Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Keep the Faith & the Ten Commandments Poster

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

 

I’m surprised you are not applauding the first year record of President Obama’s White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  The White House touts its first year accomplishments and says it has “brought people together across religious lines” and was successful in getting the federal government to partner with faith-based and other nonprofit organizations to “better serve all Americans.”  Isn’t that what you want, Barry?

 

I find it interesting that even with President Obama at the helm, a recent poll indicates that most Americans – 69% – still support government-funding for faith-based initiatives started under the Bush Administration and say they favor allowing churches and other houses of worship, along with other organizations, to apply for government funding to provide social services such as job training or drug treatment counseling.

Barry, instead of dismantling a faith-based system that’s been effective and beneficial, as you suggest, why not expand the work of the office – address some of the tough issues facing America – issues like reducing abortions and strengthening families.

 

I want to take a moment to address an ongoing legal battle underway – one that you are involved in – where we represent Ohio Common Pleas Court Judge James DeWeese who simply wants to display in his courtroom a poster that includes the Ten Commandments as part of an exhibit on legal philosophy.  

 

We’ve just filed our final reply brief in our appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  We’re appealing a ruling from last October that declared the poster unconstitutional and issued an injunction prohibiting its display.

 

For nearly a decade now, the ACLU has been trying to silence Judge DeWeese’s expression of his legal philosophy.  That philosophy, which holds that a society’s legal system must rest on moral absolutes as opposed to moral relativism, and that abandonment of moral absolutes leads to societal breakdown and chaos, is the same philosophy that was held by the founders of this nation. 

 

To say, as the ACLU does in this case, that a judge may not espouse such a view because it is ‘religious’ is to adopt an erroneous and timeworn interpretation of the First Amendment that is not based on the words, the history or the Founders’ understanding of the Constitution.

 

At issue is a poster designed to illustrate Judge DeWeese’s legal philosophy. The poster features two columns of principles or precepts intended to show the contrast between legal philosophies based on moral absolutes and moral relativism. The judge used a version of the Ten Commandments as symbolic of moral absolutes, and a set of statements from sources such as the Humanist Manifesto as symbolic of moral relativism.

 

In a our initial brief filed in December, we argue that the ACLU lacks legal standing in the case, that the lower court erred in determining that the display violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and violates articles of the Ohio Constitution, and contends that the Judge’s display is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

 

The brief contends that Judge DeWeese’s display is constitutional:  “Neither DeWeese’s discussion of the contrast between legal philosophies based on moral absolutes as opposed to moral relativism, nor his use of the Decalogue as a means to illustrate that contrast bespeak a constitutionally problematic religious purpose,” the brief argues.  “Moreover, a reasonable observer of the poster would view the poster as a statement about legal philosophy, morality, and ethics, not theology or religion.”

 

Barry, I now that you are opposed to this display and your organization has filed an amicus brief supporting the ACLU’s position in this case.  In your brief, you attempt to cast Judge DeWeese as part of what you appear to believe is a vast right-wing conspiracy – to coin a phrase – that seeks to “dress religious doctrine in secular clothing.”

 

We address your argument in our reply brief “They (Americans United) want this court to infer an unconstitutional purpose on DeWeese’s part from a review of cases about evolution, Bible classes and schools, as well as other cases in which DeWeese has had not the slightest involvement.  According to the amici, DeWeese was present (in spirit at least) at the Scopes Trial and his poster is just another ploy to spread the dark cloud of religious fundamentalism . . . This sort of guilt by association (even where evidence of such association is non-existent) is no substitute for proper analysis of evidence in accordance with established rules . . . It has no place in a proper analysis of the claims and defenses in this case.”

 

Barry, come on – let’s get real.  

 

Judges not only have the right, but are positively encouraged by the Code of Judicial Conduct, to write, speak, lecture, and teach concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. 

 

Judge DeWeese’s poster falls well within acceptable boundaries of judicial freedom of speech and should remain on display for all to see.

 

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

 

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(125)
post a comment
Ken H.

posted February 8, 2010 at 10:49 am


What our current “leaders” fail to realize is that the 10 Commandments are a set of rules for all of us to follow and adhere to. Our nation was started by Godly men, although not perfect, but mean that put their faith and trust in the Lord. Our founding fathers attended church regularly and faithfully. All governemnt sessions were started with prayer. Our nation is hurting because we keep turning our backs to God. O soul, are you weary and troubled?
No light in the darkness you see? There’s light for a look at the Savior, And life more abundant and free! Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face, And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, In the light of His glory and grace.



report abuse
 

John

posted February 8, 2010 at 12:13 pm


“Moral Absolutes”????? I wonder how many Christians really believe the 10 Commandments are “Moral Absolutes”??? Thou shall not kill??? How many Christians support the death penalty?? or perhaps the various wars we started??? Moral Absolutes???



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 1:05 pm


I agree with Ken. As a Chinese, I’m so shamed of many Americans who turned their backs to God who has been blessing and loving your country. I believe a nation without God is nothing. Repent, America!



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted February 8, 2010 at 1:31 pm


“10 Commandments are a set of rules for all of us to follow and adhere to.”
Hardly, there is no reason to follow them. Morals are not based on the Christianity, in spite of their assumption of it.
I, for one, have my Gods and don’t need or want the Christian interpretation of deity. We are a secular society in spite of the attempt of some conservative RR groups to make it a theocracy.
If Jesus works for you fine, but for man of us, our Gods are just fine!



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted February 8, 2010 at 1:33 pm


last sentence should read: If Jesus works for you, fine, but for many of us, our Gods are just fine. We have no reason to follow another religions laws.



report abuse
 

Nuhn

posted February 8, 2010 at 3:18 pm


Good thing that Sekulow is a politician and not a spiritual person. His arguments for the Decalogue being the basis of our judicial laws is complete nonsense.
Please show me where in US jurisprudence there is any law based on “I am your God, thou shall have no other gods before me.” or “Honor your mother and father” or my absolute favorite “Honor the Sabbath”. I really like that one cause this here Christian nation that Jay is so fond of telling us we live in pays people extra for working on Sunday’s. Ever heard of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Jay. You know the one that allows Americans to violate the Mosaic laws that you nonsensically keep telling us our laws are based on. I don’t think so!
I really like that part where Congress passes laws to violate the Ten Commandments. Of course, they probably wouldn’t if they actually knew any of the Ten Commandments. That is really the most crazy part of your whole argument. The ones who keep going around saying our law is based on Bronze Age Rules don’t even know what those rules even are.
Of course Jay, I expect you to endorse the Government funding of religion. You naturally are so discriminatory and by funding discriminatory religious organizations, you and your fellow irreligious cohorts can discriminate against LGBTs and women and Jews and Moslims or anyone you wish.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted February 8, 2010 at 4:46 pm


Come on Jay. The judge’s job is to judge cases, not to explain his personal philosphy. You claim that any reasonable person would see this is just an educational poster. But you know damn well it isn’t. The last reasonable person who looked at it said it looked an awful lot like another lame excuse for trying to pull off what that semi-literate judge in Alabama did: use the Ten Commandments for his own personal gain. Absolutely (pun intended) nothing is gained judicially by the presence of the poster, period. The Constitution of the United States is very clear: the ultimate authority in this country rests with “We, the People…” and “under God” doesn’t come into the mix until 1956 as a remnant of McCarthyism. And it needs to be expelled for the same reason McCarthy was censured. The court has ruled repeatedly that the Ten Commandments have no place in a court of law because they represent the endorsement of sectarian religious beliefs by the government, not the basis for our secular legal system. Since you know that, I really don’t know how the ACLJ can, with a clear conscience, continue to take money from their clients for these kinds of unwinnable cases.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted February 8, 2010 at 7:05 pm


In County of Allegheny v. ACLU, although a majority struck down a creche that was displayed by its lonesome inside of a courthouse, another majority upheld an 18-foot menorah outside a City-County building that was presented besides a 45-foot decorated Christmas tree. According to the “professorial wiseguy’s ‘Reindeer Rule'”, as long as a religious display is sprinkled with enough secular items, the display’s purpose or effect will not be to advance religion (Prof. Cheh). What’s more, in Allegheny Co., the “particular physical setting” served to increase the secular effect and purpose when in combination with the seasonal gear.
Like the menorah paired with the Christmas tree outside a government city-county building, the Ten Commandments matched with the Humanist Manifestos inside of a government courtroom also portray a secular purpose and effect. Indeed Dr. Jay, a reasonable person would think that the law wall hangings are a statement about law, history, or philosophy instead of religion or theology. Like the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, adopted in 1954 to distinguish the nation of America from Communist countries, The Ten Commandments do not give a special boon, benefit, or advantage to religion. Therefore, the law displays should be declared Constitutional.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted February 8, 2010 at 11:30 pm


N. Lindzee Lindholm
Ms. Lindholm said: “Indeed Dr. Jay, a reasonable person would think that the law wall hangings are a statement about law, history, or philosophy instead of religion or theology.”
I guess the issue that I find with this thought is since the conservative Christian groups, who wanted the 10 Commandments posted and monuments created for it, found that people didn’t want it because it was being used to express ‘one’ belief system over others, essentially to say we are a “Christian Nation”. So, the mantra was changed to say it is a statement about law, history or philosophy rather than religious. The purpose in doing so was it was simply another attempt or route to have the 10 Commandments displayed. Their reasoning is the same; they’re simply trying another way to spin it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 11:35 pm


Our Constitution guarantees that Congress shall pass no laws establishing a National Religion. Freedom of religious observance (or the right to not believe in any diety at all)is the right given by the Almighty to every human being. Freedom of Religion does not mean that we must be free FROM religious symbols or words taken from various holy writings. To me it means, only, that no governmental body can establish a religious system to the exclusion of all others.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 8, 2010 at 11:49 pm


“Our Constitution guarantees that Congress shall pass no laws establishing a National Religion.”
Uh, no, that isn’t what it says. Go back and read it again.
“To me it means, only, that no governmental body can establish a religious system to the exclusion of all others.”
Let’s talk about what it means when you know what it says!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 9, 2010 at 12:07 am


There is nothing more un-American than a commandment to worship only one God. The Ten Commandments have no business being displayed anywhere in a country founded on religious freedom, including churches. It’s really frightening that a scientific ignoramus like Judge James DeWeese can actually be a sitting judge. This judge’s whole “judicial philosophy” isn’t a philosophy at all but nothing but an insane fear-induced religious superstition. I mean we have judge who thinks our laws came from a magic talking bush and were relayed to a figure in story who possessed a magic wonder-working rod. This incompetent nut ought to be impeached and sent to an insane asylum where he belongs. Science has a very good explanation for where human morality came from: we taught it to ourselves the same way we taught ourselves how to write, do math, map the stars and so on. The fact that Judge DeWeese doesn’t know that makes him unfit to even sit in a traffic court. The guy’s a lunatic. Judge DeWeese, you are hereby found guilty of scientific imbecility and for the good of the nation, you must step down immediately.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 9, 2010 at 2:15 am


“a recent poll indicates that most Americans – 69% – still support government-funding for faith-based initiatives started under the Bush Administration and say they favor allowing churches and other houses of worship, along with other organizations, to apply for government funding to provide social services such as job training or drug treatment counseling.”
I love polls, all I need to know is what you want the results to show and I can get them. How many zip codes were used? What day? Time of day? I daresay a poll of several thousand people could be made to show that a vast majority believe in the Constitutional separation of religion and civil government. I know for a fact such a separation has been embraced by The Court from Everson to Schempp.



report abuse
 

Arrow

posted February 9, 2010 at 2:30 am


It is a notable inaction by this administration which allows the most regrettable of practices to continue under the guise of providing for “the common good”. I am aghast that provisions requiring adherence to governmental funding regulation have been ignored. Not surprised, aghast.



report abuse
 

Malthus

posted February 9, 2010 at 12:37 pm


Americans’ civil liberties are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and, as such, are not subject to popular vote, Sekulow’s repeated citing of polls notwithstanding. Any attempt to change that situation can be blocked by as few as some 10% of American voters.
The idea of using “moral absolutes” is silly, since Sharia law is filled with “moral absolutes” that one would think (only hope?) would be abhorrent to the likes of Sekulow.
Furthermore, there are three or four “Decalogues” in the Bible (in the eyes of Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and Jews), and it’s hard to imagine 69% of Americans voting to support making a legal case for punishing folks who repudiate such anachronisms as “I am the Lord thy God,” “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” “Honor thy father and thy mother,” or “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” Even adultery is not punished as a crime anywhere in the civilized world.
That leaves only The Four Commandments (and maybe the Six Suggestions) for posting on the Courthouse wall. Those of you who, like Boris, need an education in the facts before posting please consult Wikipedia on “Decalogue” for starters.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted February 9, 2010 at 1:55 pm


Malthus said:
“The idea of using “moral absolutes” is silly, since Sharia law is filled with “moral absolutes” that one would think (only hope?) would be abhorrent to the likes of Sekulow.”
I have brought this same argument up on different discussions but what I discovered was these individuals do not want Sharia law because it is Moslem, however, living under the 10 Commandments WAS acceptable because it was what they believed, as Christians, and more importantly, if followed their interpretation of religion. It’s all about what ‘they’ believe and because they see themselves as the holders of ‘truth’, alone, this is acceptable.
To me, extemists are extremists regardless of what religion they follow



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 9, 2010 at 7:35 pm


Malthus,
Are you angry because I made fun of your absurd post under “Self Interest and Religious Discrimination Mark Anniversary of Obama Faith Based Initiative” or something? What got into you when you made that post dude? It’s ridiculous and totally out of step with the post above, which I agree with. What makes you think I don’t know about the Ten Commandments? I’m a Jew and can recite them in ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek even better. I’ll match my knowledge of the text of the Bible with any person alive on this planet. Wanna try me?



report abuse
 

Malthus

posted February 9, 2010 at 8:16 pm


Boris,
I admit I couldn’t refrain tweaking you in response to your many paragraphs of fatuous comments on my post to “Self Interest and Religious Discrimination Mark Anniversary of Obama Faith Based Initiative.”
While it wouldn’t be worth my while to point out all your errors, would you please offer evidence (in English, Hebrew or Greek) to support your last statement there that Walmart clinics pay, or would pay, their nurse practitioners or optometrists, not to mention doctors, some $9 per hour.
After that, we can handle your other errors one by one.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 10, 2010 at 3:02 pm


They would if they could get away with it.



report abuse
 

Olga

posted February 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm


Does the judge require the Decalogue to make an unbiased decision? Or is this not a religious symbol smack dab in the middle of the court room? The first two Commandments start off with monotheistic statements like “I am the Lord Thy God” and “You shall have no other gods before Me”. From the start, this shuns the Hindu religion and atheism among others. This would not be an open issue if this was about a Muslim or Hebrew symbol. And let’s not confuse ‘legal philosophy’ with ‘religious philosophy’ that happens to be upheld by a legal official.
If Justice is blind, why does she need the Ten Commandments to guide her in the decision making? Did she lose her scales? Judge DeWeese needs to stop decorating his court room and focus on his responsibilities as a judge.



report abuse
 

Audrey

posted February 10, 2010 at 8:31 pm


The problem isn’t that his moral God guides Judge James DeWeese’s rulings. The problem is that he wants to display his religious beliefs in a United States Courtroom. It would be more appropriate (and constitutional) if the expression of “his legal philosophy” were left to his private office.



report abuse
 

Nikki

posted February 10, 2010 at 11:03 pm


I agree with Audrey, the fact that the Ten Commandments do have religious commands in them such as “I am the Lord thy God” and “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” favors Christianity and a courthouse cannot begin to favor religions. Also, so of the commandments even non-religious ones like “Honor your father and mother” have nothing to do with the law and therefore do not belong in the courthouse.



report abuse
 

TY

posted February 11, 2010 at 2:56 am


I disagree. I do not believe that Judge DeWeese poster of the Ten Commandments is bothering anyone. I understand that the Ten Commandments does relate to Christianity, however, he is entitled to express his religion freely and he should be able to do so in his courtroom.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 11, 2010 at 4:55 am


The only way for TY to post that he doesn’t believe it bothers anyone is to have not read any of the posts above, yet he opened by stating open disagreement with them! I agree with Nikki et al in that I don’t see it at “his” courtroom. It represents a coequal branch of the government over which he temporarily presides without prejudice (or so one is given to hope).
An obvious religious presentation, doubly bad for favoring one to the exclusion of others, is in line with his ruling that religion (his religion) has a special place in the “history” of American government. It’s trash, and will be thrown out as such by any but the most obscene, and mercenary, of higher courts.



report abuse
 

IVV

posted February 11, 2010 at 12:24 pm


I am with Olga in that the Judge is in violation of judicial religious neutrality. A courtroom is not a place to display once moral beliefs based on religion. The judge is free, however, to refer to them, but their display in not right.
If in that court, a non-monotheistic person could feel mixed feeling about the judge’s decision.



report abuse
 

genny

posted February 11, 2010 at 12:42 pm


I also agree with Olga and IVV, the courtroom is the one of the last places one should display religious icons, banners, or anything else that shows specific religious beliefs. The courtroom must remain neutral, and such a display could offend those who are on trial. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs- but if a courtroom had the ten commandments hanging up on a wall it gives off a biased look.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm


The fact that the Ten Commandments uses the word God in it does not result in the court “favoring” religion. Ten 10 Commandments is something that is embedded in the laws of this country. We have several laws that mirror the 10 commandments as well. I don’t feel like the mere posting of a piece of paper with 10 rules to live one’s life by is in any way posing a religion on anybody else. He should have the freedom to post something like that wherever he would like to because it is his right to do so.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted February 11, 2010 at 1:30 pm


I agree with Your Name how that fact that just because it has “”GOd in it doesn’t mean that the court is favoring on religion over another. These commandments, although are the foundation of Judeo Christian Belifs, they are also moral standards or values that our society looks at as a possible model. That is all in regards to this issue.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm


“Ten 10 Commandments is something that is embedded in the laws of this country.”
Wrong. This country is not, and never has been in any sense, a “Christian” nation. This is the kind of rhetoric you hear from bible thumpers.
“…just because it has “”GOd in it doesn’t mean that the court is favoring on religion over another.”
The word “god” was invented specifically to refer to a supreme being–right away that (wrongly) shows atheists the door. “God” with a capital “G” refers specifically to the Christian deity–no mention of Allah, Buddah, Shiva, etc etc–none of which has any place in a government building.



report abuse
 

Stephen

posted February 12, 2010 at 11:56 am


A judge is not to show favoritism, it does not mean he (or she) is to remain religeously neutral, nor is he (or she) to act as a preist. Not unto us, O YHWH, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, [and] for thy truth’s sake.
Wherefore should the heathen say, Where [is] now their Elohim?
But our Elohim[is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
Their idols [are] silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
They that make them are like unto them; [so is] every one that trusteth in them.
O Israel, trust thou in YHWH: he [is] their help and their shield.
O house of Aaron, trust in YHWH: he [is] their help and their shield.
Ye that fear YHW, trust in YHWH: he [is] their help and their shield.
YHWH hath been mindful of us: he will bless [us]; he will bless the house of Israel; he will bless the house of Aaron.
He will bless them that fear YHWH, [both] small and great.
YHWH shall increase you more and more, you and your children.
Ye [are] blessed of YHWH which made heaven and earth.
The heaven, [even] the heavens, [are] YHWH’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.
The dead praise not YHWH, neither any that go down into silence.
But we will bless YHWH from this time forth and for evermore. Praise Yahuwah.



report abuse
 

Amy

posted February 12, 2010 at 1:09 pm


I think that the 10 commandments are a religious symbol and shouldn’t be hung in the courtroom. If he wants to have a display of his religion he should do it in his office or his home.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 13, 2010 at 4:47 pm


Exodus 20: 1-17
1,2
And God spoke all thes words, saying:”I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3″You shall have no ohter gods before me.
4″You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5″You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7″You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
8″Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work:you, nor your son,nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
11For in sx days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventhday. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
12″Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
13″You shall not murder.
14″You sahll not commit adultery.
15″You sahll not steal.
16″You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17″You sahll not covet your neighbor’s house; you sahll not covet your neightbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
18Now all the people witnessed the thunderings the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet,and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 13, 2010 at 4:51 pm


You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm


Sorry the print was small in the Bible when translating it on this page. You get my point.
you shall not……
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 13, 2010 at 5:00 pm


Are you trying to make me appear stupid by not letting me correct my mistakes.
That would be You shall not……………
Cara



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 13, 2010 at 5:09 pm


You don’t need any help in appearing stupid Cara, you’re doing fine!



report abuse
 

Marsha Christ

posted February 15, 2010 at 1:07 am


Unlike the woman named Hagar in the Bible; I am Black and just a Plain American Indian Negro and Assimilated Christian citizen that was also born of a Promise under this nation’s motto “In GOD We Trust”. As a Daughter of God and forefathers i.e, Abraham, Lincoln, Melchisadac and Red Cloud I have been denied all of my life my separate and equal Right to have the same laws of nature and natures God; because of the word “no” in the 1st Amen-dment.
Since the congress was given all power to make wars and laws; how can even our Courts affirm, enforce, or uphold their Oaths of Office and Promises made to We the People with “No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion” i.e., GOD that were all sworn on a Holy Bible ? According to the below although Abraham had two sons, the gender of a woman was put into bondage that remains today. Compare Gen. 25:22-25 with the below and consider what if Rachel gave birth to twins, but instead of two sons, one was a boy and other a girl who came out 1st ?
Gal.. 4:22-24 “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two convenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which is and is in bondage with HER children.
Romans 3:28 – 31 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Seeing it is One God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea we establish the law.
Presently now even corporations are given the same rights as US citizens, but when in the course of human events will a White Christian Body of Government men declare this Mass Religion Fraud that has been forced upon We the People who put them in charge? I suggest these sons of guns or men who know not what they do or have done in the name of the LORD; Remove that Blindfold from Lady Justice put upon her by Masonic Brothers and Let Her Use that Double Edge Sword she alone holds. Because Lady Justices is not Deaf, Dumb, Blind or even a Blond daughter of our American revolution. However, Her Gender’s Abilities have been severely handicapped, retarded and statutorily raped by the word NO which is an Injustice, Shame before Almighty GOD and Her only begotten Son.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 16, 2010 at 2:55 pm


Re: HG
Karma, you’ll get what your dishing out.
So your little blogs of cruelty are about your own belief on your own intelligence. So, I hope that you get some help to deal with your social issues which conflict with kindness.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 16, 2010 at 3:49 pm


Mathew 7: 1
Judge not, that you be not judged.
2
” For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
3
” And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
4
” Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye; and look,a plank is in your own eye?
5
” Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6
” Do not give what is holy to dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
7
” Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8
” For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Cara



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 16, 2010 at 5:20 pm


Not being cruel, just honest. I’m sure it can be difficult for you to tell the difference at times. I hope you get some help with your issues which preclude intelligent discussion and application of logic.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 16, 2010 at 10:58 pm


HG,impossible. She’s a Bible believer, Creationopithicus Alabamas.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 17, 2010 at 2:25 pm


Proverbs 14: 8
The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But folly of fools is deceit.
9
Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is favor.
10
The heart knows its own bitterness, And a stranger does not share its joy.
11
The house of the wicked will be overthrown, But the tent of the upright will flourish.
12
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
13
Even in laughter the heart may sorrow, And the end of mirth may be grief.
14
The backslider in heart will be filled with his own ways, But a good man will be satisfied from above.
15
The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps.
16
A wise man fears and departs from evil, But a fool rages and is self-confident.
17
A quick -tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of wicked intentions is hated.
18
The simple inherit folly,
But the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 17, 2010 at 3:29 pm


Boris, it’s amazing they’re extant. One would think their species would be selected for extinction because they shun knowledge to embrace dogma. Strange to witness a sub-group of humans deliberately self-select for extinction, but hey, that’s Christianity in a nut-casing.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm


The Revelation
1:18
“I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
19″ Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.
1:8
” I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord,”who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
2:4
Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
5″Remember therefore from where you have fallen;repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place-unless you repent.
Mathew 22: 37
Jesus said to him, ” You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”
Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 18, 2010 at 12:41 am


Cara,
Why don’t you quote all the verses that claim the earth is immovable or the one that says vegetation was on the earth before the sun and moon even existed?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 18, 2010 at 3:36 pm


Who really cares about pictures anyway?
It is a great picture, he looks happy.
Anyway, I am more conscerned with what is at stake in this country and around the world.
Even if a person does not win every case, it does not however indicate if that issue was not relevant to a person having liberty and a life of religious freedom with a court which is honest or judges without biases in intent.
Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 18, 2010 at 3:38 pm


Read The Bible



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 18, 2010 at 4:53 pm


Read The Silmarillion if you want to know what REALLY happened.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 19, 2010 at 4:34 pm


What is the Silmarillion, is that an onion or something?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 19, 2010 at 4:40 pm


Genesis 6: 6-8
6
Then God said, ” Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
7
Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
8
And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm


“…Illuvatar said to them,’Behold your Music!’ And he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight where before was only hearing; and they saw a new World made visible before them, and it was globed amid the Void, and it was sustained therein, but was not of it.”
I don’t know when (or if) your “God” showed up to the party, but it had to be AFTER Eru Illuvatar created the World. It is written.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 19, 2010 at 5:04 pm


Genesis 1: 13
So the evening and the morning were the third day.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 19, 2010 at 5:54 pm


“…a new World made visible before them, and it was globed amid the Void, and it was sustained therein, but was not of it.”
Genesis, what a rip off. Anyone can see the World was created by Illuvatar billions of years before the Bibble (mostly plagiarism and lies) even takes up the story!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm


Exodus 20: 1-
And God spoke all these words:
2
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3
” You shall have no other gods before me.”
4
” You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to those who worship them.
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm


“…Illuvatar said to them,’Behold your Music!’ And he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight where before was only hearing; and they saw a new World made visible before them, and it was globed amid the Void, and it was sustained therein, but was not of it.”
I don’t know when (or if) your “God” showed up to the party, but it had to be AFTER Eru Illuvatar created the World. It is written.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm


Daniel 12: 1
“At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since ther was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 21, 2010 at 4:14 pm


Revelation 20: 12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged, each one according to his works.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 21, 2010 at 4:25 pm


“There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.” Rev.17-3
Like I said before, Revelation reads like it was written by a schizophrenic psycho on LSD! I have shown you the recorded history of Creation; if you choose, instead, to believe in psycho-babble, it’s no skin off my nose!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm


Revelation 17:3
So he carrried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
—–Key word Spirit
Revelation 1:4
John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:…….
Daniel 7: 24
The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from the kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He sahll be different from the first ones, And shall subdue three kings.
Proverbs 6: 16
These six things the Lord hates, Yes seven are an abomination to Him:
17
A proud look,
a lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18
A Heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows dicord among brethren.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 22, 2010 at 3:07 pm


Rev 1:4
John to the seven churches in Asia…
Proverbs 6: 16
These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 22, 2010 at 3:09 pm


I thought that one deserved to be repeated.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 22, 2010 at 3:12 pm


Key word-
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…….



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 22, 2010 at 4:20 pm


“There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.” Rev.17-3
Like I said before, Revelation reads like it was written by a schizophrenic psycho on LSD! I have shown you the recorded history of Creation; if you choose, instead, to believe in psycho-babble, it’s no skin off my nose!
Eru Illuvatar created the World, it says so in my book (which makes a WHOLE lot more sense than the one you’re reading!).



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 22, 2010 at 5:37 pm


1 Corinthians 1: 18
For the message of the cross if foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm


if-is*

C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 22, 2010 at 6:30 pm


“Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…….”
Thus ensuring that “free exercise” may be abridged. It has been; and rightly so.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 22, 2010 at 8:48 pm


It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams…. what has no meaning admits no explanation.
— Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander Smyth, January 17, 1825



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2010 at 3:14 pm


Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the feedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the prople peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
———-NO it says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or probhibing the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech,————-
I repeat no law…..
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm


there is an explanation for everything…….
cause and effect………..
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 23, 2010 at 3:21 pm


“Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…….”
Thus ensuring that “free exercise” may be abridged. It has been; and rightly so.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm


Does not say that….
misrepresenting the Constitution……….
I am not for personal commentary to misguide public affairs in selfish motivations…………
I just wrote the First Amendment..
no laws..
FREEDOM OF SPEECH….
FREEDOM OF RELIGION…
Looks like somebody is trying to control others freedom of speech and religion by past blogs…….
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm


I am free…….. I am not a slave………



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 23, 2010 at 3:58 pm


It is not misrepresenting the Constitution to say that the Framers used the word “prohibit” instead of “abridge” when referring to the “free exercise” of religion. An obviously deliberate choice, since they used the word “abridge” in referring to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was given MUCH GREATER latitude than “free exercise”, but even it has been found to be restricted!
“It is hardly lack of due process for government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” (SCOTUS, 9-0, Wickard v Filburn, 1942)
If religious organizations take governmen funds, then they may be directly regulated. Guess maybe they shouldn’t have been in such a hurry to raid the US Treasury.
The First Amendment’s religion clauses embrace “two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” (SCOTUS, 9-0, Cartwell v Connecticut, 1940)
Cara, you do not seem able to make the distinction between beliefs and actions. You can believe whatever you want, you are not, however, allowed to act however you want.



report abuse
 

Me

posted February 23, 2010 at 8:44 pm


The ten commandments are NOT the basis for anything in our government. Only three of them are included in any of our laws. Our entire economic system depends on coveting, so that one is even inconsistent with the country at all. The only ones that have any standing are those against killing, stealing, ot perjury (bearing false witness) and those concepts were considered pohibited by most civilizations long before christianity existed. Posting this in any government installation represents a clear preference for a particular religion, explicitly outlawed by the first amendment.
That and the office of faith based initiatives should immediately be disbanded. I don’t want any of my tax dollars supporting any particular religious institution, no matter how much good they are purported to be doing. If it is appropriate for the government to provide these services they should find some other way to do so that doesn’t subject participants to proselytization or employees to hiring discrimination.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm


Good to hear from Me again. Heh. Couldn’t have said it better Me, myself. Heh, heh. This proposition to make The Ten Commandments a special, relevant, part of American History (rather than the Biblical material it actually IS) needs to have a stake driven through it’s frigging heart!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:06 pm


Re: HG
Like I wrote before a whole bunch of commentary. Which would indeed be your biases in view.
I’ll just print the fact of the matter:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—————–
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the freedom of speech………….
no law
Thanks again, HG, I’ll stick to the facts……..
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of the press………….
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:11 pm


As far as The Ten Commandments being removed from any area, that would be a violation of religious freedom and quite frankly a violation of the First Amendment in regards to making a new law.
No new law in regards to religion…
You have a choice for your very own religion so. At this point The Supreme Court is in violation of The Ten Commandments, so , it seems like people are still making their own religious choices regardless of the location of The Ten Commandments. So at this point the biases would be that the court is against The Ten Commandments. So that argument does not fly either.
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:13 pm


It is not misrepresenting the Constitution to say that the Framers used the word “prohibit” instead of “abridge” when referring to the “free exercise” of religion. An obviously deliberate choice, since they used the word “abridge” in referring to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was given MUCH GREATER latitude than “free exercise”, but even it has been found to be restricted!
“It is hardly lack of due process for government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” (SCOTUS, 9-0, Wickard v Filburn, 1942)
If religious organizations take governmen funds, then they may be directly regulated. Guess maybe they shouldn’t have been in such a hurry to raid the US Treasury.
The First Amendment’s religion clauses embrace “two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” (SCOTUS, 9-0, Cartwell v Connecticut, 1940)
Cara, you do not seem able to make the distinction between beliefs and actions. You can believe whatever you want, you are not, however, allowed to act however you want.
I’ll just reprint what I wrote before, since you didn’t seem to notice that another “argument” of yours has been burned to the ground!
Free exercise of religion has been abridged, and rightly so.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm


“At this point The Supreme Court is in violation of The Ten Commandments”
HAH-HAH-HAH, BWAHHHH-HAH-HAH-HAH. Our Constitution violates the Ten Commandments?! HAHHHHHH-HAH-HAH-HA. What a loony tune! No, FUNNIER than a looney tune!
You live in America, not Heaven! Hah, hah. Maroon!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm


Re: HG
Well the Supreme Court is violating The Ten Commandments when conscerning a developing child living.
So looks like where ever the display of The Ten Commandments are, people will make their own choices regardless.
What HG, you want to make up your own rules and have nothing of any superior value system in place for the American public??
That’s just it, people have no respect for God anymore. If you want to say that the God of the Bible is not true, then I would have to say your making your own rules up as you go… For the God of the Bible is proven when studied…. The choice is yours, I’m done with arrogant hypocrasy….
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:31 pm


“As far as The Ten Commandments being removed from any area, that would be a violation of religious freedom and quite frankly a violation of the First Amendment in regards to making a new law.”
The supreme lack of intelligence evident in that statement set a record!
First, Judge DeWeese is arguing that the Ten Commandments is a display of legal philosophy, NOT a religious issue at all. Are you TRYING to sabotage his argument by calling is a violation of “religious freedom” to remove it? What a bone-head!
Second, the First amendment protects all beliefs, not all actions (like puuting up a religious display in a Courthouse. Bone-head!
Third, to what “new law” could you POSSIBLY be referring? Bone-head!



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:34 pm


“I’m done with arrogant hypocrasy….” Cara
I doubt it! You embody it!



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 24, 2010 at 3:43 pm


“For the God of the Bible is proven when studied…”
Stop, hoo-hoo, hah-hah, you’re killing me. If I keep reading what you write, I’m going to laugh myself to death! Hooey, whew, man, that was close!
“That’s just it, people have no respect for God anymore.”
Not since Rodney Dangerfield took over the job!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 5:04 pm


Why is that? Because I don’t want to argue with people who obviously don’t care about biblical beliefs of scripture or The United States Contitution or The First Amendment…
I did not write to remove it.
I believe that it is a free religious exspression.
I also believe like I wrote before, that Congress is to make no new laws pertaining to the establishment of religion or prohibiting the freedom of speech.
No, I am not arrogant. I believe in a higher power than myself.
I simply wrote I don’t want to put up with people who seem to make their own opinions rise above loving other people. Meaning selfish ambition with thought processes which embody the self as god. Which would indeed be godless from my viewpoint. As far as the slanderous remarks back and forth directed once again towards me, there is no surprise in that one. Your in suit with your past blogs.
C



report abuse
 

Arguing with Nut Jobs

posted February 24, 2010 at 5:29 pm


…but your opinion should rise above the opinions of everyone else?
Logic definitely is not your strength.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 24, 2010 at 6:42 pm


AwNJ’s, you notice how Cara doesn’t deal with facts; doesn’t want to deal with flaws in her “arguments”. For instance how Judge DeWeese discounts the religious aspects of the TC’s, basing his freedom to display them in “his” Courthouse on his (ridiculous) opinion that the TC’s actually represent “legal philosophy”. Along comes Cara to help him out by claiming that removing them would infringe upon DeWeese’s freedom of religious expression (while claiming at the same time that putting it up didn’t infringe on the freedom of OTHERS!). Additionally, she tries to insist that the Constitution intends that NO Religious Action is prohibitable. AHHHHHH-HAAAAA-HAAAAAH, Bwahh, hah, hah….phew, she almost got me again!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 25, 2010 at 1:42 pm


Well. I love The Ten Commandments. Congress is to make no new law in regards to religion. So…
Mathew 13: 37
He answered and said to them: ” He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
38
” The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39
” The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40
” Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41
” The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42
” and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashng of teeth.
43
” Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
44
” Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hiddden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
45
” Again, the kinddom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls,
46
” who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.
47
” Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind,
48
” which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away.
49
” So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just,
50
” and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
51
” Jesus said to them, ” Have you understood all these things?” They said to Him, ” Yes, Lord.”
52
Then He said to them,” Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.”
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 25, 2010 at 3:45 pm


“Congress is to make no new law in regards to religion. So…”
Wrong again! Do you EVER get ANYTHING right? It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, not “make no new laws in regards to religion”.
The rest of what you “wrote” was from the Bible, which has nothing to do with the laws of the United States, or our Constitution. Like I said, you don’t like to deal with facts or with what the Constitution actually says and means.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 25, 2010 at 4:39 pm


establish- to bring about; generate.
establishment- the act of establishing. Something established.
That was not a copy of The First Amendment. So wrong again. Personal attacks are a reflection of people who feel threatened about something, so……
” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
So by taking the definition of establishment, this would mean that Congress shall make no law respecting a generated law of religion.
So that would be inclusive in itself to include something established in regards to religion.
Point made,,,,
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 25, 2010 at 4:50 pm


What is your point?
Just looks like a person who want to argue..
Establishment of religion is alot of stuff, quite frankly.
Religious Liberty….
Revelation 1: 8
” I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord,” who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 25, 2010 at 4:57 pm


allot- To assign as a portion; allocate.
FREEDOM***************************************************************
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 25, 2010 at 5:18 pm


“So by taking the definition of establishment, this would mean that Congress shall make no law respecting a generated law of religion.”
That’s one of your best (funniest) ones yet! The “laws” of religion have no standing in U.S. Law. Any “laws” of religion were established by that religion and are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution (as has been ruled by the Supreme Court). I know that you don’t like living by our Constitution, and that you pretend to reside in a world where The Bible is the ruling document. You are deluding yourself. You live under the Constitution, and will be held accountable to it for your actions. Test it and see (please), if you don’t believe me.
Your beliefs, bizarre though they are to me, are left completely to you. I will Happily keep my own beliefs, which I do not attempt to force on others, as you wrongly do by (repeatedly) misstating the Constitution.
An establishment of religion refers to any recognized religion, the broad term.
Improve your reading comprehension, and your general comprehension will also improve.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 27, 2010 at 3:33 pm


HG go call your mother….. You need help….You appear to be condescending in nature….



report abuse
 

Brutus Beefcake

posted March 4, 2010 at 9:09 am


If God doesn’t belong in public school, then neither does teaching about Greek and Roman gods/godesses. After all, if even academic mention of God is, as the bonehead secularists say, just a sneaky way to get religion in public school, then any mention of any god, such as Greek and Roman gods/godesses, is a sneaky way of getting THEIR religion in public school.



report abuse
 

Brutus Beefcake

posted March 4, 2010 at 9:12 am


»The “laws” of religion have no standing in U.S. Law.«
Like what “laws” of religion?



report abuse
 

Brutus Beefcake

posted March 4, 2010 at 9:15 am


Where is the violation in the posting of The Ten Commandments in, say, public school, that isn’t present in the teaching of Greek and Roman gods and godesses in public school?



report abuse
 

Brutus Beefcake

posted March 4, 2010 at 9:25 am


»An establishment of religion refers to any recognized religion…«
Reco’nized by whom?
Do atheists reco’nize any religion? If not, they cannot claim any establishment.
Does Congress reco’nize any religion? No. That would be promotion, according to the goofy atheists.
So, who’s doin’ the reco’nizin’ that would violate the Constitution and that would, thereby, be an establishment by the posting of, say, The Ten Commandments in, say, public school?
In the teaching in public school about Greek and Roman gods and godesses, is there a reco’nition of them and, thereby, according to you and the foolish atheists, establishment?
Stupid atheists ought at least try to be consistent.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 4, 2010 at 9:27 am


Brutus,
You make correct and EXCELLENT points!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 4, 2010 at 9:34 am


How does the First Amendment’s “religion” Clause apply to atheists who say that they practice no religion, though they do?
If they practice no religion, then all this wind generated by atheists about the Freedom “from” religion that they say is right there is really NOT there cuz they say they practice no religion.
The FA applies to those who practice, primarily Christianity cuz the Founders were, in the vast majority, Christians following the expressed purpose of the Settlers.



report abuse
 

Nancy

posted March 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm


Interesting. I have been having trouble with atheists here on the net and they are mean and ill-mannered. Years ago when I was young, I fought for their right not to believe. And now their conceit and arrogance is so deep they are close to drowing. On yahoo questions, I ask Chritians a question and they rudely come slapping me around verbally. And they talk to me like a piece of trash. Studying them, I have discovered they have turned secularism into a religion itself! They are psychologically trying to convert Christians into atheism. Or, secularism. But their main problem is this when it’s time to slap THEM down is that now that they have made secularism into their personal religion, like any other religion including Satanism, there is NO WAY that it can be proved NOT a religion in a court of law, because like other religions, there is no set of descriptive principals to prove what religion is all about. Being opposite of those religions, can still be shown to be their beliefs. Mean, cruel, and ignorant, they can be taken down. Great post. ThXs!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 4, 2010 at 10:56 pm


Nancy,
You have a great understanding of it.



report abuse
 

TY

posted March 11, 2010 at 11:37 am


I agree with Brutus, I do not beleive that posting the Ten Commandments in or on any public places is forcing anyone to beleieve or follow what it stands for.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 3:09 am


TY says:
… I do not beleive that posting the Ten Commandments in or on any public places is forcing anyone to beleieve or follow what it stands for.
Mr. Incredible says:
For the same reason that watching a football game doesn’t make me wanna go out and play football. In any case, if they don’t wanna see football, I can change the channel, or leave the room. So many options. Freedom to choose.



report abuse
 

interpreter

posted March 15, 2010 at 11:19 am


If the 10 commandments can be prominatly displayed at the Supreme Court, they can certainly be displayed in an Ohio courtroom, for God’s sake.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 25, 2010 at 3:56 am


Atheists say that they have no belief. They say that they don’t believe that God exists.
The First Amendment indicates that belief is protected.
So, if you believe that there is no God, that’s one thing.
If you don’t believe that there is God, that’s quite another.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 25, 2010 at 6:07 am


Incrcd: “Atheists say that they have no belief.”
Quote two or more who have said that please.
Incred: “The First Amendment indicates that belief is protected.
So, if you believe that there is no God, that’s one thing.
If you don’t believe that there is God, that’s quite another.”
One sentence is expressed in terms of belief and one is expressed in terms of lack, or absence, of belief. The belief is protected whether it is zero percent or one hundred percent. Each sentence expresses a belief in a universe that does not contain a supernatural being. Both are protected positions because they both express that belief; one believing there is no god gives a rating of zero on the god belief continuum (zero to one hundred), and the other not believing there is a god gives the same rating of zero. Anyone who ‘says’ “they have no belief”, which you claim is true of atheists (but have yet to show), may actually be referring to their zero rating specifically as regards a god belief.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:04 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Atheists say that they have no belief.
HG says:
Quote two or more who have said that please.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who claim they’re atheists were on board where I wrote. They claimed that there is is no belief. An absence of belief.
Mr. Incredible says:
The First Amendment indicates that belief is protected.
So, if you believe that there is no God, that’s one thing.
If you don’t believe that there is God, that’s quite another.
HG says:
One sentence is expressed in terms of belief and one is expressed in terms of lack, or absence, of belief.
Mr. Incredible says:
You have an amazing grasp of the obvious!
HG says:
The belief is protected whether it is zero percent or one hundred percent.
Mr. Incredible says:
The First Amendment actually protects worship. One can worship only if there’s belief.
Atheists say they have no belief in God. That is actually a belief. They deny this.
If they have no belief, they aren’t included in the “religious” clause of the First Amendment.
HG says:
Each sentence expresses a belief in a universe that does not contain a supernatural being.
Mr. Incredible says:
They “say” there is no supernatural Being. That doesn’t mean there is none.
It’s said that we use 10% of our brain. Boris uses less.
This means that, for most of the rest of us, 90% is unused. For those who are not born again, God is in the 90%.
If we can know and realize only a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a bazillionth of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a miniscule of a trace of a trace of a trace of the trace of a trace of all the knowledge in the universe, we can’t know that God doesn’t exist in the part that we don’t know. Those who don’t know, then, are in no position to say. Those who say that He is not in the part they don’t know are full of you-know-what.
HG says:
Both are protected positions…
Mr. Incredible says:
Only worship, based on belief, is protected. Atheists say they do not believe. The rest of us know — or some-a the rest of us know — that they believe, that they do not not believe.
HG says:
… because they both express that belief…
Mr. Incredible says:
Atheists say they don’t believe in God. They say there is no God. They say they have no belief in God.
The First Amendment protects worship. Worship is based on belief. If one has no belief, one cannot worship.
HG says:
… one believing there is no god gives a rating of zero on the god belief continuum (zero to one hundred)…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, belief. However, atheists say they have no belief in God. The First Amendment “religious” clause is based on belief cuz it protects worship. You can’t have worship without belief.
And, so, if an atheist believes there is no God, that’s a religious belief.
HG says:
…and the other not believing there is a god gives the same rating of zero.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, no belief. No protection.
HG says:
Anyone who ‘says’ “they have no belief”, [sic] which you claim is true of atheists (but have yet to show)…
Mr. Incredible says:
I’ve seen enough of them to know. I’m happy.
HG says:
… may actually be referring to their zero rating specifically as regards a god belief.
Mr. Incredible says:
I won’t second-guess them. They say what they say. They don’t say what they don’t say.
So, where they say that they have no belief in God, I believe them. And I say that theirs is a belief.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:05 am


One who says that there is no God is expressing a religious belief, if they claim to be protected by the First Amendment.



report abuse
 

payday loans toronto

posted July 26, 2010 at 10:13 pm


blog.beliefnet.com is great! Payday Loans Quick Financial Relief Before Your Payday Payday loans can be easily procured for fiing small and regular unplanned epenses like electricity bills medical epenses car repair costs college fee library fee



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted August 11, 2010 at 9:25 pm


Good writing, and I very much agree with your thoughts and insights. Hope that more could write such a good word, I said, to continue coming to visit, thank you for sharing.i love buy umbrella very much .



report abuse
 

Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

posted September 8, 2010 at 4:12 am


I’m happy to have found your very really good article! I agree with some of your readers and will eagerly look forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Really good work and much success in your business efforts. nuzikjwlfyujlbkpfptcnzrvxydzlgzacdy
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.



report abuse
 

payday loans online

posted September 21, 2010 at 9:19 am


Very useful article. Myself & my neighbor were preparing to do some research about that. We got a good book on that matter from our local library and most books were not as descriptive as your information. I am very glad to see such information which I was searching for a long time.



report abuse
 

payday loans in canada

posted September 21, 2010 at 10:01 pm


I must say that overall I am very taken with this site. It is apparent that you know you subject matter and you are passionate about it. I wish I had got your ability to write. I have bookmarked your site and look forward to more updates.



report abuse
 

payday loans no fax

posted September 22, 2010 at 8:54 pm


This webpage is a complete internet resource for this. You’ll find all you wanted or needed to know, here. axlvmlymetp



report abuse
 

faxless payday loans

posted September 25, 2010 at 9:09 pm


Do you have any more info on this?



report abuse
 

loans canada

posted September 26, 2010 at 6:54 am


Do you have any more info on this?



report abuse
 

loan canada bad credit

posted September 26, 2010 at 7:47 pm


This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is very nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article



report abuse
 

loan in canada

posted September 27, 2010 at 8:22 pm


Easily, the submit is really the greatest on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the great lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Solid work and much success in your business enterprise!



report abuse
 

payday loans ontario

posted September 28, 2010 at 10:28 am


Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care.



report abuse
 

canada loans for bad credit

posted September 28, 2010 at 9:26 pm


Pretty wonderful publish. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you publish again soon.



report abuse
 

bc loan canada

posted September 29, 2010 at 11:08 pm


This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is incredibly nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article



report abuse
 

canadian loans bad credit

posted September 30, 2010 at 11:17 pm


Greetings everyone, This webpage is terrific and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments as well although I would prefer we all keep it on topic in order add value to the subject.



report abuse
 

losing weight

posted October 2, 2010 at 7:23 am


This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is particularly nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article



report abuse
 

payday loan online no faxing

posted October 4, 2010 at 5:21 am


Hi webmaster, commencers and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely brilliant! Lots of awesome information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Keep them coming… You all do such a remarkable job at such Concepts… can’t tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!



report abuse
 

loans with bad credit

posted October 6, 2010 at 1:12 pm


Properly, the post is actually the sweetest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the fantastic clarity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Perfect work and much success in your business endeavors!



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.