Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Happy Holidays to you, Jay!

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

I’m glad you brought this up.

I’d like to know, what’s wrong with saying “Happy Holidays” and “Seasons Greetings” anyway?  Isn’t the Christmas spirit about being welcoming, loving and peaceful to all? Don’t you think when certain Religious Right groups make such a fuss over this every year, claiming there is some sort of “war on Christmas,” that they are the ones breaking that peace?

I think so at least. Take your friends at Liberty Counsel (as Henny Youngman, a comedian only the two of us may be old enough to remember, “please” take them) who year after year put together a “Naughty and Nice” list of retailers based on the language stores use in their holiday marketing materials. The group recommends boycotts against stores that use “Happy holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.”

It seems rather bizarre to me that stores that choose to be inclusive of
all – including those who are both Christian and non-Christian – are
being criticized for that.  Last I checked, our country was founded on
the principle that no one religious belief shall be favored. These
retailers are not denying our country’s “heritage,” as you claim, but
rather abiding by our earliest traditions.  

Discussing this
with you now actually takes me back. It reminds me of a similar
argument
I had years ago with former Fox News Host John Gibson on this very Web site. We
went back and forth about the religious meaning of pine trees.
It seems so trivial to me that over the years, people have made such a
stink over calling a pine tree a “holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas
tree.” As I said back then, nothing in the Christian Bible invests any
religious significance in pine trees, so I don’t see why it’s such a big
deal. What point are these whiners even trying to prove?

Our
country is full of a variety of faith traditions. During this time of
year, several of these religions celebrate holidays of their own. I see
nothing wrong if a private company chooses to be inclusive of all, or
if someone rather call a decorated pine tree a “holiday tree” rather
than a “Christmas tree.” That’s their right, just as it is your right,
Jay, to celebrate the holiday of your choice.

But I would like
to note, Jay, the reason you and I have this freedom is because our
government officials, for the most part, have left it up to each
individual to treat this season however he or she sees fit – whether
that means celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,  or any other holiday.
It’s the government’s constitutional duty not to favor one religion
over another. And because of that, our country really can be a
welcoming and peaceful place for all.


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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(68)
post a comment
Renee Metcalf

posted December 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm


First of all, I find it interesting how people such as “Reverend” Lynn use pleasant-sounding words to subtly attack the motives of those who disagree with him. Twice he uses the phrase, “inclusive of all” as if those who celebrate Christmas are not being inclusive of all. (Actually, we are inclusive…we wish everyone a Merry Christmas.)
There wasn’t a “stink” about the holiday until people such as “Reverend” Lynn started trying to demean Christmas by using anything but the word “Christmas” in their greetings or wishes. Almost invariably, these people are atheists. People who take Christmas seriously do not appreciate it the holiday being reduced to generic terms such as “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays.” It is a specific holiday, after all. Further, I do not celebrate all of the other “holidays”; I celebrate Christmas.
If private businesses want to discontinue wishing me a “Merry Christmas,” then I have every right to discontinue giving them my business. But they would be wise to remember that it is the Christmas holiday that inspires people to buy gifts.
“Reverend” Lynn believes that our country was founded upon the idea that no one religious belief shall be favored. (Well, “Reverend”, just for your info., the country was founded by God-fearing Christian men, and they didn’t favor all religions.) However, that is precisely what is happening when a city or state refuses to call a pine tree a Christmas tree or refuses to allow a Christmas display, such as a manger scene. Such actions are not neutral at all, but disparage Christmas.
I think “Reverend” Lynn should stop whining and show respect to those who celebrate Christmas, and while you’re at it, drop the “Reverend” from your name until you are sincere.
Renee



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm


If we truely are celebrating the birth of Christ on Christmas, I would hope that we would spread love, joy, peace around the globe. The first thing I feel we need to do around the joyous celebration, is for one stop arguing. I would love to enjoy my family and friends and tell them I love them. If people want to take Christ out of their life, it is their choice. I can not turn others into Christians if they truely are deadset in removing God out of everything. Yes, I do like to bring light to the subject. If people want to with people happy holidays, it does not take Christ out of Christmas to me. For the fruit of the Spirit is joy. Stay away from people who instantly want to argue. It is one thing to state your opinion on something. It is quite another to control and try and make poeple do what you want them to do for your purposes.
Love to all. Peace on earth good will to men. Merry Christmas,
Cara



report abuse
 

Rich

posted December 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm


Renee Metcalf,
Actually, it is you who is the “whiner”. Let’s be honest here, you are just simply and irrationally upset when retailers don’t specifically honor your faith. That’s fine, you can do and think whatever you want but it is truly unreasonable to pout and cry when retailers, who have a diverse public to satisfy, don’t jump through your theological hoops.
You do know don’t you that Christmas is now a secular holiday, not a Christian holiday? It is celebrated by people of all backgrounds for a whole host of reasons. As an atheist, I celebrate Christmas as a holiday focused on family. You may choose to make it a religious holiday. Others focus on its true legitimate origin, the Winter Solstice. If one thinks of the importance of that one day that began the cycle of lengthening days to cultures without technology, it is easy to understand the importance of the day and why it was celebrated. Given that Christians tried to plant their day right on top of the solstice, I can’t say I feel too sympathetic to your plea to only honor your interpretation.
As well, and not surprisingly, you are quite wrong about the religious beliefs of our founders. They were more deists than anything else. And a good thing too! Had they been Christians of your ilk, such things as the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of relgion and the prohibition against relgious tests, would likely not exist in our Constitution. We would be just another militant theocracy. Like Iran.
And personally, I generally find most Christians to be rather mean-spirited, in spite of their continual yammerings about loving their neighbor, and I would certainly never wish to cede control of my life to such an unhappy and disillusioned lot as fundamentalist Christians. You only need look to your own words to see the truth of this. Some merchant doesn’t wish you a “Merry X-mas” and you will punish that retailer for this petty offense. Shame on you! You are really no different than the religious police that roam the streets of Islamic countries verifying exact religious compliance and punishing those you deem not sufficiently pious.
So, the truth is that not all of us share your particular faith. We don’t have to. This is America.



report abuse
 

lisa

posted December 11, 2009 at 7:18 pm


as I heard it takes more Faith to NOT believe in the true meaning of Christmas.
I believe Jesus is the reason for the Season.Our fearless leader Obama, on Tuesday Finalized his economic crisis speech by saying God Bless America. However he cannot standup and have Faith to celebrate Christmas on the Hill. Use God as needed only…what hypocrisy.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 11, 2009 at 7:36 pm


Yep, if the religious whacko’s want a war, where there was none, I know whose camp I’ll join. I’ll be saying Happy Holidays from now on.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted December 11, 2009 at 7:50 pm


Lisa,
I get a bit weary of hearing that ridiculous statement, “it takes more faith not to believe…”, etc. etc.
That is laughable logic and only shows the thoughtlessness of some folks out there. The statement that to NOT believe is an act of faith is absolutely moronic and should be consigned to the dustbin of history. By that logic, since I don’t believe in a invisible gods in the sky who blow clouds around to create wind, I am exercising a great leap of faith to believe in air pressure differentials being responsible for the wind. Good grief! Just plain sad! Americans have become so dumbed down by faith that one has to wonder if we continue to be a nation or just some backwater bunch of religious hicks.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted December 11, 2009 at 9:43 pm


Personally, I don’t see a ‘war’ on Christmas at all. What I see is specific conservative Christian groups trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. These groups are the one creating the ‘war’ and they constantly bring it up every year. I mean, how dare a business try to be inclusive to everyone…but that’s apparently what some of the people on this debate are saying.
I think these people are miffed because Christianity isn’t the sole religion touted about during this season. One can only assume that to some of these people, Christians are the only real people in the country and everyone else, who believes different, should shut up and say nothing. Perhaps that’s the way it was fifty years ago when Christianity ruled everything but not any more. Christianity is one of many voices in this country of differing believers of varying faiths.
I agree with Rev. Lynn, certain groups are trying to make issues where there isn’t one.
On my calendar, I see seven religious holidays listed. Bodhi Day (Buddhist) Dec. 8, Hanukkah (Jewish) Dec. 12, Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe (Catholic) Dec. 12, Muharram (Islamic) Dec. 18, Yule (Pagan) Dec. 21, Christmas (Christian) Dec. 25, and Ashurah (Islamic) Dec. 27. There are essentially five secular holidays observed during the month of December, as well.
This is the main reason I wish everyone Happy Holidays simply because I don’t know what the religious background of every person I speak to is from.
And, if you want to get to basics, what is generally celebrated as Christmas in Dec. is pretty much Pagan in much of its background.
Besides, for those who insist that Jesus was born during December, read your bible…’shepards were in the fields at night’. The only time one would see this, typically is during lambing, when the sheep were giving birth, which is generally during the spring time. Please, I’m Wiccan and I know this!
Getting back to the original topic, the only war being created on Christmas is being done by those conservative Christian groups who are making an issue.
Face it people, you’re not the only religion in the sandbox. You’re going to have to learn to play with everyone else…just like you were told in kindergarten.



report abuse
 

Faisal

posted December 12, 2009 at 7:21 am


“Happy Holidays” is a religious word. Look at where it’s meaning comes from:
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English h?ligdæg, from h?lig holy + dæg day
So is it really offensive to atheists to wish them a merry christmas, but not offensive to with them happy HOLY days?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted December 12, 2009 at 11:33 am


Faisal,
Another moronic statement by, well, those who are prone to make moronic statements.
Words change in meaning over time, acquiring new definitions and social significance. Any sober human in the US would easily admit that the 4th of July ‘holiday’ is not celebrated as a holy day, it is a day of patriotic celebration.
A quick internet search yields thousands of examples of the transmogrification of language over time. An interesting example with a religious slant is the word “silly”. At one time this word meant to be “blessed”. An interesting site: http://www.langmaker.com/ml0104.htm
As well, you do know that the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘voter’ have both changed over the course of the years in the US. Someone with the name of Faisal may well have been classified as a non-citizen and perhaps even a slave in the early days of this country.



report abuse
 

Rob the Rev

posted December 12, 2009 at 2:00 pm


Renee Metcalf said:
“I think “Reverend” Lynn should stop whining and show respect to ee those who celebrate Christmas, and while you’re at it, drop the “Reverend” from your name until you are sincere.”
Renee. Please stop calling yourself “Christian” until you really become one please rather than the pious, self-righteous Pharasee you are.
STRAINING OUT A GNAT AND SWALLOWING A CAMEL
We have entered another Advent/Christmas season for adherents of Christianity, and the Hanukah season for those who adhere to the Jewish faith. I find it ironic that this season, which emphasizes the angelic message of peace and good will toward our fellow human beings – regardless of their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof – is again, unfortunately, being disrupted and spoiled by the wrongheaded fanaticism of a noisy minority of intolerant people.
This minority of rude Christians make a mountain out of a molehill by picking an unnecessary fight over how one chooses to express their seasons greetings in this multi-religious as well as secular holiday season. They presume to judge and critique another person’s spirituality and personal religious faith by whether one chooses to say or express with decorations, “Happy Holidays,” or “Merry Christmas” or perhaps even both sentiments.
They castigate – with criticism, boycotts, and shunning – businesses, stores, and individuals that – in exercising their freedom of religion and speech – may choose to express and emphasize the more diverse and inclusive aspects of this holiday season. In doing so they do more harm than good to the cause of Jesus Christ. As a Christian I may choose to observe the birth of Christ with the traditional Christian elements but I have no right to coerce others to follow my practice! It is unloving and unchristian to do so!
Jesus warned people, “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). I would suggest that these folks should rearrange their priorities and make better use of their time and energy in this season, and all through the year, by seeking to live out in their lives more sincerely the relevant teachings of Christ Jesus rather than criticizing how others may observe this season. Jesus is concerned about the care of the least of his brothers and sisters (Matthew 23:40) and being worshiped in “spirit and truth” (John 4:24). True religion is taking care of the widow and the orphan in their distress, says St. James (1:27).
Christians might be correct in feeling that their spiritual values are being undermined at Christmas but it is not the Jews, the progressives, and secularists who are to blame for it. It is rather those who promote the materialist marketplace, greedy consumerism, and the over commercialization of this Christian holy day, supported by Christians who buy into it and go on Christmas spending binges who are responsible. Christians are their own worst enemies in undermining their values and the true spirit of the Christmas season.
Happy Holidays to ALL and Merry Christmas to those who happen to be Christian!



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted December 12, 2009 at 4:56 pm


Merry Christmas! I do not understand what is meant by the comment “These retailers are not denying our country’s ‘heritage’, as you claim, but rather abiding by our earliest traditions.” Our earliest traditions highlight a Judeo-Christian heritage. For example, the first Congresses opened up their meetings with prayer. Most Presidents have been inaugurated with the optional phrase “So help me God” and at times have even kissed the Bible! Other federal office oaths, in fact, mandate the phrase “So help me God” by law. Therefore, how do retailers’ use of “Happy Holidays” correspond to our earliest traditions by not recognizing America’s Judeo-Christian roots?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 12, 2009 at 6:43 pm


As for Christmas being pagan, nope. The word Christ has meaning. So worshipping a tree that would be pagan. Now, if people want to bring in a tree and put lights on it and celebrate the meaning of God, that would be Christmas to me. For, God is light. Christmas is not secular. People who are secular may celebrate something other than Christmas on that day. Giving is good in the Christian faith. So I see nothing wrong in that. For, we are taught to love and give. Not just that day, but every day of the week. If you don’t have money, you can give your time. C



report abuse
 

nicholas

posted December 12, 2009 at 11:25 pm


seasons greetings! LOL!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 14, 2009 at 4:48 pm


the christians are just jealous some of us “others” get the day off. they’re not good at sharing



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm


Renee: I looked up the adjective “snide”, and it fits your comments to a “T”: slyly dsparaging, insinuating, false, dishonest, etc. By constantly putting “Reverend” in quote marks, you seem to “slyly” deny that he is an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ. Then you have to gall to tell him to drop the honorific until he is sincere by YOUR definition. I don’t know which of the hundreds of this country’s Christian sects you belong to; but who appointed YOU to decide who could be called “Rev.”? That seems to me the epitome of arrogance, hardly in keeping with the humility of that gentle Carpenter of Nazareth. (And no, I’m not related to Rev. Lynn, and have never met the man.)



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 15, 2009 at 2:08 pm


Merry Christmas, hopefully the people will stop arguing.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 15, 2009 at 5:11 pm


And accept that the law of the land in this country provides individual liberties through the Constitution, not the Bible.



report abuse
 

Susan

posted December 16, 2009 at 8:34 pm


Most people don’t seem to know about our “Founding Fathers.” They were some of the most brilliant, ethical, and profoundly religious men of their time. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers either at the time they signed the document or prior to signing. Many more were the sons of clergymen. There were lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators who signed the document. These individuals were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches in a variety of ways. These signers held God at the center of their lives and if you study their writings you will find that they did not advocate separation of God and Country. They recognized God as the source of the rights that have made our country great. In fact they believed divine inspiration was behind the documents that were the foundation of our county. As a country we held to “In God we trust” and prospered for almost 200 years. As we have moved away from God, every aspect of our lives has begun to decline. Could it be that our forefathers were right and there is some divine connection after all? Food for thought…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 16, 2009 at 10:22 pm


Re: Your name
Even if they use The Constitution for establishing liberties , it hasn’t yet been fully perscribed.
Posterity
———
Cara



report abuse
 

Facto

posted December 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm


Perscribed? Hard to tell if you meant “prescribed” (imposed authoritatively), “proscribed” (outlawed, forbidden), or something else. That’s what happens when you don’t use, you know, “words”.
Protect our liberties, and our posteriors!
Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers used real words with real meaning in the Constitution. It is absurd for Susan to assert that “they did not advocate separation of God and Country”. How would one even go about separating God and Country? It’s ridiculous. What they DID advocate was separating religion from government. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”, wrote: “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States…”.
Does anyone truly believe that the man responsible, in large part, for the document in question didn’t have a clue what was written therein!?
The DOI underscored our independence from England, but the Constitution established law, and the role of government, in our country. God is not mentioned except in what was the common expression of the date for the time period. God tends His business, and leaves us to tend ours (IF He exists at all) while on Earth.



report abuse
 

Facto

posted December 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm


Oh, and the de facto motto of our country then was E PLURIBUS UNUM, “In god we trust” wasn’t adopted until about 1956. So, as a country, we didn’t hold on to “In god we trust” for 200 years. Sorry to point out ANOTHER error, but it’s for your own edification.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 17, 2009 at 4:47 pm


Hi, Miss no-name. Yes, I know I mispell words from time to time. I am not playing in the sandbox with you. I already went to kindergarden.
I would wrather play in the yard and notice the beautiful sunset, so I don’t get stuck in the sand with you.
I stand up for protecting children, and what do you do? Obviously something different?
p.s. The Constitution is not fully prescribed yet, seeing how our posterity is being killed by views of people who just don’t care.
Cara



report abuse
 

Facto

posted December 17, 2009 at 10:57 pm


Yes, I know that you know you misspell words. Most people outgrow that as they do the sandbox and belief in Santa, it makes written communication SO much easier.
I think our posterity will be fine, plenty of people wanting and having children. It’s our posteriors that may need protection, especially if the Catholics ever take control!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 18, 2009 at 5:52 pm


Re: Facto
Here are the facts, I have been having headaches that give me migraines which cause spelling errors. As for me outgrowing them, it would help if you gained some knowledge in communicating relevant information to the issues of saving children. To say that it is enough with what we have already and reduce the children which are murdered through various procedures to a heap of your misguided words of ending their very lives, frankly is arrogant.
Have a nice day,
Cara



report abuse
 

Facto

posted December 18, 2009 at 8:52 pm


And I think it is arrogant of YOU to put yourself above the Supreme Court of the United States. Let us live by the law according to Cara… I think not.



report abuse
 

Rusty

posted December 18, 2009 at 9:10 pm


I thought this would a very good place to leave this question & the my comment that follows. I would like to get the opinion of Mr Lynn & Mr. Sekulow on this one. Evey year at this time, its the same fight. One religion puts up a scene in government building & they do not allow any other one to represent theirs. Our government is not allowed to show preference either way.
Does our Constitution & Declaration of Indepence Represent a specific rule of a religious belief and if thats the case which belief would that be.
Reason. If it is said that Christianity represents most of the belief In the United States. Should that belief be the only one representing all Americans and the one solely included in the above question. Neither one states that, but it is assumed.
If christianity were to be the ruling party to govern lets say starting in 2010. Well first the founding documents would have to be changed to reflect this, and I dont think would go over to well. What becomes of those that do not convert or will they have a choice. Are all the non-believers going to be put into a certain area, or just made to leave the country. Why does this sound familiar. Thats right it has happened before. This time though not by a sword but by laws. I hope this is not a senerio that anyone wants to be a part of. You know I was taught to respect all religions, but there are the extremes in all that to that cannot be helped. You cannot straight jacket people into believing in any one way. I hope I never see a time in america where we are told by any one religion, what way everyone should be believing in. Im sure in some eyes I am completly wrong, but tell me what part I’m wrong in, without condeming me & the name calling.
This subject seems to bring out alot of emotion which can get in the way of a dicussion.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 19, 2009 at 2:15 pm


Re: Facto
I did not put myself above the law of the Supreme Court of The United States. I spoke up for myself in regards to people lieing about me and trying to take my children away from me with false facts and representations of the me. Trying to paint me as if I was was unfit with lies and corruptions. To the point of taking all necessary funds to help raise the children and give them a life with a mother that loves them.
I was ripped off through divorce proceeding. My x took more than half of community property and my children. I did not know that was legal. I see it as complete and utter corruption. I certainly was not going to be a sitting duck for you or anybody like yourself who can pick on a person who loves their children and sticks up for what is right. I am under God. I am to bring light on darkness and that is what that was. Taking children away from a mother who loves and cares for them for the sake of money is wrong. God help us all. My children should not have to suffer because my x wants more money and the court allocated more funds in his favor. I see attorney’s as corrupt and wanting another paycheck and trying to paint a picture which is false and guiding the court in the wrong direction so they win. That was wrong for them to have done that. The Supreme Court to me is God almighty and he sees what has been doneto me as completely wrong.
C



report abuse
 

Ken

posted December 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm


Last you checked, you didn’t check very well. This country was founded on CHRISTIAN priciples, The Word of God.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted December 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm


Last you checked, you didn’t check very well. This country was founded on CHRISTIAN principles.



report abuse
 

Facto

posted December 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm


Well Cara it sounds like neither God or the law treated you as you might have hoped. It’s fine to speak up for yourself; but you place your belief in God, what you think God’s wishes are, above the liberties allowed OTHERS by the supreme law of the land. That you would deprive OTHERS of legal abortion is setting your word above the law of the land. That you call OTHERS murderers when the law does not sets your word above the law of the land. You cannot choose God, or what you think God’s wishes are, as your supreme court; you are accountable to the rules established by this country whilst you shelter under it’s flag. If God exists, then you may take up perceived injustices with Him in the hereafter.
As for Ken’s assertion that “this country” was founded on Christian principles, it’s an absurd claim. Perhaps he meant the Constitution of this country (which does not follow the Bible at all in very substantial ways) was founded on Christian principles? Christian principles which were founded upon other princilples, and so are not entirely there own to begin with. Sounds like a brain-wash job to me.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 21, 2009 at 2:15 pm


Re:
Facto
I understand what you are saying that abortion is legal at this point and people are given the choice to do so. That is not what I have been writing about for the last year and a half. Obviously when things are legal in a land,people have the choice under government authority to do so.
My point is this, that they are people not plants and they need to be protected and given rights just like you and I. Giving equal liberties and freedom for all individuals in this country. For if we call them anything less then a growing person we are in fact giving up our equal ammendment clauses. Thus giving unequal liberties to individuals involved in our country. People are people. That is my point. Posterity is in our Constitution which is our future generations of people which we are to protect and give equal rights to. So no, I am not above the law of the land. It is just in this case the law of the land is wrong in the fact that they are protecting others rights to destroy people, thus giving way to a law of legalized murder. So as a country if we are going to protect freedom of our people and individual rights, let us protect our children as well.
Cara



report abuse
 

facto

posted December 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm


My point is, they are not people like you and I. Embryo’s have no status as people under the law of the land and therefore do not qualify for protection under the equal rights amendments. This gives citizens the liberty to choose when they wish to become parents which is why so many stand in opposition to your viewpoint. There is no murder involved because murder is a legal term. Murder is illegal, there is no such thing as “legalized murder”. Murder is illegal, period.
I understand that you wish to change the law in order to extend rights of citizenship to embryo’s. I do not wish you luck in that endeavor.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 22, 2009 at 2:05 am


The unborn will never win since they can’t speek. So we will fight for them to have the right to live. I feel so sad that society calls the unborn embryo’s so they can sleep at night.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 23, 2009 at 9:22 pm


Re: Facto
Unfortunately somebody in some science lab or something reduced a person down to a term which I suppose would be to try to take it’s true identity down to something other than a person, further misleading other’s astray into denial of a living person growing inside them.
Well Facto, unfortunately your wrong about it being murder. I am sorry to break this to you, but those are people growing inside mother’s so they can be born. I know it’s hard to believe that those people are maturing everyday into a bigger people and becoming a child just like when you were born, but it is true.
So, I am sorry that the law has lead so many into thinking that those people can be terminated and ended like a plant with a leaf they can prune. I hope that all mother’s would value the lives within them and bring them to term so they can take a breath and become a person.
Cara So have the babies and give them up for adoption if you don’t want to care or can not provide for them. Does the state provide for health care benefits regarding people who can not afford giving birth or prenatal care to their growing child?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 23, 2009 at 9:29 pm


That previous entry was by me, with a seperation between people having babies and giving them up for adoption. Unfortunately, people are not doing this. I know that I would have the child and find a way to support the child if I could. Somehow, or somewhere there is a person or place to help you with that child, either through a church organization or some government funding, I don’t know. There has to be something for a mother who wishes to have her child and who does not have the funds necessary for prenatel care or birthing procedures. Some sort of program to help her raise her child, regardless of the father’s decision to want to raise the child or not.
Cara



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 25, 2009 at 12:23 pm


I feel so sad that religious fanatics call the unborn embryo’s “children” they can sleep at night and not feel guilty about taking away legal rights and turning American women into government owned breeding pigs. You Christians make me sick. Pleas commit mass suicide as per Jonestown.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 26, 2009 at 10:55 am


Boris excretes:
I feel so sad that religious fanatics call the unborn embryo’s [sic] “children”…
Mr. Incredible:
Nothing wrong with calling them what they are.
What’s the difference between a five-day-old embryo in the womb and a five-day-old embryo in the freezer at a fertility clinic?
Boris excretes:
… they can sleep at night and not feel guilty about taking away legal rights…
Mr. Incredible:
We are trying to align legal Rights with the reality recognized by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence — that is, that the Rights endowed by our Creator begin when we are created. We are not created at birth, rather about nine months earlier.
Boris excretes:
… and turning American women into government owned breeding pigs.
Mr. Incredible:
We’re sure women reading this like your reference to them as being “pigs.”
Boris excretes:
You Christians make me sick.
Mr. Incredible:
We can’t make you anything. You’re not giving us power over you, are you?
Boris excretes:
Pleas [sic] commit mass suicide as per Jonestown.
Mr. Incredible:
No. Now what?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 26, 2009 at 1:40 pm


There are rights which are mandated by law which are unequal at this point. Not every person in authority is prescribing equal liberty and justice for all. For they take in their own beliefs systems in account when making authoritive decisions. Which by stardard of means can include a bunch of false testimony presented as truth and misconceptions of beliefs and therefore it becomes a decision based on lies and corruption. Sometimes the truth does not always get recognized as truth and therefore the lieing culprits get away with murder or false ideals.
It is our job, not only as a country to recognize that we have a personal responsibility to present the truth as well as shed light on the lies. I am, not however responsable for any decision not in my control which mandates authority to legalize laws in place which counterdict the truth. It does not mean however that you are not supposed to keep getting up and try to present the truth, so they recognize it eventually.
Cara



report abuse
 

Makes Sense

posted December 26, 2009 at 3:19 pm


Yes there are equal rights mandated by the Constitution which are not being protected. The right of women to choose whether or not to have a child as a result of the sex act should, constitutionally, be extended to men under gender discrimination law. The right to choose applies to both sexes.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 26, 2009 at 8:35 pm


Mr. Incredible blurts: Nothing wrong with calling them what they are.
Boris says: There is something wrong with distorting the language to promote your falsehoods. I don’t expect a fundamentalist Christian to know the difference between right and wrong though. They never have and they never will. Embryos and fetuses are not children in the same way an acorn or a seed is not a tree.
Mr. Incredible babbles: What’s the difference between a five-day-old embryo in the womb and a five-day-old embryo in the freezer at a fertility clinic?
Boris says: One is colder than the other?
Mr. Incredible blurts: We are trying to align legal Rights with the reality recognized by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence — that is, that the Rights endowed by our Creator begin when we are created. We are not created at birth, rather about nine months earlier.
Boris says: Jefferson was deist and believed in Nature’s God. So Thomas Jefferson was definitely not alluding to the Christian God. “The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious… One only needs to look at the caliber of people who save they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” But Jefferson was wrong about a creator. Science has shown that there is no creator and that the universe and everything in it including life have satisfactory naturalistic explanations. This is why Bible believers have waged a war on science ever since the books of the Bible were forged and then voted on to be the Bible by men.
Mr. Incredible blurts: We’re sure women reading this like your reference to them as being “pigs.”
Boris says: We’re sure women reading this don’t want religious fanatics telling them how they must live their lives and what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
Mr. Retardable blurts: We can’t make you anything. You’re not giving us power over you, are you?
Boris says: Nothing is more impotent than a Christian except his religion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm


Makes No Sense:
Yes there are equal rights mandated by the Constitution which are not being protected.
Mr. Incredible:
A heterosexual man may marry a heterosexual woman.
A heterosexual man may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
A heterosexual woman may marry a heterosexual man.
A heterosexual woman may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO heterosexual man — not one — may marry a heterosexual man.
NO heterosexual man — not one — may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO man — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
NO man — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO heterosexual woman — not one — may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO heterosexual woman — not one — may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
NO woman — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO woman — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
There are only two sexes in the world: male and female. Those who claim to be homosexual fall into one of those categories; they are either male, or female. There is no third sex.
There is no discrimination in the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that everyone is either male, or female. No one is excluded.
Each man may do what other men do.
Each woman may do what other women do.
No man is a stopped from doing what other men do.
No woman is stopped from doing what other women do.
This is equal and equitable treatment and application of the law.
Makes No Sense:
The right of women to choose whether or not to have a child as a result of the sex act should, constitutionally, be extended to men under gender discrimination law.
Mr. Incredible:
You must have learned by now that men cannot get pregnant. I dunno. Maybe you haven’t.
Makes No Sense:
The right to choose applies to both sexes.
Mr. Incredible:
It already applies.
Now…
Of course, Babbling Boris, as you can tell above, is not sold on the idea of originality.
Mr. Incredible:
Nothing wrong with calling them what they are.
Boris excretes:
There is something wrong with distorting the language to promote your falsehoods.
Mr. Incredible:
Then, stop doing it.
Boris excretes:
I don’t expect a fundamentalist Christian to know the difference between right and wrong though.
Mr. Incredible:
Translation: “They don’t agree with me, and, so, they don’t know the difference between right and wrong. Cripes, I don’t even know that a Christian who isn’t fundamentalist is not a Christian.”
Boris excretes:
They never have and they never will.
Mr. Incredible:
Some scientific method you have there; preclude yourself from ever knowing the truth, nor the Truth.
Boris excretes:
Embryos and fetuses are not children in the same way an acorn or a seed is not a tree.
Mr. Incredible:
Embryos and fetuses are stages of children in the same way an acorn, or a seed, is a stage of tree. The embryos/fetuses are children. An acorn is, in effect, a tree.
Mr. Incredible:
What’s the difference between a five-day-old embryo in the womb and a five-day-old embryo in the freezer at a fertility clinic?
Boris excretes: One is colder than the other?
Mr. Incredible:
Regarding development, none. If one is a person, so is the other.
Mr. Incredible:
We are trying to align legal Rights with the reality recognized by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence — that is, that the Rights endowed by our Creator begin when we are created. We are not created at birth, rather about nine months earlier.
Boris excretes:
Jefferson was deist…
Mr. Incredible:
He said he is Christian.
Boris excretes:
…and believed in Nature’s God.
Mr. Incredible:
Yes, the God of Nature. The God of all.
Boris excretes:
So Thomas Jefferson was definitely not alluding to the Christian God.
Mr. Incredible:
In fact, he was alluding to the God of all Which all those who are born again trust.
Boris excretes:
“The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious…
Mr. Incredible:
So, YOU say that Jefferson contradicted himself. We see.
Boris excretes:
One only needs to look at the caliber of people who save [sic] they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.”
Mr. Incredible:
So, again, YOU say that Jefferson contradicted himself. We still see.
Boris excretes:
But Jefferson was wrong about a creator.
Mr. Incredible:
Yes, he was wrong about a “creator.” He was not wrong about the Creator.
Boris excretes:
Science has shown that there is no creator…
Mr. Incredible:
Science has shown no such thing. It can’t; no one can prove a negative.
Boris excretes:
… and that the universe and everything in it including life have satisfactory naturalistic explanations.
Mr. Incredible:
Except they cannot explain many things, as much as scientists say they try.
Boris excretes: This is why Bible believers have waged a war on science…
Mr. Incredible:
Believers have done no such thing. In fact, it is the Catholic Church that developed Science.
Mr. Incredible:
We’re sure women reading this like your reference to them as being “pigs.”
Boris excretes: We’re sure women reading this don’t want religious fanatics telling them how they must live their lives and what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
Mr. Incredible:
I’m sure they aren’t focusing on that right now. They are focusing on the fact that you called women “pigs.”
Mr. Incredible:
We can’t make you anything. You’re not giving us power over you, are you?
Boris excretes: Nothing is more impotent than a Christian except his religion.
Mr. Incredible:
Romans 8:1 [KJV]



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 26, 2009 at 11:12 pm


Boris excretes:
Jefferson was deist and believed in Nature’s God.
Mr. Incredible:
Notice that Jefferson capitalized the Name, “God.” He attached special significance to that Name. Christian significance.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 6:03 am


Babbling Boris excretes:
We’re sure women reading this don’t want religious fanatics telling them how they must live their lives and what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
Mr. Incredible:
We can’t make you anything. You’re not giving us power over you, are you?
Well, are you admitting that we have power over you cuz it appears that you are admitting that. It’s gotta be one, or the other.
If we have no power over you, or anyone else, then your statement makes no sense.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 7:54 am


Boris excretes:
Jefferson…believed in Nature’s God.
Mr. Incredible:
Yes, he, therefore, believed that Nature’s God acted, in Genesis 1, to create “Nature,” reiterated in Romans 1:20.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 27, 2009 at 2:36 pm


Mr. Incredible:
Notice that Jefferson capitalized the Name, “God.” He attached special significance to that Name. Christian significance.
Boris says: Muslims capitalize the Name “Allah” which is not actually a name but simply the Arabic word for God. Using your logic Muslims are also giving this name Christian significance. Here are some verifiable quotes from Thomas Jefferson that prove your claim that Thomas Jefferson was Christian is a big fat Christian whopper. Just like everything that you say. Read ‘em and weep liar:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, saying government has no authority over one’s religious opinions, thus defining “crime” as the injury of a person or his property
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“Religions are all alike — founded upon fables and mythologies.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio Spafford, 1814
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
“Civil officials have no business meddling in private religious affairs.”
— Thomas Jefferson, when asked to issue an official prayer proclamation
“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, 3/13/1789
“Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.”
— Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822
“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“The Christian God is a being of terrific character — cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you”
— Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Works, Vol. II, p. 217
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find inducements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter (written from Paris) to nephew Peter Carr, 1787
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, 1823
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry 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. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams (1/24/1814)
“I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives… But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all of their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander Humboldt, 1813
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the world.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Woods
“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 7/30/1816
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 6/25/1819
“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, 10/31/1819
“Let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”
— Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
“To talk of immaterial existences, is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God are immaterial is to say, they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: … I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by [John] Locke.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 8/15/1820
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd U.S. President (1801-1809), letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802
“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
— Thomas Jefferson



report abuse
 

Makes Sense

posted December 27, 2009 at 4:23 pm


Geez Boris, nothing like overkill; but I guess if he’s going to lob grapefruit over homeplate you may as well hit ‘em outa the park.
Mr. Incredible queefed:
“No man is a stopped from doing what other men do.
No woman is stopped from doing what other women do.
This is equal and equitable treatment and application of the law.”
Wrong, gender discrimination law demands protection of rights given to men and women are equal. That is, the law must treat men and women equally to the best of its ability. You are trying to say that the rights protected under the law can be different for men and women, That may be true in Iran, but not in this country.
He then continued his lame reply with this:
“Makes No Sense:
The right of women to choose whether or not to have a child as a result of the sex act should, constitutionally, be extended to men under gender discrimination law.
Mr. Incredible:
You must have learned by now that men cannot get pregnant. I dunno. Maybe you haven’t.”
This statement has nothing to do with gender discrimination law. It is not required for a man to be physically pregnant for him to be held responsible as a parent. Duh.
And he finished with his usual lack of intelligence.
“Makes No Sense:
The right to choose applies to both sexes.
Mr. Incredible:
It already applies.”
Wrong, pregnant women may choose to not become a parent. They are told by the law that pregnancy does not equate to a willingness to become a parent. Neither the sex act, nor pregnancy are determining factors. Yet the law tells men that the sex act resulting in pregnancy DOES equate to a willingness to become a parent. Not only that, it tells him it isn’t even HIS decision, thus transferring his rights her. Now that, truly, makes no sense; and it is unconstitutional.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 8:41 pm


Mr. Incredible:
“No man is a stopped from doing what other men do.
No woman is stopped from doing what other women do.
This is equal and equitable treatment and application of the law.”
Make Sense defecated:
Wrong…
Mr. Incredible:
No, correct.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 8:42 pm


Make Sense defecated:
… gender discrimination law demands protection of rights given to men and women are equal.
Mr. Incredible:
It’s a surprise that you don’t know that men cannot get pregnant. Well, maybe not a surprise.
Therefore, men and women, in nature, are not equal.
Men are not complaining about sexual discrimination just cuz they can’t get pregnant.
Make Sense defecated:
That is, the law must treat men and women equally to the best of its ability.
Mr. Incredible:
It already is, as I demonstrated.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 8:44 pm


Make Sense defecated:
You are trying to say that the rights protected under the law can be different for men and women…
Mr. Incredible:
No, I’m not. As I already demonstrated, the law treats all men the same and all women the same. Both men and women have the same opportunities.
Where, in the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is the sex discrimination, given that EVERYBODY is either male, or female? There is no third sex. What sex is being excluded?
Make Sense defecated:
The right of women to choose whether or not to have a child as a result of the sex act should, constitutionally, be extended to men under gender discrimination law.
Mr. Incredible:
You must have learned by now that men cannot get pregnant. I dunno. Maybe you haven’t.
Make Sense defecated:
This statement has nothing to do with gender discrimination law.
Mr. Incredible:
My statement shows that it is impossible to equalize what is not equal in nature.
Make Sense defecated:
It is not required for a man to be physically pregnant for him to be held responsible as a parent. Duh.
Mr. Incredible:
See most previous statement.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 8:46 pm


Make Sense defecated:
The right to choose applies to both sexes.
Mr. Incredible:
It already applies.
Make Sense defecated:
Wrong…
Mr. Incredible:
No, correct.
Make Sense defecated:
… pregnant women may choose to not [sic] become a parent.
Mr. Incredible:
Unless you wanna discriminate against men, a man who impregnated a woman should also have the same choice.
Make Sense defecated:
They are told by the law that pregnancy does not equate to a willingness to become a parent.
Mr. Incredible:
That willingness not to become apparent, however, interferes with the life development opportunity of another person.
Make Sense defecated:
Neither the sex act, nor pregnancy are determining factors.
Mr. Incredible:
In YOUR world.
Make Sense defecated:
Yet the law tells men that the sex act resulting in pregnancy DOES equate to a willingness to become a parent.
Mr. Incredible:
So, you accept the law that discriminates against men. Beautiful.
Make Sense defecated:
Not only that, it tells him it isn’t even HIS decision…
Mr. Incredible:
Depends on what law is being applied. Remember, half the stuff that goes into making the child is HIS.
Make Sense defecated:
… thus transferring his rights her.
Mr. Incredible:
So, I can go out and screw around at will, with impunity, since, to every woman, I transfer my Rights to her. I assume that also means my responsibility is transferred. Great!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 9:08 pm


Mr. Incredible:
Notice that Jefferson capitalized the Name, “God.” He attached special significance to that Name. Christian significance.
Boris excretes:
Muslims capitalize the Name “Allah” which is not actually a name but simply the Arabic word for God.
Mr. Incredible:
However, YOU capitalized His Name. That, as Jefferson did, applied special significance to the One God.
Boris excretes:
Using your logic Muslims are also giving this name Christian significance.
Mr. Incredible:
Allah is not God. Muslims do not worship God, rather a god.
Boris excretes:
Here are some verifiable quotes from Thomas Jefferson…
Mr. Incredible:
Jefferson was a member of the vestry of his local Anglican church.
From his “Second Inaugural Address” in 1805:
“[We are in the hands of] the God who … led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship and approbation of all nations.”
From his will:
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
President Thomas Jefferson, 1781
Notes on the State of Virginia
“God who gave us Life gave us Liberty. And can the Liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these Liberties are a gift of God ? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath ? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
President Thomas Jefferson
“I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man…”
President Thomas Jefferson
“The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.”
Thomas Jefferson,
To William Canby, 1813
“Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus.”
“Our Saviour… has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55
“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” — Jefferson
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” — Jefferson
“Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.” –Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283



report abuse
 

Makes complete sense

posted December 27, 2009 at 11:04 pm


The law does not treat men and women equally as I clearly expressed. Incredibly stupid has no argument of reason and is therefore not worth further response.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 11:24 pm


Makes No Sense:
The law does not treat men and women equally …
Mr. Incredible:
A heterosexual man may marry a heterosexual woman.
A heterosexual man may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
A heterosexual woman may marry a heterosexual man.
A heterosexual woman may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO heterosexual man — not one — may marry a heterosexual man.
NO heterosexual man — not one — may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO man — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
NO man — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO heterosexual woman — not one — may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO heterosexual woman — not one — may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
NO woman — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO woman — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
There are only two sexes in the world: male and female. Those who claim to be homosexual fall into one of those categories; they are either male, or female. There is no third sex.
There is no discrimination in the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that everyone is either male, or female. No one is excluded.
Each man may do what other men do.
Each woman may do what other women do.
No man is a stopped from doing what other men do.
No woman is stopped from doing what other women do.
This is equal and equitable treatment and application of the law.
So, where’s the discrimination in the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that there are only two sexes in the world: male and female; given that those who choose to claim that they are homosexual are either men/males, or women/females.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 27, 2009 at 11:30 pm


Makes No Sense says:
Incredibly stupid has no argument of reason and is therefore not worth further response.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “I can’t get him to surrender to me, and, so, he must be stupid.”
Well, anyway, see ya!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 28, 2009 at 2:15 am


Notice Incredible didn’t verify his quotes from Jefferson. That’s because Christian apologist David Barton already admitted forging them a few years ago! ROFL! I couldn’t say that online here if it weren’t true. That liar Barton could sue me. But Barton is a liar and a forger because he admitted it! And naturally Incredible is completely clueless about this which makes him a forger too. Of course we all knew Incredible has the morals and ethics of a small spoiled child.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 28, 2009 at 2:44 am


Babbling Boris excretes:
Notice Incredible didn’t verify his quotes from Jefferson.
Mr. Incredible says:
Notice a few posts above that I did.
Babbling Boris excretes:
That’s because Christian apologist David Barton already admitted forging them a few years ago! ROFL!
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t get the quotes from Barton.
Babbling Boris excretes:
I couldn’t say that online here if it weren’t true.
Mr. Incredible says:
Everything you say is not true. Lies spew from you.
Babbling Boris excretes:
That liar Barton could sue me.
Mr. Incredible says:
He still could. But why bother when the Truth is on his side.
Babbling Boris excretes:
But Barton is a liar and a forger because he admitted it!
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you have the links, don’t you? Why don’t you share them with us?
Babbling Boris excretes:
And naturally Incredible is completely clueless about this which makes him a forger too.
Mr. Incredible says:
We suppose that the Jewish tradition thought you to say things like that. Well, the Jews were part of the party that killed Jesus, so…
Babbling Boris excretes:
Of course we all knew Incredible has the morals and ethics of a small spoiled child.
Mr. Incredible says:
When your mother was pregnant with you, did she live near a nuke dump site?
Jefferson was a member of the vestry of his local Anglican church.
From his “Second Inaugural Address” in 1805:
“[We are in the hands of] the God who … led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship and approbation of all nations.”
From his will:
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
President Thomas Jefferson, 1781
Notes on the State of Virginia
“God who gave us Life gave us Liberty. And can the Liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these Liberties are a gift of God ? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath ? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
President Thomas Jefferson
“I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man…”
President Thomas Jefferson
“The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.”
Thomas Jefferson,
To William Canby, 1813
“Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus.”
“Our Saviour… has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55
“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” — Jefferson
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” — Jefferson
“Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.” –Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
All anyone has to do is Google any part of those quotes to see that they are correct.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 28, 2009 at 3:28 am


Another Boris anal eruption:
I couldn’t say that online here if it weren’t true.
Mr. Incredible says:
Sorta like saying, on a clear day, “I hope lightning strikes me, if it isn’t true!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 28, 2009 at 3:29 am


“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” — Jefferson, to Doctor John Manners, Monticello, June 12, 1817
“For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .” — Notes on the State of Virginia
“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” — from “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson” by Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, Albert Ellery Bergh, Richard Holland Johnston, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 28, 2009 at 4:19 am


“Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby, 1813



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm


Re: Makes Sense
When I read your previous entry, you are not however reasoning into factor the person of choice they are murdering without any rights. Which has been established through a law in place which completely destroys the life of a human being. Thus factoring into your previous blog as a factor of unequal rights of another to be established through a choice which has been deemed authoritive by one or more individuals. In essence, people have made murdering people a legal law through choice. The point is, that this decision needs to be rectified, for it destroys people.
Cara



report abuse
 

Makes Sense

posted December 28, 2009 at 3:34 pm


Cara wrote:
“When I read your previous entry, you are not however reasoning into factor the person of choice they are murdering without any rights”
Hard to tell exactly what you’re trying to say, not unusual, but, according to the law we live by in this country, there is no person and no murder. The right to terminate pregnancy has been found to exist in the Constitution by the Supreme Court. So, yes, I’d say I factored that into my reasoning.
The point was that men and women have equal rights under the constitution and gender discrimination law. When women were given the right to decide not to become a parent as a result of pregnancy due to sexual intercourse, men were given the same right. Simple concept. Not simple enough for Incredibly Dumb, but simple none the less.



report abuse
 

Makes Sense

posted December 28, 2009 at 3:52 pm


Incredibly Dumb posted:
“Make Sense defecated:
… pregnant women may choose to not [sic] become a parent.
Mr. Incredible:
Unless you wanna discriminate against men, a man who impregnated a woman should also have the same choice.”
That’s what I’ve been trying to say you feeble minded dolt! Glad you agree!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 29, 2009 at 2:35 am


Speaking of the feeble minded. Dr. James Watson argued that the “really stupid” bottom 10 percent of people, identified through genetic screening, should be aborted before birth. A rather drastic but effective way to eliminate religion for should this policy ever be adopted people like Mr. Incredible would never be born. But then who would the rest of us have to look down on, make fun of and be thankful for our own lives because of?



report abuse
 

Makes Sense

posted December 29, 2009 at 7:00 pm


Boris, I too admit to giving points for entertainment value, one practically must these days, but it does tend to perpetuate the problem.
Brings Alexander Graham Bell’s famous statement to mind, “Watson, I need you.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 9:25 am


Making No Sense defecates:
That’s what I’ve been trying to say you feeble minded dolt! Glad you agree!
Mr. Incredible:
Only a simpleminded fool would resort to name-calling.
Of course, expectedly, you misrepresent what I posted.
I will agree to equalizing men and women when women impregnate men.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 11:07 am


Sobriety-resistant Boris:
Speaking of the feeble minded.
Mr. Incredible:
What he meant: Speaking AS the feeble minded.



report abuse
 

George E Wagner

posted January 4, 2010 at 8:38 am


First of all, When you look at, “Holiday” as being, “Holy Day” one could look at the, “Happy Holiday” issue as being an issue with why, “Holy Days” just for a small period of time during the year. Religions have a, “Sabbath Day” each week of the entire year and to me, “Sabbath Day” is, “Holy”. Secondly, We were once a, “Christian Nation” instead of being, “Not just a Christian Nation” so why not, “Merry Christmas”?



report abuse
 

Makes more sense

posted January 4, 2010 at 2:14 pm


First, we were NEVER a “Christian Nation”.
Second, how does one misrepresent a post when providing an exact quotation?
Mr. Incredible:
“Unless you wanna discriminate against men, a man who impregnated a woman should also have the same choice.”
This is your sentence, not mine. The only thing you’ve ever written that makes sense, and now you want to retract it? Proper application of gender discrimination law requires the government to say the same thing to men and women if possible. If women, after sexual activity resulting in pregnancy, can decide to NOT become a parent…then so can men.



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.