Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Supreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, I do believe the constitutional challenges against the health care law will succeed.  Specifically, in my view, it will be the Commerce Clause violation that ultimately will result in this law being declared unconstitutional.  It also seems very likely that this case will wind through the legal process and end up at the Supreme Court.

There is a case before the Supreme Court currently that I want to focus on for a moment.  It’s a religion case and as you know there haven’t been many at the high court lately.  This case is certainly being watched closely and will have significant ramifications.

The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and the central issue before the court involves the protection of the constitutional rights of religious groups to set membership and leadership criteria according to the dictates of their religious beliefs. 

The case involves a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit siding with the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Hastings denied official recognition to a student group – the Christian Legal Society (CLS) – after CLS said it could not abide by the school’s non-discrimination policy. That policy forbids student groups from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, “religion.” CLS says its religious beliefs prevent non-Christians from exercising control over the group by becoming voting members or serving in leadership positions.

And that’s the key issue before the court.

Barry, it is fundamental to religious freedom that religious groups are free to define their own mission, select their own leaders and determine their own membership criteria.

The First Amendment protections afforded to religious organizations are clear.  The appeals court decision discriminates against religion, undermines Supreme Court precedent, and injects the government into an area that the Constitution forbids.

That’s exactly why we filed an amicus brief in this case – representing a number of Christian leaders and organizations active on college and university campuses.

In our friend-of-the-court brief, we contend that religious groups are constitutionally protected in following their religious beliefs.

“Religious groups by their nature embrace religious principles and, as a matter of organizational identity and coherence, will normally require adherence to such principles as a criterion for membership and certainly for leadership,” the brief asserts.  “This is not ‘discrimination’ but rather part and parcel of what defines them as religious groups.  Wooden application of religious ‘non-discrimination’ policies therefore forces religious groups to choose between their religious identity and access to the forum.  That ‘choice’ is an unconstitutional one between yielding to government intermeddling and no access at all.  Far from a permissible condition on benefits, this is a choice that the government, under the Religion Clauses, has no business imposing on religious groups.”

Our legal argument is clear:  the appeals court decision violates the constitutional protections afforded to religious groups.

Our brief states:  “A policy of non-discrimination by the government promotes a wholesome neutrality.  But when the government extends that same policy to private religious groups and directs them not to discriminate on religious grounds, it strays into forbidden territory.  Such a policy inevitably undermines the Court’s equal access cases, discriminates against religion, and injects the government into matters–the leadership and membership criteria of religious groups–that the Religion Clauses put squarely out of bounds.”

We believe the appeals court decision should be reversed.  The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in this case on April 19th.

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(128)
post a comment
Your Name

posted March 30, 2010 at 1:08 pm


The argument misses the point. Christian Legal Society (CLS) is still free to discriminate in any way it chooses. CLS is not free to both discriminate and demand that it be supported by student activity fees – fees all students are required to pay whether or not they agree with CLS’s philosophy, aims and discriminatory policies.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 30, 2010 at 1:16 pm


This is another example of Christians believing that they are somehow special and deserving of “special rights”. In this case, they think of themselves as so precious that they should be able to extract dues from the entire student body and then deny entry of some students they don’t like into the very student group that all the students are required to support. Well, Scalia and the other Catholics jihadists will probably go ahead and say that anything religious trumps equity and that they are special and get to pick the pockets of all the students.
If the school loses, the best thing would be to cancel all support of student clubs rather than allow this form of Christian extortion to exist.



report abuse
 

craig

posted March 30, 2010 at 1:40 pm


As someone else already said, nobody is telling this group that they can’t discriminate in any way they see fit, only that they can’t take money from the school and do so. This is simlar to the claims of discrimination that I hear all the time from the religious right. They somehow think that telling them that they can’t use tax funded dollars to proselytize is infringing on their rights. They talk about how limiting school prayer limits their rights. Neither of these limit their right to worship in any way they see fit. School prayer is only limited to the extent that teachers and other officials in schools can’t force prayer or lead prayers. They are still free to pray in any way they choose. This is a very similar situation. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Any time I hear complaints from the rights about how certain laws are infringing on their rights it always turns out to be an infringement on their right to try to impose their views or get money to do so, NOT on their rights to worship.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm


I don’t believe that the high court ruling “discriminates against religion,” but rather it discriminates against CLS’s discrimination. If a religion groups opens it doors to all without bias, then yes it is practicing freedom of religion. Freedom of religion cannot be inclusive of discriminatory behavior against others.



report abuse
 

Vern

posted March 30, 2010 at 1:49 pm


“Barry, it is fundamental to religious freedom that religious groups are free to define their own mission, select their own leaders and determine their own membership criteria
….
In our friend-of-the-court brief, we contend that religious groups are constitutionally protected in following their religious beliefs.”
You are correct, and I support that notion.
However, as you point out, “Hastings denied official recognition to a student group – the Christian Legal Society (CLS) – after CLS said it could not abide by the school’s non-discrimination policy”
The group isn’t being instructed on its actions, only being told that its actions have consequences.
In this case, not being recognized as an official student group is the punishment.
If you disagree with the basis for this refusal, you do understand the implications, right? Homosexual student groups can deny heterosexuals, for instance.
Religious persecution claims seem to be overwhelmingly made by xians, and nearly universally are overblown.



report abuse
 

Deed before Creed

posted March 30, 2010 at 1:51 pm


This is so simple, yet you are willing to spend our tax dollars to fight a useless battle.
Either fund this group with private funds and pay rent for the space the group uses on the college campus, or abide by the law.
Simple, isn’t it?



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 1:59 pm


“If you disagree with the basis for this refusal, you do understand the implications, right? Homosexual student groups can deny heterosexuals, for instance.”
I challenge anyone to review the bylaws of other student groups in Hastings and tell me how they aren’t excluding non-agreeing memebers and leadership. Check out the BLSA bylaws for instance…
http://www.uchastings.edu/student-services/docs/bylaws/bylaws-blsa.pdf
A brief excerpt:
“General membership in BLSA may consist of all matriculated students at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, who are committed to the purpose of this organization as stated in Article I11 of this constitution.”
If you aren’t “committed to the purpose of” their organization, then you can’t even become a member…let alone leadership!!
-James



report abuse
 

Tim

posted March 30, 2010 at 2:19 pm


We only welcome people exactly like us. must’ve missed that scripture.
aren’t you supposed to be witnessing to non-believers if you’re a christian? hard to do when you won’t let them in the door. i guess they prefer coming to my door uninvited on a Sunday afternoon.
here’s what we won’t do; start chipping away at discrimination laws b…ecause you aren’t comfortable being around people who aren’t like you.
here’s what you can do, christians:
step one; don’t worry about it! do you really think that any of us want to come to your little coffee klatches? i seriously doubt that this would ever have become an issue for you if you just would have let it go.
step two; set rules for decorum that must be agreed to by all members. that way you can dismiss any liberals who just can’t help themselves, and join just to be disruptive. it’s ok to kick people out for that. as long as the rules apply evenly to everyone, and non-christians are ostracized or censored.
Perhaps you will even find that answering non-believers questions about your beliefs only serves to strengthen them, and you’ll be glad you opend your doors.
Then again, maybe you’re afraid that allowing your beliefs to be tested will cause your resolve to fail. If that is the case, then maybe you should take a second look at them.



report abuse
 

Kyle

posted March 30, 2010 at 2:20 pm


as backwards and bigoted as it is, Christians and any other group are allowed to discriminate as they please. They are not allowed to receive public funds if they exclude any group of students that wish to participate



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 2:26 pm


Tim & Kyle, please read my post above…other groups are doing the same thing with no problem at Hastings…



report abuse
 

Eric

posted March 30, 2010 at 2:38 pm


James, it sounds like instead of supporting the Christian Legal Society’s efforts to receive official recognition as a student group, what you should be advocating for is to have all recognized student groups held to the same standard of non-discrimination.



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 2:47 pm


Eric, I’m just trying to show that other groups in existence at Hastings are doing the same thing. Why is the CLS singled out?



report abuse
 

Vas

posted March 30, 2010 at 3:23 pm


James: Apples and oranges. The CLS is demanding that members be Christian. The BLSA doesn’t demand members to be black. Their bylaws basically say that you have to stand behind the purpose of the organization (black law) to be a member. If the BLSA demanded that members be black, then I’m sure they would be in the same boat as CLS.
Requiring members to work towards the purpose of the organization is one thing, but requiring members to BE something is entirely different.



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 3:50 pm


Race vs. Religion?
Vas, I knew someone would come up with that argument…
You don’t have to BE black to commit to the purpose of their organization. Tell me this, how could a non-Christian possibly commit to proselytizing the Christian faith when they don’t even practice it?
On a side note, if you were against the BLSA’s purpose, you’d probably be considered a racist. If you were against the CLS’s purpose, you’d be perfectly acceptable and probably applauded. Interesting, huh?



report abuse
 

DavidK

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm


Jay said:
“Barry, it is fundamental to religious freedom that religious groups are free to define their own mission, select their own leaders and determine their own membership criteria.”
That may very well be. Noone has said they couldn’t. But again Jay Sukulow is off base in his pro-religious righteous analysis. The question is whether or not the university’s funds (provided by the state) can be used to sponsor this clearly discriminatory action is acceptable. These religious groups are over and over trying to get into the taxpayer’s wallet to fund their discriminatory religious activities. No, Jay, you are dead wrong. BTW, weren’t you investigated for tax evasion in the past regarding your income sources?



report abuse
 

Cronus

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:22 pm


Jay is correct to a point. That point being when a religious organization wants state funding to meet their objectives. So Jay, how come you can’t or won’t fund your religious activities? You certainly take in enough money to fund the CLS across the country. As a matter of fact, the amount being spend on court costs could pretty well set up CLS for a couple of years. Is is just the fun of conducting a legal fight that makes you want to argue for state funding for religious activities in the USA? More to the point, would you be so concerned if the group was jewish or moslem? Huh?



report abuse
 

Jade

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:35 pm


“On a side note, if you were against the BLSA’s purpose, you’d probably be considered a racist. If you were against the CLS’s purpose, you’d be perfectly acceptable and probably applauded. Interesting, huh?”
Ah the good ole martyr routine again….sigh…
I agree with DavidK…



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm


Jade, no idea what the ‘martyr routine’ is, but just stating it realistically.
In the end it’s really simple, who would want to join a group and not want to commit to the group’s main purpose? Perhaps someone looking to sabotage it?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:58 pm


Re: Tim
You sound angry….Looks like you haven’t let go…
Coffee and tea table talk is great… Although if people want to argue, then they can go take a hike…
As far as sharing my beliefs, I do all the time. So try not to generalize people in groups as even within a faith group, people practice differently….
C



report abuse
 

John M.

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:59 pm


James,
I am not privy to CLS’s purpose as I can’t find their complete by-laws, how presumptuous of you to make that speculation.
There is no reason a person that is not practicing christianity can’t recruit/prosthelesize if they have the knowledge to do so. I’ve had non-religious teachers teach me about religion in the past… if the knowledge is present the faith need not be. I can probably teach a good deal of people a good number of things on catholicism being as I was raised catholic and spent 8 years being educated at a catholic school, am I incapable of speaking to it or encouraging it in others just because I choose not to practice what I don’t believe in?
All they need to do is be more creative with the semantics and we all know this. They already admited their current membership criteria is discriminatory (per the University’s policy), that fact in and of itself is irrefutable.



report abuse
 

KyleB

posted March 30, 2010 at 5:13 pm


Why would someone on a college campus wish to sabotage a club? Honestly that sounds like it is going a little too far there.
Anyway if I remember correctly the original case for this was that the Christian Group was discriminating against a gay student (who was christian and wanted to join) because of the students lifestyle (which by the school’s charter they can not do).
Even if that isn’t the case though the question still remains on how the club is funded. It just so happens to be a public school, using the said school’s facilities which means that they have no legal right to go against the school’s rules. If they were a private club that did not meet on the campus then this would be a different case entirely. But since that isn’t the case they have no right to do such blatant discrimination.



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 5:19 pm


John M wrote: “I am not privy to CLS’s purpose as I can’t find their complete by-laws, how presumptuous of you to make that speculation.”
- No need to name call…I read the amicus brief and it mentions thier main purpose in there…
John M wrote: “There is no reason a person that is not practicing christianity can’t recruit/prosthelesize if they have the knowledge to do so.”
- The whole idea to what Christians call “witnessing and testimony” is to witness and testify to what Jesus Christ did in their lives. It’s not an teaching forum, it’s a personal ‘what Jesus has done in my life’ forum. This fundamentally cannot be done by someone who just ‘read’ the Bible or took a seminary course. It requires a personal faith in Jesus by definition.
I was raised in the Catholic church as well and knew a whole lot about Catholicism, but nothing personal about Jesus.
John M wrote: “They already admited their current membership criteria is discriminatory (per the University’s policy), that fact in and of itself is irrefutable.”
Actually, they are saying it is: “not ‘discrimination’ but rather part and parcel of what defines them as religious groups” in the
amicus brief. Not so irrefutable as you think…
I have a question for you: Why do you capitalize the beginning of sentences and acronyms, but not “Christianity and Catholic”? Aren’t they proper names?



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 5:27 pm


KyleB wrote: “Why would someone on a college campus wish to sabotage a club? Honestly that sounds like it is going a little too far there.”
- Just kind of thinking out loud there…not terribly serious about the sabatoge thing…
KyleB wrote: “Even if that isn’t the case though the question still remains on how the club is funded. It just so happens to be a public school, using the said school’s facilities which means that they have no legal right to go against the school’s rules. If they were a private club that did not meet on the campus then this would be a different case entirely. But since that isn’t the case they have no right to do such blatant discrimination.”
There are plenty of cases the ACLJ has won where a Christian student group meets in a public school legally. They school can’t deny them access to their facilities, but this case is a different situation.



report abuse
 

Ms. Gray

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:14 pm


I agree with the many posters who have stated that the issue is not the government trying to regulate CLS’ beliefs or membership. The issue is that CLS wants to use “student activity fee funding.” Religious groups should not be funded by the fees paid by all students at a *public* college. CLS is certainly welcome to charge their members dues, and meet outside of the campus. However, the idea that the fees paid by atheist/gay/etc. students should go toward funding a club that would not admit them is ludicrous. It’s also ludicrous that churches don’t pay property taxes, but that’s a whole different issue…



report abuse
 

nomadHAR

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:25 pm


it is very, very simple.
do not use PUBLIC funds if you want to be picky about your members.
when you accept PUBLIC funding, you also have to abide by the rules that go along with them.
if you use private funds you can let in / keep out people to your heart’s desire.
another answer would be to let anyone in, then kick anyone out that is disruptive or counterproductive.
this is because Jesus didn’t preach universal love and obviously discriminated against anyone that wasn’t a Christian OH I’M SORRY THAT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:32 pm


Ms. Gray: “The issue is that CLS wants to use “student activity fee funding.” …the idea that the fees paid by atheist/gay/etc. students should go toward funding a club that would not admit them is ludicrous. It’s also ludicrous that churches don’t pay property taxes, but that’s a whole different issue…”
My, Ms. Gray-matter, what a juicy brain you have. A zombie’s dream. (Expect an attack shortly. Heh heh.)



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:41 pm


“It’s also ludicrous that churches don’t pay property taxes, but that’s a whole different issue…”
But what about separation of church and state? :)



report abuse
 

KyleB

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:41 pm


James wrote: “There are plenty of cases the ACLJ has won where a Christian student group meets in a public school legally. They school can’t deny them access to their facilities, but this case is a different situation.”
If the group was meeting legally then they were not discriminating against the students joining and taking leadership positions. As I, and a few others, have said the issue is about the funding. Is it not morally wrong to have a private club that by the exact wording of the club’s charter will not allow you to have a leadership position or even join it, but it gets to use your money and the facilities that you help pay for to continue to discriminate against you?
Just because it is a “package deal” with religious clubs does not mean that they are entitled to use the money and facilities of the very people they are excluding. As mentioned before no one is stopping them from being a club. They are just making sure that they are playing by the same rules as anyone else.
Plus if you really look at it a religious club by it’s intent is supposed to be a group of people who share the same religion and wish to discuss. No two people will read a religious text and glean from it the exact same meanings as everyone else. That is why religion is supposed to be a unifier of many different peoples. So then you are getting into dangerous territory when you are telling what type of people you are allowing into your club, especially if they share the same religion and want to enjoy the same experience.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 30, 2010 at 7:33 pm


Ms. Gray,
Well said! I always liken these efforts of Christian groups to get everyone to pay for the things they want to an office party. Imagine a boss telling all the workers that there is going to be a party and everyone has to kick in 10 bucks. Then the boss says “Thanks for the cash, now only those who believes in Jesus can attend”. In any reasonable company, the HR department would be threatening this supervisor’s job within minutes yet, someway somehow, some Christian groups have no problem insisting that everyone drop money in the kitty for their little private get-togethers. Even funnier, when those who are refused entry into the group and start demanding that they not have to fund the exclusive club, they are accused of discriminating against religion. Amazing!
BTW, you are certainly right about the property taxes, churches should be treated just like any other entity. It is not the government’s place to make a determination that churches are good (deserving of special tax exemptions) or bad (deserving of special tax penalties). Governments just need to let churches alone, neither support nor undermine.



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 8:39 pm


Rich & Ms. Gray,
First, you do realize that “churches” per se are not tax exempt? To gain tax exempt status, they must register as a non-profit corporation under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
This is the same the same code provision organizations such as the American Red Cross, Goodwill Industries, Habitat for Humanity, Planned Parenthood, the Salvation Army, and the YMCA and YWCA register under. It’s the general tax law provision granting federal tax exemption to non-profit organizations.
If you think about it, there is a certain sense to not taxing a non-profit organization beyond the idea of supporting good works. By definition, these organizations are not supposed to make a profit. So it’s “income” generally comes from individuals who support the organization’s mission and have already been taxed on those funds. Now, if you give money to a … call it a private entity for lack of a better term … Church or any other organization that has not registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, it’s going to have to pay taxes on those funds. And as you might imagine, this tends to lower the contributions (the amount of tax deductibility varies).
Of course, these tax exempt non-profit corporations give up something to gain their tax exempt status. They are generally prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office…and “no substantial part” of its activities may be devoted to lobbying. As you might imagine, this limitation has caused some churches not to claim a tax exempt status. And it has gotten other 501(c)(3) organizations in trouble (including some churches), thus, risking their tax exempt status.
Now do you want the government to treat Churches differently from the way it treats other non-profit corporations such as the Red? Or do you propose to continue muzzling churches and restricting their right to free speech rights (which they voluntarily gave up when they sought tax exempt status as a nonprofit corporation) even though they would no longer enjoy the benefits of a tax exempt status?



report abuse
 

James

posted March 30, 2010 at 8:51 pm


Since most of your main arguments are around ‘funds’, can someone please show me where Hastings is actually giving money to CLS?
Thanks.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted March 30, 2010 at 10:08 pm


The student group – the Christian Legal Society (CLS) would not abide by the schools rules.
Rarely do I ever see a reason to ‘protect’ Christians as they are the majority but that is not to say that there are times that their rights needs to be protected.
This group wants to define it’s own mission but the school policy is that it can not create something that is discriminatory against other people or groups. In this case, imo, they either submit to school policy, don’t have the group or form it off campus where they can say as they choose as to who is acceptable and who is not BUT they will not have an offical school approval.
In this case this group needs to lose.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 30, 2010 at 10:35 pm


Jay go defend your Christian brothers Hutaree why don’t you? Are you going to protect your Hutaree Christian brother’s rights Jay?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 31, 2010 at 12:08 am


James,
Of course it is about the money! These x-tian thugs want the public to foot the bill so they can have their own little private sanctimonious rave.
Take a look at the legal filings. This will get you all the briefs you want:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez
The Boy Scouts even filed an amicus brief in support of CLS, apparently they like discrimination.
Oddly, some Baptist group coupled with some Interfaith Alliance filed an amicus brief in support of neither party. Hard to know who these guys are amicus with.
And of course, the usual suspects filed briefs in support of Hastings; AU, ACLU, People for the American Way, etc.
Dig in and you will quickly find references to the denial of funding and the other perks that are all obviously part of the ongoing secular jihad against Christians in America. Must be that Armageddon thing that Boehner was yammering about the other day!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:24 am


Boris says:
Jay go defend your Christian brothers Hutaree why don’t you? Are you going to protect your Hutaree Christian brother’s rights Jay?
Mr. Incredible asks:
In YOUR version of the United States, are they entitled to a defense?
Or, are you saying that, in YOUR version of the United States, they are not?
Do THEY get Due Process in YOUR version of the United States?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:29 am


Rich says:
…the ongoing secular jihad against Christians in America.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody has seen such a thing. The secularists are too buk, buk buk chicken to venture beyond the petty gossip, stomping on the floor and thrashing around we see from them in these pages.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:35 am


Of course, the secularists are angry cuz they wanna infiltrate Christian groups and kick up some dust, and the Christian groups wanna keep them out, just cuz they would be disruptive. That’s all the secularists wanna do — create chaos. They wanna impose THEIR views on the Christian groups.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:50 am


James says:
The CLS is demanding that members be Christian. The BLSA doesn’t demand members to be black.
Mr. Incredible says:
Race is immutable. Being Christian is not.
James says:
Their bylaws basically say that you have to stand behind the purpose of the organization (black law) to be a member. If the BLSA demanded that members be black, then I’m sure they would be in the same boat as CLS.
Mr. Incredible says:
If you’re not Christian, you won’t stand by the purpose of the organization. You will be in utter disharmony with it.
You can be purple and stand by the purpose of the Black organization.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 7:10 am


Of course, on the other hand, CLS could accept other than Christian into the organization, not pay any attention to them, nor their ideas, and go on with bidness as usual and see how long these non-Christians wanna be ignored before they just leave; and, if these people wanna be disruptive, then kick’em out.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 7:11 am


…Kick’em out and still take the money free and clear.



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:24 am


Does anyone know how I join the Fred Phelps Law Society?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:26 am


As long as the religious organization is affiliated with the college and receives public funds through the college, it must remain open to any student who wishes to join.
If it doesn’t want its membership to remain unrestricted, it needs to drop its college affiliation… and the funding that goes with it.
Actually, I would think that a Christian group would welcome members of other faiths.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 31, 2010 at 11:40 am


Yes Mr. Incredible, the Hutaree Christians deserve due process. They also deserve to be defended by the worst law firm in the world ACLJ, that is associated with the lowest rated law school in the world Regent University, and the most incompetent and most dishonest lawyer in the country: Jay Sekulow. I know you support these Hutaree Christians because they are exactly like you. So we all understand your concern for these true Christians.



report abuse
 

Vas

posted March 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm


James Says:
Race vs. Religion?
Vas, I knew someone would come up with that argument…
You don’t have to BE black to commit to the purpose of their organization. Tell me this, how could a non-Christian possibly commit to proselytizing the Christian faith when they don’t even practice it?
On a side note, if you were against the BLSA’s purpose, you’d probably be considered a racist. If you were against the CLS’s purpose, you’d be perfectly acceptable and probably applauded. Interesting, huh?
I say:
Race vs religion was your choice of example, not mine – and you cannot deny that if BLSA required members to be black, they would be booted off campus as well. Discrimination is discrimination. Apples to apples. And no, if you don’t agree with the furtherance of black law, you are not a racist. That’s one of the favorite bogus red herring arguments of prudent WASPs everywhere.
I have no idea how a non-christian could possibly commit to proselytizing the faith. Is it even possible? Is that all that they do? Does the CLS do nothing to attract members besides sit around and proselytize all day? Does any of this even matter to the topic at hand?
To answer the last question – no, it doesn’t. The simple fact is that the Public University has a non-discrimination policy, and the student group has a discriminatory policy. Public University says discrimination isn’t welcome here, either change your policy or leave. Seems pretty cut & dried to me.
If it is impossible for a non-Christian to “commit to proselytizing the faith”, then why even bother putting up the requirement that members must be Christian?



report abuse
 

James

posted March 31, 2010 at 2:02 pm


Vas, what is a prudent WASP?
Rich, what is a little private sanctimonious rave?
Thanks.



report abuse
 

Brent

posted March 31, 2010 at 2:34 pm


1. In response to James contention that the conditions that the BLSA places on membership (students who are “committed to the purpose of (the) organization…”) is akin to the CLS policy. I will agree that if you reduce the BLSA policy down to it’s core it could be viewed as being similar to the CLS policy. However I question if that was that it’s intent was as clear cut at the CLS policy. The wording is much more ambiguous than the CLS policy. The CLS was challenged on it’s policy and has stood firm. Has the BLSA policy been similarly challenged? Has the BLSA refused to get rid of the ambiguous wording in it’s policy and allow ANY student to join? The polices can be viewed as similar only if the answer to both questions is yes.
2. I would ask both sides how they would feel about a school sponsored student group who placed these limits:
“Membership in the ABC Student Society is open to all students. However any member who actively works to publicly undermine or subvert the goals and purposes of the ABCSS will have their membership revoked. The final arbiter in any disputes of this policy will be the school student government”
I believe that any student group that accepts school funding should be open to ALL students. Opening up a group to a more diverse membership can create dialogue and discussion that benefits all. However, I am not sure that a group should have to endure a member who does nothing but attempt to subvert its goals.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2010 at 3:10 pm


If someone wants to organize a specific group which does not intend to use its group to kill, this would be of course a freedom to organize the group and define its criteria…
Now if they get public funding, so what….
It would be like becoming a Christian and reading the Word of God. And then some non-believer dictating and telling them they should decide to let others define the criteria to get into the group…It would be against their beliefs..
It is called religious freedom…
They can go join their athiest group or some other group if they so well choose…
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2010 at 4:51 pm


of course any type of group which meets for any type of illegal activity would not be acceptable…
for i did not know any christian behavior which would be therefore illegal. so the point of the lawsuit is what?
c



report abuse
 

Mr. Incedible

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:18 pm


Boris says:
Yes Mr. Incredible, the Hutaree Christians deserve due process.
Mr. Incredible says:
Somebody note the day and the time!
Boris says:
They also deserve to be defended by the worst law firm in the world ACLJ, that is associated with the lowest rated law school in the world Regent University, and the most incompetent and most dishonest lawyer in the country: Jay Sekulow.
Mr. Incredible says:
You keep thinkin’ that.
Boris says:
I know you support these Hutaree Christians…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s one-a those things where you say you know, but don’t know.
I don’t support them, but I don’t wanna impose my Morals on them. They have the Right to choose.
Boris says:
…because they are exactly like you.
Mr. Incredible aks:
They ARE!?? I didn’t know that.
Boris says:
So we all understand your concern for these true Christians.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, you mean my concern for constitutional Rights cuz, after all, they’re persons, no? Yeah, you got it!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incedible

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:26 pm


Cara says:
of course any type of group which meets for any type of illegal activity would not be acceptable…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, what’s the illegal activity?
Cara says:
for i did not know any christian behavior which would be therefore illegal.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m sure the atheists will think-a somethin’.
Cara says:
so the point of the lawsuit is what?
Mr. Incredible says:
As Rich says, it’s part of what he calls the “secular jihad” ‘g’in’ Christians. As I say, all I see from them, though, is petty gossip, stomping on the floor and the thrashing around we see from them in these pages. It’s all talk, like a duck. Quack, quack, quack.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:28 pm


Planned Parenthood gets public money, and it uses the public money to kill.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:31 pm


Trylon aks:
Does anyone know how I join the Fred Phelps Law Society?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:40 pm


Trylon aks:
Does anyone know how I join the Fred Phelps Law Society?
Mr. Incredible says:
Stand back, boys! I’ll handle this!
Yes, someone does. I dunno who, but someone does.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:04 pm


Boris says:
I know you support these Hutaree Christians…
Mr. Incredible aks:
Sooooo, you admit to stereotyping and judgments of “guilt by association.” That’s a form of discrimination, and Rich cain’t have any-a that. I think Rich’s gonna have-ta give you a good talkin’ to. O’ course, we know ahead-a time that he’ll acquit you.
Saaayyyy, are you the love child Aunt Jemima and the Cream of Wheat man never talk about?
Boris says:
…because they are exactly like you.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Exactly,” huh. Is “I know you support these Hutaree Christians because they are exactly like you” a scientific, empirical evaluation, or just a puff-a steam comin’ outta yo’ two heads?
Is it that they are like me, or that I’m like them??? Cuz, if they’re like me, there wouldn’t-a been a problem with their activities.
Now, if they’re exactly like me, why don’t you tell the FBI about it? Oh, that’s right, they’d trace the call and come and get YOU.
So, is the FBI on their way over? Maybe I can serve them a load-a tea and cookies.
Boris says:
So we all understand your concern for these true Christians.
Mr. Incredible:
So, my concern for their constitutional Rights is a bad thing, but YOUR concern for somebody’s constitutional Rights is a good thing???? Tell me — tell US — how THAT happens.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:23 pm


James,
re: “Rich, what is a little private sanctimonious rave?”
Seems pretty obvious to me. You know, a rave, as in a party. I assume the festivities include telepathy with a long vanished Jewish zombie, widespread and enthusiastic mutual agreement as to the attendees’ moral superiority. Likely swinging dead chickens over their head or whatever is considered spiritual these days. Sounds like something the taxpayers should fund.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:28 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Remember I advised you to write less and think more. Obviously, you sauntered on by this reasonable advice.
You are misguided enough to think that the rights of CLS are violated if the public doesn’t fund their x-tians orgiastic affairs. Quite silly of you. The only ones who have their rights raped would be the general public being forced, via the heavy-handed engine of governmental taxation, to pay for their nuttiness.
You so easily forget that it is a right of Americans to not to have to support religion in any way, shape or form. I don’t want to and never will. Not even a sliver of a penny for that foul and despicable enslavement of the human mind. Let those who are willingly afflicted with that nonsense foot the bill.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 7:00 pm


Tim says:
aren’t you supposed to be witnessing to non-believers if you’re a christian?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, and that’s what we’re doing here.
Tim says:
… hard to do when you won’t let them in the door.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s hard to do when they won’t walk in when the door is open.
Tim says:
here’s what we won’t do…
Mr. Incredible says:
Like, walk in the door when the door is open to you. We understand that.
Tim says:
…; start chipping away at discrimination laws b…ecause [sic] you aren’t comfortable being around people who aren’t like you.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s just cuz we’re “uncomfortable around people who aren’t like” us?? It couldn’t be that they would come in and make it uncomfortable for everybody else?? It couldn’t be that?? It couldn’t be that they wanna come in and cause disruption??
Tim says:
here’s what you can do, christians:…
Mr. Incredible says:
Scoffers don’t instruct us, but go ahead.
Tim says:
step one; don’t worry about it!
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God tells us TO worry about it. Biblical “love” means worrying about it or it.
You tell us not to worry about it. That’s tantamount to telling us not to love, and, if we don’t worry about it, you people will accuse us of being bereft of Christian “love.” Very convenient.
So, to Whom do you think we’re gonna listen??
Tim says:
Do you really think that any of us want to come to your little coffee klatches?
Mr. Incredible aks:
Then why all the accusations about discrimination???
Tim says:
i seriously doubt that this would ever have become an issue for you if you just would have let it go.
Mr. Incredible says:
We didn’t start it. The he danged secularists are the ones making a big fuss.
Tim says:
step two; set rules for decorum that must be agreed to by all members.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God sets those rules already.
Tim says:
that way you can dismiss any liberals who just can’t help themselves…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Can’t help themselves”??? What happened to all that “intelligence” Boris, et al. says they have??? Shouldn’t that “intelligence” solve all their problems??? Can’t they help themselves with their “intelligence”??
Tim says:
… and join just to be disruptive.
Mr. Incredible says:
The rules are already in place, and they still complain. If it’s me, I say, “So what?”
Tim says:
…it’s ok to kick people out for that.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, you when they apparently disagree.
Tim says:
… as long as the rules apply evenly to everyone…
Mr. Incredible says:
The rules already apply evenly to all. That’s not good enough for those who want to get in and create chaos.
Tim says:
… and non-christians are ostracized or censored [sic].
Mr. Incredible aks:
If it’s me, I let them in and ignore them, and I reject all their secular stuff. They won’t be around long.
Tim says:
Perhaps you will even find that answering non-believers questions about your beliefs only serves to strengthen them…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, you want us to strengthen them in their non-believer beliefs. That’s not our job.
Anyway, the proof is right in front of your eyes, on these pages, or nonbelievers are mad at us for not strengthening their non-believer beliefs. Their being mad at us, of course, doesn’t impact us cuz we just keep goin’ in the direction the Word of God tells us to go.
Tim says:
…and you’ll be glad you opend your doors.
Mr. Incredible says:
As an example that you can see for yourself, we have opened the doors here and were met with all sorts of insults. Now, they bounce off us like Superman, but they’re there.
Tim says:
Then again, maybe you’re afraid…
Mr. Incredible says:
We’re not ignorant of that device that you use right there.
God didn’t give us a spirit of fear. In unrighteousness, we fear. In Righteousness, we do not.
Tim says:
…that allowing your beliefs to be tested will cause your resolve to fail.
Mr. Incredible says:
Some of those who say they are Christian have that fear in unrighteousness. The Word of God says that they need not be fearful in Righteousness, while walking with the Lord. So, they have-ta decide whether they will listen to the Word of God, or their fears, whether their fears are more powerful than the Word of God.
Those of us who are strong in the Word/Lord will not lower ourselves to be “tested” by the ungodly. We don’t purposely put ourselves in a position to be “tested” by the ungodly. In the world, Righteousness does not have fellowship with unrighteousness, just as Righteousness does not co-mingle with unrighteousness inside one’s self. We separate the goat thoughts from the sheep thoughts, just as we, following God’s example, separate the goats from the sheep.
However, if a “test” comes, we are prepared with the Word of God, as God, through Christ, teaches us in Matthew 4:1-11 where He does not converse with the Devil, rather merely responds with the Word of God.
Tim says:
If that is the case, then maybe you should take a second look at them
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God says, “No!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 7:02 pm


CORRECTION
…you when they apparently disagree. — – > …you and they apparently disagree.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 7:11 pm


Rich says:
Mr. Incredible,
Remember I advised you to write less and think more.
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?
Rich says:
Obviously, you sauntered on…
Mr. Incredible says:
I read it. I thought about it. Then, I immediately rejected it.
Rich says:
… by this reasonable advice.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Reasonable” by whose standard? I think the advice is unreasonable. Now what?
Rich says:
You are misguided enough to think that the rights of CLS are violated if the public doesn’t fund their x-tians orgiastic affairs.
Mr. Incredible says:
If you publicly fund one group, you gotta publicly fund another group. You’ve heard of “equal protection under the law,” haven’t you.
Rich says:
Quite silly of you.
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand that you find Equal Protection under the law silly.
Rich says:
The only ones who have their rights raped would be the general public being forced, via the heavy-handed engine of governmental taxation, to pay for their nuttiness.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re in the vast minority. A noisy, mouthy minority, but a minority, nevertheless.
Rich says:
You so easily forget that it is a right of Americans to not to have to support religion in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, don’t.
Rich says:
I don’t want to…
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, don’t.
Rich says:
…and never will.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, don’t.
Rich says:
Not even a sliver of a penny for that foul and despicable enslavement of the human mind.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, don’t.
Rich says:
Let those who are willingly afflicted with that nonsense foot the bill.
Mr. Incredible says:
There is no bill.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 7:16 pm


Rich says:
You are misguided enough to think that the rights of CLS are violated if the public doesn’t fund their x-tians orgiastic affairs.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“You are misguided cuz you don’t believe what I choose to make myself believe. Commmmme to the dark side, Luke!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:56 pm


Scientists say that they cannot save the planet:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/03/supreme-court-protecting-right_comments.html

Sooooo, what happened to Science? We have been told, again and again, that Science, intelligence, empiricism, reason and logic are the answers to everything, that they will solve any and every problem, although, so far, what we’ve seen is that they are starting more fires than they are putting out. Sooooo, wha’ happened???



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:58 pm


Oops! Wrong link.
Scientists say that they cannot save the planet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

Sooooo, what happened to Science? We have been told, again and again, that Science, intelligence, empiricism, reason and logic are the answers to everything, that they will solve any and every problem, although, so far, what we’ve seen is that they are starting more fires than they are putting out. Sooooo, wha’ happened???



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2010 at 11:03 pm


If ALL life on Earth began with one cell, whence that one cell? Who, or what, made that one cell appear at that one place, at that one time?
If there was nothing before, what told whatever elements and chemicals to come together to make that one cell? Who, or what, programmed the environment to come together in that way to form one cell? Otherwise, how’d those elements know what t’do and where t’go?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted March 31, 2010 at 11:51 pm


Mr. Incredible,
I see you are bringing up evolution. Geez, another favorite whipping-boy of the mentally afflicted. How fun.
Life didn’t begin with one single cell. Good grief, go read a real book and learn something, staying ignorant your whole life is not overly attractive.
As to the beginning of the universe, you frame a paradigm that requires a prime mover. Gosh, what a surprise. Maybe you should look at other paradigms. You know, a thought occurs to me on how you can help yourself understand some of this stuff. Let’s see, what was it? Oh, that’s right. Go read something other than the bible.
And by the way, if you thought science in its current state could address every situation, you are dumber than I thought, which, just as a friendly aside, would now definitely mean you are off the charts in that dubious category. Go read something other than the Bible, you need it.
Sad to think that you are likely a voter.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:36 am


Rich says:
Mr. Incredible,
I see you are bringing up evolution. Geez, another favorite whipping-boy of the mentally afflicted. How fun.
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand that you wish we would bring it up. It taxes your “giant intellect.”
Rich says:
Life didn’t begin with one single cell.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then you conflict with your buddies.
Rich says:
Good grief, go read a real book and learn something, staying ignorant your whole life is not overly attractive.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you’re stalking these pages for somebody attractive. I’m glad you find that I’m not attractive.
Rich says:
As to the beginning of the universe, you frame a paradigm that requires a prime mover.
Mr. Incredible says:
I frame nothing. It’s already been framed. I merely report it.
Rich says:
Maybe you should look at other paradigms.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m just goin’ along with what the secularists say.
Rich says:
You know, a thought occurs to me…
Mr. incredible says:
SOMEBODY NOTE THE DATE AND THE TIME!
Rich says:
…on how you can help yourself understand some of this stuff.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“Commmme to the dark side, Luke!”

Rich says:
Let’s see, what was it? Oh, that’s right. Go read something other than the bible.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Other than which “bible”?
Rich says:
And by the way, if you thought science in its current state could address every situation…
Mr. Incredible says:
Why not, given assertions in these pages and elsewhere of the power of men over God?
I’m not the one praising uppity intellectualism and the scientific and the the empirical and the reasoning and the logical.
Rich says:
Go read something other than the Bible…
Mr. Incredible says:
First you tell me to go read something other than the “bible.”
Now you tell me to go read something other than the “Bible.”
Which is it?? Which “bible”? Which “Bible”?
Rich says:
… you need it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“You need to read things that bring you over to the dark side, Luke, so you can think like me!”

You want me to be as unsure as YOU are. You are as perplexed by your own confusion, and you know it.
Rich says:
Sad to think that you are likely a voter.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“If you were smart, like me, you would think like me and vote like me.”

Mr. Incredible says:
I just can’t wait for November, then November, 2012. REAL change is coming!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:38 am


As a matter of fact, I mistakenly brought up evolution on this page. I meant to bring it up on the other page. I posted, here, saying that I made a mistake and that I was moving the posts to the other page. That post is missing. Not my problem.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:49 am


Rich says:
Life didn’t begin with one single cell.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How did it begin, then, according to YOU people?
According to YOU people, what was the first, living thing that led to all living things?
Did it begin after Aunt Jemima and the Cream of Wheat man got funky?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:52 am


Rich says:
Life didn’t begin with one single cell.
Mr. Incredible asks:
If life didn’t begin with one single cell, how does it — that is, human life — begin in the womb unless it begins with one single cell of forty-six chromosomes?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:53 am


If life didn’t begin with one single cell, and life doesn’t begin with one single cell in the womb, when is a woman pregnant?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 1:00 am


If a cyst, or tumor, grows in the woman’s womb, is she pregnant?
No.
There is only one condition that makes her pregnant: another person has begun to develop in her womb. That person has its own DNA. Has its own blood type. Has its own growth rate.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 1:06 am


If you plant the fertilized egg of an octopus in a woman’s womb, is she pregnant?
No.
That’s cuz there’s no chance that the octopus will develop and be born. It’s also cuz the octopus is not human.
Part of the definition of human pregnancy is that the woman is pregnant with a HUMAN.
Does that human sit there, undeveloped, until it’s time to be born?
No.
It develops. Conception begins the birthing process. It ends in birth. Everything from conception moves toward birth. It doesn’t stop. It doesn’t move backward. There is constant motion forward. That motion is independent of the woman. The woman cannot control it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 1:09 am


What was the “conception” of the universe, according to scoffers?
What was the “conception,” according to scoffers, of all life on Earth? What was “conceived”?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 1, 2010 at 1:16 am


Mr. Incredible,
This is fun.
Which bible? Well, I know a lot of folks like the King James Version. For you though, I would think the Tourette’s Version would be just perfect.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:09 am


Of course the Bible never claims to be the Word of God. Even if it did a book can’t pronounce itself the Word of God. For the Bible to be the Word of God, God would have to step out of the pages of a book and tell us that he did indeed write this book. That the Bible is the Word of God is nothing more than a man-made rumor that has only ever been believed by the most ignorant and uneducated people on the planet. No intelligent person has ever taken the Bible literally. Bible believers have all been just like Mr. Incredible: evil, stupid, badly misinformed, dishonest and willfully ignorant.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:22 am


Boris says:
Of course the Bible never claims to be the Word of God.
Mr. Incredible says:
Which Bible?
In KJV, the Word of God preserved in English, “Word of God” apears 48 times. 44 times in the New Testament.
KJV conforms to the Holy Scriptures which, in turn, conforms to the Word of God. The Book, itself, is the Earthly representation of the Word of God.
Boris says:
Even if it did a book can’t pronounce itself the Word of God.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which book?
Boris says:
For the Bible to be the Word of God, God would have to step out of the pages of a book and tell us that he did indeed write this book.
Mr. Incredible says:
Out of the pages of which book?
Boris says:
That the Bible is the Word of God is nothing more than a man-made rumor that has only ever been believed by the most ignorant and uneducated people on the planet.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil says that, too.
Boris says:
No intelligent person has ever taken the Bible literally.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “Bible”?
Boris says:
Bible believers…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “Bible”?
Boris says:
…have all been just like Mr. Incredible: evil, stupid, badly misinformed, dishonest and willfully ignorant.
Mr. Incredible says:
Flattery will get you nowhere.
You’re not gonna poop your panties, are ya.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:27 am


Rich says:
Which bible? Well, I know a lot of folks like the King James Version.
Mr. Incredible says:
The King James Version is the Word of God, preserved in English.
Rich says:
For you though, I would think the Tourette’s Version would be just perfect.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, then, you’d be wrong… as usual.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:38 am


Mr Hutaree says:
The King James Version is the Word of God, preserved in English.
Boris says: Where in the Bible does it say that? People told you that Mr. Hutaree, OTHER PEOPLE told you that and you believed them because you were afraid not to. Deny it all you want. We all know it’s true. Even you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:21 am


Mr. Incredible says:
The King James Version is the Word of God, preserved in English.
Boris, a profile in deception, says:
Where in the Bible does it say that?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “Bible”?
Boris, a profile in deception, says:
People told you that…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit told me. Gee, you caught me.
Boris, a profile in deception, says:
OTHER PEOPLE told you that…
Yes, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit told me. Gee, you caught me.
Boris, a profile in deception, says:
… and you believed them…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit told me, and I believe Them. Gee, you caught me.
Boris, a profile in deception, says:
… because you were afraid not to.
Mr. Incredible says:
God didn’t give me a spirit of fear. So, I’m not afraid.
Boris, a profile in deception, says:
Deny it all you want.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Deny what?
Boris, a profile in deception, says:
We all know it’s true.
Mr. incredible says:
Except that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit know that you’re lying, and that it’s a habit with you, as we’ve seen, and you know it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:37 am


Boris, having awakened on the wrong side of town, says:
Of course the Bible never claims to be the Word of God.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God says that God sent His Word. The Word became flesh and dwelt in the world. The Word of God consists of His Words. You don’t have to believe it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:54 am


Tim says:
We only welcome people exactly like us. must’ve missed that scripture.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yeah, you must’ve.
Ephesians 5:11 [KJV]



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 1, 2010 at 4:03 am


Belly-full-o’-booze Boris says:
Mr Hutaree says…
Mr. Incredible says:
Belly-full-o’-booze Boris doesn’t care for the American system of justice. He prefers the guilt by association system of jurisprudence. He doesn’t know the difference between those were just arrested and Mr. Incredible. He doesn’t care about the difference. He just wants-ta try t’make a connection and assign the characteristics of that group to Mr. Incredible, even though there is no connection. Y’see, that connection is all in his mind, what’s left of it, and it can’t be much.
We guess we can’t blame him there because, after all, he’s a victim. A victim of one of his mother’s twenty-five boyfriends being his daddy, and he has yet to find out which one.



report abuse
 

True Ethos

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:24 pm


Mr. Incredible I don’t know how many times I read through every one of your comments only to be amazed at how skillfully you dodge every question thrown at you. It really is quite impressive that you can respond to so many people without actually responding to them.
With that said I have to ask you a question. Why is it that after responding to a person’s comment, you will then only a few minutes later re respond to the same comment only to post something different than, and yet parallels, the original reply?
Anyway with the issue at hand I personally don’t see a problem here. The club specifically choose to go against the rules of the school and were punished for it. Now they are arguing that they should not only be reinstated as a *public* club, but they should be funded by the very same people they are openly discriminating against. This case is really cut and dry, either open the doors to everyone and get the money and space you want or become a private club where you are allowed to not take certain people in but you have to find and rent your own facilities as well as pay to fund your group.
Finally, just because I’m curious to his response, I’d like to pose another question to Mr. Incredible. Speaking from a strictly historical standpoint the Abrahamic religions are no where near the oldest. Judaism of course being the one that has lasted the longest was one of a plethera of religions that were held under not only the Egyptian, but Persian empires. So, speaking from this historical view point, how can one justify that these Abrahamic religions are in fact the “true” (and I use the term loosely) path when there are so many more that had existed prior to them?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 1, 2010 at 5:00 pm


re: true ethos
what? looks like he responds to the questions completely….
and you?
looks like you don’t like the answers he gives….so you say he does not answer them…
you just didn’t get the answers you wanted from him….c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 1, 2010 at 5:03 pm


re: nomadhair
public funds can be any fund from the public..
now, government funds are a whole different story…
so if the public wants to fund a Christian organization they can…
c



report abuse
 

True Ethos

posted April 1, 2010 at 5:35 pm


Okay first off Your Name, if that is your real name (sorry I couldn’t resist), I never expected to get an answer I liked from Mr. Incredible. Like I said I’ve read through many of his comments, some being from here and some from other topics, and I have a good grasp on where he stands with these issues. Never once would I expect him to agree with me in these cases because we don’t see eye to eye.
But that is the beauty of debate isn’t it? I can argue my piece and he can argue his and no one gets offended in the process. Or well at least I don’t, honestly I could care less about anyone I talk with online but that’s a different story entirely.
My point though, and I didn’t think I needed to make it any clearer, was that whenever someone would try and make a point in response to Mr. Incredible he would instead side step the question entirely. Whether that be by attacking the person who asked the question (though I’ve noticed he tended to do that when said person was rude as well), to ignoring points made by a person and instead nitpicking over the slightest of details which never actually was the point of the original poster’s comment.
Granted he isn’t the only one in the whole of this site who does it, as I’m sure there are a few who do, but he is the only person I’ve seen who does it so frequently and consistently that he almost never actually answers a question.
So Mr./Mrs. Your Name to sum it all up, no I don’t think he responds to people completely. Yes he does respond, and he does so quite often but to say he does completely, that I can’t quite give you.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted April 2, 2010 at 9:32 am


After following discussions involving “Mr. Incredible” for a few years now, I am forced to admit: This individual is totally inflexible. I have never once seen him or her back down from an opinion once they have proclaimed it.
Everything is black or white to them and engaging them in any discussion, on any point at all, is futile.
What fascinates me about this case more than anything else is the sense of injured dignity these hate-filled Christians are assuming. They want it all: The freedom to discriminate against homosexuals and the full support and funding of a public institution.
I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule on this matter, several Justices of the current Court have a strong disinclination to regard the Constitution when it doesn’t support their conservative positions. Should, however, these hateful people win before this court, the decision will certainly be given quite a bit of weight by whichever President is called upon to nominate new Justices.
This is truly a pivotal case.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2010 at 12:52 pm


What’s really dishonest and ironic about the anti-choice stance of Christian totalitarian fascists like Mr. Hutaree, and Cara Floyd, is that they cannot support their anti-choice stance biblically at all The Bible clearly supports the pro-choice position. In Chapter 21:22-23 the Book of Exodus indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person. That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life. Verse 23 says that, “If further harm is done, however, you will award life for life…” which proves that the Bible does NOT consider a fetus to be life but only potential life. Case closed.
It’s really disingenuous to argue against pro-choice here on Beliefnet because this Beliefnet site has a wonderful article entitled “The Biblical basis For Being Pro-Choice” written by: Marjorie Brahms Signer. There’s also a link to a more detailed article called “Why Abortion is Biblical” by Brian Elroy McKinley. Anyone can read these articles which completely destroy the position and all the lies of the Christian anti-choice fascists who post on this blog. What’s Mr. Hutaree going to do now? Will he cut and paste all the arguments these two writers made against his fascist position against women and try to refute them here on this blog? Unless he does that then these arguments stand and Mr. Hutaree wallows in defeat, his arguments destroyed by his own holy book. Dance for us now Mr. Hutaree, dance on my string. ROFL!
Mr. Hutaree claims he gets all of his information directly from God, but anyone can easily see all of his arguments are cut and pasted directly from creationist websites. Mr. Hutaree believes everything his religious cult leaders post on the Internet. He tries to use their arguments but he’s not even familiar enough with them to defend them. Let me demonstrate:
Mr. Incredible asks:
Prove that “love” exists.
Boris says: Love isn’t a thing it’s an abstract concept that describes particular feelings and actions. I’ve always found this argument to be strange because the logical conclusion is not where Bible believers want to end up. The question, “What is love?” has been discussed and debated for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who also asked questions such as “What is truth?” The Greeks understood that “love” is not a thing, but rather an abstraction or a label that we use to describe a set of feelings or actions. We say that love exists, but it’s not the same thing as an object or a person. So, any argument that God exists because love exists comes up against this problem. I don’t have a problem with Christians arguing that God is an abstraction the same way love is, but I don’t really think that’s what they have in mind.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:30 pm


Christian totalitarian fascist(boris comment)
let’s break this down…
christian-professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus..
yes, I am that…
totalitarian-of, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercised absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life.
no, I am not that…
people have free will
fascist-often fascist an advocte or adherent of fascism.
fascism-often Fascism , a system of governent marked by a totalitarian dictator, socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition , and usu. a policy of belligerent nationlism and racism.
no, I am definitely not that….
so, mr. boris , i am two out of the three things that you described me as…
you might be the two i said no to……
c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm


government-the act or process of governing, esp. the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:35 pm


re: true ethos and panthera
i just see mr. incredible stating point by point what he believes to be false…and point by point which he feels he wants to point out through blogs…you might not like his beliefs, but it certainly does not indicate that he is not true to who he is and what he believes in complete form or writings…c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:40 pm


planned parenthood getting funds to kill, what?
since when… and how are these funds directed..are they getting these funds for preventative measures or are the directed at abortions?
c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:42 pm


they directed towards abortions……….what?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm


money?///////the slice and dice committee…..abortion advocates….
anti- constitution laws in place….
puplic funding for what???
ccccccccccc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>death door of the abortionist…..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anti child choice in place….no air for breathing, death, death, death, death,,,,,,,how many is that today…..personhood ignored and political power of biased individuals in place to preform…. murder……deaths door……..>>>>>>>>>for ccccccccccccccc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 6:45 pm


performed murder………..on cccccccccccccccc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 6:49 pm


preform-to shape or form beforehand….
keep your money……………selfishnesss…………..give to life……….not selfish people……..c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 7:01 pm


so your killing people with money…..???????



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 7:05 pm


selfish- concerned chiefly or only with one-self.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm


“so your killing people with money…..???????”
That’s how I want to go! But I think I’m going to die of laughter before that happens! Ah, Carabellum is slaying me!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 3, 2010 at 5:20 pm


slaying you with words…i suppose flat lining is a funny thing to you…..not to those who love and appreciate the life they are losing…..when mass murderers start slaying animals is that a funny thing to you too? you know the pre-cursor to a mass murderer, enjoyment of killing! c



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 3, 2010 at 5:51 pm


“slaying you with words…i suppose flat lining is a funny thing to you…..”
Yes, with words, and the amusement I find in your use of them! … Don’t know about flat-lining, and don’t know what definition of ‘funny’ you want to use. You mean, like, “A funny thing happened to me on the way to the Colosseum”–? Or maybe you’re “trying to get funny with me”–? You do that most of the time without even intending to. Obsess much? Your obsequious obsession is humorous to me.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 8:27 am


True Ethos says:
Mr. Incredible I don’t know how many times I read through every one of your comments only to be amazed at how skillfully you dodge every question thrown at you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“I’m never satisfied with your answers. Therefore, you’re dodging all questions.”

True Ethos says:
It really is quite impressive that you can respond to so many people without actually responding to them.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“I’m impressed that you can withstand the pressure and not come over to the dark side, Luke.”

True Ethos says:
With that said I have to ask you a question.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Why waste time and effort and space telling me you’re gonna ask a question befo’ you aks the question?
True Ethos says:
Why is it that after responding to a person’s comment, you will then only a few minutes later re respond to the same comment only to post something different than, and yet parallels, the original reply?
Mr. Incredible says:
Your example is…
True Ethos says:
The club specifically choose to go against the rules of the school and were punished for it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Do the school rules trump the First Amendment??
True Ethos says:
This case is really cut and dry…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“It’s MY way, or the highway.”

True Ethos says:
… either open the doors to everyone and get the money and space you want or become a private club where you are allowed to not take certain people in but you have to find and rent your own facilities as well as pay to fund your group.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where does the First Amendment fit in?
True Ethos says:
… I’d like to pose another question to Mr. Incredible.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Why don’t you just ask the question, instead-a issuing a disclaimer that you’re gonna aks a question?
True Ethos says:
Speaking from a strictly historical standpoint the Abrahamic religions are no where near the oldest. Judaism of course being the one that has lasted the longest was one of a plethera of religions that were held under not only the Egyptian, but Persian empires. So, speaking from this historical view point, how can one justify that these Abrahamic religions are in fact the “true” (and I use the term loosely) path when there are so many more that had existed prior to them?
Mr. Incredible says:
The Abrahamic “religions” were an attempt to access the One, True God. The others were not.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 8:28 am


True Ethos says:
I never expected to get an answer I liked from Mr. Incredible.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“I’ve precluded myself from accepting anything he says.”

True Ethos says:
Like I said I’ve read through many of his comments, some being from here and some from other topics, and I have a good grasp on where he stands with these issues. Never once would I expect him to agree with me in these cases because we don’t see eye to eye.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“Since we don’t see eye to eye, I can shut myself off from his future answers cuz I want not to be contaminated by what he says.”

True Ethos says:
I can argue my piece and he can argue his and no one gets offended in the process.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Have you met the filled-with-hate Boris and the snippy HG and our ol’ “favorite,” Rich?
True Ethos says:
Or well at least I don’t, honestly I could care less [sic]…
Mr. Incredible says:
Goofy Boris, for example, says that I am highly impacted by what he writes, giving him the benefit of doubt and assuming that HE is doing the writing, not his mommy.
True Ethos says:
… whenever someone would try and make a point in response to Mr. Incredible he would instead side step the question entirely.
Mr. Incredible says:
In the case of Boris, HG and Rich who greeted me with nastiness right from the start, what’s the point of being serious with them?
However, most of the time, I have answered their questions specifically. It’s just that they don’t accept the answers. I can’t help that. So, so what? They don’t answer my questions, either.
True Ethos says:
Whether that be by attacking the person who asked the question (though I’ve noticed he tended to do that when said person was rude as well)…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s about time somebody recognize that. I purposely wait for an attack before giving the attacker the same medicine. Only I’m more clever about it. They can’t match me in that department. They try, but it’s obvious that they force it.
True Ethos says:
…to ignoring points made by a person…
Mr. Incredible says:
I ignore nothing.
True Ethos says:
…and instead nitpicking over the slightest of details which never actually was the point of the original poster’s comment.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. They choose what to write, I also choose what to write. Every word I write is purposely chosen, and I am meticulous about what I post. Nothing I write is irrelevant to the comment.
True Ethos says:
… he is the only person I’ve seen who does it so frequently and consistently that he almost never actually answers a question.
Mr. Incredible says:
Earlier, he wrote that I never answer a question. Now it’s “almost.”
True Ethos says:
… I don’t think he responds to people completely.
Mr. Incredible says:
I respond completely.
True Ethos says:
Yes he does respond, and he does so quite often but to say he does completely, that I can’t quite give you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, you have the opportunity to draw me out, and stop your complaining.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 8:29 am


panthera says:
After following discussions involving “Mr. Incredible” for a few years now, I am forced to admit: This individual is totally inflexible.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“He is totally inflexible cuz I can’t get him to agree with me.”

panthera says:
I have never once seen him or her back down from an opinion once they have proclaimed it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Liberals don’t like it that Conservatives are confident.
The ungodly also don’t like that those who are born again are confident in the Lord.
panthera says:
Everything is black or white to them…
Mr. Incredible says:
And it’s about time that SOMEBODY recognize that there are black-and-white things.
panthera says:
…and engaging them in any discussion, on any point at all, is futile.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“I surrender.”

panthera says:
What fascinates me about this case more than anything else is the sense of injured dignity these hate-filled Christians are assuming.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Injured dignity”? That would mean that we don’t believe Romans 8:1 [KJV].
panthera says:
They want it all: The freedom to discriminate against homosexuals…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What “discrimination”?
Where’s the discrimination in the law that says that “marriage” is the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that there are only men and women; those who claim to be homosexual are either men, or women. There is no third sex. So, where’s the discrimination?
panthera says:
I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule on this matter, several Justices of the current Court have a strong disinclination to regard the Constitution when it doesn’t support their conservative positions.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“Several justices on the Court have a strong disinclination to regard the Constitution the way I do.”

panthera says:
Should, however, these hateful people…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“Anybody who opposes us is hateful.”

panthera says:
…win before this court, the decision will certainly be given quite a bit of weight by whichever President is called upon to nominate new Justices.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, remember, Conservatives will win big this coming November. That means a Conservative Senate. That means a Conservative nominating process. And you know what that means.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 8:29 am


Boris says:
What’s really dishonest and ironic about the anti-choice…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“I can’t get the anti-pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice people to agree with me, hateful Boris.”

Boris says:
… stance of Christian totalitarian fascists like Mr. Hutaree…
Mr. Incredible asks:
You see that, True Ethos?
Boris says:
… and Cara Floyd, is that they cannot support their anti-choice…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“… their anti-pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice…”

Boris says:
… stance biblically at all.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, we have. You must-a been so bombed by what ever the street pharmie gave you that you missed it.
Boris says:
The Bible clearly supports the pro-choice position.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“… the pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice …”

Boris says:
In Chapter 21:22-23 the Book of Exodus indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person. That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life. Verse 23 says that, “If further harm is done, however, you will award life for life…” which proves that the Bible does NOT consider a fetus to be life but only potential life. Case closed.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, Thomas Jefferson says, in the Declaration of Independence, that we are “created.” He says that, upon creation, we are endowed by the Creator — God — with the Right to life.
When are we created? Conception? At birth?
Boris says:
It’s really disingenuous to argue against pro-choice…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation:

“…pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice …” Boris says:
[Mr. Incredible] claims he gets all of his information directly from God…
Mr. Incredible says:
Through the Word of God, yes.
Boris says:
…but anyone can easily see all of his arguments are cut and pasted directly from creationist websites.
Mr. Incredible says:
I challenge you, or anybody else, to do a Google search, taking any phrase, or sentence, I write for which I provide no attribution that I plagiarized from any website.
As a matter of fact, we have found YOU to be the plagiarist.
Boris says:
[Mr. Incredible] believes everything his religious cult leaders post on the Internet.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What “cult”? Christianity is not a cult.
Boris says:
He tries to use their arguments but he’s not even familiar enough with them to defend them. Let me demonstrate:
“Mr. Incredible asks:
Prove that ‘love’ exists.

Boris says:
Love isn’t a thing it’s an abstract concept that describes particular feelings and actions.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Have you over seen those feelings and actions? How can you act as though “love” exists without having seen it? I thought you are scientific, empirical, logical and reasoning.
Have you ever seen radio waves?
Have you ever seen your own brain with your own eyes?
You have faith every day and things you haven’t seen and can’t prove exists.
Boris says:
I’ve always found this argument to be strange because the logical conclusion is not where Bible believers want to end up.
Mr. Incredible says:
Scoffers have no idea where we want and up.
Boris says:
The question, “What is love?”…
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s not the question I asked.
Boris says:
The Greeks understood that “love” is not a thing, but rather an abstraction or a label that we use to describe a set of feelings or actions.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you repeat here what other people tell you to repeat. Uh-huh.
Boris says:
We say that love exists, but it’s not the same thing as an object or a person.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, you believe something you can’t prove exists. We get it.
Boris says:
So, any argument that God exists because love exists comes up against this problem.
Mr. Incredible says:
You say that we can’t prove God exists, and we say that you have faith in things you can’t prove exist, either.
Boris says:
I don’t have a problem with Christians arguing that God is an abstraction…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that we don’t argue that God is an abstraction. That’s cuz He’s not.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 9:18 am


Prove that Time exists.
Einstein argues that Time can be manipulated. If it can be manipulated, it must be a thing.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm


The B.S. Artist Formerly Known as Mr. Incredible says:
So, Thomas Jefferson says, in the Declaration of Independence, that we are “created.” He says that, upon creation, we are endowed by the Creator — God — with the Right to life.
Boris says: Thomas Jefferson was a deist, who believed in Nature’s God. So the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is certainly not a reference to the Christian boogyman. If you want to use Jefferson as an authority on such matters let’s read what he had to day about them.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies. –Thomas Jefferson
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
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
When asked to name one of our founders who were Christian, the resident loser on this blog claimed Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. If that’s as close to a Christian any of our founders were then it’s obvious none of our founders were Christians.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 2:51 am


Mr. Incredible says:
So, Thomas Jefferson says, in the Declaration of Independence, that we are “created.” He says that, upon creation, we are endowed by the Creator — God — with the Right to life.
Boris says:
Thomas Jefferson was a deist, who believed in Nature’s God. So the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is certainly not a reference to the Christian boogyman.
Mr. Incrfedible says:
Yes, He is.
He says that we get our God-endowed Right to life when we are “created.”
When is that? At conception? Birth? When the idiot, Boris, says so? We know you people are choking on this.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:47 am


Well, Boris, you have never seen Time, and, yet, you probably say Time exists and that you have faith in Time.
Where is Time?
You say you have a brain. Have you ever actually seen, with your own eyes, your brain? You have faith that you have a brain, even though the rest of us don’t have such a faith that you have a brain.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 4:11 am


Mr. Incredible says:
So, Thomas Jefferson says, in the Declaration of Independence, that we are “created.” He says that, upon creation, we are endowed by the Creator — God — with the Right to life.
Boris Beerfog says:
Thomas Jefferson was a deist, who believed in Nature’s God. So the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is certainly not a reference to the Christian boogyman.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Christians don’t believe in a bogeyman.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 4:14 am


Booger-nose Boris says:
… none of our founders were Christians.
Mr. Incredible says:
The vast majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christian. I believe it fifty-three outta fifty-five.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 4:20 am


“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 April 5, 2010 at 6:21 am


Butt-log Boris says:
The B.S. Artist Formerly Known as Mr. Incredible…
Mr. Incredible says:
Why can’t you just be a whale and beach yourself?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 5, 2010 at 11:41 pm


“[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
Boris says: I thought Christianity wasn’t a religion. ROFL! But there we have Noah Webster, your personal authority on religion in early America saying that Christianity is a religion. Not a word about any relationship with an invisible, inaudible reincarnating Jewish zombie. Just the “Christian religion.” Talk about a beached whale! Your foot must taste really good because you just CANNOT keep it out of your mouth! What’s the matter, can’t read what you posted earlier over your hideous gut? Hahahaha. You’re SUCH an easy target. Like hunting big fat dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 5, 2010 at 11:59 pm


The problem with Webster’s asinine comment is that there are no republics or democracies pictured in the Bible. Those kinds of governments are unknown to the Bible. All the Bible knows is religious theocracies. So obviously our form of government is modeled after Greek democracies that existed prior to Christianity, Judaism and the Bible. Once again a bit of Christian propaganda refuted. Poof.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 2:49 pm


and your point is what exactly….? it depends if i wanted to study the church of the bible , the people and their governments during the time periods of the bible to comment on your last blog..
the government didn’t like Jesus very much during that time period….obviously, they crusified him…despite his miracles and his kindness to people…..



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 2:54 pm


crucify-to put to death by nailing or binding to a cross.
crucified-past crucifixion



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 6, 2010 at 11:39 pm


The Romans never crucified anyone. They didn’t use crucifixion as a mode of punishment. Ever. It’s all Christian fiction. There’s no evidence of crucifixion from any ancient bones anywhere.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm


liar…..



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 7, 2010 at 2:43 pm


Prove it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm


ow doubting thomas, or are you the trader for the silver?
of course any scientific eveidence i would bring up to you, you would just say it is make believe….just like the sky, like it is some abstract design of make-believe science……boris, the burden of proof is on you…you can reject him all you want…….it is your choice……



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 8, 2010 at 4:11 pm


Shrowd Of Turan-believed to be the shrowd of Jesus(holes in hands visible)
google crucifiction artifacts
click on biblical artifacts, oshuary found with nail in bones consistant with the crucifiction….



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 8, 2010 at 10:01 pm


of course any scientific eveidence i would bring up to you, you would just say it is make believe….just like the sky, like it is some abstract design of make-believe science……boris, the burden of proof is on you…you can reject him all you want…….it is your choice……
Boris says: You’re claiming that someone whose birth and death were supposedly announced by angels, who had a conversation with Satan on a mountain top when no one else was around, yet we still somehow magically have a word for word account of this conversation, who cast out demons and that cured people of diseases was a real person. That is an outrageous claim on YOUR part. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim, not the person who doesn’t believe the claim. What’s your evidence? The Fraud of Turin and the heel bone the Naked Archaeologist pointed out on television is the ONLY one of its kind. Did you see that show? They discussed the fact that the Romans never crucified people and other than this one heel bone there is no evidence of anyone ever being crucified by the Romans. The Shroud has been accurately dated by several methods at about 500 years old. It’s a fraud. You believers are so desperate and you’ll grasp at ANYTHING and call it evidence. Meanwhile you staunchly deny major long-standing scientific explanations you don’t have a clue about that are supported by overwhelming evidence. Cookoo, cookoo, cookoo…..



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 9, 2010 at 5:12 pm


no Jesus was not just a person…….i already wrote allot of scripture containing his identity to who he is and why He came….so…the burden of proof is on you……….your the spirit of the anti-christ not me…….steal, kill,destroy…..fits the bill.
i teach my kids right from wrong and they know the truth despite the fact that there are people like you who try and convince the truth is a lie for their own benefit…..
look up all the scripture you want in the bible on Jesus, if you want the subject matter covered thoroughly, it is not my responsability to get you to understand, when you want to reject…you can believe you came from an ape….for all i care……i am done with condescending behavior, i find it rediculously selfish and corrupt….i already know who i am and what i believe, it is not my responsibility to make liars turn around from their wicked behavior and the pain they inflict…their intentions are to destroy….while all the while trying to attain things for themselves….it’s really ugly,,,really ugly……….so leave me alone and you can do your research for yourself….i don’t waste my time on people who are unteachable and arrogant….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 10, 2010 at 4:48 pm


God rules…..
yes, i care if the world is saved…what i mean by not caring is that, if someone wants to go the wrong direction and i can’t do anything about it…..then be my guest…..you can not control others, besides your children of course…..for you still need to control your children……or if there was some situation where you had to restrain someone, because of wrong doing or if they were going to hurt themselvs……c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm


interesting:
James Ossuary found…….google
inscription on the side of the box, bones in box believed needed for a resurrection of the body….witnessed Jesus being resurrected….very, very, old…………



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 12, 2010 at 2:10 pm


or should i have wrote the resurrected Christ…..believe it or not…….that is the ?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:59 pm


Boris says:
You’re claiming that someone whose birth and death were supposedly announced by angels…
Mr. Incredible says:
You have on-scene eyewitnesses to show us otherwise?
Boris says:
…who had a conversation with Satan…
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus had no conversation with the Devil. He did not try to outwit the Devil.
Boris says:
…on a mountain top when no one else was around, yet we still somehow magically have a word for word account of this conversation…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Magically”??? Not quite. It is the witness of God.
Boris says:
who cast out demons and that cured people of diseases was a real person.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s right.
Boris says:
That is an outrageous claim on YOUR part.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s God’s witness.
Boris says:
The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim…
Mr. Incredible says:
God has proved it to my satisfaction. You’re not required to be satisfied. You can choose and you have made the choice not to be satisfied. Not our problem.
Boris says:
… not the person who doesn’t believe the claim.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, you claim Jesus never existed. That’s YOUR claim. Prove it by unbiased, uncorrupted evidence.
Boris says:
What’s your evidence?
Mr. Incredible says:
On-scene eyewitnesses.



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted August 11, 2010 at 9:23 pm


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



report abuse
 



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.