Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Will You Help Us Stop ‘The Family’s’ Intolerant Agenda?

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Yesterday morning, I joined several religious leaders in criticizing The Family for its ties to David Bahati, a Ugandan legislator who is pushing the country’s oppressive anti-gay law that calls for the execution of gays and the imprisonment of those who promote homosexuality.

The Family, also known as The Fellowship,  sponsors the National Prayer Breakfast, which attracts the president and a large number of members of Congress each year. I asked President Obama to condemn the Ugandan proposal. (Read more about this on AlterNet.)

I told the crowd that we are no longer shrugging over the National Prayer Breakfast, but now taking a closer look at the group behind it and the alarming agenda that it brings and the consequences it spawns in Uganda and around the world.  A full text of my comments can be found here.

Yesterday’s event also included a discussion of an alternative day to the National Day of Prayer called the American Prayer Hour, which will hold inclusive events in 17 cities across the country tomorrow.

Joining me this morning were the Rev. Elder Darlene Garner, a member of the Metropolitan Community
Church Board of Elders; the Rev. Harry Knox, director of the Religion
and Faith Program for the Human Rights Campaign Fund; Bishop Carlton
Pearson, senior interim minister at Christ Universal Temple in Chicago;
the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire; Frank
Schaeffer, a former Religious Right leader who now disagrees with the
movement, and Moses, a young Ugandan gay man seeking asylum in the
United States.

Jay, I would hope you agree that all reasonable people should repudiate The Family and the terrible legislation they have pushed on the citizens of Uganda. Can I count on you to join with us?

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(84)
post a comment
Your Name

posted February 3, 2010 at 11:15 am


Immorality and criminality are derived from two completely different roots. One is of God. One is of man. Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sin, but it also teaches love our neighbor……The juxtaposition of the two ideas requires Christians to be tolerant of the individual but not to condone or accept homosexuality as a state of righteousness. A Capital punishment penalty for homosexuality is an act of man. It is not biblically rooted. The Koran may be a little more convicting. Nevertheless, Capital punishment is an act of man.
The question then, is why are you asking for the ACLJ’s condemnation of the Ugandan proposition? If you are a proponent of the separation of church and state, why ask for the “church”(represented vicariously by the ACLJ) to comment on a state issue?



report abuse
 

Dave Shrum

posted February 3, 2010 at 11:18 am


Did for Obama’s condemnation in your capacity of a religious leader?



report abuse
 

Ellie Dee

posted February 3, 2010 at 1:45 pm


AMEN! “Your Name” finally has it right! God loves, and forgives. He has little to do with the laws made by man, because man has yet to live or understand His!



report abuse
 

Leviticus 20:13

posted February 3, 2010 at 1:53 pm


20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, 17 the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm


I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I AM amazed that this issue is being raised FROM THE FUTURE! The dateline is MARCH? 2, 2010. Gosh, I know time flies, but perhaps my calendar’s broken. (-8



report abuse
 

Jill

posted February 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm


“Will You Help Us Stop ‘The Family’s’ Intolerant Agenda?”
With all due respect, “Christian” Americans are directly responsible for this. I mean, come on folks..
When the leader of the free world and the strongest nation in the world tells the rest of the world that it is OK to treat LGTB citizens unfairly via their laws, how can you possibly act surprised when a place like Uganda puts their own barbaric spin on THEIR anti-gay laws???? This is what happens when church and state combine.
Sorry folks. This lands directly in the lap of ‘Christians’ that twist and rape the word of God to suit their bigotry. They did it to women, they did it to Blacks, they did it to Asians and now they do it to LGTB citizens. And ‘Christians’ used the word of God to justify it ALL.
I only wonder who will help the ‘Christians’ when they have succeeded in isolating themselves from the rest of the world with their hatefulness? Who will be left to speak for THEM when they are through destroying the lives of innocent Americans???
(cue the crickets chirping)



report abuse
 

Jill

posted February 3, 2010 at 2:05 pm


“Will You Help Us Stop ‘The Family’s’ Intolerant Agenda?”
With all due respect, “Christian” Americans are directly responsible for this. I mean, come on folks..
When the leader of the free world and the strongest nation in the world tells the rest of the world that it is OK to treat LGTB citizens unfairly via their laws, how can you possibly act surprised when a place like Uganda puts their own barbaric spin on THEIR anti-gay laws????
Sorry folks. This lands directly in the lap of ‘Christians’ that twist and rape the word of God to suit their bigotry. They did it to women, they did it to Blacks, they did it to Asians and now they do it to LGTB citizens. And they used the word of God to justify it ALL.
I only wonder who will help the ‘Christians’ when they have so isolated themselves from the rest of the world with their hatefulness? Who will be left to speak for THEM when they are through destroying the lives of innocent Americans???
(cue the crickets chirping)



report abuse
 

Ken

posted February 3, 2010 at 2:36 pm


My first question is what exactly are the “ties” to David Bahati. Why don’t you get a statement directly from The Family on this before you go off the deep end here.
Also, Wow!… Brilliant Jill goes from this story about a group that sponsors the national prayer breakfast being “tied” to a guy who supposedly is sponsoring legislation in Uganda to persecute gays (The whole tone of this makes me suspicious of the facts here but lets just assume its true) to all Christians being bigoted against well, everyone.
Oh yeah, she takes it even further to Christians being isolated haters who are destroying the lives of innocent Americans. What innocent Americans are having their lives destroyed? By Christians?
Who exactly is the intolerant hater here?



report abuse
 

Frank

posted February 3, 2010 at 3:01 pm


Christians who quote excrement like this
“20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, 17 the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.”
as though it has any application in the present day are not merely intolerant but murderously hateful.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted February 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm


Ken,
David Bahati is a member of the Family. He sponsors the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast. He also introduced this genocidal legislation into the Ugandan parliament.
How is it that you accuse people of being hateful when they object to being murdered or marked for murder?



report abuse
 

Oscar

posted February 3, 2010 at 3:26 pm


WOW!
The only thing Barry considers a sin is condemning an action as sinful. Oops, looks like Barry just committed his own sin.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 3, 2010 at 3:27 pm


Apparently Frank and Jill want to twist the Christian faith and the Word of God to suite their own agendas.
Jill: Would you prefer the entire world, including devout Christians, convert to Islam?
Frank: Calling the words of God “excrement” leads me to question the validity of your views on this topic. While I certainly do not condone literally putting homosexuals to death, the fact remains that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a moral sin against mankind, and true Christians endeavor to those poor, misguided souls see the error of their ways.



report abuse
 

Kauko

posted February 3, 2010 at 3:53 pm


“Apparently Frank and Jill want to twist the Christian faith and the Word of God to suite their own agendas”
So basically you’re accusing them on doing what Christians have been doing for 2000 years and what they continue to do every day?



report abuse
 

Nuhn

posted February 3, 2010 at 4:02 pm


Barry and AU are jumping on the band wagon started by Rachel Maddow on her radio show and MSNBC about the Family and even had a guest from the Family who was in communication with the Ugandan in this story and got the Ugandan Parliament to remove the death penalty part of the proposed legislation.
They still agree that homosexuality should be illegal as do most Christians. Still begs the question why there are gays and lesbians who desire a church membership.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm


Still wondering why a religious leader who is the leader of separating church from state is asking Obama to act. Is that a separation of church and state? Is he acting as an individual or as a church leader? Hmmmmmmmm….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 3, 2010 at 4:24 pm


Religion is a world view which includes a set of values which describes a way of behaving to be in consonance with the worldview. Christianity is a worldview. Islam is a worldview. Hinduism and Budhaism is a worldview. Likewise Atheism, Agnosticism, Wicca, New Age, Progressivism, et al. are all worldviews. We all have one. We are all believers in our worldview. So how is it that some worldviews can take center stage in government while others are excluded from the table? Is that religious bigotry? Is that selective religion? What is separation of church and state if all of us are members of a “church” of one form or another? It’s all spiritual. Atheism, Prgressivism, Agnosticism, Christianity, Islam…..All are belief systems from which we launch our decisions, our votes, our legislation. Separation of what from what?



report abuse
 

H.G. Wells

posted February 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm


Yes, individually we all retain our perspective. Indeed, each person maintains a singular worldview, or belief system. The reason we separate religious beliefs from civil government is to recognize the singularity of each set of beliefs. We do not legislate beliefs, we do not require support of any such system. We legislate actions as completely separate from beliefs as we can so as not to assist any sub-set based on their beliefs; thus leaving it to people which, if any, belief they wish to support. Civil regulation by government deals with actions (i.e. you can’t KILL people or STEAL from them), not beliefs. For support regarding religious belief, one must seek it in the appropriate sphere–that sphere not being governmental at all.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 3, 2010 at 8:24 pm


That is what is so great about The New Testament. The Old Testament put people to death for sin. The New Testament teaches us to forgive others of their sin and to not hold account. It teaches us to follow Him and forget what lies behind. To crusify our flesh, which is our sinful nature. Love God with all our heart. Not, to look to others as our personal savior. To realize that they too have fallen short of the mark. To know that everybody has a sinful nature which they to can learn to crusify and become more like Him. So why would you want to except Him? Well without him you are brought forth to the judgement seat on your own merrit. Who would want to be brought before our Heavenly Father with our own sinful nature? For God is a holy God. There is no sin within him. He is pure love. So, it is very wise to except Jesus as your Lord and savior, so you will not be judged on that day when you die and your brought before the Lord on your own sin. You will be seen as a spotless lamb as our Lord. For that is why He lived and died for you. I wish we all could be sinless creatures, but we are not. We are given the choice to form our own ideas and make our own choices. That is why God put into place consequences for our action. Animal sacrifice is no longer needed for your atonement and Jesus came with His blood so you can be forgiven. God rest your souls.
Cara



report abuse
 

Gigglepuss

posted February 3, 2010 at 9:05 pm


“To know that everybody has a sinful nature which they to can learn to crusify and become more like Him. So why would you want to except Him? Well without him you are brought forth to the judgement seat on your own merrit. Who would want to be brought before our Heavenly Father with our own sinful nature? For God is a holy God. …Animal sacrifice is no longer needed for your atonement and Jesus came with His blood so you can be forgiven.”
No comment really, it’s just so FUNNY that it’s worth another read!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 3, 2010 at 10:03 pm


It’s insane is what it is.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 4, 2010 at 9:26 am


You missed the point. Your religious views and beliefs, even as secular are what drive your decisions regarding right, wrong and what should be regulated and what is exempt. You, H.G.Wells operate from your own religious belief system–just as a Christian does. Why do we separate Christians perspectives from government, but not yours?
Here’s the point. Separation of “church and state” aside from being a secular invention and not a Constitutional mandate, is impossible. You are excluding my religion but not your own. Bigotry? Intolerance?……of my Christian perspective.



report abuse
 

HG Wells

posted February 4, 2010 at 1:57 pm


We separate all religious belief from government; not just the bigoted,intolerant, Christian beliefs.



report abuse
 

HG Wells

posted February 4, 2010 at 2:22 pm


The man who wrote, in large part, the Constitution (James Madison) thought he had written a separation of government from religion into the constitution–and said so. I’ve put it in quotes for you several times!
Keep your feelings, your views and beliefs–just don’t legislate money to religious organizations, it’s unconstitutional and a very bad idea! I don’t see the government shelling out cash to American Atheists, nor should I. Would Jesus want money coerced from the pockets of people who didn’t want to give? (Probably!) Too bad, not a penny unless it’s given willingly–and the place to do that is in Church. Duh.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 4, 2010 at 2:24 pm


Refuting the lies of the Christian:
You missed the point. Your religious views and beliefs, even as secular are what drive your decisions regarding right, wrong and what should be regulated and what is exempt.
Boris says: The stupidity and willful ignorance of that statement is typical of the demented and retarded religious mind. Secular views, in other words, non-religious views are NOT religious.
You, H.G.Wells operate from your own religious belief system–just as a Christian does. Why do we separate Christians perspectives from government, but not yours?
Boris says: Why do we separate Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Scientology beliefs from the government? Because all religious beliefs and ridiculous and very dangerous, not to mention the fact that they have ALL been proved false by science.
Here’s the point. Separation of “church and state” aside from being a secular invention and not a Constitutional mandate, is impossible.
Boris says: No it isn’t. We just haven’t finished wiping out the Christina religion – yet. But the time is almost here. Yes our secular, deistic founders invented the idea of Separation of Church and State. This is because our founders were not Christians. Rather most of our founders hated Christianity and mocked Christians for the uneducated and dangerous idiots they have always been: “The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious… One only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” – Thomas Jefferson
You are excluding my religion but not your own. Bigotry? Intolerance?……of my Christian perspective.
Boris says: Atheists don’t have a religion. Atheists have a scientific and philosophical worldview, the only worldview acceptable in the 21rt century. Christian retards that believe in angels, demons, Satan, seraphs and the rest of the insane Christian superstitions will no longer be taken seriously. History has taught us what Christians are like when they gain control of a government. The lesson of Nazi Germany and Hitler’s attempt to Christianize the world must never be forgotten no matter what propaganda Christian liars throw out to try to hide the Christianity of Adolpf Hitler and his Christian henchmen.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 4, 2010 at 4:31 pm


Re: Boris
Athiest are not looking at the data of everything more complicated then themselves. Which when you do that, you realize that there is a God. So enough about that.
Re: H. G. Wells
Well, there is the church which I am apart of which does not contain walls. Meaning, the body of Christ. So know matter where I am in the state or otherwise, you can not separate me. What I see from the Constitution is this, you have the right to make your own religious choices, but you can not impose those views on others in government laws. Meaning you can not make a religious law. You have the right to vote for things which are in line with your views and vote out the beliefs which are not in line with your views. It does not mean that you can force a religion out of government as well. Meaning, if there are Christians in government, you can not force them to make secular laws, which eliminate God. For in God we trust is protected in the fact that we have religious freedom in our government and they can not make us become godless.
Re: Giggle…
Your taking your faith about God very disrespectful in nature. So on judgement day, you will be judged for all of your sins given the nature of your belief and sarcasm, which is clearly against Jesus Christ and our heavenly Father.
Cara



report abuse
 

HG Wells

posted February 4, 2010 at 5:05 pm


There is no religion in our government, Cara, because government does not deal with people’s beliefs (except to declare them an unalienable right) it deals with people’s actions. Of course people will vote for candidates they believe will do the best job in their view, but that doesn’t mean they vote for someone because they’re a Christian vs. a Catholic vs. a Baptist (unless they are a religious nut who wants a theocratic coup of our governmental system!). It doesn’t matter what their beliefs concerning a supernatural being are, they do not legislate beliefs–they legislate actions. Judges do not rule on the basis of the Bible, but of the law. When they found, in Roe v Wade, that there is a protected right to privacy, they found in the law (regardless of whether it’s in the Bible) The People’s Constitutional protection of this Liberty. Why would you trash The People’s Liberty to enforce your own religious views on everyone? Because you are an inconsiderate nutcase is what I think.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 4, 2010 at 8:40 pm


Re: H. G. Wells
There are definetely religious people in government which vote for things which are consistant with their beliefs in God. As they should. Just because you do not look to a higher power for your beliefs, doesn’t give you the power to exclude their beliefs in God or what people of religious faith believe. They are entitled to vote and legislate their belief system according to the people.
The Constitution dictates that they can not make a religious law, but of course Thou Shalt Not Kill is of course consistant with biblical beliefs, it does not however have to be represented in government as
Christian or Jewish laws in place. This law is consistant with a life of liberty.
As for Roe v. Wade, it is against the Constitution in the fact that our Posterity(all of our descendants) are entitled to a defense and a life of liberty, as so the Constitution states.
As for a right to privacy, this is not however to be applied when others are in fact taking away others rights to a defense and a life of liberty. In fact, murdering the people. For the most part, most murderers that I have heard about, have in fact murdered others privately trying to get away with the murder. Even if others were in on the murder, it would in fact still be a murder and this would not make it somehow more ethical because it was a private act. That is an insane conscept. That would be like when people do things privately know matter what they are they are entitled to do whatever because it is private. No, there could be completely illegal activity taking place which could and should be brought forth publicly,so that that illegal activity is stopped.
Cara



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 4, 2010 at 9:07 pm


What a retard.



report abuse
 

H.G. Wells

posted February 4, 2010 at 9:09 pm


Good grief, you don’t know how to read at all do you? Or perhaps you just don’t bother reading that which you personally disagree with? Either way your reply shows complete disregard for everything I’ve written, as well what Boris has written, …the Supreme Court, …the Framers of the Constitution. You don’t seem to think that any voice other than Cara’s counts for anything. Wrong. You’re making things up as you go along and often get caught. The introduction of the Constitution which you cite (not an Article or Amendment with force of law), has been shown to request that we secure LIBERTY for ourselves and our posterity. The very thing you want to do away with! Why is it that you think you need to take away the people’s liberty? You think decisions about THEIR lives are better left in YOUR hands? I don’t think so, and obviously, neither do they!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm


Re: H.G. Wells
Yes, the very thing that you are igoring. Sorry you find that your liberty is the one that counts and our Posterity is worth a law of murdering them. Yes, indeed it does violate the Constitution.
Re: Boris
Yes, people who insult people are lacking in self-esteem. For if you had any ground to stand on, you would not go down to dirt level.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 5, 2010 at 5:55 pm


Sometimes, I get a bit tired. So there could be some mistakes in writing from time to time. I am not perfect, and neither are you.
C



report abuse
 

HG Wells

posted February 5, 2010 at 10:55 pm


This Universe, being the result of an explosion, is unlikely to offer much in the way of perfection, so I don’t care that much about spelling errors (they can be quite humerous) and careless editing (heh, it happens) unless it makes it difficult to define your point (and it can). Living as an imperfect being on an imperfect world has its perks and its drawbacks.
But your abysmal reading comprehension, Cara, is intolerable. Misconstruing the obvious meaning of sentences does not redefine what was written, or its intent; it merely goes to show that a certain percentage of people won’t be able to follow basic grammatical structure. It doesn’t matter what you read though, because no amount of knowledge can overrule what you already know. God is the answer to everything. If any information threatens that, then you simply refuse to assimilate it. Boop!
“God did it” isn’t the kind of thing you could logically carry on with for long on a blog, and would make for a terribly boring round of JEOPARDY! All three contestants question the same answer the same way… “Who is God?”, and each would think the other was wrong! It’s crazy shizzle.
Still no answer as to why you want to take people’s liberty away from them. Oh wait, nevermind, I know why. YOU KNOW what God wants better than they do, so, of course, it’s for their own good!
Yeah, Boris, I hear the theme to a certain TV show playing in the background whenever I read what Cara writes!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 6, 2010 at 5:41 pm


Re: H. G Wells- Thanks for the complement. Your calling your own kettle black again. Yes, I am for protecting our Posterity with liberty and justice for all. So, Mr. Wells this does not prelude our Posterity from having liberty. Redefine what? People developing. Pretty clear cut. As for Jeopardy, it is what it is. Three people together can in fact agree on one God, despite your last blog. I am for protecting people. You are in fact trying to take away people which have liberty if the country would so let them. It is too bad that they haven’t yet seen the unconstitutional beliefs in murdering developing people through abortion and Embryonic Stem-Cell. Yes, I know that there are abadoned children via fertility clinics. So where is the death certificate? So what I am hearing from the scientic community is in fact that people are not people when they are very tiny and developing. They in fact think that because a person is in stages of development that they are fact something that they can identify as a generic blog of organic mass. In fact they can go right in there and tell what body parts they are using for research. A bit contradictory, don’t you think, in the fact that they are trying to make us believe that they are not people , when in fact they are using their developing parts and they can identify what the identity of the body part the cell is. Cara



report abuse
 

HG Wells

posted February 6, 2010 at 6:12 pm


“Yes, I am for protecting our Posterity with liberty and justice for all.”
No, you aren’t. You are in favor of calling an embryonic stage egg a descendant before it is known if they are going to be born! Many aren’t you know, God at work according to you. You award eggs citizen status while removing all liberty from The People who you would force into being parents simply because they had sex! That is not securing liberty for ourselves and our descendants, it is giving up an individual liberty! It’s ridiculous in too many ways to contemplate.
All because you want to call eggs people and seem to think people are incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not they are ready to raise a child. I think you are trying to dictate to everyone, and they just aren’t listening. I can’t imagine why not!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 6, 2010 at 7:37 pm


Re: h g wells
Well Mr. h g, when the egg and the sperm come together they are in fact a growing human being.
Yes, you are in fact removing or killing by way of science project, people in development. If you ane not doing this process with your own two hands, you are in fact doing by way of enforcing your belief system to confuse the public into thinking that they are somehow something other than people in development. So, we know how you became a person. You did not grow on a tree. Your right in thinking that people are ending others lives before they can live out their life. Just because science has found a way to take people out of their natural environment to live, does not somehow make them less then who they are. If they are in fact in the womb, they would have the nurturing care to grow, as they should. If that child in development could not live there because of a natural cause, this would be a miscarriage. So, I do not believe in you deciding who should live and who should die. Thank you very much. Once again, I do know that there are children being abandoned in fertility clinics. They should not have been brought to that stage of development by a person outside of the womb, if they were in fact not going to try and see if the mother could carry that child to term.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 6, 2010 at 7:40 pm


See if the mother can carry that child to term.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm


When sperm and egg of human beings come together, you in fact get developing people.
Cara



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 6, 2010 at 8:09 pm


“I do not believe in you deciding who should live and who should die.”
I don’t believe in you deciding either, except in your own personal case. Nor do I agree with you that eggs are more important than citizens, or that having sex obligates a person to parenthood. I especially disagree that you should have the power, somehow, to throw out the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and The Peoples Liberty. Fortunately, such is not the case!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 7, 2010 at 11:43 am


Cara is a perfect representative for Christianity isn’t she? I don’t believe any Christian has ever had a three digit IQ. In fact I know this to be absolutely true. Cara’s is single digit obviously. I understand Sekulow’s two boys IQs are 86 and 88. ROFL!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 7, 2010 at 12:23 pm


I grew up in Arlington County Virginia. The mansion where the Family was located then was near the house where the American Nazi Party was headquartered. The Family routinely held meetings at both locations with Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell who was also a leading member of the “Family” at that time. As teenagers we used to taunt the Family’s storm troopers who proudly displayed the swastika on armbands. The Family is a Nazi organization that reveres their Christian brother Adolf Hitler, as the second coming of Jesus Christ. One could easily peek through their windows at the time and see the pictures of Adolf Hitler posted on their walls. I am an eyewitness to these facts.
“In 2009, the Fellowship received media attention in connection with three prominent Republicans politician members who reportedly engaged in extra-marital affairs. Two of them, Senator John Ensign, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee in the Senate and the fourth ranking in his party’s Senate leadership, and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, immediate past Chair of the Republican Governors Association and U.S. Representative from 1995–2001, were considering running for President in 2012. The affairs of Ensign and then-Congressman Chip Pickering, R-Miss., took place while they were living at the C Street Center. Each of the three voted to impeach Bill Clinton for trying to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky.” – Wikipedia



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 7, 2010 at 5:38 pm


Re: Boris
Obviously you find some sort of intellectual challenge in my post Boris, for if you didn’t, you wouln’t want to try and degrade them so much. This happens when people feel threatened once again. So if your going to refer to me in any light Boris, stick to the facts. Instead of some mean gesture brought forth because I have a point and it is true. It is very reflective on the type of relationships you have. You don’t know what my IQ is Boris. So, your lies are in fact about yourself or what you want others to believe. You go about your day and realize that you are in fact a person who degrades others for the pleasure of it. When you don’t have a point, you try personal attacks to hurt. Which are indeed a result of the other person having any argument which you can not refute.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 7, 2010 at 5:44 pm


Re: HG
Unfortunately, there are laws in place which are contradictory to our Constitution. Whether or not the Supreme Court wants to line up with the Constitution should be the question?
Posterity are in fact being destroyed at the present time because of laws in place brought forth by The Supreme Court. So, this is in fact completely in opposition to our Posterity having liberty and a defence.
Cara



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm


Fortunately their are laws in place which protect the Liberty of a free people from those, like you, who would replace that Liberty with religious oppression.
Our descendents can’t BE descendents until they have descended. That happens when people are BORN and certified a citizen.
And why would we surrender our Liberties, our own and our posterity’s, of choice and privacy? Something about leaving decisions in the hands of The People that you don’t like Cara?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 3:05 pm


descend-
to move from a higher to a lower place.
HG
My point is this, just because you are taking the developing children before they can be born or descended, as you so state. Does not so indicate that they are not our descendants. For that is murdering them before they are born. Which you find to be relevant to your case. In other words, your not even letting our Posterity descend naturally. Your interfering with the child being born or artificially maniputlating the sperm and the egg outside of their natural environment so they can not survive. Either way they are our descendants, it is just that you don’t let them descend.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 3:09 pm


HG,
Another definiton for Posterity is this, future generations.
So they are all future generations! Once again they are entitled to a life of liberty and a defense.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 3:12 pm


Posterity is our future generations.
So there you go, they don’t even have to descend.
Liberty entitilement towards our Posterity from our United States Constitution.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 3:14 pm


entitlement
Cara



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 8, 2010 at 3:20 pm


Yes, descendants (those descended from others; a descendant must be BORN in this country) are entitltled to liberty–so kindly stop trying to take theirs, and ours, away. What is it about leaving decisions in the hands of The People that upsets you Cara? Stop trying to give our Constitutionally protected freedoms away to the government, or the church!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 4:52 pm


Posterity-future genterations
The United States Constitution
We the Peple of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 4:54 pm


Posterity-future generations
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm


Dear HG
You would do well to listen to Cara. I am a scientist and while science does a fair job of explaining “what” it can never tell us “why”. the “Why’s” of our world relate to purpose and are answered by finding meaning behind the “whats” of our world. Science cannot do that. Science can tell us the fetus is alive. Science can tell us the mother is alive. Science cannot assign value–that becomes the human opinion of the scientist. No longer is it science.
Trying to answer moral questions with science is impossible. Morality is a function of your world view. Cara’s values life on both ends of the spectrum and argues that human intervention is immoral. Your worldview makes a judgement about the relative value of life–the mother is more important than the fetus. It’s your judgement. What makes you so sure you are right in your worldview? Popular opinion? Science cannot help you.
So who’s worldview is correct? Cara’s cannot be proven by science. Neither can yours. It’s a question of the heart.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted February 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm


I think “The Family” legislation for the execution and imprisonment of homosexuals is outrageous. How would “The Family” feel if there was legislation for the execution and imprisonment of heterosexuals?



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted February 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm


I think “The Family” legislation for the execution and imprisonment of homosexuals is outrageous. How would “The Family” feel if there was legislation for the execution and imprisonment of heterosexuals? I personally think homosexuality is wrong according to Biblical principles in both the Old and New Testaments; however, according to the US Constitution, it is acceptable for people to BELIEVE anything they want to.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 8, 2010 at 7:42 pm


“Dear HG
You would do well to listen to Cara. I am a scientist and while science does a fair job of explaining “what” it can never tell us “why”. the “Why’s” of our world relate to purpose and are answered by finding meaning behind the “whats” of our world. Science cannot do that.”
While I do not begrudge Cara her right to find meaning in her own way, to say I would do well to listen to her is stretching it very thin indeed! The mentally lame do not hold a monopoly on finding meaning in life. I do not need an imaginary supernatural being to help me find meaning, that’s a fact. Science explains many “what” questions, true, but you undervalue it, I think, by claiming it never explains “why”. I often find that knowing “what” happened tells me “why” later events followed.
Either way, it is not germane to the topic of Constitutionally protected individual Liberties. I can never get an answer as to why she thinks Our Liberties should be given over to the government or to the church. And you seem to think I would do well to listen to a person whose understanding of the intro to the U.S Constitution was intended to protect eggs! I think it’s pretty obvious that the Liberty of our people and our descendants was the topic, not eggs.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 9, 2010 at 12:51 pm


Your understanding of Christianity, science and the US Constitution shows your lack of education, your bigoted ignorance, and your arrogance. Good luck with that.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 9, 2010 at 2:24 pm


Your lack of backing up what you say shows you are a blow-hard. Go blow somebody else.
I understand Christianity very well, that’s why I think it’s insane.
On the subjects of science and the Constitution I have crushed all opposing arguments, and I am only bigoted toward idiots. That probably does make me seem arrogant to them, you. Thanks, I’ve already had considerable good fortune. Chill and learn.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm


I suppose you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest and all that?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm


Evolution is an observable process in nature, of course I believe it occurs!
I suppose you believe that the Framers intent in writing “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” in the Constitutional exordium was to protect eggs? That is a position which has been thoroughly scrambled.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 9, 2010 at 4:02 pm


Like I said before, no time for abuse.
The Constitution states that our Posterity are to have a defense and liberty and welfare.
Eggs in itself are indeed not our Posterity. It is the fertilized human eggs I am talking about. You know, an Embryo. A human being in the making. That would indeed be our Posterity, our future generations of people.
Truth,
Cara



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm


Sorry, but a fertilized egg is not a descendant. Many fertilized eggs have not survived pregnancy for various reasons. Nobody that I know of ever listed a miscarriage as a descendant, so no, that would not be our posterity. There are such things as dead descendants, but the Framers were not encouraging us to secure liberty for them! The thinking impaired do qualify, as long as they have a birth certificate, but liberty doesn’t seem to do much for them. They would give away their liberty, and everyone else’s!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 9, 2010 at 8:00 pm


Uh excuse me for interrupting but Your Name, on February 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM claimed to be a scientist. Then after implying H.G. was a bigot Your Name made this post on February 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM: “I suppose you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest and all that?” What kind of “scientist” asks a ridiculous question like that and phrased in such a manner? An evolution denying scientist – right. That’s like a pilot who thinks flight is “only a theory.” A scuba diver who can’t swim. A fat person that doesn’t like food. And to top it off this nut thinks we unbelievers don’t understand Christian superstitions.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 9, 2010 at 9:06 pm


Yeah Boris, I noticed that too …very fishy.
Pretty sad when somebody’s so dumb they don’t even notice when their argument has been burned down. Even more sad when they try to keep using it as if it still had meaning. I’ve seen it here before, and I know you have too!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 10, 2010 at 11:50 am


Just wanted to know if you and Boris had a rudimentary grasp of evolution and survival of the fittest. Glad to see you understand it and glad to see you embrace it. In the debate for superior ideas, it is sometimes impossible to persuade when the other person claims to have an understanding but is really just saying “cheeseburger”, like the two of you. So I wanted to make sure you understood that principles of evolution. Why? Because evolution does not depend upon intellectual superiority per se. Physical characteristics are sometimes dominant in the determination of the perpetuation of a species. In the case of the two of you, your intellectual inferiority should be enough to assure that you will have no descendents of any consequence. But just in case, on the physical side of things, if I ever come across either one of you or both at the same time, I’ll mop the floor with your scraggly punk hair. Evolution wins!



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm


Evolution can favor physical and/or intellectual superiority. My guess is that your clan is fading fast. I don’t know Boris, what do you think? I’m guessing it’s a bull-dyke with hormonal/steroid (among other) problems, possibly related to Cara.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 10, 2010 at 3:04 pm


Yes, I know that fertilized human eggs can in fact go through a miscarriage. So, is that your excuse as to why you feel it is ok to take developing people out of their natural environment to live and chalk them up to a science project for a cure. Or,because a person goes in there some kind of way to rid the mother of the child before that child comes to term that it is somehow not a murder?
Wrong!
So, who are you trying to tell a lie to, so you can keep on doing what you are doing?
Posterity, is indeed our future generations. So, somehow you find by insulting me that you are not somehow murdering them by procedure or lies of mislead laws.
Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm


“Yes, I know that fertilized human eggs can in fact go through a miscarriage. So, is that your excuse as to why you feel it is ok to(abort them)?”
No, the reason abortion is “ok” is that it is a legal medical procedure. The reason I pointed out that fertilized eggs are sometimes miscarried was to help you understand why fertilized eggs do not count as “descendants”. Your claim that the Framers thought of eggs as “posterity” is absolutely hilarious! That they somehow included legal protection for these eggs in the introduction to the Constitution is beyond preposterous!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm


Fertilized human eggs are our Posterity.
Future generations.
If you destroy them and take away their right to be born and give them an environment of death, you are indeed murdering people.
They can not grow into maturing adulthood when people destroy them and don’t let them grow inside a mother for the chance to live a healthy life.
Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm


“Fertilized human eggs are our Posterity.”
Wrong, you are regressing.
“If you destroy them and take away their right to be born and give them an environment of death, you are indeed murdering people.”
Wrong again, oh dear, you’ve forgotten the lesson, and the law, already.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 10, 2010 at 3:45 pm


Your Name,
Sure you will pencil neck. Unless your benching about 250 for reps you won’t be doing anything physical with me punk, except perhaps squealing like pig.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 10, 2010 at 5:41 pm


Re: HG
I read what you are putting down. I understand that you are representing the present laws in place state that fertilized human eggs are something by law a person has treated less then human with rights.
The point is this: The law is wrong in fact that they are giving others the right to take life while at the same time prosecuting others for the same thing. The difference at this point is age of the person and location. For at the time of conception, yes conception, those are people developing.
Yes, those are our future generations being denied rights. Yes, you are acting as if the laws in place are fair. Which they are indeed discriminating against people who can not talk for themselves, because they are indeed too young to speak and vote out people like you, who don’t seem to care about one little breath they take, let alone a whole lifetime which you are doing away with.
Roe v. Wade is indeed against our Posterity. Roe v. Wade is indeed against Posterity rights in our Constitution. Roe v. Wade should have been thrown our of court on the grounds that these are people developing who are yet to speak, who are yet to vote. Yes, I know that some children when developing lose their life from a miscarriage. This does not throw out the fact that they too, were developing people. Those miscarriages were brought forth by physical changes in the mother’s body, which indeed brought forth an child which could not sustain life. So, I will not argue the fact that people interrupted the life cycle of the child when the child was aborted by actions of mother and physician. Life interrupted. No life in a fertility clinic should not be given the chance to be born. Otherwise, unfortunatly those children are given a death sentence. Who are we as a people to give children not the opportunity to have a life such as we.
So I don’t want to hear more of your idiotic rhetoric about how the laws in place make a life a blob of tissue to be dicarded, chopped up and given a life without parole. A death sentence. I for one, am for giving children the opportunity to live a life. To do otherwise is a selfish, arrogant existence in the fact saying or acting as if our life is somehow more superior to theirs. Cara



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 10, 2010 at 6:05 pm


That’s right, they have no voice–because they haven’t been born.
“The point is this: The law is wrong…”
I understand that YOU think the law is wrong. I think it is right, along with millions of other people. What I think is selfish and arrogant is that you would presume to speak for EVERYONE, over-ruling what THEY think is right (with the law on their side) as if YOUR beliefs were superior to theirs. Your willingness to toss out the constitution, the supreme court, and the Liberty of We The People because of your own beliefs is, fortunatley, not paired with an ability to make it happen. I know you would if you could, …others of us are glad you can’t!



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 10, 2010 at 7:28 pm


Boris said: “…you won’t be doing anything physical with me punk, except perhaps squealing like pig.”
HG says: I had a thought that we should name this ‘your name’ “Ned Beatty”, from his role in the film Deliverance, but I’m sure you were only talking about an arm bar or something, heh heh.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm


Re: HG
Well, that is why there are millions of deaths in this country caused by people who don’t care if our future gernerations of children are being murdered worldwide. It is still against The United States Constitution.
That is why this country is a muck. Posterity are being killed under law.
This is wrong. HG, you should be ashamed of yourself for wanting others to murder children when they are being developed. Yes, there are abusive parents. So your for clean, funded, private murders?
This is a very sad day in this country for people who wish to teach morals and ethics that it is wrong to murder people. For the unborn in the womb or in a science lab by way of scientist are indeed developing people.
That is why I don’t want to be an American. You should be ashamed of yourself for denying people of their right to live. For if that is what the new practice of American’s is, the right to murder by law, then I don’t want to be an American. The past framers of this country have indeed put down a track of legislation which contradicts these present laws. Unfortunatly I can not go back in time and live in that time period. Not everything was perfect then either. They had slaves, which is another way of saying that people are not as worthy as another. So there, that is why I am having a hard time with this present and past world. Why do people think of themselves more highly over another.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 11, 2010 at 2:34 pm


People have chosen to murder people.
This is wrong.
This is wrong that our developing children are indeed being murdered.
CARA



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm


“Why do people think of themselves more highly over another.”
I don’t know, why do you? What makes you think that your religious beliefs hold sway over the laws of this country? What makes you think you can throw out the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the Liberty of We The People, just because YOU don’t like for people to have such a degree of Liberty?
“That is why I don’t want to be an American.”
Because you don’t rule? Tough break!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 12, 2010 at 5:13 pm


Re: HG Your right, God does. Over you for sure and the people. That is why I have faith that everything will turn out for the good for those who are called according to His purpose. I do hold the Constitution up and I see that your public documenting of nonsense is not in line with the Constitution. Thus giving way to misconceptions and beliefs which are not consistent with defending our Posterity and giving way to public dictatorship and killing the growing people. That is why people are thrown out of office and The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America is at this point having biasing views which murder developing people by law. I am not saying all of the members or that they are not changing their mind. People grow, and new facts come to the table. Some people are stuck in the mud. Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 12, 2010 at 7:09 pm


I know, and I’m glad, that I’m correct in asserting that you don’t rule, and I point out that, under our Constitution (nor in any sense, imo), God rules doodly-squat – has nothing to say about anything.
You’re argument burned down days ago when it’s multiple absurdities were put under the magnifying glass. Poof! A quick review for those, like Cara, who have difficulty retaining information.
Her argument that the Constitutional preamble requires all fertilized eggs be protected is false because:
1. The preamble has no force of law. It informs us that, in order to achieve certain things, they establish and ordain the Constitution of the United States. That’s all.
2. Why did they do it? What did they wish to achieve? They told us it was to:
(a) Establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense.
The Supreme Court, which Cara thinks can now be disregarded because of her view that they erred in a ruling, is at the top of the system of justice they established. Notice how the noun, the object of the verb, follows the verb. Establish…justice. Insure…domestic Tranquility. Provide…common defense.
(b) Promote…general welfare. Secure…blessings of Liberty. The focus here is on Liberty, not what constitutes “posterity”. If they had wished to secure rights for eggs, they would have said so, and they would have done it within the body of Constitution not in the preamble. “Ourselves and our posterity” identifies the people for whom they attempt to secure the blessings of Liberty. Posterity, our descendants.
Who did they consider to be “descendants” in this context? Is it reasonable to think that they specifically meant to include fertilized, or soon-to-be fertilized, eggs in the list of people for whom they were attempting to secure Liberty? No, it’s insane. In this context it is easy to see that the Framers intent was on securing Liberty for ourselves and those who follow in this country. To suggest that any of the Framers thought of fertilized eggs as citizens, residents, or descendants takes real imagination. People of that time often didn’t even name a child until it had lived a year or two, much less consider fertilized eggs descendants!
Cara wishes to relieve The People of burdensome decision-making about their lives. Decisions about everyone’s life should be up to Cara, who will personally interpret the word of God by which we all must live. Oh what a better country, world, this would be…BWAH-HAH-HAH—-PSYCH



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 13, 2010 at 4:18 pm


Re: HG
No argument, just the facts.
We the People of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
To ourselves and our Posterity.
———
futute generations
It seems that there is allot that has not been protected by a defense with liberty and welfare and blessings. PEOPLE
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm


Mathew 5: 44
“But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you , do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 13, 2010 at 5:07 pm


Secure…Liberty. Freedom from religious oppression was a novel concept, and a good one. They get to do their thing, and I get to do mine…hoo rah.



report abuse
 

Courtney

posted February 13, 2010 at 6:35 pm


I think the main thing to understand is that Government should play no role in the persecution of gay or lesbians. People should be able to live their lives based off of what they believe in not what the Government overall believes in. I am a Christian, and yes the Bible does teach that homosexual relationships are sinful there is no doubt about that, but that does not make the mass killings of innocent people right in any way. Christianity is about acceptance and leading by example, not persecution and judgment.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 13, 2010 at 7:12 pm


Courtney said:
“I think the main thing to understand is that Government should play no role in the persecution of gay or lesbians.”
I don’t know about it being the main thing, but it is certainly true! Persecution of others because of their beliefs, sexual orientation, or race punishes no hostile action that I can discern.
I’m glad that some followers of Christianity read the teachings as you do, but we all know there are many who read it quite differently! The same can be said of the Muslim world, many believe it is peaceful–but many easily find justification for violence against others.
Tolerance and intolerance are learned traits, and there is ample evidence that intolerance finds a large audience among the religious; where enforced domination of beliefs equates to righteousness and power.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 16, 2010 at 3:37 pm


Re: HG
Enforced domination of beliefs equates to righteousness and power?
It depends on what your dishing out. If you are dishing out lies and corruption as a dominant belief system, then you would be equating yourself with sin and powerless confusion.
Cara



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted April 16, 2010 at 10:16 am


“Bible does teach that homosexual relationships are sinful there is no doubt about that,”
Actually, Courtney, there is a LOT of doubt about that. The 6 references in the Bible have to do with homosexual lust, homosexual rape and homosexual temple/cult prostitution.
These are NOT the same as – or anywhere near – what we discuss today when we speak of “homosexual relationships”.



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.