Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Halloween Continued…And Planned Parenthood

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Little did I know when I started writing about Halloween that new “research” by the Christian Broadcasting Network uncovered that witches were contaminating Halloween candy and allowing demons to be ingested by “Trick or Treaters.”  But here it is.

Now moving on to Planned Parenthood.  I think it is morally outrageous that one of the most well-respected sources of information on sexuality and pregnancy prevention is given so little government funding, and that their clinics providing abortion services are not funded by the federal government at all.  Why Congressman Mike Pence wants to cut funding even more is beyond me. Does he want young people to remain ignorant of human sexuality, or would he prefer they learn about it by finding their father’s stash of old Playboy magazines? We are either going to be honest with young people or we have nobody to blame but ourselves when things go wrong.

Obviously, I am not privy to the details of your lawsuit regarding one or more Planned Parenthood affiliates’ alleged “over billing.”  It seems that the state of California has already conceded that the rules were unclear and doubt that Planned Parenthood will ever owe anything.  In addition, the state was apparently investigating this even before your “whistleblower” suit.  We’ll see where all this goes.

I would like to add that Planned Parenthood provides age-appropriate, scientifically accurate sex education materials that I think can easily be used in our schools, churches and other community groups. Frankly, this “protest” over a grant to Planned Parenthood to teach sex ed to teenagers in Ohio is a waste of time.

As one woman wrote to a local Ohio newspaper, “It seems to me that it would be a much more productive use of their time and energy, if those who are participating in the 40 days of protest would instead spend that time and energy working with others to find ways to improve comprehensive sex education in our schools, reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and reduce the need for abortions.”

The statistics on teen pregnancies and those under the age of 25 infected with sexually transmitted diseases are astounding. Planned Parenthood does great work in educating our youth on these issues and deserves this funding to continue doing its job.

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(50)
post a comment
Rich

posted November 2, 2009 at 2:20 pm


The truth is that we all know the real reason that religious fundamentalists are against sex education is due to a plain and simple disdain for those who enjoy sex. For reasons unfathomable to me, many religious folks think sex is “dirty” and only those who have received a certificate of eligibility (i.e. marriage license) from the local civil authorities should be allowed to partake of sex.
As a parent of a 17-year old daughter, my wife and I teach that sex is a matter of hygiene, not morality. We naturally stress the importance of committed relationships but given the potential health impact of unprotected sex, we have focused on open and frank discussions on safety. My daughter is well-informed and capable of making the right decisions for herself. It is important to know that, should she choose to have sex, this would not make her an immoral person.
It is truly one of the sadder aspects of our culture that we stigmatize sex, quite frankly it is hard enough being a teenager and developing adult without the added layer of nonsense clouding the issue. Teenagers have been having sex since time began and will continue to do so regardless of the moral yammering. It is best that they receive all the information they can to keep them safe and healthy.



report abuse
 

Caroline

posted November 2, 2009 at 10:45 pm


Thank-you for this post, Reverend.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted November 2, 2009 at 11:25 pm


I don’t see how the rules could be more clear cut in a federal court case: Planned Parenthood was marking up prices and submitting fraudulent billing to the feds to receive a windfall of money on top of the MILLIONS that they already receive from the government. The only KNOWN case was California, but who really knows what is going on behind the scenes in Planned Parenthood offices (and clinics, mind you) all across America. Why should MORE funding go to an organization that has deceptively abused taxpayer money, especially since MILLIONS of Americans object to abortion and other means to terminate unwanted pregnancies such as the drug RU486. Moreover, many Christians believe in the practice of abstinence versus safe sex not only for moral reasons but also to decrease the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.
Sex education needs to be taught, but by youth’s primary caregivers. Such a private, personal, and sensitive topic need not be taught by schools and government, or what’s worse, the local Planned Parenthood chapter in your son or daughter’s public school that Obama death care is currently proposing. The only clear choice is to pose strict sanctions on Planned Parenthood for their abuse of the federal pocketbook, including a DECREASE in funding, money that could be tailored to SAVE life rather than curtail it.



report abuse
 

Chall8987

posted November 2, 2009 at 11:55 pm


Obama Deathcare? Isn’t that just a bit irrational and sensationalist?



report abuse
 

ungw

posted November 3, 2009 at 12:53 am


“…MILLIONS of Americans object to abortion and other means to terminate unwanted pregnancies such as the drug RU486. Moreover, many Christians believe in the practice of abstinence versus safe sex not only for moral reasons but also to decrease the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.”
Sex education, disease prevention, contraception and abortion availability, are legitimate public health issues which some do not like supporting. The many Christians who practice abstinence are not discouraged from the practice, nor do they represent the general population in which the vast majority of sex is performed with every desire to NOT become a parent. For these people, information and options concerning sexual activity is a benefit.
A lack of business ethics among recipients of government funds seems to be a trend. Criminality by any persons playing fast and loose with rules should be prosecuted. However, we still do business with Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, Blackwater and others, whose agendas (and billing methods) may be offensive to some. Funding continues for services.



report abuse
 

eb

posted November 3, 2009 at 2:52 am


I just did a search for Planned Parenthood, and granted the services they offer are alphabetical, abortion is the first in line (followed closely by ‘plan B’). Educational services is in the “e” category.
If this organization’s priortity is education, it seems that they would forego the alphabet, and highlight their “planned” family agenda; i.e. contraceptive and information to prevent unplanned pregnancy.
Perhaps if they were to recieve more funding they would make prevention THE highlight of their message, but it seems that selling ‘services’ tends to be more profitable for them. I don’t see them printing brochures to prevent pregnancy, I see them advertizing their services and procedures. Just my two cents.



report abuse
 

eb

posted November 3, 2009 at 2:59 am


Addendum: education services actually falls under “P” Patient Education Services.



report abuse
 

OL

posted November 3, 2009 at 11:18 am


So its “morally outrageous” …”that their clinics providing abortion services are not funded by the federal government at all.”
Its a twisted world we live in where an amoral “reverend” claims the moral highground. What a joke.
The real question is whether people have a right to engage in any activity they want without consequence – the answer is no.



report abuse
 

Arrow

posted November 3, 2009 at 12:59 pm


“The real question is whether people have a right to engage in any activity they want without consequence – the answer is no.”
Of course, consequences come in more than legal form but the “right” to engage in an activity involves legality. In turning to the law to define which activities one may rightfully engage, we find that abortion is generally allowed. However, murdering a doctor because they perform abortions is not allowed, some crazy world eh.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm


OL,
Your statement that Barry Lynn is immoral is really pretty bizarre. Do you have any proof of his immorality or are you just shooting off your mouth? Maybe we should be talking about your personal morality. Likely, if you are a Christian, I would be willing to bet that your personal behavior comes up way short on any reasonable morality scale.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm


Correction, meant to write:
“Likely, if you are a fundamentalist Christian…”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 5:56 am


Jesus was fundamentalist and intolerant. It’s HIS Way, or the highway.
Is there ANY instance where He said, “My Way is just one of many ways to the Father”?
If He is the ONLY Way to the Father, do I say there are many ways, or do I follow His lead?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 6:01 am


CONGRATULATIONS to the People of the Great State of Maine for turning back the legislative attempt to force so-called “same-sex ‘marriage’” down the throats of said People!
See? This is why those who claim to be homosexual don’t want the People to vote on this issue, and why they shop around for a Lib judge to change our culture, society and country against our Will.
Thank you, Maine! Great courage!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 6:59 am


Chall8987
November 2, 2009 11:55 PM
Obama Deathcare? Isn’t that just a bit irrational and sensationalist?
———————————————————–
Nah.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 7:11 am


Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
The truth is that we all know the real reason that religious fundamentalists are against sex education is due to a plain and simple disdain for those who enjoy sex.
———————————————————–
Then, you got no problem with your minor daughter enjoying some sex. Okay, we get it.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
For reasons unfathomable to me…
———————————————————–
We get it that it’s unfathomable to you.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
… many religious folks think sex is “dirty”…
———————————————————–
All sex?
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
… and only those who have received a certificate of eligibility (i.e. marriage license) from the local civil authorities should be allowed to partake of sex.
———————————————————–
No, just some modesty and sense.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
As a parent of a 17-year old daughter, my wife and I teach that sex is a matter of hygiene, not morality.
———————————————————–
I feel sorry for your daughter.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
We naturally stress the importance of committed relationships but given the potential health impact of unprotected sex, we have focused on open and frank discussions on safety.
———————————————————–
But not corruption of the Morals, huh. As you said, it’s not a matter of Morality.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
My daughter is well-informed and capable of making the right decisions for herself.
———————————————————–
What’s “right”?
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
It is important to know that, should she choose to have sex, this would not make her an immoral person.
———————————————————–
So, then, you don’t mind the guy down the street using her as a toy, and her going along with it. Okay, we get it.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
It is truly one of the sadder aspects of our culture that we stigmatize sex…
———————————————————–
You mean, like, elevate it above that of a German shepherd?
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
… quite frankly it is hard enough being a teenager and developing adult without the added layer of nonsense clouding the issue.
———————————————————–
I’m sure your daughter will come back later with her kids and tell you how much she appreciated it.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
Teenagers have been having sex since time began…
———————————————————–
So, the error becomes the rule. We get it.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
… and will continue to do so regardless of the moral yammering.
———————————————————–
“Moral yammering,” you call it. “Yammering” is all it is to you, eh? We understand that you don’t get it. You don’t have to go on and on proving it.
Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
It is best that they receive all the information they can to keep them safe and healthy.
———————————————————–
But not moral. The Devil couldn’t be happier.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:15 am


Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
As a parent of a 17-year old daughter, my wife and I teach that sex is a matter of hygiene, not morality.
———————————————————–
So, the only thing that separates us from the German Shepherd is hygiene???
Sooooo, in YOUR world, as long as your daughter is clean, physically, she can go out and have all the sex she wants with whomever and whatever she wants it. I’m sure she’s happy to know that she doesn’t have to be clean morally.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:20 am


Rich
November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
As a parent of a 17-year old daughter, my wife and I teach that sex is a matter of hygiene, not morality.
———————————————————–
Of course, if she comes home at some point, pregnant by some wild dog of a dude, you’ll tell her, “Well, my dear, he treated you like a dog and you let him, but, as long as you were physically clean, that’s all that matters. Now, you are free to go out at anytime you want and do whatever you want, and we will babysit for you.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:24 am


Is it any wonder that dudes treat chicks the way they do cuz-a people with attitudes like Rich’s teaching their daughters that they need no Morality, that they can almost wish the bad dudes away and wonder why the bad dudes don’t go away?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Wow, you really are a sad piece of work, just another blind cult member who would not know real morality if it was dropped on your head.
As for my daughter, I am sure that she is a much more civic-minded and moral person than you in every respect. You may try to goad me but your efforts are in vain. Your disapproval of the way my wife and I raise our daughter only serves to validate that we are right.
While you are worrying about ghosts and evil demons, my daughter will be in school studying medicine and contributing in a real way to make this a better world. The funny thing is, I am sure that even as a 17-year old, she would tear you a new one in any debate on religion, morality and ethics. She may be young but she ain’t no cultish dummy, she thinks for herself and exercises rock-solid logic. You are just another cult member, forever spouting nonsense about your invisible friend and his rule book for 2,000 year old desert nomads.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 4:22 am


Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
Mr. Incredible,
Wow, you really are a sad piece of work…
———————————————————–
Romans 8:1 [KJV]
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… just another blind…
———————————————————–
Christ made me see.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… cult member…
———————————————————–
Christianity is not a cult. What am I saying?? You don’t know the difference anyway.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… who would not know real morality if it was dropped on your head.
———————————————————–
God dropped Christ, the REAL Morality, IN my head and in my heart.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
As for my daughter, I am sure that she is a much more civic-minded and moral person than you in every respect.
———————————————————–
How would you know?? Oh, that’s right. You’re expected to say that.
I thought you said that being Moral is not important. Make up your mind.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
You may try to goad me but your efforts are in vain.
———————————————————–
It’s THAT your perception? Whatever did your parents do to you to make you so angry?
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
Your disapproval of the way my wife and I raise…
———————————————————–
Chickens are raised. Children are reared.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… our daughter only serves to validate that we are right.
———————————————————–
Well, she does what you say, the way you say it, and, so, it, to YOU, appears right.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
While you are worrying about ghosts and evil demons…
———————————————————–
Since being born again, ghosts and demons have no authority over me. They and what they do bounce off me like Superman.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… my daughter will be in school studying medicine and contributing in a real way to make this a better world.
———————————————————–
And you won’t like the fact that, somewhere along the way, she’ll pick up Morality, the thing YOU say she doesn’t need.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
The funny thing is, I am sure that even as a 17-year old, she would tear you a new one in any debate on religion, morality and ethics.
———————————————————–
How can she? YOU told her those things are not important. Make up your mind.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
She may be young but she ain’t no cultish dummy, she thinks for herself and exercises rock-solid logic.
———————————————————–
A parent is expected to say those things.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
You are just another cult member…
———————————————————–
isn’t occult. Again, what am I saying? You don’t know the difference.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… forever spouting nonsense about your invisible friend…
———————————————————–
To YOU, He is invisible.
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… and his rule book for 2,000 year old desert nomads.
———————————————————–
With all the intelligence, Science, empiricism, reason and logic you claim to have, you still don’t see the significance of the Word of God. In a way, that’s okay cuz we do.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 4:45 am


Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
Mr. Incredible,
Wow, you really are a sad piece of work…
———————————————————–
To the Devil and the worldly, that’s true. But so what?
Rich
November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
… just another blind cult member who would not know real morality if it was dropped on your head.
———————————————————–
“Real morality,” as in “YOUR morality,” “the morality of the world.” Worldly morality. A kind of cliquish morality. I knew this kind of morality, and, then, the Lord opened my eyes and showed me the Morality that REALLY matters.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 5, 2009 at 11:07 am


Mr. Incredible,
I know that you are quite practiced at being dense but you really ought to get it through your head that Christianity is a cult, plain and simple. Your religion is no different than Mormonism or Scientology. While you may think your cult is special, it is not. It has all the same attributes of any standard cult out there.
If you can ever shake off your moronic immersion in your cult, you just might have a chance at being a thinking human. Until then, you are just another religious groupie who has surrendered any chance at thought in exchange for having it all spelled out for you. Religious people are lazy, they take the easiest way through life, all emotion and feeling throwing logic and reason aside because it is too difficult. Generally, I consider the refuge of religion as a cowardly position, too scared to follow logic and reason where they lead, too scared about not having an afterlife, too scared of the pretend ghosts that haunt your immature mind. Grow up!
(BTW, you are a pretty bad salesman for your cult. Aren’t you supposed to be acquiring victims for your sick religion rather than repelling people in disgust at the example of Christian love that your really present? Maybe you need to go pray for forgiveness for your abject failings.)



report abuse
 

rwahrens

posted November 5, 2009 at 11:16 am


“A kind of cliquish morality. I knew this kind of morality, and, then, the Lord opened my eyes and showed me the Morality that REALLY matters.”
Uh, hate to tell you, but those wonderful christian morals? Nothing new, they were kinda here before christ, he really didn’t add anything at all. It’s christian morals that are “cliquish”, since they seem to exclude the rest of the world somehow. That’s all the christian church added – intolerance. Somehow, those of us that aren’t religious seem to be a lot more tolerant than you are.
Funny how that works out…



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 5, 2009 at 11:41 am


Mr. Incredible,
Another BTW for your meager brain and reasoning abilities:
You wrote -” thought you said that being Moral is not important.”
You see, that is only what you thought in that brain of yours that cannot distinguish reality from fantasy.
In fact, I never said morality is unimportant, it is the only important thing. What I said was that sex is not a matter of morality, it isn’t. If you happen to believe in some petty god or magic wizard that keeps track of everyone’s genitalia, well, that would be your problem.
So, I know facts are meaningless to you but maybe you should try not to invent things. Oh, that’s right, you are a cult member, that is your stock in trade.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 11:44 am


rwahrens
November 5, 2009 11:16 AM
“A kind of cliquish morality. I knew this kind of morality, and, then, the Lord opened my eyes and showed me the Morality that REALLY matters.”
Uh, hate to tell you, but those wonderful christian morals? Nothing new, they were kinda here before christ, he really didn’t add anything at all.
———————————————————–
It’s cuz God put them there. Since Jesus was God on Earth, He didn’t need to add anything that He already put in place before the foundation of the world.
rwahrens
November 5, 2009 11:16 AM
It’s christian morals that are “cliquish”, since they seem to exclude the rest of the world somehow.
———————————————————–
They don’t exclude anybody who doesn’t want to be excluded. You believe in the Right to choose, don’t you?
rwahrens
November 5, 2009 11:16 AM
That’s all the christian church added – intolerance.
———————————————————–
Yes, Jesus was intolerant.
rwahrens
November 5, 2009 11:16 AM
Somehow, those of us that aren’t religious seem to be a lot more tolerant than you are.
———————————————————–
Like now?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 5, 2009 at 11:52 am


Yes, Jesus was intolerant.
Boris and intolerance is an imperfection. So thanks for admitting Jesus wasn’t perfect after all. Put your foot in your mouth much do you Mr. Incredibly Bad Liar?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 12:06 pm


Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Mr. Incredible,
… you really ought to get it through your head that Christianity is a cult…
———————————————————–
I can’t entertain what isn’t true.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Your religion…
———————————————————–
I don’t have a religion. I have relationship with God or Christ. Scoffers don’t understand that. They can’t.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… is no different than Mormonism or Scientology.
———————————————————–
Scoffers don’t know how to tell the difference.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
While you may think your cult is special, it is not.
———————————————————–
That’s cuz I’m not part of a cult, rather our relationship with God through Christ.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
It has all the same attributes of any standard cult out there.
———————————————————–
How come you confess the same things the Devil does?
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
If you can ever shake off your moronic immersion in your cult…
———————————————————–
I can’t shake off what I don’t have.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… you just might have a chance at being a thinking human.
———————————————————–
I already am, thanks to God through Christ.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Until then, you are just another religious groupie who has surrendered any chance at thought in exchange for having it all spelled out for you.
———————————————————–
In fact, God, through Christ, cleared my thought.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Religious people are lazy…
———————————————————–
It’s a good thing I’m not religious.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… they take the easiest way through life…
———————————————————–
Jesus said that His burden is light. I agree.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… all emotion and feeling…
———————————————————–
Not at all. God calls us to reason with Him. That we do.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… throwing logic and reason aside…
———————————————————–
We embrace it.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… because it is too difficult.
———————————————————–
Jesus said that His burden is light. We agree with Him.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Generally, I consider the refuge of religion as a cowardly position…
———————————————————–
Me, too. Islam, a religion, is the refuge of the cowardly. It doesn’t apply to me cuz Christianity is not a religion.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… too scared…
———————————————————–
God did not give us the spirit of fear.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… to follow logic and reason where they lead…
———————————————————–
Logic and reason helped lead us to through Christ Erie at
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… too scared about not having an afterlife…
———————————————————–
God did not give us a spirit of fear. Plus I’m not worried about having an afterlife cuz I’m guaranteed it with Him.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… too scared of the pretend ghosts…
———————————————————–
God did not give us a spirit of fear. Ghosts and demons have no effect on us. We give them no authority. Just as we give you no authority.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… that haunt your immature mind.
———————————————————–
2 Timothy 1:7
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Grow up!
———————————————————–
Already done, in Christ!
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
(BTW, you are a pretty bad salesman for your cult.
———————————————————–
The Devil says that, too. Funny that you always confess with the Devil says.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Aren’t you supposed to be acquiring victims for your sick religion…
———————————————————–
I don’t have a religion. I have a relationship with God through Christ.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… rather than repelling people…
———————————————————–
I’m not repelling anyone who isn’t predisposed to repel themselves. They are responsible for their own decisions. You’re not saying that I have power over them, are you? And, why don’t I have power over you?
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
… in disgust at the example of Christian love that your really present?
———————————————————–
Scoffers know nothing about Christian love.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Maybe you need to go pray for forgiveness for your abject failings.)
———————————————————–
Already done. Already saved.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 12:10 pm


Boris
November 5, 2009 11:52 AM
Yes, Jesus was intolerant.
thanks for admitting Jesus wasn’t perfect after all.
———————————————————–
Of course, scoffers need to misrepresent.
The fact is that saying that Jesus was intolerant has nothing to do with imperfection. It has to do with the fact that Jesus said that He is the ONLY Way to the Father. He rejects other ways. That’s not imperfection. That’s the Truth of the Father, through the Son.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 12:16 pm


Rich
November 5, 2009 11:41 AM
Mr. Incredible,
… sex is not a matter of morality, it isn’t.
———————————————————–
To YOU, it isn’t. That’s the problem.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:41 AM
I know facts are meaningless to you…
———————————————————–
Translation: “I know MY ‘facts’ are meaningless to you…”
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:41 AM
… but maybe you should try not to invent things.
———————————————————–
I don’t.
Rich
November 5, 2009 11:41 AM
… you are a cult member…
———————————————————–
Except that I’m not.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 5, 2009 at 2:11 pm


Deathcare, well if it involves spending U.S. tax dollars to murder people through Embryonic Stem-Cell research. Or, for the instance of referring or actual murder through abortion action involving legalized murder laws, then the answer would be yes.
I could think of better things to be doing then murdering people through policies and actions of law making choices, can’t you?
Mrs. Incredible



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 5, 2009 at 6:35 pm


There you go again, with that phrase “murdering people”. It is totally inaccurate. Ignorance and intolerance are equally offensive and repugnant.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 5, 2009 at 7:14 pm


Your name distorting the language, calling things what they are not is the only way Christians can promote their lies. They’ve been brainwashed by their cult leaders with this Christianese yet they insist they aren’t members of a cult. No one in a cult recognizes the way they’ve been brainwashed until they leave it. Check out all the ex-Christian sites and books there are.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 5, 2009 at 8:24 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Wow, you sure say a whole lot of stuff. Not surprisingly, none of it can be proved. Your yammerings about Jesus have about as much weight as someone yammering about Paul Bunyan. When it comes to quoting bible verses, don’t bother. I never bother to look them up, posting a bible verse makes about as much sense a pointing to a Gandalf quote from the Lord of the Rings, just another fantasy book.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 5, 2009 at 10:51 pm


Re:ignorance and intolerance in reference to murdering people.
The ignorance and intolerance should be used to describe possibly the actual murderer or murder itself.
The day you downgrade people into some sort of living cell membrane, is the day you are ignorant. Now for intolerance, that should be shown toward the actual event.
It is not brainwashing to protect our children of our country. They are children you know. So don’t kid yourself into thinking just because their brain and vocal abilities have not been fully developed that they are not worthy of life like you or I.
Mrs. Incredible



report abuse
 

nicholas

posted November 5, 2009 at 11:10 pm


Dudes? Chicks?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 7, 2009 at 6:35 pm


Re Nicholas:
Dudes? and Chicks?
That’s the deal, they are dudes and chicks.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 8, 2009 at 3:41 am


“The day you downgrade people into some sort of living cell membrane, is the day you are ignorant. Now for intolerance, that should be shown toward the actual event.”
It is not a downgrade to be “some sort of living cell membrane”, it is what we are. I’m quite pleased my molecules are arranged into human form (though I’m aware old age can be a byotch); a fine example of evolution, but not without drawbacks.
The intolerance issues from those who refuse to accept that the law of land allows more liberty than they (or their religion) would allow. Tough beans, man’s wisdom finally reached the level of knowing that free citizens can, and should, decide when to bring forth offspring onto the planet. Having sex does not equate to deciding to become a parent for modern mankind.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 9, 2009 at 3:11 pm


What I meant was this: To downgrade humen life into some sort of unhumen living cell membrane is wrong. That is my point. As if people are not people and you can chop them up into little pieces as if they were a plant or a sponge or something.
That is my point!
As for people to be given the choice under legal law to provide for deathcare or public funding for Embryonic Stem-Cell research, frankly I think these actions should be completely destroyed by legal proceedings to protect people. These laws are completely against The United States Constitution of our posterity being defended and given rights like you and I.
So I will look to people who protect people for a common good, wrather thans those who choose to downgrade humen life into a blob of tissue for resail and science exsperiments.
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 10, 2009 at 12:52 am


“As for people to be given the choice under legal law to provide for deathcare or public funding for Embryonic Stem-Cell research, frankly I think these actions should be completely destroyed by legal proceedings to protect people. These laws are completely against The United States Constitution of our posterity being defended and given rights like you and I.”
I think that is crazy. I allow for difference of opinion, and find myself supporting the opposite position. I sympathize with you to a degree, that people being allowed to behave in ways that you, personally, find wrongful is a cause worth seeking redress. The problem is, your position wrongfully imposes your will over the Supreme Court of the United States. You seek to super-impose your thinking onto everyone else, whereas I embrace the liberties reserved for the people. Please don’t insist it is the will an almighty being which you uphold, it’s crap. Okay? You don’t wanna look at that probability, fine, stay dumb and die happy, but don’t foist it on me. It won’t do. And, what is this other about “our posterity being defended” being in an article of the constitution? Refer me as to where, ungw.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 10, 2009 at 2:38 pm


The Supreme Court is at this point putting into law that it is legal through abortion to murder people. Which is against The United States Constitution. This has nothing to do with religion or my personal will. It does however indicate you have a personal will in killing Embryonic Stem-Cell children as well as letting others decide to murder their prosterity. In any case, they are still our posterity. Since when is The Supreme Court able to rule over The United States Constitution? Embryonic Stem-Cell Posterity are being murdered. This too, is against The Constitution. Is that the law that our government and courts can go against our very own Constitution? Is that not why The Constitution was written to keep our government, courts and president in check? That way they or he or she is not a dictator or dictatorship of their own agenda and making our very own Constitution obsolete? Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm


“The Supreme Court is at this point putting into law that it is legal through abortion to murder people.”
Incorrect, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, does not recognize embryo’s or most fetuses as “people”. Murder is legal term, abortion and stem cell research are legal–ipso facto, neither abortion nor stem cell research is murder.
“Which is against The United States Constitution.”
Again, incorrect. You neglected to cite WHERE in the articles of the constitution you find this (because it isn’t there), so I prefer to take the decision of the SCOTUS over your opinion because it is their JOB to uphold the Constitution.
“Embryonic Stem-Cell Posterity are being murdered. This too, is against The Constitution.”
Again, not murder, not against the Constitution. Our descendants are comprised of citizens, people, not pre-people. No murder, no constitutional infraction; just…LIBERTY.



report abuse
 

Daniel Webb

posted November 11, 2009 at 3:50 pm


“Does he want young people to remain ignorant of human sexuality, or would he prefer they learn about it by finding their father’s stash of old Playboy magazines?”
There is so much wrong with this statement I’m not even sure if I can dissect it. But I will try.
First: Apparently Mr. Lynn is assuming that young people only learn about human sexuality from programs outside the family. How about all the parents who are doing their job and teaching their children? It is the parents who need to be teaching their children, not outside programs; especially ones funded by the government.
Second: Is Mr. Lynn assuming that all fathers have a stash of old Playboy magazines? That is not true.
That whole statement was chalk full of connotations and presuppositions that are simply false.



report abuse
 

Navel8

posted December 4, 2009 at 4:10 pm


The problem with leaving sex ed. to parents is, put simply, the demonstrable fact that a significant majority of parents are NOT doing their jobs in this regard. If they were, our kids would know about birth control, about preventing unwanted pregnancies and preventing STDs. They don’t – as witnessed by our newly soaring rate of teen pregnancies and the staggering fact that nearly 1/4 of all young girls in this country has contracted an STD. Too many parents respond to their children’s maturation into sexual beings by a). closing their eyes and whistling Dixie, and/or b). saying “Don’t do it!” Newsflash, folks: when hormones are raging, even the most well-behaved and “moral” kid can make a mistake. Do you want your kids to suffer lifelong consequences due to preventable ignorance, or do you want them to have the knowledge they require to behave responsibly if and when they DO decide to have sex? Thinking that teaching them about sexual safety and responsibility = giving them a license to have sex makes about as much sense as saying that teaching them the details of gun safety means they’re going to go out and shoot someone. The fear of sex and frank, honest, adult discussions about sex and its consequences is a Puritanical cancer in our society.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 5, 2009 at 9:16 am


Rich
November 5, 2009 8:24 PM
Mr. Incredible,
Wow, you sure say a whole lot of stuff.
———————————————————–
Taxes your giant intellect, huh.
Rich
November 5, 2009 8:24 PM
Not surprisingly, none of it can be proved.
———————————————————–
Not to YOU, anyway.
Rich
November 5, 2009 8:24 PM
Your yammerings about Jesus have about as much weight as someone yammering about Paul Bunyan.
———————————————————–
1 Corinthians 2:14
Rich
November 5, 2009 8:24 PM
When it comes to quoting bible verses, don’t bother.
———————————————————–
Don’t worry, it’s no bother. It’s WWAAAAYYYY easier than you think.
Rich
November 5, 2009 8:24 PM
I never bother to look them up…
———————————————————–
However, somebody out there does. And, so, I post past you.
Rich
November 5, 2009 8:24 PM
… posting a bible verse makes about as much sense a pointing to a Gandalf quote from the Lord of the Rings, just another fantasy book.
———————————————————–
1 Corinthians 2:14



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 5, 2009 at 9:25 am


^^not against the Constitution^^
Except that that the Constitution secures the blessings of liberty to the Founders’ posterity; and, so, the Framers intended for their posterity to live. Posterity is not posterity if it doesn’t live.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 5, 2009 at 9:34 am


^^Our descendants are comprised of citizens, people, not pre-people.^^
Jefferson says that we get the Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at the very time we are created.
When is that? When are we created? Conception? Birth? When you say so?
When is a woman pregnant? Conception? Birth? When the woman says so? When the doctor says so? When you say so?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 5, 2009 at 9:40 am


nicholas
November 5, 2009 11:10 PM
Dudes? Chicks?
———————————-
Yeah, that’s right.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 5, 2009 at 10:49 pm


Rich
November 5, 2009 8:24 PM
When it comes to quoting bible verses, don’t bother. I never bother to look them up…
———————————————————–
That’s cuz, if you do, your eyes will burn.



report abuse
 

Rapnsum

posted December 15, 2009 at 10:56 am


You really need to get a copy of a new documentary about Planned Parenthood called: Maafa21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America. This film shows with stunning documentation the racist and eugenic agenda of abortion. Maafa21 is full of original quotes and audio of these racist/eugenic Sanger founders ranting their hatred. A worth see movie. It is over 2 hours long. View the clip here: http://www.maafa21.com



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 1:53 pm


Although I believe Planned Parenthood should receive government funds for the programs they perform, I do not feel government funds should pay for abortions. I consider myself a more moderate conservative but hold pro-choice views. However it should not be a responsibility of the government nor the taxpayers to pay for these operations. I realize teen pregnancies have increased but if two people decide to engage in intercourse, they should be held responsible if a pregnancy results. It should not be a responsibility to taxpayers to fund the operation that is the result of a decision made by 2 people. If the mother’s health is at risk and financial problems arise then I believe the government should be there for financial support. However, if a teen wants an abortion because the kid would present a burden the government should have no responsibility to pay for these irresponsible actions of the two. Were taught all our lives that you are bound to the consequences of your actions and in no way is a teen pregnancy in any way different. However, I do strongly believe in the funding of preventive and educational programs that will aid in the prevention of teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.



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.