Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


PBS Should Have Been Tougher About Religious Programming

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

A breathless nation awaited yesterday’s decision by the PBS board about whether to actually require its member stations to adhere to a basic rule.  OK, maybe it wasn’t exactly the whole country holding its breath, but a handful of people were interested.

The PBS board met to decide whether member stations must actually follow bylaws passed in the mid-l980s. These bylaws stated that those stations receiving PBS programming should not air partisan, commercial or sectarian programming. For 25 years, the board has turned a blind eye to enforcing its restriction on sectarian programming, but after yesterday’s vote, no longer. 

Stations will not be allowed to carry sectarian programming from here on out or they will lose their membership status, the board said. (This means that those stations would not have access to popular shows like “Sesame Street” and “The News Hour.”) That’s a good decision. There’s no reason for PBS stations to show proselytizing or evangelistic programming, particularly with the explosion of television channels available in recent years.  With PBS paid for partly with taxpayer dollars, it’s perfectly defensible constitutionally to forbid religious programming. And with plenty of other broadcast opportunities for religious programming, PBS is by no means required to provide them a forum.

That part of the PBS decision makes sense. What doesn’t make sense
is that PBS has also decided that the six stations that violated those
bylaws by airing religious programming may retain those programs. It’s
as if they are rewarding the stations who have broken the rules. For
example, WLAE
in Louisiana, which broadcasts a daily show sometimes referred to as
“Mass for Shut-Ins,” and a Utah station that broadcasts regular Mormon
religious programming, not only get by unpunished, but now receive a
special exemption from the rule.

Some would-be religious providers could now argue that the PBS board
has shown special preference to some religious groups over others. 
Indeed, they could argue that religious scofflaws who ignored the
rules now continue to benefit from their past actions. 

It is not some act of government censorship to tell “educational”
stations that they have to avoid the promotion of candidates for
office, commercial products, and sectarian viewpoints.  This is not
viewpoint discrimination; it is a flat prohibition on whole categories
of programming.  First Amendment analysts have long understood the
difference between favoring viewpoints ( Catholicism over Methodism)
and carving out whole areas of content which are not appropriate for
government-supported activity.

So now that the board did not adopt a hard and fast “no means no”
rule, I imagine that other groups will in fact start demanding access. 
We’ll see what happens.  However, don’t be too surprised if “Daily
Dervish Dancing” or “Praying With Presbyterians” pops up instead of
“Antiques Roadshow” sometime when you least expect it.

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(40)
post a comment
jimbino

posted June 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm


Now we just have to hold our noses until the Public Bolshevik System stops airing exclusively socialist big-government propaganda.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted June 17, 2009 at 2:32 pm


As Ken Kesey put it, You are either on the bus or off the bus. I think the PBS corp. leaders should make their decision and stick with it. The religious programming that local affiliates offer could just as easily (and inexpensively) be broadcast on other commmercial stations. If the PBS group all agrees to the rule of non-sectarian programming, they do themselves no favor by making exceptions. But as with churches, they have a primary inclination to be nice and helpful, so they made these allowances. It will not be long before someone will be knocking on their door and demanding the same exception be made for their group/church. That is the problem with precedence. It makes sense to make these rules, but it makes as much sense to honor them.



report abuse
 

Miss Fay

posted June 17, 2009 at 3:39 pm


Two points: If I don’t wish to watch the Antiques Road Show because I’m a modern girl, I don’t watch it. Not too complicated. And…Will the FCC or PBS or Daddy O tell the Antiques Road Show that it has to include non-antiques so as not to appear partisan in their preference for old stuff? How I love analogies.



report abuse
 

Craig

posted June 17, 2009 at 4:19 pm


Miss Fay, there is a big difference between showing programming that doesn’t appeal to a person or a particular group, vs. allowing public funds to be spent on proselytizing. It’s not about not being partisan, it’s about promoting religion.
Rev. Lynn is correct that PBS should be consistent and eliminate all religious based programming. As an entity that gets a significant amount of public funding they should not be in the business of advancing any religion. As a non-christian I certainly don’t want any of my tax dollars going to support any religious programming. To allow such spending constitutes the government supporting a particular religion, which is clearly prohibited in our constitution.



report abuse
 

Jeannie

posted June 17, 2009 at 4:21 pm


I don’t get it. Taxpayer dollars helping to fund a TV Mass for shut-ins, that’s bad. But taxpayer dollars helping to fund the killing of babies, that’s good? What planet did I wake up on this morning?



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted June 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm


Since when do tax dollars fund the killing of babies?



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted June 17, 2009 at 6:08 pm


Special to Cara Floyd (I tried to post this earlier but could not get the captcha to work):
Cara, assume for a moment you are correct and a fetus is a child. Now asume you are also correct that terminating a pregnancy is exactly the same as murdering a child. Q: What percentage of pregnancies does God terminate? A: Estimated 30-50% before the mother is aware she is pregnant, 20% of confirmed pregnancies. Lets put that into real numbers. Each day there are 15,000 to 20,000 pregnancies and God aborts 5,000 to 10,000 of them, making God, according to your logic, the greatest mass murderer of children of all time.
And out of the roughly 11,000 babies born each day in the US, 1 is born with AIDS, 2 with Spina Bifida, 3 with Muscular Dystrophy, and 10 with Downs Syndrome, — all given to them by God while in the womb.
Worldwide, nearly 300,000 children under 5 die each day because God not only refuses to provide food for them, but He either denies them rain or brings it down in torrents so their parents can’t grow food for them either.
You and Randall Terry need to redirect your anger and inciteful rhetoric to where it belongs. If God is in control, and I believe He is, then no child God wants to be born can be terminated – by any means. So why are you pretending that Almighty God is a powerless pawn in the hands of the Supreme Court of the US? Why aren’t you sending your protesters to picket the house(s) of God, the Ultimate Abortionist?



report abuse
 

Craig

posted June 17, 2009 at 6:11 pm


Jeannie said:
“I don’t get it. Taxpayer dollars helping to fund a TV Mass for shut-ins, that’s bad. But taxpayer dollars helping to fund the killing of babies, that’s good? What planet did I wake up on this morning?”
No, you clearly don’t get it. To have the government fund any religious service is clearly prohibited by the constitution. It could have the effect of the government appearing to favor one particular religion and be coercive, limiting religious freedom. It is a conservative principle to minimize the involvement of the government in private matters, such as church services. If there are shut ins who want or feel they need to have mass delivered to them there should be plenty of private entities that are able to provide such services. To have the government involved in this reduces our religious freedom.
Whether you like it or not abortion is legal in this country. To have the government provide funding for a procedure that in some cases is medically necessary is clearly appropriate.
It’s not a matter of what you believe is good or bad. It’s a matter of support freedom by keeping the government out of private affairs, such as religion. You would probably think it’s good to have children exposed to your religious doctrine. I have heard the argument from the religious right that prayer in school is a good thing because it teaches children values. On the other hand, I bet you would object if the government funded a Muslim organization to deliver services in public schools. No, keeping the government out of any aspect of religion helps preserve religious freedom for all of us. Yes, that is good.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 17, 2009 at 7:38 pm


dsjulian-
Murder our posterity is not open up for debate. It truely is against our Constitution. As for God being God ,he is.
As for the Supreme Court-
I do not put any man above the law of God.
If you want to say murder is not murder, your lieing.
I would not like to elevate our own brain above the brain or forming brain of another. Who gives us the right to take anothers brain away.
————————–
Truely these conscerns are of great importance. How many lives which are lost each year to people killing their children varies.
cc



report abuse
 

Jeannie

posted June 17, 2009 at 7:59 pm


DSJulian
June 17, 2009 6:03 PM
Since when do tax dollars fund the killing of babies?
Since the Federal Gov sends taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood – the largest abortion mill ever created.



report abuse
 

Jeannie

posted June 17, 2009 at 8:10 pm


Ah, but Craig, the Fed Gov is clearly stepping all over my religious freedoms when it suits them. By confiscating my money, and sending it to abortion mills, this forces me to fund something clearly against my religion. Such a double standard. PBS does not air just Catholic Mass, but services of almost every religion. This could not be construed as the appearance of favoring one over the other.
If taxes are going to be pulled from PBS, then taxes should also be pulled from providing abortions. If I want to send my money to PBS I will do so. Likewise, if someone wants to kill their baby, they should pay for it. If it’s a situation where it’s medically necessary (very rare) then insurance pays for it. What I’m against is my tax money paying for the abortions that are a CHOICE, an inconvenience, something to be gotten rid of.



report abuse
 

Craig

posted June 17, 2009 at 9:07 pm


Jeannie said
“Ah, but Craig, the Fed Gov is clearly stepping all over my religious freedoms when it suits them. By confiscating my money, and sending it to abortion mills, this forces me to fund something clearly against my religion. Such a double standard. PBS does not air just Catholic Mass, but services of almost every religion. This could not be construed as the appearance of favoring one over the other.”
You still don’t get it. Nothing in our constitution requires to government to adhere to anything dictated by your religious beliefs. For them to fund things that are in conflict with your beliefs does not restrict your religious freedom in any way. I didn’t want my tax dollars to go to a war in Iraq. To do so violates the teachings of my interpretation of my religion. But I have no say in that and rightfully so because the government has to do what they believe to be necessary to defend the country, without regard to my religious beliefs. That is true freedom.
Jews believe that the Sabbath is sacred and no business should be conducted on Saturdays. Does the government spending money and doing business on Saturday violate Jew’s rights? I would say not. Many government institutions operate on Sundays while many christian groups believe this is inappropriate. If the government were to limit spending based on the beliefs of every religious group in the country that would mean they couldn’t do anything at all. By definition things that they do will be inconsistent with the beliefs of many religions. Spending money on things in which you don’t believe does not in any way step on your religious freedom. None of your rights to worship or to act on your beliefs are being violated. What you seem to want is for the government to violate the religious beliefs of others if they are in conflict with yours. That would not be freedom, it would be theocracy. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is for the government not to fund any activity that is specifically religious in nature. While you may disagree with abortion being legal, abortion is not a religious activity.
To say that PBS broadcasts services from many different religions is disingenuous. Are there any Muslim broadcasts, how about Wiccan, Scientologist, Buddhist, Hindu, or even Jewish? PBS clearly does not broadcast services of nearly every religion, but even if they did it wouldn’t make it right. Broadcasting specifically religious programs of one, or some, religions to the exclusion of others clearly does favor certain religions over others, but even that isn’t the point. The only way to allow religious freedom is for the government not to support any.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 17, 2009 at 10:57 pm


Your Name…”As for God being God, he is.” that is your OPINION. Others do not share your OPINION. If you say that you know God exists, you’re lying.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted June 18, 2009 at 3:41 pm


Let’s dispense with the name calling and accusations of lying. According to US Law terminating a pregnancy is not murder nor is it illegal. Accusing medical doctors of being murderers is slander and bearing false witness.
Romans 13:1-2 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
That means there is no such discrepancy between the law of the governing authorities and the law of God.
Our “posterity” goes on with or without individuals. Life does not begin a conception nor end at death. It is a continuing process that starts “In the beginning…” and continues to eternity. So you have to decide who holds the power of life and death, God, or something else?



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted June 18, 2009 at 4:02 pm


Jeannie: “Since the Federal Gov sends taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood – the largest abortion mill ever created.”
As I indicated in a previous post, the “largest abortion mill ever created” is God. Next to the number of pregnancies He terminates each day, Planned Parenthood isn’t even close. Not to mention the number of children He afflicts with illnesses and allows to starve to death every day.
So you have to decide: Either your definition of pregnancy termination as murder is wrong, or Almighty God is the greatest child mass-murderer of all time and you should focus your righteous indignation towards Him.



report abuse
 

DGNOCP

posted June 18, 2009 at 6:09 pm


O good! Now I don’t have to watch that ridiculously cliche barefoot Buddhist monk/priest/whatever teach me how to meditate my problems away.



report abuse
 

Evoluted1

posted June 18, 2009 at 8:47 pm


DSJulian, you have touched upon what rapidly becomes a sore spot for me. I dislike the application of terms such as “murderer” or “baby killer”, where these would be prosecutable crimes, to people when they do not properly apply. They are used in a deliberately incendiary manner, and are promulgated now even by national media outlets for the very reason they incite such emotional reactions. God, or nature, is the giver and taker of life; with our laws we define parameters of legal recognition in our society.



report abuse
 

Laura

posted June 19, 2009 at 3:09 am


Boris,
I now have proof that what I said a long time ago (that you know there’s a God; you even call Him Almightly God etc.) You’ve just proven that you are not an Atheist at all. You know who He is, and it looks like you hate Him. Remember I said that? Now we have proof. You cannot go around calling yourself an Atheist anymore, because it would be disingenuine to do so. That’s pretty brave of you to take on God Almighty Himself. God says that His ways are higher than our ways. Don’t ask me to explain because no one can right now at least. But if someone creates us, then He does have a right to do whatever He wants & He also gets to tell us what to do, and what not to do. That’s just the way things are.



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted June 19, 2009 at 10:53 am


The old argument of a child is not a child unless it is brought out of the mother’s womb, does not fly anymore.
They are still children maturing when a ladies egg if fertilized by a male sperm. To say less then this, would like us saying we were somehow materialized right when the air hits the lungs and screams for help.
Cara



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted June 19, 2009 at 10:57 am


So, let me get this straight. Part of the public is trying to say that we are not people or a boy or a girl until the air hits the lungs and is able to scream for help.
cc



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted June 19, 2009 at 11:06 am


So what you are trying to write here is, that abortion is just a clinical unmurdering act because when the human egg is fertilized by the male sperm, it is what?
a jiraffe
a monkey
a horse
a piece of furniture
a car
a house
a boy or a girl maturing
What is the answer?
Could the answer be that it is a boy or a girl maturing.
Well when you would chop it up , suck it out, or purely poke a hole in the scull and suck out the brains, what is this act called?
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 19, 2009 at 11:12 am


When an abortionist sucks out a ferilized human Embryo from a ladies womb what is this called?
Do they want us to believe that a fertilized human
Embryo is a house, or a plant or something?
If that is what they want us to believe, then I could understand why they would feel comfortable about chopping off their arms and legs or sucking out their brains. Of course that doesn’t realy fit with the definition of a plant or a tree or a house. Let us call human life what it is , PEOPLE!
cc



report abuse
 

Boris

posted June 19, 2009 at 7:38 pm


I now have proof that what I said a long time ago (that you know there’s a God; you even call Him Almightly God etc.) You’ve just proven that you are not an Atheist at all.
Boris says: Where and when exactly did I “call Him Almightly God etc.? And if I did that would prove nothing anyway.
You know who He is, and it looks like you hate Him. Remember I said that? Now we have proof.
Boris says: Name it and claim it. Let’s see your proof.
You cannot go around calling yourself an Atheist anymore, because it would be disingenuine to do so.
Boris says: An atheist is someone who has a lack of belief in God. I’m an anti-theist. I go one better. I say that there is no God.
“Atheism can be the naked pursuit of truth, but anti-theism is more often the adolescent joy of upsetting and mocking religious people.” – Jim Rigby, pastor of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas.
That’s pretty brave of you to take on God Almighty Himself. God says that His ways are higher than our ways. Don’t ask me to explain because no one can right now at least.
Boris says: You can’t explain because MEN said: “His ways are higher than our ways” and told you not to question THEM.
But if someone creates us, then He does have a right to do whatever He wants & He also gets to tell us what to do, and what not to do. That’s just the way things are.
Boris says: So you say. But I know better. I’ll tell you this if there was a God I’d spit in his face for letting so much suffering exist in the world and doing nothing to help alleviate at last some of it. Not top mention for creating hell if it’s the Christian sky wizard. Now would someone who thought there was a God type for all to see (including God supposedly) that he’d spit in the face of God? I think not. You don’t know me at all but I know you. All you Bible believers are alike, say the same stuff, think the same way, tell the same untruths, make the same absurd claims and I’ve heard it all before and before that and before that and before that and…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 19, 2009 at 10:38 pm


God is light.
Catch up to light and you will find eternity and God.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted June 20, 2009 at 1:25 am


Hi Rev. Lynn,
I enjoy reading your blogs especially because the titles are usually very catchy and the vocabulary is very educational and comical, not to mention the fact I love a good debate.
Since PBS made the “error” of not enforcing its bylaws that stated those stations receiving PBS programming should not air partisan, commercial or sectarian programming, they have chosen the right remedy to grandfather the stations that were permitted to air these programs the right to continue broadcasting these types of programs. If in fact some of these programs have been broadcasting since the mid 1980s, then they have built up quite a listener base, listeners who are also taxpayers. Therefore, choosing to grandfather these programs by permitting them to continue is perfectly acceptable. These stations should not have to suffer since it is PBS’s fault for legislating the rules and then choosing not enforcing them.



report abuse
 

Evoluted1

posted June 20, 2009 at 3:56 am


Cara Floyd, it is not up to you to determine when a fertilized egg becomes a citizen. It is left to the law of the land, the Constitution. Your statement: “They are still children maturing when a ladies egg if fertilized by a male sperm.” is not in agreement with the law of the land. You are, therefore, wrong.
We did not leave the law to religious interpretations for the very reason that there are many, and they differ. One does not allow birth control, another does; we chose to avoid the interminable bickering over which is “right” by accepting our Constitutional form of government. By living in this country, you accept it as well.
Furthermore, the question of viability is not the only consideration. Hypothetically medical science could achieve viability immediately post conception, that is, grow a person outside the womb from cellular embryo to infant. It would be an odd predicament indeed for a government of, by, and for the people (ours) to force those very people to become parents against their will based soley on the sex act (which is a very strong natural, biological, urge). No, Justice Blackmun emphasized “the distress, for all concerned, associated with an unwanted child” in order to maintain a degree of privacy and freedom. It is altogether proper that this should remain so. As religious beliefs hold sway for whatever number of people, they are, of course, entitled to their own views and to act accordingly (within the law). They are not, however, entitled to insinuate those views upon the citizenry who are within the law to maintain a differing viewpoint. It simply isn’t allowed, nor should it be.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted June 20, 2009 at 9:21 am


We did not leave the law to religious interpretations for the very reason that there are many, and they differ. One does not allow birth control, another does…
Exactly, Evoluted1. Those whose religious beliefs tell them that abortion is wrong are free to not have abortions. Those whose religious beliefs tell them that abortion is fine, or even required in certain circumstances, are free to have abortions. Everyone gets to follow their own religious beliefs.
Contrast that with the policy in China, where each couple is permitted to have only one child. They must abort any subsequent pregnancies.
Cara should be glad she lives in the U.S. where she is free to follow whatever religious teachings she chooses and to have as many or as few children as she wishes.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted June 20, 2009 at 9:45 am


Cara should just move to one of the fascist or communist dictatorships where abortion is is still illegal and hundreds of women die every day from botched abortions. Cara is just mad that American women don’t have to risk their lives to have abortions. Oh and that other women enjoy intimacy and she has too many hang ups from her religion and cannot.



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted June 20, 2009 at 3:14 pm


Evoluted?
Sometimes laws are wrong and they need to be changed. Remember when America took people off of Africa and made them slaves. Or, how about Hitler who thought he could put Jews in a camp and kill because they were not like him.
If you want me to think that murdering children is ok because somebody screwed up in the law when they made Roe v. Wade an abortion legalizing law, they were wrong.
I am not going to think your brain is more important than the one that they are killing through law.
Just because there is Hitler mentality, does not make it a right law.
As for when the sperm hits the egg, that is how you came into existance. So , I don’t want to hear how you are far more valueable of a citizen then them, that would be unequal rights.
God loves and he did not make you from an ape or some form of life sustaining matter other than how he formed you. Your eye is different than anybody else, your fingerprint and it takes your lungs and heart to be operating at the same time in order for you to live. So, I do not find your life some how more valueable than the one that they are chopping up, sucking out or taking by pill.
Cara



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted June 20, 2009 at 4:09 pm


People are people. So , this has to do with others saying their life if to be valued while another life can be taken. I am a voice for the unborn who can not speak for themselves and who have been denied the right to exist. It is interesting to note how others confuse this idea with religion or somehow say it is a choice to be honored. I am saying that is a person. It is not to be treated less because someone is confused as to it being a person. If you want me to think it ok for someone to have the right to murder their child because it is a right. Well, let’s face it, somebody in authority wants to say that the other person in the womb or science lab is less then their view.
So I am thankful to have been born in the United States of America. Do not confuse a right of religion or view with a fact of it being murder.
C.F.
Unequal rights in effect.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 20, 2009 at 4:14 pm


It is not a religious belief to take a life. It is a fact.



report abuse
 

Craig

posted June 20, 2009 at 4:32 pm


Cara Floyd said:
“People are people. So , this has to do with others saying their life if to be valued while another life can be taken. I am a voice for the unborn who can not speak for themselves and who have been denied the right to exist. It is interesting to note how others confuse this idea with religion or somehow say it is a choice to be honored. ”
You are wrong on one point. The person who suggested that reproductive choice was a religious issue was someone from your side of the argument. I agree that it is not a religious issue and should is not part of the issue of religious freedom. Someone brought up abortion to say that the government spending money on it is a violation of their religious rights. This is just not true.
Whether abortion should be legal or not is a totally different issue that has nothing to do with freedom of religious expression. I for one would be happy if there was never another single abortion performed here or anywhere around the world. However, I don’t want to return to the days when women and doctors could be put in jail for performing them. I remember those days all too well, and remember the stigma that women could endure even if they had a miscarriage. Miscarriages are very common, but before Roe v. Wade women became suspect if they had one and could be accused of a crime if it was thought that somehow their action, or inaction resulted in a miscarriage. This is a difficult enough time for women who endure this and I for one don’t want to return to the time when women had to worry about being thrown in jail for a natural occurrence.
The argument against abortion is that life begins at conception and therefore is the equivalent of a murder. I think the issue is much more complex than that. What happens to embryos in in-vitro labs that are not implanted? If Roe v. Wade is overturned would people in those labs be guilty of committing a crime if there are embryos that are not implanted? What happens if they are implanted but don’t take? Is that illegal? These are all questions that would have to be addressed if Roe v. Wade is overturned. In truth when life begins and when it is viable are different and difficult to determine with any precision.
Criminalizing abortion will not stop it either. It will just make it less safe for women. We will go back to the days of women having back alley abortions and dying from them regularly. Is that really preferable? I believe that it would be better to have comprehensive sex education where everybody understands the potential consequences of their actions and knows how to take appropriate steps. Abstinence education is clearly not the answer. Teenagers are going to want to have sex, and many are going to do so, no matter what they are told about waiting. The number of abortions can be reduced by ensuring that when they do they know to take appropriate steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies.



report abuse
 

Evoluted1

posted June 20, 2009 at 5:44 pm


Cara,
Again, your view that a fertilized egg is a human being is only your opinion. You are entitled to it, but it stands in contrast to law. Laws may change, and you may work to effect such change. The law which currently stands is, none the less, the law.
Your opinion that a fertilized egg is a person and entitled to protection under the law is widespread. Other opinions abound, such as preventing sperm from reaching the egg is tantamount to “murder”. Many of these opinions stem from religious beliefs, as I suspect does yours. I suspect this because of your refutation of evolution, and your proselytizing manner.
I am glad that we in the United States chose to live by laws which give more freedoms than would exist under the dictates of one set of religious opinions or another (forms of “Hitler mentality” as you put it, restriction or oppression based on a “because I say so” attitude). I do not believe in supernatural beings of any kind. Nor do I believe that commission of a naturally occuring biologically driven urge (sex), makes people ready or willing to become parents. I believe that an advanced (medically), enlightened (mentally), society can allow its people more freedom in making such an important decision. You would condemn many to unwilling parenthood by virtue of the sex act, I think you are wrong to do that. The law of the land is on my side. You may work to change the law, I may work to keep it the way it is because I think it better serves the people.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted June 20, 2009 at 10:23 pm


Abstinence education is clearly not the answer.
Boris says: It worked for Bristol Palin didn’t it? Oops, I guess not. ROFL!



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted June 21, 2009 at 2:01 pm


It is interesting how people deny what made them a human being as being a human being.
What is in the One Cell Human Being?
As far as people staying away from sex until marriage, that is the only safe sex I know and that is if they are a male and a female who are faithful.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted June 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm


Cara,
Obviously you don’t know anything about sex then. You think sex is icky don’t you?



report abuse
 

Evoluted1

posted June 21, 2009 at 5:23 pm


I don’t deny what made me a human being, and am generally grateful to my creators, my mother and father. I celebrate my Birthday every year, not my day of conception. I don’t recommend marriage to anyone, but wholeheartedly support abstinence for the masses(many have little choice in the matter, and the others don’t listen!).



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 21, 2009 at 7:24 pm


Maybe PBS could have yet another discussion of whether abortion is a religious issue or a secular issure? Wait, does that violate their new rules?
It is most certainly not, IMO, a religious issue. And like Evoluted1, I celebreat my birthday, and my creators..my parents. I’d have a hard time celebrating my “conception” date!



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted June 21, 2009 at 7:26 pm


OOPS, above at 7:24 PM was me, pagansister.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 21, 2009 at 9:56 pm


No, Boris I don’t.



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.