
Boris says: You torture logic, distort science, are willfully ignorant of the laws of the land and then claim your lies are based on facts and science. Your lies are based on religious delusions put in your head by other PEOPLE.
How did you arrive at your position?
Boris says: Unlike you I use facts, logic and science. In other words I THINK while you believe what others tell you to. Big difference.



report abuse
 

Farcy

posted September 15, 2008 at 11:10 pm


Perhaps unlike Boris, I place high regard for anyone’s beliefs and opinions whether they are based in science or based on holy scripture. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and no one has a right to alter them forcefully or persuade others are wrong just because they think their viewpoint is correct. However, believers are at a disadvantage because they are NOT exempt from debating a scientific argument with science in mind. But scientists may be exempt from playing on the theological playing field.
Science can only be countered with more science, it is a double edge sword for Christians: They are allowed to and encouraged to use science to back up what their beliefs say is correct, but they sometimes have less experience with science than someone who isn’t directed by faith (because that person typically uses reason and logic – the backbones of science – in their everyday thinking of the world around them). Furthermore scientific thought can be an additional burden because it relies on observations and data to give information about reality. This can be difficult for the Christian who is accustomed to supernatural and very non-scientific explanations for life’s mysteries.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted August 25, 2009 at 10:20 pm


Forcing medical professionals to perform abortions is like forcing them to euthanize patients or terminate life via the death penalty. Medical professionals did not enter into the trade to terminate life, but to save and promote life. Therefore, forcing them to perform abortions is possibly dissuading people from entering the profession or forcing those whose convictions are strong, and have the right to hold this view, to terminate their career. Why should they be forced to go against the grain that brought them into the profession in the first place?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 26, 2009 at 2:13 am


No one is talking about forcing anyone to perform abortions. A person has to voluntarily be trained for that kind of work and if they’re not they cannot perform or assist in abortions. Once again a Christian makes up a problem that doesn’t exist so they can express their inner rage that other people are enjoying life and having guilt free sex and they cannot.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.