Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


It’s All Relative

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay, a few thoughts:

The Ten Commandments, as you and Judge DeWeese seem to believe, don’t represent an “absolute,” any more than the allegedly “relativist” proposals which seem to upset you. It’s impossible to claim the Ten Commandments aren’t open to interpretation.

For example, would there be an exception to “Thou shall not kill,” for those who do so in self defense? What about “Thou shalt not commit adultery?”  Should we give it the Twenty-First Century meaning, or revert to its original meaning: sex with a married woman (single women OK) or by a married woman? Our mutual friend Alan Dershowitz has done some wonderful writing about this over the years.

What the Ten Commandments does is provide us with a generalized sense of right or wrong . But there are many different versions and interpretations of the Decalogue. It’s just as morally “absolute” or “relative” as the Humanist Manifesto.


You also make the point that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Ten Commandments displays.  I would like to remind you of a case you seem to have forgotten, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, which was heard on the same day as your Van Orden case. The high court in McCreary struck down Decalogue displays at two Kentucky courthouses because it found the purpose of the displays was to advance a particular religious belief.

I don’t see how Judge DeWeese is doing anything different here. A district court has already told him that he had to remove his previous display of the Ten Commandments. To bypass that court ruling, he has now erected this new poster, which he has designed himself. He then declared that he will only follow “moral absolutes,” which based on his poster makes it clear that means the Ten Commandments. It’s patently obvious that his intent here is to promote his religious beliefs in the court room.  Like others before him, including Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore, higher courts will continue to remind him of the error of his ways. 

What worries me most is whether Judge DeWeese plans to base his decisions of law on his faith. I think the Constitution and our Founding Fathers have made it clear that our government and our laws should never be based on the tenets of one particular religion, not even the most prominent or powerful. 

Judge DeWeese seems to think he is clever.  I’d just say he was wrong.

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(49)
post a comment
N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 29, 2009 at 11:43 pm


Rev. Lynn: I disagree with your interpretation of the Ten Commandments. From the get go, I want to state that I do not feel as if I am stepping out of bounds when giving my own theological perspective because I have had significant graduate level theological training, am a licensed pastor although not practicing at the moment, and am working on a doctorate in theology. One’s interpretation of the Ten Commandments depends on one’s philosophy of hermeneutics. As a theological liberal Rev. Lynn, I am not surprised you do not see the Ten Commandments as moral relatives not only because of your viewpoint of the Bible as errant but also because sound principles of Biblical hermeneutics are not being practiced when not interpreting this passage in light of the particular chapter, book of the Bible (Exodus), testament, the Bible as a whole and other verses and passages that are referenced by the text.
Interpreting the Bible through a conservative theological lens, the Commandments are moral absolutes which can be clearly defined and fine tuned according to sound, Biblical interpretive principles.
Now that Judge DeWeese has put up both the Ten Commandments and the Humanist Manifestos, if only the Ten Commandments are targeted as violating the Establishment Clause, then the prosecution is in violation of the Free Exercise Clause since the suit would be discriminating against the religion of Christianity but not the religion of humanism or religion of atheism (as upheld as a religion by the Court).



report abuse
 

Jay P Ward

posted September 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm


Rev Lynn,
Your arguments are from a secular approach, i.e Thou shall not kill from the KJV vs the Hebrew when translated is Thou shall not murder. I am disappoint at what appears an attempt to deflect.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm


==The Ten Commandments, as you and Judge DeWeese seem to believe, don’t represent an “absolute”…==
So, you disagree with God. He’ll make a note of it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 1:51 pm


==…there are many different versions and interpretations of the Decalogue.==
And isn’t the Devil happy about it, too!
As long as nobody knows which is the Word of God, nobody can receive the Word of God. After all, which one conforms to the Sacred Text which aligns with the Word? Which book represents the Sacred Text and is the shadow of the real Thing?
To have Knowledge of Him and be set free, I will know Him, but I must receive Him first. Which one do I receive in order to have access to the Sacred Text and, thus, to the Word of God?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 1:51 pm


==…there are many different versions and interpretations of the Decalogue.==
And isn’t the Devil happy about it, too!
As long as nobody knows which is the Word of God, nobody can receive the Word of God. After all, which one conforms to the Sacred Text which aligns with the Word? Which book represents the Sacred Text and is the shadow of the real Thing?
To have Knowledge of Him and be set free, I will know Him, but I must receive Him first. Which one do I receive in order to have access to the Sacred Text and, thus, to the Word of God?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm


==What worries me most is whether Judge DeWeese plans to base his decisions of law on his faith.==
That worries me about Lib judges, too, who claim their own morality. So, what do you plan to do about THEM?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 2:00 pm


==…there are many different versions and interpretations of the Decalogue.==
Yes, many private interpretations against which the Word clearly warns Men make the Word what they want through their private interpretations which seem perfectly reasonable to THEM. Then, they try to attach their private interpretations to the Word, making Him in their own image. So, you have many images of Him. Only one Image is THE Image. Which one IS THE Image?



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm


“Mr. Incredible”- I do believe that you a simply using this thread to witness that which is only in YOUR head religiously (hopefully it will stay there). While I find your thoughts amusing (certainly not something to be taken seriously) they are not to the point of this argument, which has to do with the issue of the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Do you have something to add to that argument, or do you just want to talk about devils and mysterious god stuff?
I would again recommend, as I did on Jay’s section of the argument, the essay by Geoff Price (8-3-2005) entitled “The Ten Commandments, American History and American Law”. I downloaded it from a site http://www.rationalrevolution.net. I’m sure Jay ran right out and read it after I suggested it- right? :D



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm


Food for thought on the Ten Commandments from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams January 1814- “Where did we get the ten commandments? The book indeed gives them to us verbatim, but where did it get them? For itself tells us thay were written by the finger of God on tables of stone, which were destroyed by Moses; it specifies those on the second set of tables in different form and substance, but still without saying how the others were recovered. But the whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right from that cause to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.” Adams agreed with him but said he tried to live by some of the ideas in them. Doesn’t sound like either of them thought that the Ten Commandments were something base a Constitution or laws upon. I wonder if Judge DeWeese has ever read anything by Adams or any other founder on what they all looked to as a foundation of our laws. It appears he needs some “schooling”.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 3:41 pm


==I do believe that you a simply using this thread to witness that which is only in YOUR head religiously…==
Just as YOU are witnessing religiously to what you claim is in YOUR head.
==… (hopefully it will stay there).==
Not a chance.
== While I find your thoughts amusing…==
So what?
==… (certainly not something to be taken seriously)…==
Not my problem. All scoffers say the same thing you say.
==… they are not to the point of this argument…==
Yes, they are. However, I can understand that your eyes are burning.
==Do you have something to add to that argument…==
You musta missed it.
==… or do you just want to talk about devils and mysterious god stuff?==
I bring what I bring and you bring what you bring. You don’t get to tell everybody else what they bring.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm


==I do believe that you a simply using this thread to witness that which is only in YOUR head religiously…==
Maybe I’m mistaken. This isn’t “Beliefenet”??? And this isn’t a discussion that revolves are what you allege to be “religion”? Could be that what I see on my screen really ain’t on my screen.
I’ll make my case, and you make your case. I won’t tell you what to bring to your argument, and you don’t telll me what to bring to my argument. You can reject mine, and I can reject yours. I’m willing to leave it at that, and, so, I’ll go with that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 3:59 pm


Beliefenet —-. Beliefnet



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 30, 2009 at 4:36 pm


Well, hopefully that is not a bag of chips and a soft drink.
I decided to lighten it up a bit.
The Ten Commandments, are just that.
In one of your ealier post, Miss Lindajoy, did you not mention something about women having the right to choose abortion. From a legal stand point at this point, there is legislation in place which gives them the right to murder their child.
The only problem with this my dear friend, is that it goes against a persons right to defend themselves against a murderer.
For that would be completely one sided, don’t you think.
So if you are going to sight the 10 Commandments on any leval, let us start with, Thou Shalt Not Murder. That would be a good place to start. I don’t need any web sight to figure that one out. Some sort of lie to make a person sound not like a person in the womb.
God Bless,
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm


God
Made
you
What is your quest?
Cara



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:24 pm


Jay P Ward
September 30, 2009 1:06 PM
Rev Lynn,
Your arguments are from a secular approach, i.e Thou shall not kill from the KJV vs the Hebrew when translated is Thou shall not murder. I am disappoint at what appears an attempt to deflect.
——————————————————————–
Then I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed all the time you’re here cuz that’s all they do.



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:28 pm


Cara- I see you neatly skipped over the fact that your “God” killed thousands of pre-borns too. Before you try to talk about “murder”, how about explaining that?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:32 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 3:23 PM
While I find your thoughts amusing (certainly not something to be taken seriously) they are not to the point of this argument, which has to do with the issue of the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
——————————————————————–
Then, tell Lynn to stop it.
By the way, are you the block captain [“Block captain,” in countries like Cuba and The People’s Republic Of China, is the title given to those who keep neighborhoods in line]?
Given the direction of this country since last January, I wouldn’t be surprised to see you tallying up your bona fides for the job.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:35 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:28 PM
Cara- I see you neatly skipped over the fact that your “God” killed thousands of pre-borns too. Before you try to talk about “murder”, how about explaining that?
——————————————————————–
First, give us the references that YOU say prove your point.



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:35 pm


In case you missed it, this thread is a dialogue between Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, and Jay Sekulow of , well, that religion defense fund. Rev. Lynn is a religionist, HOWEVER, he would defend my right as a non-believer to post on “beliefnet” as much as I wish. And, as an atheist, I am a member of AU. So can that stuff about “beliefnet”, and start posting something about church/state. I guess you needed to just put your fingers in your ears and to the La-La thing on my Jefferson point. You and this Judge DeWeese would get along just fine.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:43 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
… this thread is a dialogue between Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, and Jay Sekulow of , well, that religion defense fund.
——————————————————————–
And people are invited to join in. I am among those invited.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
Rev. Lynn is a religionist…
——————————————————————–
The Pharisees were religionists. Muslims are religionists.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
… HOWEVER, he would defend my right as a non-believer to post on “beliefnet” as much as I wish.
——————————————————————–
This is private property. Nobody has the “Right” to post here. Everyone is invited to post here.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
And, as an atheist…
——————————————————————–
You say you’re one.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
… I am a member of AU.
——————————————————————–
So what?
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
So can that stuff about “beliefnet”…
——————————————————————–
No. Now what?
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
… and start posting something about church/state.
——————————————————————–
I’ve been doing so all along. Open your eyes.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
You and this Judge DeWeese would get along just fine.
——————————————————————–
PRAISE THE LORD!



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:46 pm


NL Lindholm- all your rubbish talk about “sound, biblical interpretive principles” is just that- RUBBISH. Anyone with half a brain can read that book and figure it out for what it is, especially if you spend some time reading the historical context in which it was written. It’s just some bronze age mythologies. There’s no great mystery in that book. The only mystery is why it is taking us as a highly developed civilization so long to put this book down and move on. I love the way religious “scholars” make a whole career out of these texts and get into the silly business of making them something they are not.
JP Ward- you are guilty of the same mistake. Making a big deal out of a mythological story about some man going on a mountain to receive laws from a god as some kind of original story to the Hebrews. Sorry to tell you, but the pagans also did that one first too. In fact, we have the actual stone of the code of Hammurabi- also handed down by some “god”. Wonder what happened to Yahweh’s tablets???



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:47 pm


==It’s impossible to claim the Ten Commandments aren’t open to interpretation.==
Translation: “Hath God said…?”



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:50 pm


Mr. Incredible- your arrogance is boring. I’ll leave you to babble to yourself.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted September 30, 2009 at 11:57 pm


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
NL Lindholm- all your rubbish talk about “sound, biblical interpretive principles” is just that- RUBBISH.
——————————————————————–
So much for open mind, logic, reason.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
Anyone with half a brain can read that book and figure it out for what it is…
——————————————————————–
How come YOU can’t?
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
… especially if you spend some time reading the historical context in which it was written.
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant to the spiritual journey which is timeless.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
It’s just some bronze age mythologies.
——————————————————————–
To the unrighteous mind, it is.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
There’s no great mystery in that book.
——————————————————————–
None that YOU can see, anyway.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
The only mystery is why it is taking us as a highly developed civilization so long to put this book down and move on.
——————————————————————–
Why can’t YOU put it down and move on?
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
I love the way religious “scholars” make a whole career out of these texts and get into the silly business of making them something they are not.
——————————————————————–
They are not something to YOU. Great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great multitudes upon multitudes prove otherwise; but you aren’t interested in proof.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
JP Ward- you are guilty of the same mistake.
——————————————————————–
He’s made no mistake.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
Making a big deal out of a mythological story…
——————————————————————–
Great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great multitudes upon multitudes prove it not to be mythological.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
… about some man going on a mountain to receive laws from a god…
——————————————————————–
He didn’t receive laws from “a god.”
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
… as some kind of original story to the Hebrews. Sorry to tell you, but the pagans also did that one first too. In fact, we have the actual stone of the code of Hammurabi- also handed down by some “god”.
——————————————————————–
But not God.
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
Wonder what happened to Yahweh’s tablets???
——————————————————————–
Irrelevant. He wrote His Law on the stony hearts of men.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 12:01 am


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:50 PM
Mr. Incredible- your arrogance is boring.
——————————————————————–
Translation: “Mr. Incredible doesn’t agree with me. That means he’s arrogant.”
You poor thing.
I never had any doubt that you find what I write boring. But so what?
LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:50 PM
I’ll leave you to babble to yourself.
——————————————————————–
You’ll be back, and I’ll be here.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 12:03 am


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:46 PM
There’s no great mystery in that book.
——————————————————————–
Which one?
Anyway…
God has made His mystery known to those who are born again.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 12:05 am


LindaJoy
September 30, 2009 11:50 PM
I’ll leave you to babble to yourself.
——————————————————————–
Too much for you, huh.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 1, 2009 at 3:27 pm


N. Lindzee Lindholm,
“One’s interpretation of the Ten Commandments depends on one’s philosophy of hermeneutics.”
Um, in that very sentence, you make Rev. Lynn’s point. If they can be “interpreted” (and by anyone’s philosophy of hermeneutics, no less), then they can’t, ipso facto, be “absolutes”, can they?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm


Miss LindaJoy, or whoever you are?
You referenced God killing pre-borns, I haven’t yet seen you print scripture and verse. Amazing
There is some sort of critical view of God the way I see it, from your part. Remember now, he made you. It is of great disheartenning relavence that you don’t find the life he has given you a gift to appreciate him for. I detect some anger at Christians for some reason.
Cara



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:16 pm


Your Name
October 1, 2009 10:00 PM
http://Question
Miss LindaJoy, or whoever you are?
You referenced God killing pre-borns, I haven’t yet seen you print scripture and verse. Amazing
——————————————————————–
Yes, it’s amazing, isn’t it. And you’re not gonna get Scripture and verse. They’re all about accusation. They’re all about assertion. Don’t ask them to back anything up cuz they won’t. They won’t give you a Scripture upon Scripture account. They are afraid of Scripture. It burns their eyes.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:18 pm


Your Name: Just because there are various “interpretations” does not mean that the Ten Commandments are nonetheless “Moral Absolutes”. Just because Pres. Ahmadinejad’s interpretation of the Holocaust is that it didn’t happen does not mean that IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Just because you folks do not believe in an inerrant interpretation of the Bible does not mean that there isn’t one interpretation of the Ten Commandments. Since you do not play by the rules of Biblical Interpretation, hence taking whatever verse you choose out of context to support your cause, your interpretation is very skewed. As a Christian, from the contexts cited in my previous posts, I believe that the Ten Commandments have only one CORRECT meaning regardless of you stating there are more than one.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 1, 2009 at 10:23 pm


The ONLY, relevant interpretation of The Ten Commandments is God’s interpretation. Either we align with His interpretation, or we don’t.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 2, 2009 at 2:32 am


There is no God. Anyone who thinks a God exists is a fool. Look at Mr.Incredible. There’s your God believer right there. ROFL!



report abuse
 

UNGW

posted October 2, 2009 at 3:53 pm


Incredible: The ONLY, relevant interpretation of The Ten Commandments is God’s interpretation. Either we align with His interpretation, or we don’t.
But who is to say what His interpretation is? You or me? Under our Constitution, we each get to hold our own religious beliefs without facing prejudicial treatment for it. That is posted under the heading “unalienable rights”.
It’s somewhat disingenuous for a judge to find that inclusion of God in our national pledge doesn’t invoke religious belief when it is obvious from all discussion here that is certainly DOES. In the Pledge, God is a nebulous reference to historical inclusion, but in the Ten Commandments His word is an absolute behind which we must all fall in line. Incredible indeed.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm


Time to exercise and call it a day. You can’t get everybody to believe what you believe, otherwise there we would be all smiling and going out to lunch.
Some people are dead set in destroying lives and telling a whole bunch of lies about you in the process. I heard some this morning about myself. There all lies, one bloody lie after another. So don’t lose heart, know that God exist and is able to do far abundantly more than you could ever ask or believe. So help me God. Your job is to stay on the right side of the track and face the enemy with the truth and keep your composure to the best of your ability. When others seek a plan against the will of God, seek help for you need support through this trying time. Not everybody will appreciate your good intentions and try and blame you for there past troubles and try to come up with some sort of accusation to benefit themselves and to exsplain their terrible treatment of you. If you notice they never take responsability of what they did to you, only what they want for themselves and what they can take from you. This is true selfishness, not to mention , one big headache.



report abuse
 

Jay P Ward

posted October 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm


The deflection was by Rev Lynn and then “your name”.
The point of my post was interpretation.
Many people including athethist use “thou shall not kill” to argue against the death penalty. The Hebrew used the word “murder” as in premediatated. The pagans usually had similar laws. The golden rule is present in many cultures, with the wording slightly altered.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm


Your Name
October 2, 2009 2:32 AM
There is no God.
——————————————————————–
To YOU there is no God. That doesn’t mean there is no God. You’re just too blind to see Him.
Your Name
October 2, 2009 2:32 AM
Anyone who thinks a God exists is a fool.
——————————————————————–
(Psa 14:1) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(Psa 53:1) To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Your Name
October 2, 2009 2:32 AM
Look at Mr.Incredible. There’s your God believer right there.
——————————————————————–
God is great, isn’t He!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm


UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
…who is to say what His interpretation is? You or me?
——————————————————————–
Neither.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
Under our Constitution, we each get to hold our own religious beliefs without facing prejudicial treatment for it.
——————————————————————–
Not what the Word of God says, though.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
That is posted under the heading “unalienable rights”.
——————————————————————–
Where is “unalienable rights” in the Constitution?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
It’s somewhat disingenuous for a judge to find that inclusion of God in our national pledge doesn’t invoke religious belief when it is obvious from all discussion here that is certainly DOES.
——————————————————————–
“Invoke”? Who says? After all, you reject a lot of thoughts everyday. Why can’t you reject that thought?
“Obvious”? To whom? Must we all accept what you say is obvious to you?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
In the Pledge, God is a nebulous reference to historical inclusion…
——————————————————————–
Really? Who says?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
… but in the Ten Commandments His word is an absolute behind which we must all fall in line.
——————————————————————–
God, in the Pledge, is the same God of The Ten Commandments. They are not two, different Gods.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 3, 2009 at 3:14 pm


Jay P Ward
October 2, 2009 9:45 PM
Many people including athethist use “thou shall not kill” to argue against the death penalty. The Hebrew used the word “murder” as in premediatated. The pagans usually had similar laws. The golden rule is present in many cultures, with the wording slightly altered.
——————————————————————–
Yes, as the Word of God says, God wrote His Law on the hearts of all. Most do not heed that Law. God will save only a remnant. Only few will find the gate.



report abuse
 

UNGW

posted October 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm


Incredible:
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
…who is to say what His interpretation is? You or me?
——————————————————————–
Neither.
Reply: Exactly, only God can say whether actions are in line with the Ten Commandments, not you. So you do not know, and are not able to judge, whether an action contradicts them.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
Under our Constitution, we each get to hold our own religious beliefs without facing prejudicial treatment for it.
——————————————————————–
Not what the Word of God says, though.
Reply: We here in the United States live under the Constitution not the Word of God. That is because, as we have established, the word of God is subject to different interpretation with no ability to obtain an ultimate, timely, answer from the source. The Supreme Court (imperfectly) rectifies that problem.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
That is posted under the heading “unalienable rights”.
——————————————————————–
Where is “unalienable rights” in the Constitution?
Reply: Nowhere, that was a personal note. That unalienable rights exist at all is debatable. However, personally, I do not believe it is right for any person or people to dictate the religious beliefs of others. Proponents of the concept of such rights,like me, believe that documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights. The focus of natural rights in the United States Declaration of Independence is expressed in the legal philosophy known as Declarationism.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
It’s somewhat disingenuous for a judge to find that inclusion of God in our national pledge doesn’t invoke religious belief when it is obvious from all discussion here that is certainly DOES.
——————————————————————–
“Invoke”? Who says? After all, you reject a lot of thoughts everyday. Why can’t you reject that thought?
“Obvious”? To whom? Must we all accept what you say is obvious to you?
Reply: “Invoke”: appeal to. Yes, I think the inclusion of the word God in the Pledge appeals to those who hold the religious belief that God exists, and I not only reject that thought, I give voice to my rejection of it. If the word Allah were to be inserted into our Pledge would that be alright with you? I’ll bet a nickel right now that you would not only reject the thought, but you would give voice to your objection. I notice you did not answer the question of WHY our government edited our National Pledge so as to make it exclusionary and divisive. Do you have an answer?
The “Lemon test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion, consists of three prongs:
1.The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2.The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
What was the secular legislative purpose for editing our Pledge to include the word God?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
In the Pledge, God is a nebulous reference to historical inclusion…
——————————————————————–
Really? Who says?
Reply: Judge DeWeese. You don’t like my paraphrasing?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
… but in the Ten Commandments His word is an absolute behind which we must all fall in line.
——————————————————————–
God, in the Pledge, is the same God of The Ten Commandments. They are not two, different Gods.
Reply: Exactly, the God in the Pledge is the same as the God of the Ten Commandments. So why should the name of God be edited into the National Pledge of a country where not everyone believes in the God of the Ten Commandments, or any God at all for that matter? “Obviously”, it should not.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 4, 2009 at 11:17 pm


UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
… only God can say whether actions are in line with the Ten Commandments, not you.
——————————————————————–
He gave me His Word so that I may know. I know.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
So you do not know…
——————————————————————–
Again, He gave me His Word so that I might know. So, I know.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
… and are not able to judge, whether an action contradicts them.
——————————————————————–
Christ says that I must Righteously judge. He also says that I must discern, separate the goats from the sheep.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
We here in the United States live under the Constitution not the Word of God.
——————————————————————–
So?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
That is because, as we have established, the word of God is subject to different interpretation with no ability to obtain an ultimate, timely, answer from the source.
——————————————————————–
The Devil likes it that way. The confusion makes him happy.
However, we are to make our Salvation sure, and, if one is gonna rely on the excuse that there are sooooooo many translations, variations, interpretations and versions for him to know what the Truth really is, HE will have to answer for that on Judgment Day.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
That unalienable rights exist at all is debatable.
——————————————————————–
Not to Jefferson.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
I do not believe it is right for any person or people to dictate the religious beliefs of others.
——————————————————————–
So, you would limit the Freedom of Expression. You would also limit the Right to worship freely. We get it.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
I think the inclusion of the word [sic] God in the Pledge appeals to those who hold the religious belief that God exists…
——————————————————————–
you can choose not to hear it, nor speak it. Tune to a different channel. So, what’s your problem with it?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
… and I not only reject that thought, I give voice to my rejection of it.
——————————————————————–
So what?
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
If the word Allah were to be inserted into our Pledge would that be alright with you?
——————————————————————–
Not at all. Allah didn’t die for my sins.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
I notice you did not answer the question of WHY our government edited our National Pledge so as to make it exclusionary and divisive.
——————————————————————–
It didn’t edit it so as to make it exclusionary and divisive. The “exclusionary” and “divisive” part are figments of your imagination. You danced up those ghosts in order to try to justify your opposition to expressions of God.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
The “Lemon test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion, consists of three prongs:
1.The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2.The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
——————————————————————–
The saying of the Pledge is not a government function. You’re not required to say it. The government is not saying it. The Pledge is not law.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
What was the secular legislative purpose for editing our Pledge to include the word God?
——————————————————————–
You’ll have to read the debates.
UNGW
October 2, 2009 3:53 PM
… the God in the Pledge is the same as the God of the Ten Commandments. So why should the name of God be edited into the National Pledge of a country where not everyone believes in the God of the Ten Commandments, or any God at all for that matter? “Obviously”, it should not.
——————————————————————–
Why did you ask me the question, if you already decided on the answer? If you don’t wanna answer, why do you ask the question?



report abuse
 

ungw

posted October 5, 2009 at 6:04 pm


Incredible: He gave me His Word so that I may know. I know.
Yet when I asked who was to interpret the commandments you said neither you nor I. Now you claim to be capable to exclude all interpretations except yours. Admit that you don’t know, and be happy with your freedom to hold what beliefs you will.
You give no responses to my queries, only deflection. I understand, good luck.



report abuse
 

WILLIAM MOLT

posted October 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm


I believe that the separation of Church and State is the reason we have so many problems in our gov’t at this time. I believe all politicians should first learn how to serve their fellow human beings in their local churches, beginning as an usher and then a deacon and when they have been morally perfected to run for local city county or state offices. Without this foundation of service no man can be expected to overcome the temptations of all those who would seek to influence their actions while in office.As for the ten commandments I believe that they are summed up in one phrase…love thy neighbor as thy self. If you fulfill this commandment you will not murder your neighbor nor covet his stuff including his wife, nor lie to have him arrested nor steal his stuff,nor coerce his daughters into pre-marital sex, or any other thing that you would not wish upon yourself. This is a moral absolute because it equally respects each persons rights regardless of race religion or political affiliation. This is the mark of absolute truth..that it is equal, to everyone, everywhere all the time, and everything else. This is the underlying foundation of all truth. If it is personally interpretable than it is just an opinion.The opinions of men are what have created the divisions within the body of Christ we call denominations. Might I also remind you our race is mankind and it is singular, AS IS GOD.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm


“I believe that the separation of Church and State is the reason we have so many problems in our gov’t at this time. I believe all politicians should first learn how to serve their fellow human beings in their local churches, beginning as an usher and then a deacon and when they have been morally perfected to run for local city county or state offices. Without this foundation of service no man can be expected to overcome the temptations of all those who would seek to influence their actions while in office.”
Oh my, like all the politicians and clerics who have disgraced themselves after touting their religiosity. Religion has not been found to result in any kind of moral perfection. Au contraire!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 11, 2009 at 6:32 pm


WILLIAM MOLT our founders would disagree with you. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble purpose.” – James Madison “ The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the articles of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’” – James Madison



report abuse
 

Andrea Perkins

posted October 31, 2009 at 11:38 pm


I love the 10 commandments. Can you imagine how life would be if no one obeyed the traffic laws or if everyone went around stealing and robbing people because there was NO law to stop them? There is no difference, God made laws to give us direction and to let us know right from wrong. I have a great teaching on this, but won’t go in to it. God did good by giving us the commandments, that must mean He loves us???
I want this to be known to the public and didn’t know where it add it, hope this is OK.
CHRISTIAN BUSINESS UNDER FIRE BY MUSLIM WOMAN IN DALLAS , TEXAS.
My friend came over last night for our Bible Study and asked for prayer because her family are in trouble with the Muslims she said. Her family own the home health care called ‘Care Now’ . Her son was interviewing this Muslim lady for a position with their Christian company. He told her if she came to work she could not wear her head dress because they have a dress code for all their employees. That’s all it took for the Muslim lady to lose it and blow up. Before you know it the LA Times and TV stations were wanting interviews with Care Now. They began to get phone calls saying that because of his attitude of the Muslim lady they would not use their company. The media are making mincemeat out of them. I feel it time the Christians stand up to be heard. Of course with this new ‘hate crime’ bill just passed , how are we to fight against this prejudice ??? Asking for help is one thing we can do. This is a fine outstanding family that is being put on the line because this Muslim has to have her way, what about the Christian and our rights???
andrea



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 1, 2009 at 12:19 am


Do you mean your right to deny other people their religious freedom Andrea? Because that’s a right you Christians only wish you had.



report abuse
 

ungw

posted November 1, 2009 at 1:32 pm


Andrea, I don’t see anything wrong with a uniform dress code (or for licensing agencies to require a legitimate photo on an I.D.). If Muslims want to protest Christian business, then certainly Christians may elect to not patronize Muslim business. It’s tough for any group to maintain solidarity except in the most egregious cases.
It isn’t a hate crime; though I don’t agree with such legislation myself, it seems to protect some to a greater degree than me. Why punishment for criminal attacks against some people is heavier than when committed against others is beyond me.



report abuse
 

Mary

posted July 14, 2010 at 10:50 pm


The big question to me is, why does everyone have “rights” except the
christian? Regardless of the situation, the christian is always con-sidered to be the one who is “overbearing” The winner is the one who
screames the loudest – whether right or wrong – 99.9 times it’s the one in the wrong, i.e., MY way not yours. (The Christian shows respect
for the other person or they, too, would be screaming)



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.