Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Putting Health Care on Hold as Curriculum Questions Arise

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, I agree the polls on President’s health care reform plan are universally poor and I understand why most Americans believe the plan is not good for the economy and that we need to start over – an option that the President doesn’t want to seem to embrace.

And there’s certainly more to discuss – a plan that interjects government into many new areas of our lives, a high-cost plan that just doesn’t add up – not to mention an issue that many would like to ignore – abortion funding in health care.  But, let’s put this on the shelf for right now.

I want to take a moment to examine an issue that you and I consider vital – the crafting of the curriculum for public school students.

As you know, FOX News is producing a number of stories focusing on efforts by the Texas State Board of Education – as it grapples with curriculum modifications for its public school students – modifications that often get implemented by textbook producers who provide materials for many schools beyond Texas.

In a report which aired on FOX Newsboth you and I weighed in on the ongoing curriculum controversy.

Barry, you are correct.  This is the next real culture clash because what happens with public school curriculum issues will have a profound impact on students for years to come.

And, here’s where my concern is focused regarding all of this.  There are reports that proposed changes to textbooks being considered in Texas would actually remove references to our religious history.  There’s a push to eliminate the names of some Founders and even a proposal to fast-forward American history so that it begins in the early to mid 1800’s.  Barry, this kind of revisionism is ridiculous.

As I told FOX News, we shouldn’t purge references to our nation’s religious history. What’s wrong with acknowledging the fact that many Founders relied on Divine Providence and as a nation we adopted a framework for freedom – documents that among other things proclaim we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights?

One thing is clear: the debate over curriculum issues certainly will continue no matter what is decided in Texas.  And, yes, there will certainly be more debates – inside and outside the classroom – regarding the proper role we should place on our Founders and our religious history.

These curriculum decisions are vitally important – they will set the tone for what students are taught in our schools for years to come.  But let’s not re-write history to do it.

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(98)
post a comment
aveteran

posted March 10, 2010 at 11:32 am


“As I told FOX News, we shouldn’t purge references to our nation’s religious history.”
By all means – let’s tell the true story of the persection conducted by the colonial theocracies. The deadly riots in Boston over which version of the Bible to force on public school students. The slaughter of indigenous natives by godly men, and the extermination of native cultures and systemic abuse of native children by missionaries. Tell the WHOLE story, without purging the unpleasant bits, or leave it be.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted March 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm


What I want to know is this…
Can we get Limbaugh to put into writing his promise to leave the country if the health care bill is passed. I think that is incentive enough for many people to lobby Congress for its passage. All of the bureaucratic ballyhoo is not impressing anyone and just makes people quake at the thought. But Limbaugh’s promise is a real and tangible reason to act quickly and decisively.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 10, 2010 at 12:47 pm


The secularists say God should not be taught in public school.
And, yet, public schools teach about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses!
Why can’t public schools teach about God, vis a vis history, too?
“Cuz,” they say, “that would be trying to sneak God into public schools, violating the First Amendment!”
If talking about God vis a vis history is a violation, then so is talking about Greek and Roman gods and goddessess, for the same reason.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 10, 2010 at 12:50 pm


Several Libs, including Alec Baldwin, said that, if Bush was reelected in ’04, they would leave the country. They never did.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm


The Greek and Roman gods are not taught as though they actually existed. So children are learning about false religions and false gods. It is the Christians who don’t want their God taught as though it is a false God as it should be in the public schools. I’m all for teaching children about the false God of the Bible and why this God does not exist like all the rest of the gods. But the Christians are afraid that the truth be known about their false God.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm


“And, yet, public schools teach about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses!”
Indeed they do! They also include the pantheon of Norse deities, some of the Native American animal-spirits, and occasionally some Chinese or Indian deities.
It’s called mythology, and I for one am quite content to let Christianity’s god be taught right along with the rest…as myths.



report abuse
 

Vas

posted March 10, 2010 at 1:40 pm


I agree that the curriculum revisionism going on in Texas is ridiculous. Pulling information on the Civil Rights movement, and injecting information promoting McCarthyism, Schafly and the Moral Majority seems like a petty bit of partisanship to me.
The door swings both ways, Sekulow.



report abuse
 

Pijai

posted March 10, 2010 at 4:14 pm


Jay
Texas is not trying to take Christianity out of the texts, they are trying to put the Old Testament in Biology and Geology classes and remove everything learned form astronomy.
They also want to hype Joe McCarthy as a hero. I also note that the John Birch Society is back in operation after many years and objecting to the teaching of climatology.
So as a spokesperson for the religious right, is there any scientific discipline that you can embrace? Any?
Then again, I am all for the parents of Texas raising little heathens who know-nothing. Makes those of us in the rest of the country where we do know something, just that much more necessary for jobs in America. If any kid from Texas came to me looking for work, I wouldn’t even consider him. I’d want someone who went to real schools where they teach real subjects and not that fantasy crap you seem to like so much.
Jay Sekulow, and all the Ken Copelands, bringing back the pre-Civil War Know-Nothing Party to a class room near you.



report abuse
 

Ann Neumann

posted March 10, 2010 at 4:55 pm


Mr. Sekulow is right about the health care bill not polling well but what he and other conservative foes of the bill fail to note is why. It is a horrible give-away to the medical industry that makes some very positive changes but is essentially a band-aid on our health care system’s structural crisis. As a country, we face serious economic challenges if the structure of health care isn’t changed. And soon. Liberals like myself oppose this approach to reform; we impatiently want a full overhaul now. And we don’t approve of the bill. Our disapproval counts for a large percentage of those who are polled as opposing the bill. (Along with the lesser-engaged who have been snowed by raging conservative media.)
On the school board: Conservatives are disingenuous about their intentions. Their approach to Christianizing education is sneaky and backdoor. Think *intelligent design,* a term created to disguise creationism. By trying to rewrite history in their own political tone they are working for a theocratic, nationalistic approach to American and world history. But this is not at all new. Since the founding of the country there have been those who oppose separation of church and state – even though it allows them to exist and protects them from discrimination – and they have tried to influence education. Often successfully.
These things go in phases as the population swings between reaction against a secularizing society and embracing modernization. My concern is that permanent damage is being done to legal and medical precedent, education and our future prospects as a country. The Medical Right is pushing ideological and discriminatory health care; the Legal Right is pushing ideological interpretation of the Constitution. These shadow organizations like the Christian Medical & Dental Association and the Alliance Defense Fund may practice medicine and law but they do so with a discrimination that is unconstitutional and damaging.
Progressive advocates and politicians believe in everyone’s rights. Conservatives has it easier; in a world without nuance there are only rights for those they agree with. The rights of women, gays, minorities, the poor, the religious left, elders be damned.



report abuse
 

Olga

posted March 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm


The biggest threat is not the removal of the references from “our religious history” but rather the new religious emphasis in the history textbooks, geared at furthering the ridiculous notion that the US is a Christian nation. And considering that the revisions would praise McCarthy as a hero makes them even more ludicrous. I strongly believe that the change to the curriculum is necessary, having survived its lackluster reign. Nevertheless, I think it’s coming from the wrong end of the spectrum, Jay. All the things you are defending foreshadow a divisive and exclusionary rift.



report abuse
 

aveteran

posted March 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm


Mr. Incredible blithered: “The secularists say God should not be taught in public school. And, yet, public schools teach about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses!”
As long as biblegod is taught as mythology just like the Greek and Roman stories, no problem. Nobody is indoctrinating children to worship Zeus the way the fundie zealots want to indoctrinate children in worshipping Jesus.



report abuse
 

Ann Neumann

posted March 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm


And by the way, I sure wish Jay Sekulow would stop diverting the topic from health care reform. I say this by way of apologizing for my contribution above.
Barry Lynn asked him to confirm two specific positions. He failed to do so.
I hope that he engages Lynn’s questions next time around and that this effort to direct the discussion away from substantive engagement will not become a pattern.



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted March 10, 2010 at 7:30 pm


Two Russian historians are quietly getting drunk together. Finally one speaks up. “As I see it, the problem is THIS, from day to day it is impossible to predict the past.”
Who would have thought that this classic joke would become relevant to the teaching of American history?



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 10, 2010 at 8:16 pm


People of varied beliefs were all present during our early history, I do not see their beliefs as cogent to any particular contribution. No one ever believed themselves into the history books, they performed acts worthy of note. If they performed a worthy act for religious reasons, textbooks should leave it at that (rather than examine the religion; of all the unecessary wastes of time!).
Schooling is difficult enough for students and teachers as it is, I think it would be a terrible, and monumentally difficult, distraction to engage our public schools in any teaching of religious beliefs. My Texas State Board of Education has one or two fruitcakes on it who have continually tried to hinder our public schools in this way, and I admonish the remainder of the Board to not be swayed by these dreadful attempts. Texans, and the country, should be watching this issue–but not on Fox “News”! (Sorry Barry, not even for you!)



report abuse
 

ASav

posted March 10, 2010 at 10:12 pm


Although I don’t believe that students should be swayed one way or the other on religious matters in the public classroom, I don’t think that Founders’ names should be removed from texts books because of religious connections. Ignoring that Christianity is a part of our nation’s history would be favoring non-religion. Not okay.



report abuse
 

RHE

posted March 10, 2010 at 11:58 pm


There is a fine line between factually representing a religion and delving into the finer aspects of that religion in a history class. Yes, many (not all) of our Founding Fathers were Christian. By saying this, no one is trying to make the argument that this nation is officially Christian, or Judeo-Christian. In fact, saying this is no different than teaching students that Romans believed that their country was established by Romulus and Remus, grandsons of the god of war. In middle school I was even required to memorize over 20 Greek gods/godesses and no one made a fuss. If it were Catholic Saints we had to memorize, there is no doubt in my mind that someone would have objected. I do understand, however, that Christian aspects of a school’s curriculum is a hot-button issue, making it more controversial. In any event, I believe there is being politically correct, and then there is being too politically correct. Removing factual names and events from history books is frankly eerie to me.



report abuse
 

TRoothSayer

posted March 11, 2010 at 1:48 am


To be perfectly honest this debate is completely irrelevant. We are basing this argument on the commonly held belief that the founding fathers were basing the framework of our country on christian doctrine. My how the American public has been misinformed by centuries of religiously biased historians. The truth is that the founding fathers were worshipers of the pagan god Baal. There is significant historical evidence to support this, but was covered up by the free masons in an attempt to Christianize the United States through the manipulation of historical FACT. Our country was not based on Christian beliefs but on plain old common sense on how to treat each other. Pagans all over the world embrace the idea of freedom, and the right to pursuit of happiness but just because there is a few references to some ambiguous God character in the declaration and constitution we all immediately turn to Christianity. They have tricked us and the only proof has been hidden along with the secret treasure of the free masons. I’ve been doing some digging and the map to this treasure is on the back of the declaration of independence. NO more Lies. Soon we will know the truth, everyone will know the truth.
Open your eyes America.
Sincerely,
Troothsayer



report abuse
 

Amy

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:02 am


To TroothSayer,
You last post was obviously a joke and this website is for people who are serious about the issue of church state separation. Also, the last part of your post was definitely the plot from National Treasure…
In reference to the article, I definitely do not think that references to the faith of our Founding Fathers should be removed from textbooks. I think that the idea is frightening and borders on censorship. Some of our best texts from the 17th century are of a religious nature. Just because they are religious does that mean that we shouldn’t study them as literature? I say no. I think that removing religious references from our textbooks would do a huge disservice to the men and women who founded this great nation. I think that our textbooks are in no way a violation of the Establishment Clause and should remain as they are.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 11, 2010 at 5:03 am


RHE
Name just one of our founders who was a Christian.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:22 am


Boris says:
The Greek and Roman gods are not taught as though they actually existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, they are, as though they exist to the cultures thought to have been influenced by them. God also [is thought to have] influenced matters here. It is all, at least, a matter of history. So, if gods is taught, so should God.
Boris says:
So children are learning about false religions and false gods.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant, as far as history is taught. What matters is that Roman and Greek gods and goddesses influenced cultures. So did God. The purpose of school is not to teach what is and what ain’t false, regarding “gods.” It is to see how cultures and society took direction and prospered in one direction, and didn’t in others.
Secularists say that teaching God in public school is just sneaking God into the public schools. Teaching Greek and Roman gods and goddesses is also sneaking religion into public school. Teach one, teach the other. If it is religion for one, it is religion for the other.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is the Christians who don’t want their God taught as though it is a false God…
Mr. Incredible says:
And He wouldn’t be. He would be taught as a historical figure, just as Greek and Roman gods and goddesses are now. Yet, you people say teaching God is sneaking religion in the school and that teaching Greek and Roman gods and goddesses is not. However, their common denominator is that they ALL had influence on history. So, if you teach gods and goddesses, you teach God, too, for the same reason.
Boris says:
I’m all for teaching children about the false God of the Bible…
Mr. Incredible says:
Who is the public school to say that God is false? All the school has to do is teach the historical influence of ALL, not just some.
Boris says:
Christians are afraid that the truth be known about their false God.
Mr. Incredible says:
Does anybody care what YOU think? No. A big, fat NO.
It would be teaching false religion to say that one, or the other, is false.
It’s interesting to note that you, an unbeliever, post on a site named, “Belief.” Everywhere you go, you turn the discussion to your atheism which you say is unbelief. Thus, you have nothing to add here. You’re not a problem in addition, rather of subtraction. Division, not multiplication.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:25 am


Boris aks:
Name just one of our founders who was a Christian.
Mr. Incredible answers:
Jefferson.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:28 am


Mr. Incredible says: And, yet, public schools teach about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses!
hlvanburen says:
Indeed they do! They also include the pantheon of Norse deities, some of the Native American animal-spirits, and occasionally some Chinese or Indian deities.
It’s called mythology, and I for one am quite content to let Christianity’s god be taught right along with the rest…as myths.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not for the schools to pass judgments, teaching reverse religion, or atheism. Teach them all as history. History is their common denominator.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:38 am


Alchy Averteran slurs:
As long as biblegod is taught as mythology just like the Greek and Roman stories, no problem. Nobody is indoctrinating children to worship Zeus the way the fundie zealots want to indoctrinate children in worshipping Jesus.
Mr. Incedible says:
Teach them all as history and the influence they ALL had on cultures. It is not for the school to determine which is true and which is false. YOU people want the school to indoctrinate which is true and which is false. I say that, if you’re gonna teach gods and goddesses as influences on societies and cultures, you teach God’s influence on societies and cultures.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:43 am


Olga says:
The biggest threat is not the removal of the references from “our religious history” but rather the new religious emphasis in the history textbooks…
Mr. Incredible says:
I agree that the teaching of Roman and Greek gods and goddesses as history influences is a religious history lesson.
God is also part of our history on Earth. He should be taught as such.
Olga says:
…the ridiculous notion that the US is a Christian nation.
Mr. Incredible says:
You don’t have-ta believe it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:47 am


What belief is Boris, an unbeliever, advocating here, on a site named, “Belief”?
If he has no belief — he says that atheism is not a belief, though it is — why is he helping to support a site named “Belief”?
The only reason would be that atheism IS a belief system. He says he believes God doesn’t exist. Atheism is not no belief. It is not a void.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:52 am


TRoothSayer says:
The truth is that the founding fathers were worshipers of the pagan god Baal.
Mr. Incredible says:
Garbage.
TRoothSayer says:
There is significant historical evidence to support this.
Mr. Incredible says:
Bring it. Post legit, uncorrupted, unbiased, empirical evidence from authoritative, trusted sources, like archives of their work.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 8:54 am


At 8:47. Your Name posted. That’s actually me. I forgot to fill in the name. I’m glad to take credit for the post.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 10:52 am


If we are to believe the secularists, simply talking about a god and goddesses within a lesson plan on school time is promotion of them. After all, they say that merely including God in a lesson plan, in the context of history, is still bringing “religion” into public school. So, if we can teach about gods and goddesses in public school, we can teach about God in public school. Excluding God-positions is also a violation of the law in that it would be viewpoint discrimination — that is, you may not stop the expression of an opposing point of view once the first view is expressed.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 12:55 pm


What we (every believer in the US) need is, the state of this nation is such, that ONLY a soveriegn move of ALMIGHTY GOD is our only hope. Until then we stand as our forfathers set the example. The future of America rests on the BODY OF CHRIST. And the constitution is a good foundation. SEMPER FI to JESUS



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 11, 2010 at 12:58 pm


“Who is the public school to say that God is false? All the school has to do is teach the historical influence of ALL, not just some.”
I have absolutely no problem with this, as long as they include both the positive and negative that has been done in the name of this god.
For example, as they teach all that the church did in helping to end slavery, they also need to teach what the church did to promote it.
facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm
Indeed, show all aspect of how religion has influenced the history of this nation, both in positive and negative ways. Don’t hide the Furmans while you praise the Kings. Let both sides be taught.
If the likes of David Barton can support this, I will stand with him. However, the day Barton and his followers truly stand for giving our students a complete look at how religion influenced our nation is the day that the sun will rise in the west and set in the east.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:00 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Who is the public school to say that God is false? All the school has to do is teach the historical influence of ALL, not just some.
hlvanburen says:
I have absolutely no problem with this, as long as they include both the positive and negative that has been done in the name of this god.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, as it is now, they do not teach, in balance, the positive and negative of the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. I’m not interested in the public school teaching the positive and negative. That would be subjective. Keep it on objective, and, if we’re gonna do this, teach God and His Influence in history.
hlvanburen says:
Indeed, show all aspect of how religion has influenced the history of this nation, both in positive and negative ways.
Mr. Incredible says:
Who will decide the positive and negative?
No, that’s too subjective.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm


The idea of universal curriculum is to have a set of FACTS that all but the outliers in society would agree to. In simple terms, any student from any religion or none would have the same basic knowledge. The forefathers who were religious should be taught as such, however, those that were not should be taught as such as well. Adams was religious, Jefferson was not. These are facts. To assert that history shows America as a christian nation is ideology not fact and frankly shows a complete lack of respect to Washington, Jefferson and other non-religious forefathers.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm


“The forefathers who were religious should be taught as such, however, those that were not should be taught as such as well. Adams was religious, Jefferson was not. These are facts. To assert that history shows America as a christian nation is ideology not fact and frankly shows a complete lack of respect to Washington, Jefferson and other non-religious forefathers.”
Barton and his adherents want to cast the founders not only as religious, but also as Christians of the same belief as modern-day conservative Evangelicals. This is every bit as much a revisionist approach to history as expunging the religious references would be.
Many of the founders expressed Deist beliefs. Many others were Unitarian. A few were Universalist in their Christian faith. Still others were what might be called “ethical Christians” who accepted the wisdom of the teachings of Christ while rejecting both his deity and the miracles he performed. And yes, some of the founders were more accurately described as atheists.
That they drew their inspirations for our form of national governance from a variety of sources including the Old and New Testaments is a fact. However, it is demonstrably NOT a fact that they designed our system with the end result of creating a Christian nation, or one that promoted Christianity over other forms of religious belief (or non-belief). One need only to turn to a treaty passed in 1797, the Treaty of Tripoli, to demonstrate this fact.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Article 11 of said treaty states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The vote on the treaty was unanimous, and President John Adams signed it. There is no record of protest by any Senator to the text of the treaty. Neither is their any record of public outcry over the inclusion of the clause (the treaty was published in newspapers in New York and Philadelphia).
It is reasonable to conclude from this that the people involved in the founding of our system of governance, many of whom were still active in that system at the time of this treaty, did NOT wish to have our nation recognized as a Christian nation, nor did they believe that it was founded exclusively or primarily on the tenets of the Christian faith…unlike what David Barton and others would have us believe.
Again, to the extent that these folks wish to see our schools teach a complete and unfiltered picture of the influence of religious faith in this nation’s founding, I am all for it. The moment you skew that history to create something that clearly was NOT what the Founders did or intended, I have issue with it.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm


Mr. Incredible says: “Who will decide the positive and negative?”
Here’s a couple of excellent questions to offer students in a history class:
Was the exposition offered by Rev. Dr. Richard Furman on behalf of the Baptists of South Carolina, in your opinion, a positive or negative influence on our nation at that time?
What does the unanimous ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 by the US Senate say about how those members, many of whom were actively involved in the formation of our system of government a few years prior, say about the influence of religion in that founding?
These are but two questions that can be offered throughout the course of history classes as they address the various eras of our nation’s history. Certainly, include discussions of the positive influence of religion in that history as well. Discuss the role Christian tenets may have played in the formation of our foundational documents. Examine items such as the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the writings of our founders, and a variety of other material readily available that sheds light on what our forebears were not only doing but also thinking during these critical times in our national history.
But teach it all, and challenge our students to think critically and analyze the events in their entirety, not filtered through some prismatic lens that only shows the positive and not the negative of religious influence.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm


hlvanburen says: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Article 11 of said treaty states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The vote on the treaty was unanimous, and President John Adams signed it. There is no record of protest by any Senator to the text of the treaty. Neither is their any record of public outcry over the inclusion of the clause (the treaty was published in newspapers in New York and Philadelphia).
It is reasonable to conclude from this that the people involved in the founding of our system of governance, many of whom were still active in that system at the time of this treaty, did NOT wish to have our nation recognized as a Christian nation, nor did they believe that it was founded exclusively or primarily on the tenets of the Christian faith…unlike what David Barton and others would have us believe.
Mr. Incredible says:
“The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to continents, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” — Justice Story [Story, “Commentaries,” Volume III, page 728, §1871].
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” — Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia” (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, page 237.
“[S]eventy years ago…Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular and liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and gentlemen… The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day when the schoolmaster had been more than commonly fanatical and declared ‘if he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his dominions;” the parson coolly replied, ‘Cleverly! you would be the best man in the world if you have no religion.'” — John Adams to Jefferson, April 19, 1817; John Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,” Charles Francis Adams, Editor (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1856), Volume X, Page 254.
Adams, then:
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!’ But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.” — John Adams to Jefferson.
John Jay described the Christianity practiced in America as being “enlightened.” — [William Jay, “The Life of John J.” (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), page 80, from his “Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County” on September 9, 1777.]
John Quincy Adams called it “civilized.” — [John Quincy Adams, “An Oration Delivered before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at the Request on the Sixty First Anniversary of the Declaration Of Independence” (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), Page 17.]
John Adams called it “rational.” — [John Adams, “Works,” Volume IX, page 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.]
“The general principles upon which the fathers achieved independence were… the general principles of Christianity… I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.” — John Adams, “Works,” Volume X, page 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.” — John Adams, of Thomas Paine’s views; John Adams, “Works,” Volume III, page 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
“My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away… the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances His disciples in asserting that he He was God.” — John Quincy Adams; John Adams and John Quincy Adams, “The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams,” Adrian Koch and William Peden, editors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), page 292, John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817.
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: To Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Volume XIV, page 385, Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
“The attempt by the rulers of the nation [France] to destroy all religious opinion and to pervert a whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy… [T]o establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity [is] to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.” — Alexander Hamilton, “Papers,” Volume XXI, page 402-404, “The Stand No. III,” New York, April 7, 1798
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ… Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.” — George Washington, “Writings” (1932), Volume XV, page 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.
“[O]nly one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation.” — John J., “The Correspondents and Public Papers of John Jay,” Henry P. Johnson, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), Volume IV, page 52, 2 Lindley Murray on August 22, 1794.
“[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom and government… and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” — Noah Webster; K. Allen Snyder, “Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic” (New York: University Press of America, 1990), Page 253, to James Madison on October 16, 1829.
“From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians… They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. [John Quincy Adams, “Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821, Upon the Occasion of Reading the Declaration Of Independence” (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), page 28.] The Declaration of Independence cast off all the shackles of this dependency. The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.” [John Quincy Adams, “An Oration… on… July 4, 1837,” Page 18.]
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ we’re not Commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams; John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States Of America” (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), Volume III, Page 217, from “The Right Constitution of the Commonwealth Examined,” Letter IV.
“The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code… laws is essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. [John Quincy Adams, “Letters… to His Son,” page 61.] Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity (secular history)… to find so broad, so complete and so solid basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down.” — John Quincy Adams; John Quincy Adams, “Letters… to His Son,” page 70-71.
“[T]he Ten Commandments… are the sum of the moral law.” John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence; Witherspoon, “Works,” (1815), Volume IV, page 95, “Seasonable Advice to Young Persons,” Sermons XIX, February 21, 1762.
“Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert…?'” — George Washington; Washington, “Address… Preparatory to His Declination,” page 23
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from there despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” — Noah Webster; Noah Webster, “History,” page 339, paragraph 53.
“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” — George Washington; Washington, “Writings” (1932), Volume XXXV, page 416, to the Clergy of Different Denominations Residing in and Near the City of Philadelphia on March 3, 1797.
“No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and the Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States… And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.” — James Madison; James D. Richardson, “A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897″ (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Volume I, page 561, March 4, 1815.
“I… recommended general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties, is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.” — John Jay; William Jay, “The Life of John Jay: With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers” (New York: J. and J. Harper, 1833), Volume I, page 457-458, to the Committee of the Corporation of the City of New York on June 29, 1826.
“[O]ur citizens should really understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.” — Noah Webster; Noah Webster, “History of the United States” (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), page 6



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:58 pm


John Jay, Oct. 12, 1816, in a statement, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, America’s God and Country, William Federer, p.318:
“Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Dr. Benjamin Rush, (1745-1813) signed the Declaration of Independence
Date: 1798
Source: The Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush. Edited by Dagobert D. Runes. New York: Philosophical Library, 1947:
“The only foundation for… a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”
Washington, Farewell Address, To his cabinet, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; September 17, 1796
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political perosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest prop of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for propety, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle… Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?”



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm


Mr. Incredible: “Keep it on objective, and, if we’re gonna do this, teach God and His Influence in history.”
“The result of this inquiry and reasoning, on the subject of slavery, brings us, sir, if I mistake not, very regularly to the following conclusions:–That the holding of slaves is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is; therefore consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct. That all things considered, the Citizens of America have in general obtained the African slaves, which they possess, on principles, which can be justified; though much cruelty has indeed been exercised towards them by many, who have been concerned in the slave-trade, and by others who have held them here, as slaves in their service; for which the authors of this cruelty are accountable. That slavery, when tempered with humanity and justice, is a state of tolerable happiness; equal, if not superior, to that which many poor enjoy in countries reputed free. That a master has a scriptural right to govern his slaves so as to keep it in subjection; to demand and receive from them a reasonable service; and to correct them for the neglect of duty, for their vices and transgressions; but that to impose on them unreasonable, rigorous services, or to inflict on them cruel punishment, he has neither a scriptural nor a moral right. At the same time it must be remembered, that, while he is receiving from them their uniform and best services, he is required by the Divine Law, to afford them protection, and such necessaries and conveniencies of life as are proper to their condition as servants; so far as he is enabled by their services to afford them these comforts, on just and rational principles. That it is the positive duty of servants to reverence their master, to be obedient, industrious, faithful to him, and careful of his interests; and without being so, they can neither be the faithful servants of God, nor be held as regular members of the Christian Church.”
For once, I find myself in complete agreement with you, Mr. Incredible.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:01 pm


“I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing the Good Book and the Spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses… whether we look to the First Charter of Virginia, or to the Charter of New England, or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The same object is present: a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible, and their belief in it; freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under the law, and the reservation of powers to the people. I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.” — 1958, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States [1954]



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:01 pm


Mr Incredible says: I love quote mining out of context.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:07 pm


Which God? Yours, my neighbors, the Popes? Seems that Incredible wants his taught but thats it.
As if Earl Warrens opinion of the founding of our country has anything to do with FACTS. He doesn’t exactly have the reputation of allowing FACTS to get in the way of his rhetoric.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:07 pm


==Mr Incredible says: I love quote mining out of context.==
Translation: “The quotes don’t say things that I like, and, so,Mr. Incredible must be quoting out of context.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm


==Which God? Yours, my neighbors, the Popes?==
The Greeks? The Romans? Yours?
== Seems that Incredible wants his taught but thats it.==
If you read my posts, you would have noticed that that’s not what I said. Of course, when you skim over what someone has written, you tend to get what was not intended.
==As if Earl Warrens opinion of the founding of our country has anything to do with FACTS. He doesn’t exactly have the reputation of allowing FACTS to get in the way of his rhetoric==
Except that what he said lines up with a Founders.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:11 pm


Mr. Incredible, having read your posts for some time, I take it that you are likely a strict constructionist with regards to interpreting the US Constitution. If I am incorrect in that please do bring that to my attention.
However, operating on that assumption I am sure that you are well aware of the Constitutional provision regarding appropriately adopted treaties.
From Article IV we read the following: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Now, I know that many of the more conservative Christians engaged in this issue like to tell us that the concept of the separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. I believe that David Barton in some of his Wallbuilders publications goes to great lengths to make this case, and to use it to explain why the founders never intended for there to be such a wall of separation.
But here with this treaty they have often done as you have done here, Mr. Incredible. They have pointed to numerous letters and articles in which the founders have talked about the importance of religious faith, even the Christian faith, with regards to its influence in the founding of our nation.
I would suggest that these writings have exactly the same weight in the argument as the letter Thomas Jefferson penned to the concerned members of Danbury Baptist Church in which he penned that terrible reference to a wall separating church and state. In other words, they are interesting artifacts which enter into the discussion of what our founders were considering at the time of our nations founding, but that they have no relevance in the determination of the law.
However, the Treaty of Tripoli, having been adopted unanimously by the US Senate in accordance with the procedures outlined in the US Constitution, became upon that adoption “the supreme law of the land.”
Our founders held a variety of beliefs with regards to religious faith. That these beliefs were influences on their actions cannot be denied. However, the clarity of this action, coupled with the lack of dissent either within the Congressional record or within the recorded reaction to the public pronouncement of the Treaty, speak loudly to the intent of the Founders and early legislators of our nation.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:12 pm


However, a treaty does not amend the Constitution. It cannot put in the Constitution what is not there.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:13 pm


Not at all, some of those quotes are quite accurate. The out-of-context was the lovely shotgun approach, lack of consistency and using quotes from people who, like Jefferson, believed much differently then your attempting to claim. Try reading the Jeffersonian bible.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:14 pm


The Jefferson Bible is not what YOU think it is.
Jefferson put it together, not because he didn’t believe as a Christian, rather to consolidate what Jesus said.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm


The quotes are accurate, and I provided citations.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm


For those playing at home, Chief Justice Earl Warren voted with the majority in the “Griswold” decision that declared the existence of a right to privacy within the US Constitution.
“The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a
governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [p486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
It was this decision that was cited in the 1973 ruling in “Roe v. Wade” which removed existing state restrictions on abortions.
This is offered in hopes of further expanding upon the statement by Chief Justice Warren regarding how we might continue to live in the “spirit of the Christian religion”.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:36 pm


Amy, Speak for yourself. I am the Church and you can not separate me from the state. Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression Ratified 12/15/1791 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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. ———————– That means religious freedom. Not people imposing their views making it a godless society. Basically letting people beleive what they want to believe and not trying to control others in their belief. So Amy, you can’t tell people to leave their God out of themselves. C



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm


“Jefferson put it together, not because he didn’t believe as a Christian, rather to consolidate what Jesus said.”
Well…not so much. From a letter Jefferson wrote to John Adams dated October 13, 1813, we read:
“In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.”
Jefferson’s view of the Bible (the King James Version in popular use at the time) is clear from this letter. He refers to the text as a “dunghill” from which the moral teachings of Jesus are “diamonds” to be extracted.
In an earlier letter (written in 1803) to Joseph Priestly, Jefferson expounded on the his vision behind creating such a volume:
“I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers.”
His focus was clearly on the moral teachings of Jesus the philosopher/teacher, not on Jesus the Son of God. Further clarification of this comes later in the same letter.
“His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man.”
Clearly Jefferson held Jesus of Nazareth in high regard. However, to say that Jefferson was in any stretch a believer in the deity of Jesus seems to go against his treatment of Jesus’ teachings. That he felt the most important matter regarding Jesus was not his divinity, his miracles, or his sacrificial death and resurrection seems quite clear. His focus was on the philosophical and moral teachings, which he encouraged to be studied with the same intensity as one would bring to those of Socrates, Plato, or any of the classical and more modern philosophers.



report abuse
 

USNA Ancient

posted March 11, 2010 at 4:19 pm


HG: WRONG ! Not only should everyone be closely watching this because of the impact texass decisions have on school book publishers and because that was and remains the agenda of the ayatollah pat robertson [who begat the obscenity of “amerikan taliban” running for school boards and similar positions for exactly the aim of effecting the imposition of his bigoted beliefs on the nation’s school children to indoctrinate them], but also precisely so an enformed population can hold them up to the ridicule they so richly deserve and stop this obscenity !



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 11, 2010 at 6:16 pm


HG wrote: “People of varied beliefs were all present during our early history, I do not see their beliefs as cogent to any particular contribution. …Texans, and the country, should be watching this issue…”
USNA Ancient wrote: “WRONG ! Not only should everyone be closely watching this because of the impact texass decisions have on school book publishers … but also precisely so an enformed population can hold them up to the ridicule they so richly deserve and stop this obscenity !”
HG wonders what the difference is between our positions!



report abuse
 

Dragonier

posted March 12, 2010 at 10:27 am


To these who spew such vulgar and disingenuous tripe, how clearly painted is the image of the heart that has found the truth and goodness of God and the one who cannot see for the darkness behind your eye’s.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 12, 2010 at 11:06 am


9th Circuit Court of Appeals: “‘Under God’ OK in Pledge”!!
YEAAAAAAA!



report abuse
 

Richard Guzzo

posted March 12, 2010 at 10:16 pm


It amazes me that when a foundation works, we wouldn’t encourage it, but rather assume disrespect for it. The revisionists are the Pharisees of this day who wouldn’t know a hero if they ran into him or her. However, the Constitution clearly respects life and demands the government protect life, not revise life. However, that is what government is doing with taking the power of God and defining life so we can lessen human suffering. Government is the religion by taking upon itself a financial approach to use technology to separate itself from Nature. That is the new separation of Church and State, the government changing the definition of life and privacy and trying to back it up. The NEW so-called conservative movement is not so much conservative, but says get government out of our bedroom. The BIG G is a WATCHDOG only, and needs to accept that, and while you are at it, return our money back to us and our community, and not your voting PORK.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 12, 2010 at 10:57 pm


“…and while you are at it, return our money back to us and our community, and not your voting PORK.”
Yes, we need to get rid of all these ridiculous subsidies that are built into our tax system. Why should the government provide subsidies for having children and buying homes through the tax system? This kind of social engineering is what sets off conservatives everywhere, and I can readily understand why they are demanding an end to mortgage interest deduction and exemptions/credits for children.
Get the government back to what they were originally supposed to do, not engineering social policy through the tax system!
Right, Mr. Guzzo?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 2:46 am


“…and while you are at it, return our money back to us and our community, and not your voting PORK.”
hlvanburen says:
Yes, we need to get rid of all these ridiculous subsidies that are built into our tax system.
Mr. Incredible says:
Great! Let’s start by not funding abortion with public money.
Then, let’s not fund welfare and unemployment insurance. No more fixing bridges. No new bridges. No more road work in some senator’s state. No more tax deductions. No more revenue sharing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 3:04 am


hlvanburen says:
… Chief Justice Earl Warren voted with the majority in the “Griswold” decision that declared the existence of a right to privacy within the US Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, it’s right there, next to where it says “separation of Church and State.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 12:27 pm


We have been told over and over and over and over again that “choice” trumps all, that it is a basic, constitutional Right.
Now comes this to stand in the way of the so-called “Right to choose”:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/12/georgia-considers-outlawing-abortion-based-race-gender/



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 12:31 pm


Doesn’t a woman, if she has the “Right” to choose, have the “Right” to choose to abort her pregnancy if the baby is not the correct [in HER view] race, nor sex?? Remember that we are told that the unborn have no Rights, that it’s all about the woman, that she has privacy.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 12:33 pm


Now, all of a sudden, some people want exceptions.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 13, 2010 at 7:39 pm


Mr. Incredible, should a woman seeks out a doctor and obtains an abortion be charged with murder?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 9:06 pm


hlvanburen says:
Mr. Incredible, should a woman seeks out a doctor and obtains an abortion be charged with murder?
Mr. Incredible says:
Not my call. Too soon to say what form a law may take.
However, in screwball LA, police arrested a man for killing a woman and her unborn child. The charge: murder. 2 counts. I don’t know how the charges relate to law, but police aparently thought they are justified.
On the other hand, in an abortion, the woman is merely an accomplice. The doctor is the one performing the killing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2010 at 10:08 pm


hlvanburen says:
Mr. Incredible, should a woman seeks out a doctor and obtains an abortion be charged with murder?
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to what standard “murder”?



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 13, 2010 at 10:55 pm


Mr. Incredible answers: “On the other hand, in an abortion, the woman is merely an accomplice. The doctor is the one performing the killing.”
Thank you for answering the question. If the same women, moments after the child is born, pays the doctor to kill the child, is she also merely an accomplice?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2010 at 6:04 am


hlvanburen says:
If the same women, moments after the child is born, pays the doctor to kill the child, is she also merely an accomplice?
Mr. Incredible says:
Are you asking me for interpretation of God’s “Law,” MY “law,” the law of the land as it stands, or law that may, or may not, be written?
If you’re asking about law as it is written, which jurisdiction? Cuz, as I say, police in that pit, LA, arrested that guy on murder charges. That may not happen here, and it may, or may not, happen elsewhere. Murder is a state jursidiction, not federal.
Generally, the one who does the killing is the killer, and, so, the doctor is the hired “gun.” Generally, the woman would be part of the conspiracy to kill the child.
In any case, the woman electively aborting her pregnancy is not an innocent bystander.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 14, 2010 at 9:19 am


Mr. Incredible, after dancing a little side-step, states: “In any case, the woman electively aborting her pregnancy is not an innocent bystander.”
Under your “ideal scenario” as a pro-life advocate, how would the law deal with this woman? Would you want the law to consider her an accomplice to murder, and see her prosecuted for same?
You seem to have such a wide range of opinions on so many topics, Mr. Incredible. Why is it you have such a difficult time sharing with us your thoughts on whether or not you believe a woman who contracts for the aborting of her unborn child should be prosecuted for murder?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2010 at 9:43 am


hlvanburen says:
Mr. Incredible, after dancing a little side-step, states: “In any case, the woman electively aborting her pregnancy is not an innocent bystander.”
Mr. Incredible says:
And she isn’t.
hlvanburen says:
Under your “ideal scenario”…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which is…?
hlvanburen says:
…as a pro-life advocate, how would the law deal with this woman?
Mr. Incredible says:
Which law?
God’s law? My law? The law as I want it to be? The law as YOU want it to be? What? What’s the jurisdiction?
hlvanburen says:
Would you want the law to consider her an accomplice to murder, and see her prosecuted for same?
Mr. Incredible says:
I’d have to lookit and hear the debates on a proposed way to handle it. Preliminarily, though, she is an accomplice.
hlvanburen says:
You seem to have such a wide range of opinions on so many topics, Mr. Incredible.
Mr. Incredible says:
Exciting, isn’t it.
hlvanburen says:
Why is it you have such a difficult time sharing with us your thoughts on whether or not you believe a woman who contracts for the aborting of her unborn child should be prosecuted for murder?
Mr. Incredible says:
Why is it you have such a difficult time telling us the legal/legislative scenario for which I asked?
In any case, I already told you a couple-a times that her putting a contract out on her unborn child is not the same as performin’ the hit.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2010 at 9:48 am


Does the woman who puts a contract out on her unborn child perform the hit, or does the hitman — that is, the doctor, the hired gun — the one who actually performs the hit?
Yes, the woman is on the scene. She’s involved. She’s a co-conspirator. An accomplice. She is not an innocent bystander. She is not a mere witness.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 14, 2010 at 5:43 pm


Mr. Incredible, do you believe abortion is murder?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2010 at 6:18 pm


hlvanburen says:

Mr. Incredible, do you believe abortion is murder?

Mr. Incredible says:

According to what standard? My standard? Your standard? The standard of the law as it is? The standard of the law as it should be? What?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2010 at 6:20 pm


I’ll say this preliminarily…
Abortion is probably a form of murder.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 14, 2010 at 8:06 pm


Mr. Incredible settles upon this statement: “Abortion is probably a form of murder.”
Thank you. One more question before we resume this duck-and-dodge dance.
Do you believe infanticide to be murder? By infanticide I mean the taking of the life of a child from the moment of birth through the first birthday.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 15, 2010 at 2:54 am


hlvanburen says:
Mr. Incredible settles upon this statement: “Abortion is probably a form of murder.”
Thank you.
Mr. Incredible asks:
For what?
hlvanburen says:
Do you believe infanticide to be murder? By infanticide I mean the taking of the life of a child from the moment of birth through the first birthday.
Mr. Incredible says:
None of it is automatically murder. We don’t know the circumstances.
What is “birth”? Separation from the mother.
Can there be birth one day after conception? Yes.
Even by the standard of the pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong choice fanatics, this is a person.
By their standard, embryos frozen in a clinic are persons.
As we know, the Constitution protects persons.
Now what?



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted March 15, 2010 at 9:55 am


Mr. Incredible, I suspect it would be easier to nail jello to the wall than get a straight answer from you. You are very Clintonesque with your responses.



report abuse
 

TX_ATHEIST

posted March 15, 2010 at 10:51 am


Mr. Sekulow, you are taking writings out of context. There is no reference to god in the constitution, and in subsequent writings John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are very clear that the US was NOT founded as a “christian nation”. It was most certainly founded on some ethical and moral principles that arose from men in the group being raised in the christian faith, however faith was not as important to them as freedom. The majority of our founding fathers would be appalled by the recent actions of the Texas State Board of Education; they’d also be horrified at a “White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships”, but that is a subject for another day.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm


And your point is?



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted March 16, 2010 at 6:40 pm


References to America’s history as a Christian nation should not be stripped from textbooks since all three branches of government have upheld these sources in many different venues. For example, when the President takes oath for office, as well as other officers, it has been tradition to say “So help me God”. The slogan “In God We Trust” is imprinted on our money. More specifically, Congress has preserved a tradition of honoring this rich heritage with declarations of Christian Heritage Week. To top it off, the ten commandments are engraved on the box in which witnesses testify in our nation’s highest court. Moreover, since the majority of Americans are Christians, we should not be ashamed of or apologizing for our traditions. What we should be embarrassed about is allowing evolution to stand in science text books, a theory that has not been proven, while Intelligent Design has taken a back seat. This is an American tragedy, no doubt, one that I hope can be reversed.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 17, 2010 at 12:41 pm


One interesting fact about the use of “under God” in the Pledge: according to Prof. Cheh, one primary purpose the phrase was added was to help distinguish America from Communist nations, in the year 1954.
Boris says: This is a perfect example of the stupidity of people who believe in God. The congressmen who promoted the idea of putting God on our money and in our pledge did so because they thought it would frighten the atheistic Russians. I mean really, how stupid can you get? Does any sane person think atheists would be frightened by references to God or claims from a delusional population that they have God on their side and the atheists do not? These references to God make the entire population of the United States look like a bunch of babbling idiots. There is no God. Science has proved that with such a high degree of certainty that anyone who still believes in God can be accurately classified as an idiot.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm


What we should be embarrassed about is allowing evolution to stand in science text books, a theory that has not been proven, while Intelligent Design has taken a back seat. This is an American tragedy, no doubt, one that I hope can be reversed.
Boris says: No, what YOU should be embarrassed about is that every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world that teaches science teaches evolution, common descent, Big Bang cosmology and all the rest of the science Bible thumpers deny, fight against and constantly lie about. Intelligent Design magic is not taught anywhere including in the Christian academic community. Instead the Christian academic community continues to distance itself from this insane and easily debunked religious dogma. Intelligent Design magic is nothing more than biblical creationism disguised in a lab coat. The fact that religious fanatics demand that their version of “science” be taught in our public schools when they can’t even get their own CHRISTIAN academic community to teach it proves just how evil, dishonest and deluded Christian Bible thumpers really are. Lindzee, before you demand that our public schools become infected with Christian superstitions and lies you must first get your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities to teach these Christian superstitions and lies.
What is really an American tragedy is that there are still Americans who claim not to believe in evolution. This kind of scientific imbecility exists nowhere else on the planet. Intelligent Design magic has been solidly refuted scientifically. The study of evolution has led to new vaccines, medicines, better food crops and poisons to protect these crops from insects as well as many other advances. Meanwhile the Intelligent Design magic promoters have not produced one single product or even an idea that improves our lives. Science provides tangible results. Intelligent Design magic produces nothing but propaganda. Anyone who believes any of this propaganda is an uneducated moron.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:35 am


TX_ATHEIST says:
There is no reference to god in the constitution…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s correct to say that there is no reference to “god” in the Constitution.
There IS, however, reference to God in the Constitution. The reference is in His Covenant Name.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 3:53 am


Boris says:
…every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world that teaches science teaches evolution, common descent, Big Bang cosmology and all the rest of the science Bible thumpers deny, fight against and constantly lie about.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that those schools also teach Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. And, yet, you have no problem with that. We guess that you have no problem with your own hypocrisy, either.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2010 at 4:48 am


Boris asks:
Does any sane person think atheists would be frightened by references to God…?
Mr. Incredible says:
Is apparent that you atheists are. If you weren’t, you would just ignore them as harmless. Why do you fight against something you say doesn’t exist?



report abuse
 

payday loans toronto

posted July 26, 2010 at 9:52 pm


blog.beliefnet.com is great! Subscribe to receive FinancePayDayLoans new article email alerts Faless Payday Loans Easy and Trouble Free Finance For Your Cash Emergency by Michael Madson



report abuse
 

Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

posted September 8, 2010 at 4:09 am


Great read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch! dzckunnihilmiexysjiwskntelqnroyklef
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.



report abuse
 

online payday loans

posted September 21, 2010 at 6:33 am


Pretty good post. 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 post again soon.



report abuse
 

canadian payday loans

posted September 21, 2010 at 6:19 pm


Usually I do not write on blogs, but I would like to say that this article really convinced me to do so! Congratulations, very nice post.



report abuse
 

faxless payday loans

posted September 22, 2010 at 5:23 pm


Pretty beneficial submit. 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. ofipsjkqsrs



report abuse
 

no fax loans

posted September 25, 2010 at 5:45 pm


This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It is the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks??



report abuse
 

loans in canada

posted September 26, 2010 at 3:28 am


Good post. Thank for sharing.



report abuse
 

loan in canada

posted September 27, 2010 at 4:52 pm


Hi buddy, especially informative publish. Please maintain them coming.



report abuse
 

loans ontario

posted September 28, 2010 at 6:40 am


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



report abuse
 

loans bc canada

posted September 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm


A pretty nice niche blog, and a good quality design there sparks Simplicity yet complex algorithm of the world wide web. Thank You.



report abuse
 

canadian loans

posted September 30, 2010 at 8:09 pm


Thanks for such a terrific publish and the review, I’m completely impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.



report abuse
 

loss weight

posted October 2, 2010 at 5:15 am


Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my web page something like that. Can I take part of your publish to my blog?



report abuse
 

faxless payday loan

posted October 4, 2010 at 3:22 am


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



report abuse
 

bad credit canada

posted October 5, 2010 at 8:13 pm


Hi webmaster, commencers and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely great! Lots of terrific information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Maintain 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
 

NJ Managed Services

posted June 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm


show at the selling managed services



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.