Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Keep the Commandments Constitutional

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, I want to offer my congratulations to you and your family.  I’m sure your son’s wedding was, indeed, a great celebration.

 

I want to take a moment to discuss a topic you and I have debated from time to time – the constitutional role of displaying the Ten Commandments.   As you know, ABC News is focusing on the Ten Commandments – an issue that always seems to be in the legal spotlight thanks to you and your colleagues.  Case in point:  Ohio – where we represent Judge James DeWeese of Richland County, Ohio who has been sued repeatedly by the ACLU – this time for a poster he placed in his courtroom called “Philosophies of Law in Conflict.”

 

The poster is divided into two sections.  The first is titled “Moral Absolutes,” the second “Moral Relatives.”  To illustrate the meaning of these two clashing moral concepts, Judge DeWeese quotes texts which support each one: for moral absolutes, the Ten Commandments; for moral relativism, the Humanist Manifestos and other sources.

 

According to its flawed understanding of the Establishment Clause, the ACLU believes that the Ten Commandments are inherently suspect as a constitutional matter and can seldom, if ever, be displayed in the public square.  Even in the case of an educational display, such as Judge DeWeese’s, the ACLU believes that the Decalogue is nothing more than a religious text propounding nothing more than religious doctrine.

 

The ACLU is wrong.  In numerous Ten Commandments cases that we have handled, federal courts have repeatedly held that the Decalogue has played a profound historical role in the development of Western legal thought.  In the 2005 Supreme Court case, Van Orden v. Perry, Chief Justice Rehnquist observed that the Ten Commandments “have an undeniable historical meaning” and have played a role in our nation’s heritage.  Even Justice Souter, an advocate of strict church and state separation, has noted that “civil or secular law” has been influenced by the Decalogue.

 

To deny that the Ten Commandments have a secular and historical meaning, in addition to a religious one, is to deny reality and ignore history.

 

The reason Judge DeWeese displays the poster in his courtroom, a poster he designed himself, is set forth on the face of the poster.  He wishes to educate visitors to his courtroom that “there is a conflict of legal and moral philosophies raging in the United States,” and that in this conflict between “moral relativism and moral absolutism,” we are moving to a relativist understanding of morality and law.

 

Judge DeWeese, who has been repeatedly re-elected to this position for over eighteen years and has presided over 5,000 felony criminal cases, also states his belief that the moral order has its ultimate source in the divine order.  As Judge DeWeese writes:

 

“The Founders were right about the necessity of moral absolutes to the survival and prosperity of our country. I join them and the Constitution of Ohio in acknowledging Almighty God as the author of the necessary standards for restoring the moral fabric, safety and prosperity of this nation.” 

 

Judge DeWeese is quite correct about the Founders’ views regarding morality and religion.

 

In his famous Farewell Address to the newly established nation, George Washington stated that “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

 

In a letter to Benjamin Rush, John Adams, the second President of the United States, noted that “Religion and Virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all Combinations of human society.”

 

Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father and one of the Federalist Papers’ authors, observed, “Good and wise men, in all ages … have supposed that the deity … has constituted an eternal and immutable law which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institutions whatever.”

 

Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court itself has held: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

 

The Ohio State Constitution, which the lawsuit contends that the poster violates, in addition to the U.S. Constitution, specifically states that “Religion, morality, and knowledge” are “essential to good government.”

 

This suit is the latest chapter in the ACLU’s legal campaign against Judge DeWeese which now spans eight years.  Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the initial case and ultimately reverse a decision that found that Judge DeWeese’s display of a copy of the Ten Commandments, alongside a copy of the Bill of Rights, violated the Establishment Clause.  The Ten Commandments was removed and replaced with Judge DeWeese’s “Philosophies of Law in Conflict” poster, which is the focus of the current lawsuit.

 

The federal judge who presided over the first lawsuit against Judge DeWeese rejected a motion last year to hold him in contempt for displaying the current poster, which I reported in a post here in August 2008The judge concluded that “the Court can find no principled basis upon which to find that, or even fully consider whether, the new display is constitutionally impermissible.”

 

The importance of this case cannot be underestimated.  What is at stake is not just the public display and proper understanding of the Ten Commandments, but the right of public officials to recognize that our nation’s future depends on maintaining those principles on which the nation was founded.  A decision by the U.S. District Court could come at any time.

 

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

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(52)
post a comment
Ron

posted September 25, 2009 at 4:16 pm


Jay,
Respectfully, you’ve listed some quotes from the founding fathers for the support of the 10 commandments but there are probably and equal number of quotes that do not support your comment. I’ve seen it in other areas where it simply became a ping-pong quotation match. It didn’t really accomplish much.
also, your comment: “To deny that the Ten Commandments have a secular and historical meaning, in addition to a religious one, is to deny reality and ignore history.”
While I hear people stating that it is for historical purposes, I find this rational rather useless as the majority one can see in many articles, around the country, were put there solely for religious reasons and a “secular” reason was added to support it’s being placed where ever. It was simply a ruse to put up something Christian, in the attempt to promote, “this is a Christian nation” again.



report abuse
 

Katie

posted September 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm


I echo Ron’s comments, and add that Judge DeWeese shows his true colors by writing, “I join them and the Constitution of Ohio in acknowledging Almighty God as the author of the necessary standards for restoring the moral fabric, safety and prosperity of this nation.”
“Acknowledge” is the wrong word. It’s his belief, nothing more.
As an atheist, do I have to worry about going before Judge DeWeese? Do I have to worry that he’s going to disapprove of my lack of religion, that he would rule against me, or that he would use his religious convictions in deciding my case?
The Founding Fathers were wise, but flawed men. Some of them owned slaves. They allowed slavery to be written into the Constitution. People who like to cherry-pick quotes from Adams and Jefferson willingly forget that Jefferson owned slaves. You simply cannot walk around in 21st century America citing 18th century men as the source for all of your moral authority.
How do you resolve the conflicts between what they wrote at one point in their lives, how Jefferson came to regret some of at the end of his life, and their own moral flaws?
I never see people who like to cite the Founding Fathers talk about their completely immoral and misguided views on black slaves and women. Why do you get to pick and choose which views you want to support?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 25, 2009 at 5:21 pm


Jay- I find it very interesting when people cherry-pick the founders for quotes. It’s like picking quotes from the bible. You are bound to find another one that contradicts it. It is far better and much more honest to look at the results of the work done on the Constitution in the convention that produced it, or read the Federalist Papers, or read Adams’ Defense of the Constitutions of the United States. NONE of these venues or sources discuss or even refer to the Ten Commandments as being under any consideration for the foundation of American law. The first commandment is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights, and should not be displayed in any way in an American courtroom. Please read “The Ten Commandments, American History and American Law by Geoff Price (8/3/05) and when you are done, please pass it on to this totally inappropriate and confused judge. And by the way, you might want to research a man named Luther Martin of MD. He left the Constitutional Convention because he could not convince the delegate to include some reference to Christianity and God in the Constitution. He said that “God” was unpopular with that crowd. There’s a good clue right there.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 25, 2009 at 8:15 pm


The display of the dual philosophies on Moral Absolutes and Moral Relativism does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the display of the Ten Commandments does not endorse, establish, advance, or suppress any particular religion. The ACLU is very hypocritical because they make a ruckus about the posting of the Ten Commandments as a violation of the Establishment Clause but say nothing about the Humanest Manifestos as a violation of the Establishment Clause (the same argument used for the Ten Commandments could be made here as supporting the religion of atheism) because it supports what they believe. Their bias shows big time.
In response to the others who stated there are quotes that reject promotion of the celebration of the history of the United States’ Christian heritage, I am sure there are some quotes but you won’t even bother to find them? Where’s the evidence? Sounds like a red herring to me or a wild goose chase to distract from the real issue that the ACLU is biased and impartial against their prosecution of violations of the Establishment Clause.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 25, 2009 at 9:37 pm


One of the most important founding principles if not the most important founding principle of this nation is religious freedom. The Ten Commandments expressly and specifically deny religious freedom and instead demand the worship of only one particular God. Four of the commandments have nothing to do with any laws but only the proper worship of this particular God. The Ten Commandments have no business being posted publicly ANYWHERE in a nation founded on religious freedom especially by the government that is supposed to defend its population from the oppression of religion and religious people. Let’s not forget where the Ten Commandments come from. They appear in a book that says the earth is flat and never moves, a book that contains absurd stories about angels, Satan, seraphs, talking animals and other nonsense. For anyone to take the Ten Commandments as anything but part of a fictional story is literally insane. This is the 21rst century. We don’t need directions from a burning bush to give us laws that existed thousands of years before the Book of Exodus was ever written or the Jewish people even existed.



report abuse
 

Katie

posted September 25, 2009 at 10:28 pm


To N. Lindzee Lindholm,
“The display of the dual philosophies on Moral Absolutes and Moral Relativism does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the display of the Ten Commandments does not endorse, establish, advance, or suppress any particular religion.”
Have you read the Ten Commandments? The first commandment is “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”
What do you think that’s all about? That’s explicitly commanding the reader to worship the God in Exodus, where the Ten Commandments are found. That’s Hebrew God. How can you possibly think that it doesn’t endorse that God? And in endorsing that God, it excludes all other Gods, and the ability not to worship any God. It explicitly says “You shall have no other gods before me.” If that’s not suppressing all other gods, and therefore all other religions, words have no meaning.
You can argue that this was founded as a Christian nation, which it was not, or you can argue that it should be a Christian nation, which it shouldn’t be. But you can’t really try to argue that the Ten Commandments are not specifically about religion and endorsing God. What else do those words mean?



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 26, 2009 at 9:35 am


NL Lindholm- Oh good grief! The ACLU has not had to bring suit against the posting of the Humanist Manifesto in a courtroom because to my knowledge, this has never come up before. And another point- there is no “religion” of atheism. It looks to me like you could benefit greatly by reading books on James Madison. Since he was the main author of the Bill of Rights, and had written much about the meaning of the Establishment Clause (even acting on it as President in two vetos that held) he would be a good place to start. You may not like what he says though because in his essay on Monopolies he says that chaplains in Congress are a violation. By the way, I forgot to put my name on the post that mentions Geoff Price’s work. You should read that too!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 26, 2009 at 7:50 pm


Regarding Boris: If you don’t like the 10 Commandments posted, I don’t know what to tell you. Seeing how they tell people not to murder and give wonderful guidelines as to what to do and what not to do. As for worshipping one God, how many do you want to worship, Boris? How many God’s do you believe created the heavens and the earth? Ow yay, you don’t even believe there was somebody who created you, I remember.
Excuse the sarcasm here, I am a bit frustrated with lack of conscern of moral values in our governing body. I feel that moral values have been completely ignored and down right thrown back in our face, as if we are supposed to put up with people being murdered in our country, as a constitutional right.
Far be it from me to judge, but this is down right ludicrous.
The lack of conscern for people living. It seems that they are murdering people under government rule, which is completely unconstitutional.
Posterity ignored and denied and violently killed through policy.
You wonder why I didn’t want to vote for The Freedom of Choice Act or Let the women choose to murder her baby under policy. It is against our foundational governing documents of this country. Of course it is against The Ten Commandments.
We need some sort of moral body and judgement guidelines of standards in our country.
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 26, 2009 at 7:51 pm


Judgement Day Is Coming



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 26, 2009 at 8:02 pm


Katie: For your information, I happen to have a couple of graduate seminary degrees from a Christian institution, so I know what the first commandment says. You are not following my argument. The first commandment does not endorse any PARTICULAR religion because the God of the Old Testament is honored by both the Jewish and Islam religions in addition to Christianity.



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted September 26, 2009 at 8:23 pm


It’s fair to call the commandments one of the bases of American jurisprudence and a set of ideals which has accumulated some weight outside of its original context, which was specifically religious. To say it’s primarily secular in purpose is absurd, and it is a pretext even the advocates of public display don’t believe.
If the commandments were truly intended to be displayed in the context of an exhibit on historical influences in law, that would be one thing. It’s a significant thing to be sure, but you would expect to see the Magna Carta or Declaration of Independence, maybe even the text of a few pivotal Supreme Court decisions. However it’s patently obvious that 10-Commandment-in-public advocate are not interested in curating historical exhibits. Their intent is to send a clear and public message that the space in question, a courthouse, etc. is owned by Judeo-Christians, and that anyone entering it had better bow to it if they expect to have any real standing there.
Not only is it disingenous to claim there isn’t a religious agenda, it is cowardly. If your god really can’t make an impression on our culture without such cheap chicanery and legal semantics, why should any intelligent person follow him?



report abuse
 

Ron

posted September 26, 2009 at 9:10 pm


Your Name
September 26, 2009 7:51 PM
Judgement Day Is Coming
YAWN, more fear mongering.



report abuse
 

Lowell

posted September 27, 2009 at 8:44 am


Any judge, in any case to which I may ever be a party, who makes his ruling based on his religion instead of law, will find himself embroiled in serious charges of ethics violations, judicial malpractice, and civil rights violations.
Jay wrote: “Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court itself has held: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.””
And THERE is your prime example of “judicial activism”. Oh, I forgot – only those evil atheists and ACLU commies can be guilty of that. [/sarcasm]



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 27, 2009 at 10:33 am


Cara- The bible should not be considered as a guide to morality as there are many hundreds of “lessons” condoning violence, rape, religious persecution, infanticide, incest etc. You can be against abortion- that is your freedom of choice. You can even consider it immoral. That is your freedom of choice too. But you have no right to make that choice for other women. And since “God” in the OT chose to cause the slaughter of million of babies and pre-borns , you really can’t look to that book for an answer to this question. Also, Jesus made his disciples leave their families behind. Not a lot of family values there either.
NL Lindholm- While you were getting all those degrees and immersing your mind in 2000 year old thoughts, did it ever occur to you that there are two gods (at least) feature in the bible? The god of the OT punished people on the spot and did not send down a son as a mitigator for sin. The NT god didn’t zap people on earth (except for Anannias and his wife), but rather threatened them with hell. Everlasing torture- probably the most immoral concept ever known to mankind. Also, he DID send down a son to mitigate sin. The 10 C’s, being in the OT are a product of the early Hebrew culture and therefore only reflect that god, not the NT god. Even Jesus argued against some of the old hebrew laws.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 27, 2009 at 8:23 pm


LindaJoy: America does have a Christian heritage and history. Check out the posts in 2008 about the declaration of America as National Christian Heritage week by Congress.
I don’t have bias towards what I read so I might glance over the writings of Madison. Certainly, this won’t change my perspective since the mentioning of one author is clearly not representative of the sample size of folks who existed in the 18th century. Like Rev. Lynn, I enjoy chewing on verbage from the other side so thank you for the reference. You might like reading the #1 bestselling book of all time: the Holy Bible.



report abuse
 

PeterN

posted September 28, 2009 at 8:27 am


Now we can all see clearly the threat that of our allowing this taliban judge to exist. It’s a good thing his religion is in the majority and it will be a real disaster when that day changes and the Mohammandans come to power.
This again I always like the Zorasterians. After all they were the precursors to the Middle Eastern Bronze Age Desert Religions and even came up with the Decalogue before them. Nothing is new under the SUN. Let us all worship the SUN. Then again, I always like those who worshiped the MOON. Kind of neat. You get the same 13 holidays every year, and they are evenly spread out over the 13 full moons. Besides, I like dancing naked outside. Or at least that one time when I was in college back in the 70s.



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 28, 2009 at 11:44 am


NL Lindholm- I did real the bible. The whole thing cover to cover. When I started it, I was a christian. When I finished it, well, let’s just quote Mark Twain- “The best cure for Christianity is to read the bible”. As far as Congress declaring anything about endorsing a particular religion, I’m not impressed, since Congress has been violating the Constitution on religion for a long, long time. Changing our national motto would be one glaring example.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 28, 2009 at 4:08 pm


Boris,
Your comment about the 10 Commandments being in direct conflict with our heritage of freedom of religion is the best argument that I have heard against a government official or organization posting them.
Truly the first five commandments speak directly against practicing any religion other than a Judeo-Christian variety. By posting this list, the judge is basically broadcasting the notion that anyone with an alternate god, alternate gods and godesses or no gods is somehow breaking with the heritage of the US. While true that a modern atheist is breaking with the “cultural” heritage of the majority, the atheist is clearly not breaking with our “American” heritage of rights and freedoms.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm


Ron, that was not my point. The point was that everybody everywhere, will have to accountable for their actions. If that is some sort of joke for you, then I don’t know what to write for your accountability conscience or whatever, you want to call it. That is the problem here, that people are being murdered under government policies which I feel are not only a direct action against the United States Constitution, but also, our Ten Commandments. Now if you don’t want to take the God of the Bible seriously, then I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe, you haven’t studied it enough. For if you did, you would realize that, that God exist.
Re: LindaJoy
Well, you might be able to sight the Bible quotes, or whatever that is, but the relavence of the issue is this, that people may have the right to choose to do with their body as they will, but another body.
Well, that would be a different story, now wouldn’t it.
That is the problem that there is a lack of what is right or wrong in this country. If you want to say that an Embryonic Stem-Cell or a baby within the womb is not a person, then I would say you should do some more research on the subject, because obviously, your missing something. If you take the Human Embryo and notice that all the DNA is there which are forming the eyes, the brain all of it segmenting into the different organs and the like, giving the baby viable life. Now, if you want to call this person, not a person, then I don’t know what to tell you. Seeing how that is what you are. I suppose because they are so tiny that they haven’t considered them to be a life is the problem. Well, they are. This is not a right of a women or a government to decide what to do with our posterity, otherwise known as our future generation of children.
Give yourself a vitamin or go take a walk, but to take another innocent life from the planet, well that would be a different story now wouldn’t it?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 28, 2009 at 4:19 pm


P.S. That would be murder.
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 28, 2009 at 11:13 pm


God doesn’t need to be defended. I’m glad He stands on His own merits and the ultimate result doesn’t rely upon whether people believed or not. Christian people are being discriminated against in thise country in ways the ACLU would never tolerate for people of other faiths. I’m grateful that we can still have public discourse about it, but I’m alarmed at the rabid demeanor of those who stand against it. What is evil about defending a baby’s life? It’s not a baby? What were YOU before you entered the world? I beg to differ with your “blob” theory when you discourse so loudly about human rights. I’ve never heard a blob of tissue holler in the lab. The irony of the arguments against the right to display something biblical, when in the next breath you want to display Islamic and other faith symbols to exhibit “diversity” is beyond any reasonable discourse. You cannot be reasoned with. It would appear that the “close mindedness” and “intolerance” is on the other foot.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 29, 2009 at 4:57 pm


To fear God is the beginning of all wisdom, that is the point.
Cara



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 2:09 pm


How do we remove “In the Year of Our Lord” from the Constitution so that the eyes of atheists won’t burn when they read it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 2:16 pm


Atheists — who say they believe there is no God [theirs is, itself, a religious belief]; they believe something, not not believe something — wanna preëmpt the Right to know; they say such displays offend them.
We say that porno offends us.
However, Libs, including atheists, tell us not to lookit porno if we don’t like it.
Well, we tell them not to lookit The Ten Commandments if they don’t like it.
See how easy that is?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 2:26 pm


==…Luther Martin of MD…left the Constitutional Convention because he could not convince the delegate to include some reference to Christianity and God in the Constitution.==
And, yet, they did: “In the Year of Our Lord”
“Lord,” refers to God in His Covenant Name.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 2:28 pm


==God doesn’t need to be defended.==
No matter what they say, He’s STILL on the Throne. They cannot topple Him.
He needs to be preached and taught.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 2:34 pm


==Christian people are being discriminated against in thise country in ways the ACLU would never tolerate for people of other faiths.==
They don’t realize how they further prophecy. They are doing precisely what Christ says we should expect them to do. WE should stand fast on the Lord’s side and not let them bother us. Matthew 4:1-11 tells us how.
It all conforms to what signals His coming again!



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 30, 2009 at 3:07 pm


Gee, what a surprise! This thread devolved into an not so “incredible” rant about how god is gonna getcha! “In the Year of Our Lord” was a standard phrase on all documents at that time. IF the founders wanted to create your imaginary christian nation, they had ample opportunity to just put it in the preamble. Now it’s your turn, Mr. Incredible, to explain to us why they DIDN’T!
Cara- I see nothing wise nor desirable about spending your life being afraid of something you have never seen. Besides, the Judeo-Christian god killed enough babies to make one’s head spin. Did you miss that part of the bible??? I thought so. Wisdom is not being afraid of a silly mean god, wisdom is reading what is in front of your very eyes without some kind of religious blindness. READ the WHOLE book and come back and try to seriously tell us that your god is an awesome god.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 3:33 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
“In the Year of Our Lord” was a standard phrase on all documents at that time.
—————————————
where is it in The Declaration of Independence?
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
IF the founders wanted to create your imaginary christian nation…
——————————————-
I wasn’t there. So, they couldn’t have known what I want, if that’s what I want, and it isn’t. A federal court already ruled that this is a Christian nation.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
… they had ample opportunity to just put it in the preamble.
—————————————————–
They expressed their sentiments in, “In the Year of Our Lord.” OUR Lord.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
Now it’s your turn, Mr. Incredible, to explain to us why they DIDN’T!
——————————————————–
Didn’ need to. They thought it understood, just as it was understood in The Mayflower Compact and other Settling documents that explain why they were here.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
I see nothing wise nor desirable about spending your life being afraid of something you have never seen.
———————————————–
God did not give us a spirit of fear. We’re not afraid of Him.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
Besides, the Judeo-Christian god…
————————————————-
No such entity.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
… killed enough babies to make one’s head spin.
————————————————-
Call the cops.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
Wisdom is not being afraid of a silly mean god [sic]…
——————————————————-
We’re not afraid of gods cuz we are in God’s protective custody.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
… wisdom is reading what is in front of your very eyes without some kind of religious blindness.
—————————————————
We agree that Islam, for example, should not cloud our thinking; and, since Christianity isn’t a religion, rather a relationship, we need not worry.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
READ the WHOLE book and come back and try to seriously tell us that your god…
———————————————-
Which “god”? We don’t have “god.”
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
… is an awesome god.
————————————————
“god” is not awesome. God is awesome.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 30, 2009 at 4:59 pm


I don’t know what your referencing in the above text.
It seems I have hit a nerve of some sort. I do not know what babies your referencing, since you seem to be all knowing by your above entitlement, could you enlighten me, seeing how you reference me as not knowing the Bible, or as if I haven’t read it.
It seems you are a bit bitter at God for some reason. Seeing such strong text in your earlier blog against him. Yes, there are some things in this world, I do not understand. For if I understood everything in this world, I would be God. Sometimes life sends you a hard blow and you don’t always understand it. People aren’t perfect, no matter what religion they are. The wish bone doesn’t always break in your favor. Make no mistake about it that the Truth will set you free, not a bunch of lieing blogs of misrepresentation of who God is.
God loves you Linda, know matter what is going on in your life or the circumstances which make you feel the God of Christianity is not worth excepting.
God Bless,
Cara
If you are referencing Old Testament scripture, please note that I believe that the Old and the New Testament are linked. I definetely found that the Old Testament Prophetic scriptures lined up with The New Testament prophetic scripture. I went to a Christian book store and found an inexspensive
Bible on which had references to Mesianic phrophecies with a cross next to them in The Old Testament, then I went to The New Testament scriptures which they referenced as being linked. I found that to be true. Now as for archiological studies linking the two together, there are. I could further study artifacts of the such referencing them together. So I don’t need to be shown any clearer that the God of the Bible is true. I study it, and what I found out is that the more I thought I knew about the subject the less I realized that I knew. Being humble is important.
God Bless,
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 30, 2009 at 5:17 pm


Mr. Wonderful is wonderful, not a player or a man who thinks another is always more incredible than you. For he did not realize how truely special you are. Your Mrs. Incredible, not a Miss. Clearly your Mr. Wonderful is out there for you ready and willing to marry you with roses in hand. Not a bunch of alternative choices.
Mrs. Wonderful To Be



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 7:03 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
“In the Year of Our Lord” was a standard phrase on all documents at that time.
—————————————
So, did they just quack it, like a duck? Or did it have meaning when they said it/wrote it?
If it has meaning, what meaning does it have?
“Our Lord,” in the Word, appears 85 times, and, in each case, refers to God/Jesus(Christ). Given the Christianity of the Founders, displayed in their writings, what reason would they have to include the phrase, “In the Year of Our Lord,” in the Constitution, applying a meaning not consistent with their faith in God, through Christ?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 7:11 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
Cara- I see nothing wise nor desirable about spending your life being afraid of something you have never seen.
———————————————————–
What about all the things you react to that you can’t see with your natural eyes? You see anything wise, or desirable, in that?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 10:10 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
IF the founders wanted to create your imaginary christian nation they had ample opportunity to just put it in the preamble.
—————————————————–
They also would have put privacy in there and “separation of Church and State.”
“Well,” you might say, ‘privacy’ and ‘separation’ can be surmised, triangulated.”
And so SCOTUS did. Outta whole cloth.
But so can “Christian nation.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:21 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:07 PM
IF the founders wanted to create your imaginary christian nation they had ample opportunity to just put it in the preamble.
—————————————————–
“Christian nation” is in the same place in the Constitution where you find “privacy,” “separation of Church and State” and “abortion.”



report abuse
 

Husband

posted October 1, 2009 at 2:48 pm


Despite an ‘Incredible’ attempt to hijack this thread (and many others), allow me to dissect the so-called “Moral Absolutes” in the Ten Commandments…
Having no other gods before [the "Christian" God] – certainly wouldn’t apply to Hindu-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Buddhist-Americans. Ergo, not an “absolute”, “moral” or otherwise. Certainly not in a country that allegedly offers, ahem, all of its citizens freedom of religion.
Not making for ‘yourself’ an idol – clearly does not apply to the how many gazillion millions of Americans who are slavishly addict – oops, devoted to “American Idol”. Obviously many Americans reserve the right for themselves to have as many idols as they want, so for them, neither is this an “absolute”. In practice as well as in theory.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. – Well, again, for those for whom “the LORD” (TM) is not their God, how is saying ‘Buddhadamn you’ taking “the LORD” (TM) [i.e. not 'their' god] somehow “in vain”. Again, not an “absolute” in a multi-cultural, multi-faith (i.e. secular) society.
Keeping “the Sabbath holy”. Guffaw. The NFL would go broke if people didn’t watch their entirely secular events every Sunday, which, of course, isn’t “the Sabbath” to begin with, and certainly it isn’t for ALL. Again, no “absolute”.
Honor thy father and thy mother. Yeah, ri-i-i-g-h-t, like that’s gonna happen. In a Jerry Springer America, so many fathers and mothers don’t honor their children. Instead, they abuse them unmercifully. “Honor” should be earned. Besides, how many American kids don’t even know who their father (or mother) is. Once again, by no means an “absolute”.
Numbers 6 – 9 I have no problem with – because they cause demonstrable harm. Perhaps that should be the deciding factor on what is moral or not, but these 4 are the few that contain that absolute factor.
No coveting? Why is wanting more/better things in life immoral? (Note, I did not say taking those things that you covet away from your neighbour – that’s covered in number 8.)
Sorry Jay, but you’re going to have to do better than cite a poster, the right side of which is so smarmy as to serve to dismiss itself.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted October 1, 2009 at 2:56 pm


As Boris said above:
“The Ten Commandments expressly and specifically deny religious freedom and instead demand the worship of only one particular God. Four of the commandments have nothing to do with any laws but only the proper worship of this particular God.”
Hardly “Constitutional” as your lede, er, ‘suggests’.
It bears repeating. Your desire, Jay, to see the Big Ten as “moral absolutes” is just that and nothing but that – your desire. To push your version of religion onto the entire nation.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 1, 2009 at 3:07 pm


“P.S. That would be murder.”
No No-name Cara, it wouldn’t be. Not according to the laws of the United States of America.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:09 pm


Husband
October 1, 2009 2:48 PM
Despite an ‘Incredible’ attempt to hijack this thread…
——————————————————————–
“Hijack”?? How can anybody hijack a blog thread?? Are there enough electrons for everybody? Nobody is stopping anybody from posting. You people are trying, though.
You have my happy permission to scroll past our posts.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:11 pm


==Your desire, Jay, to see the Big Ten as “moral absolutes” is just that and nothing but that – your desire.==
And God’s.
==To push your version of religion onto the entire nation.==
Sorta like what you’re trying to do here.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:13 pm


The Law which passed pretty recently, what was that in the 70’s ?
Before that was it not murder in the law?
Just because somebody made some mistake in some law case, does not from my understanding indicate that it can’t be corrected.
So, from my understanding, it is quite clear that those are people growing in the womb. Or to be more specific, when the sperm hits the egg. I don’t need a bigger brain to figure that one out.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm


In my opinion that should have been thrown out of court. Seeing how that is in no question, our posterity being developed, which need to be defended and given the rights which you and I have in this country.
Posterity
United States Constitution
Rights to be observed.
Cara



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:20 pm


The latest Pew research today shows that there is an ever-growing population that rejects abortion and receives pro-life. If I remember the news story correctly, a majority of those polled by Pew favor pro-life. This is bad news for pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice extremists.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 3, 2009 at 2:22 am


The poll says that six out of ten Americans favor keeping abortion legal. Bad news for the liars on this blog who would claim otherwise. Also a person that believes in the retarded things Incredible does has no business calling other people extremists.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 3, 2009 at 2:55 pm


Your Name
October 3, 2009 2:22 AM
The poll says that six out of ten Americans favor keeping abortion legal.
——————————————————————–
Six out of 10 of what Americans? Liberals? Probably true that 3/5 of Liberals favor keeping abortion legal.
However, http://people-press.org/ says that, on the issue, in general, Liberals are losing interest. Apparently, they tire of the fight. No endurance.
This is not good news for the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice fanatics.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 3, 2009 at 10:26 pm


People who want to force parenthood on other people who don’t want it or are not ready for it have no business calling other people extremists. We have Christians on this blog who think pregnant women should be brainwashed and sedated for their entire pregnancy if they desire to get an abortion and for those who do get abortions these Christians wish to impose the death penalty. Who are the extremists here? I say it’s the people that believe in an ancient non existent tribal deity. You know, the 8 percent of professing Christians who actually claim to believe the Buybull.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 3, 2009 at 11:51 pm


Your Name
October 3, 2009 10:26 PM
People who want to force parenthood on other people…
——————————————————————–
Nature “forces” parenthood on those who willingly and knowingly engage in conduct that is expected to result in pregnancy.
The child shouldn’t have to pay for the “crime” of the parents.
Your Name
October 3, 2009 10:26 PM
… who don’t want it or are not ready for it have no business calling other people extremists.
——————————————————————–
The First Amendment is my business.
Your Name
October 3, 2009 10:26 PM
We have Christians on this blog who think pregnant women should be brainwashed and sedated for their entire pregnancy if they desire to get an abortion and for those who do get abortions these Christians wish to impose the death penalty.
——————————————————————–
What have you been drinkin’?
Your Name
October 3, 2009 10:26 PM
Who are the extremists here?
——————————————————————–
Liberals.
Your Name
October 3, 2009 10:26 PM
I say it’s the people that believe in an ancient non existent tribal deity.
——————————————————————–
Thank Goodness that doesn’t apply to me.



report abuse
 

Margaret

posted October 8, 2009 at 8:02 pm


I love the bumper sticker that says it all:
Aren’t you glad your parents didn’t choose abortion?
An unborn child is a child at conception otherwise no one would have to be worried about it being born.
I can’t believe anyone who has an abortion doesn’t wonder what if – and there are so many ifs. The guilt would stay with one forever and there are so many men and women that have testified to that.
Killing is when you choose to take a defenseless life and it doesn’t matter whose life it is. If it were not a defenseless unborn child the case would go to court as a murder, but mankind has chosen to rationalize reasons for killing to justify it and try to absolve their guilt.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 11, 2009 at 1:14 pm


Abortion isn’t murder no matter how many times you say it is. Check the law of the land. Grow up. Jesus Christ never existed and your religion is a hoax.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 11, 2009 at 11:02 pm


“Abortion isn’t murder no matter how many times you say it is.”
Abortion is murder and murder is a crime, regardless of how old the person is. Go pull DNA off a fetus. It’s human.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 11, 2009 at 11:16 pm


Murder is a legal term. Under the law of the land, as found by the highest court in the land, abortion is NOT murder. DNA from my hair follicle is human too–pulling a hair out is not murder. It kills something living, and human, but it isn’t murder. Murder is a crime, and abortion is not; ipso facto abortion is NOT murder. Say it is if you want, but you are in error if you do.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 12, 2009 at 9:24 am


Ok, if you really want to justify taking a human life (not hair) on a legal technical term, then so be it. It doesn’t change the reality of the situation: abortion is killing a human.



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.