Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


A Big Win For Religious Freedom Today

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

I just heard some great news: a U.S. District Judge has ruled today that the congressional mandated National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

I’m sure you have already read the decision, but Judge Barbara Crabb rightfully concluded that the sole purpose of federal law “is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

What a victory for religious liberty! Congress has no business telling Americans when or how to pray and now it no longer can.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(82)
post a comment
Rich

posted April 15, 2010 at 6:03 pm


That is great news!
Even those who are devoutly religious should have no problem with this ruling. It is not the job of our government to encourage or discourage religious worship. Participation in any kind of religious observance or activity should be solely a matter of conscience for each individual American.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 15, 2010 at 6:16 pm


There are two bad things about the ruling:
1. It will likely keep Jay Sekulow gainfully employed as he continues his never-ending effort to turn the US into a Christian theocracy.
2. Now we have to listen to all the annoying outrage of Christians and their self-appointed leaders who will yammer on for hours about how “America is a Christian nation, blah, blah, blah…”



report abuse
 

EllenBrown

posted April 15, 2010 at 6:17 pm


Wonderful–the law of the land is being carried out by a sane jurist! Rich is right, this ruling in no way infringes upon anyone’s right to believe or not believe–anything they so choose. But not on MY dime, and not by MY government.
This should give the teabaggers something to celebrate. Oh wait….they want to live in a theocracy, my bad.



report abuse
 

David S.

posted April 15, 2010 at 7:07 pm


As if anyone cares what this judge has to say. Just because she doesnt support it doesnt mean it is going ot happen. Activist judges have no business legilsating from the bench. No one is forced to pray on this day, it only recognizes the act just like a host of other days that are recognized.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm


Of course no one was forced to pray, but government encouragement and support of beliefs is inappropriate.
‘O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! He chortled in his joy.’



report abuse
 

justathought

posted April 15, 2010 at 7:55 pm


Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith. Alexis de Tocqueville



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 15, 2010 at 8:16 pm


justathought,
Nice quote but it is built upon a faulty proposition, in this case that morality is dependent upon faith. I get the feeling that that is more opinion than fact. Actually, all opinion with no basis in fact.
Being an atheist, I know lots of folks who are irreligious. Quite honestly, there are some good folks and some bad folks in that group. And, this will not surprise you, being an atheist living and working in a country predominated by Christians, I know a bunch from that crowd as well. Their overall moral behavior is no better than the atheists, some good folks, some bad folks. So, it appears that religion is not the determing factor in developing a sense of morality. (My real opinion is that religious faith retards the development of a realistic moral framework, but that is another story.) The truth is, and this is the bad news for religious folks, if both religious folks and atheist folks can be moral, morality obviously comes from somewhere else.
And, let’s talk about pedophile priests. They have tons of religion. The molest kids. Would you care to illuminate me as to how a person steeped in religion 24 hours a day can succumb to such depraved behavior? Perhaps, this much vaunted ‘moral inculcation effect’ of religion that you seem to hang your hat upon really doesn’t work.
So, as I said, neat quote and all in spite of it being simplistic and moronic.



report abuse
 

Lowell

posted April 15, 2010 at 8:56 pm


So, David, you would have no problem with a government-sponsored “Mock religion day”? If that’s unacceptable, then so is promoting religion. Read the Constitution and what its author (Madison) had to say about separation.



report abuse
 

GodChaser

posted April 15, 2010 at 9:53 pm


The ACLU and the Christian haters have done their best to deceive the American people. There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution. Some liberal judges have used that to say something isn’t constitutional, while knowing is nowhere in the US constitution. This great country was founded by Christians. I don’t care how much the liberal education systems tries to change history. That is a fact. It is because of Christians that Atheists have freedom in this country.
Always remember that



report abuse
 

Troglodyke

posted April 15, 2010 at 10:32 pm


The ACLU and the Christian haters have done their best to deceive the American people. There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution. Some liberal judges have used that to say something isn’t constitutional, while knowing is nowhere in the US constitution. This great country was founded by Christians. I don’t care how much the liberal education systems tries to change history. That is a fact. It is because of Christians that Atheists have freedom in this country.
Wow…amazing how you can et it wrong in every sentence of your post.
Deceit is best practiced by religious fundamentalists, who are doing a great job of it.
Though the phrase “wall of separation” does not exist in the Constitution, the idea most definitely does. Nice attempt to deceive, though.
This country was founded by Deists, mostly. Though some of the FF were Xtian, that in no way makes America a Xtian nation. Look up “Treaty of Tripoli” and you’ll see it in black and white.
Christianity did not give anyone freedom in this country. The U.S. Constitution did, and it is a completely secular document.
If the US was a Xtian country, as you and the Religious Reich so firmly believe, why is the governing document of the U.S. COMPLETELY SECULAR?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 15, 2010 at 10:45 pm


Debunking more Christian lies, nonsense and propaganda:
The ACLU and the Christian haters have done their best to deceive the American people.
Boris says: We don’t hate Christians. Love the Christian hate the Christianity is what I always say.
There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution.
Boris says: The absence of this phrase in the Constitution does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle. Where is the phrase “right to privacy” or “right to a fair trial” in the Constitution? Just because those exact words aren’t in the Constitution doesn’t mean the concept isn’t there.
Some liberal judges have used that to say something isn’t constitutional, while knowing is nowhere in the US constitution.
Boris says: The author of the Constitution, James Madison, said that it is in an 1819 letter, “The number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state.” In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded…is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.”
This great country was founded by Christians.
Boris says: Christians settled this land and in doing so they committed genocide against the native peoples who lived here before they came. When the natives inspired by curiosity and human compassion fed the first starving settlers, the Christians thanked their God for sending the savages to feed them. Then over the next few centuries reduced the number of “savages” from about 14 million to 237,000. The Christians set up colonies that were Christian theocracies, not anything like the government we have today. Our government was founded by mostly deists and Freemasons, not Christians. Our democratic system is modeled after Greek and Roman democracies that existed long before Christianity, Judaism or the Bible. There have never been any Christian nations like ours. All Christian nations have been theocracies based on the biblical notion of the divine right of kings. When our Revolution was fought most of the Christians supported the British for this reason.
don’t care how much the liberal education systems tries to change history. That is a fact. It is because of Christians that Atheists have freedom in this country.
Boris says: That is just a big fat lie. It’s because of free-thinking deists like Jefferson and Madison that Christians have religious freedom in this country.
Always remember that
Boris says: You remember this: There are lots of atheists on this blog who will call you out on your lies and expose you as just another lying Christian blowhard if you spew anymore of your religious propaganda on this blog. Got it liar?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 15, 2010 at 11:09 pm


Troglodyke and Boris,
Well said to the both of you!
GodChaser can go cry me a river. I wonder how many times I have had to either hear or read (imagine a snide and childish little voice whining for this part) “There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution”. Geez, spare me from this moronic and ignorant blabbering.
While it is possible to point out that certain things such as marriage, executive privilege and jury of your peers do not appear in the Constitution, it is fruitless. These conservative x-tians tend to only hear what they want to hear, anything else bounces off their armored skulls.
As well, I think GodChaser has it backwards when he opines that atheists have freedom because x-tians gave it to them. Seems to me that good old deists (the historical equivalent of today’s atheists) like Jefferson and Madison did a lot to make sure that all the various x-tian cults could exist, the fruits of which were that they didn’t get to kill each other off as cults are so often fond of doing.



report abuse
 

GSeeker

posted April 15, 2010 at 11:16 pm


Those thinking that morality does not depend on religion cannot comprehend that whatever morality we enjoy today comes from the religious morality of our parents and grandparents.
Is still pervasive, so we take it for granted. But not for long if the current trend of thought continues long enough.
But there are billions of religious people; being the ones who have plenty of children and educate them in religious morality. For the benefit of the left loons, religion and religious morality is not going anywhere.
Left loons are just evidencing themselves as a joke.



report abuse
 

believer in God

posted April 15, 2010 at 11:49 pm


this is a Christian nation, whether anyone likes it or not. Obama didn’t mind at all letting the Muslims have their day of prayer in Washington, did he? When it’s all said and done, all you goats will be on the left and sheep on the right. I can’t wait for that final day for God to revenge those that oppress his followers. What a great day that will be. No liberals in heaven! yahoooo!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 16, 2010 at 12:22 am


GSeeker,
I see you have shortened your name. Perhaps next time it will just be G.
You imply that all moral people benefit from the religious tradition of their parents or grandparents. Hmmm, not so sure about that. My wife comes from a multi-generational family of atheists. It stretches way back beyond her great-grandparents, well into the 1800s. My atheist family history started with me, the rest of my family remains afflicted with primitive superstitions.
Now, here is the deal. When my wife and I we shared the same moral values, still do. She was raised in a family with a very long tradition of secular humanism, my secular humanism started with me. How is that possible that we carry the same moral perspectives given your thesis? There is an answer and that works out to be that you are just plain wrong. Again.
You see, you religious folks think you have a patent on morality. Clearly, demonstrably and quite tellingly, you do not. So, here you go cowboy, put a sock in it and quit bragging about how morally superior you are and instead go out and show us that superiority.
You know, this is really quite fun, tearing apart the flawed logic of you self-righteous x-tian punks who think you are the most precious thing on the planet.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 16, 2010 at 12:25 am


Troglodyke and the like
Your ignorance is overwhelming. I mean that as a fact not an insult. The Constitution is not a secular document. It is based on Biblical principles. I will give you a few quotes.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.
If you went to public school I know you were never taugh this and you might not know the name Patrick Henry
Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist–Dr. Franklin
I figure I will add another of quote by James Madison
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way
Liberal and etheist, go cry me a river now :)



report abuse
 

GodChaser

posted April 16, 2010 at 12:28 am


for clarification Gchaser is someone else and the comment entered at 12:25Am is mine



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 16, 2010 at 12:43 am


I was having too much fun destroying liberals lies. So I am adding a few more quoted from the people WHO ACTUALLY WROTE our constitution.
Liberals, keep crying me a river :)
John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; “The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: “…Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an “indissoluble” bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.
The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a ‘National Denomination” (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.” Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term “separation of Church and State”) he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.
Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his “Farewell Address”: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” Sure doesn’t sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.
This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:
“No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a “Christian nation”.
In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: “in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.’
It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the “separation of Church and State”, people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.
It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:22 am


Refuting Christian lies and exposing the lying Christian liars who tell them:
Those thinking that morality does not depend on religion cannot comprehend that whatever morality we enjoy today comes from the religious morality of our parents and grandparents.
Response: “The influences that have lifted the race to a higher moral level are education, freedom, leisure, the humanizing tendency of a better-supplied and more interesting life. In a word, science and liberalism… have accomplished the very things for which religion claims the credit.” – E. Haldeman-Julius (1889-1951), American publisher
Is still pervasive, so we take it for granted. But not for long if the current trend of thought continues long enough.
Response: “Because morality is a social necessity, the moment faith in God is banished, man’s gaze turns from God top man and he becomes socially conscious. Religious belief prevented the growth of a sense of realism. But atheism at one makes man realistic and alive to the needs of morality.” Gora (1902-1975), Indian atheist leader
But there are billions of religious people; being the ones who have plenty of children and educate them in religious morality. For the benefit of the left loons, religion and religious morality is not going anywhere.
Response: “Every one of us… has met the criticism that in ethics we humanists live on Christian capital, that our moral attitudes are derived from Christianity. I believe this to be utterly wrong and that, on the contrary, what goes for modern Christian ethics is in fact derived from humanist values. For most of its history Christianity was red in tooth and claw… It is only in the last couple of centuries that Christian attitudes have gradually become ‘civilized’ and humane. Why? [Because of] the rise of humanism and skepticism. We have given Christianity its modern face, which often quotes the very nice things Jesus is reported to have said, and carefully omits the nasty sayings as ‘If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned’” – Sir Herman Bondi
Left loons are just evidencing themselves as a joke.
Boris says: Yeah and the joke is on you Bible thumpers.
this is a Christian nation, whether anyone likes it or not.
Response: “America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior… In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in foreign aid… Nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring… childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool – we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin… Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers… Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest… Teenage pregnancy? We’re at the top of the charts. Personal self-discipline – like, say, keeping your weight under control? Buying on credit? Running government deficits? Do you need to ask?” Bill McKibben, American writer
Obama didn’t mind at all letting the Muslims have their day of prayer in Washington, did he? When it’s all said and done, all you goats will be on the left and sheep on the right. I can’t wait for that final day for God to revenge those that oppress his followers.
Boris says: You are a mass of contradictions and lies. You claim this is a Christian nation, you all claim you have a huge majority and then turn around and whine that you are being oppressed! By who exactly? What a pant load.
What a great day that will be. No liberals in heaven! yahoooo!
Boris says: You people are so evil. You get solace from the superstition that those who were your betters in this life will somehow be punished for not believing that your God exists. There won’t be any liberals in heaven because there is no heaven, no hell and all available data shows that an afterlife for biological organisms is impossible. You have some obvious escapism and life avoidance issues that come directly from your delusions about an afterlife. Dream on loser.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:58 am


Your ignorance is overwhelming. I mean that as a fact not an insult. The Constitution is not a secular document. It is based on Biblical principles. I will give you a few quotes.
Boris says: What biblical principles? Stoning disobedient children perhaps? Poisoning suspected adulteresses? Not touching a woman who is having her period or yoking an ox and a donkey together maybe? ROFL! Uh, I hate to have to uniform you of this but our nation’s government is modeled after Greek and Roman democracies that existed long before Christianity, Judaism or the Bible did. The Bible knows nothing of democratic republics like ours, elected public officials, citizen participation in government, and certainly is totally blind to religious freedom. Not only that, the Ten Commandments demand the worship of only one God, making them about as anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-freedom and freedom of and from religion as you can get.
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin strongly suggested on June 28 that the convention have prayers said there. Evangelists take this as proof that the convention then went on with prayers. But, in fact, the convention did not accept the suggestion, and the convention went on without prayers.
Oh, you want to quote mine? I’ll see your David Barton forgeries and call you on your propaganda and lies. Oops, looks like you lose AGAIN. No liberals are crying you a river loser/liar. We’re laughing uncontrollably at your dishonesty, delusions and desperation. Go play in you magic land of fear and superstition. ROFL!
After Washington’s death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington’s religion replied, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”
John Adams, 2nd president, Proposed and signed the Treaty of Tripoli
“Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years.” letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 106-7, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.”
letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
Benjamin Franklin Signer of Declaration of Independence, signer of Constitution:
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
[Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758]
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
“He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.”



report abuse
 

Palin Drone

posted April 16, 2010 at 2:10 am


LETS ALL BE REVISIONISTS SO THAT WE CAN TWIST REALITY TO OUR FITTING YEAH



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 5:32 am


What “religion” does The National Day of Prayer impose on anyone? On whom is it imposed; on which, by name, individual, or individuals, did Congress focus of The National Day of Prayer?
Which “religion” did he enactment of The National Day of Prayer establish as the “national religion”?
In fact, The National Day of Prayer is merely an invitation. There is no requirement to respond to the invitation. There is no required participation. There is no establishment, nor promotion, of any particular “religion.” There is no establishment of a national church. It is simply an invitation to pray, and EVERYBODY prays, in some form, or another, to some thing. Even atheists say, “Oh, God!” and, “God dam n!” and, “Jesus!” It may be wrong prayer, but it’s prayer, and The National Day of Prayer, enacted by Congress, is a day for any ol’ prayer. There is no requirement whether to pray a good prayer, or a bad prayer.
This decision will be overturned on appeal, given the recent SCOTUS ruling on “In God We Trust” and “Under God.” It will be overturned cuz the enactment is neutral. It doesn’t say you must pray to God, nor not pray to a god. An atheist, f’rinstance, may waive his right hand in front of his face and prayed to it, or not pray to it.
Not all words the State expresses on the subject of “religion” is promotion. Not all words the State expresses on the subject of “religion” is establishment of “religion.” Not all words the State expresses on the subject of “religion” is a violation of the so-called “separation of Church and State.”
And, anyway, we’re gonna all pray on The National Day of Prayer whether anybody likes it, or not. Atheists are not required to like it. We don’t need their permission, and we don’t care whether they stomp around on the ground, hold their breath till they turn blue and/or thrash around on the floor.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 5:37 am


Of course, as has been said, our sense of Nation is based on principles found in the Word of God. That’s cuz the Founders based their lives on principles found in the Word of God. They mixed public life with the principles found in the Word of God.
Not only that, the settlers came to this land, as they, themselves, said, to “advance Christianity.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 5:54 am


Troglodyke says:
Though the phrase “wall of separation” does not exist in the Constitution, the idea most definitely does.
Mr. Incredible says:
Boris has said that, had the Founders wanted to make abortion illegal, they would have done so in the Constitution.
In the same way, I say that, had the Founders wanted the so-called “separation of Church and State,” they would’ve written it in the Constitution. They didn’t.
All they wanted to do was to avoid the same circumstances the settlers found themselves in England with the Church of England and the King of England as its high priest; the settlers were prohibited from worshiping God through the Word, and they were required to access God through the Church. They came here to fix that. It’s as simple as that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 6:02 am


Boris says:
The absence of this phrase in the Constitution does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.
Mr. Incredible says:
The absence of words in the Constitution that point to the intention of Founders to preserve, for posterity, the lives of the unborn does not mean that it is an invalid concept, or that it cannot be used as a legal, or judicial principle.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 6:08 am


Rich says:
I wonder how many times I have had to either hear or read (imagine a snide and childish little voice whining for this part) “There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution”. Geez, spare me from this moronic and ignorant blabbering.
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand that you agree that there is no such thing as a so-called “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution.
Rich says:
While it is possible to point out that certain things such as marriage, executive privilege and jury of your peers do not appear in the Constitution, it is fruitless.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Unborn person” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, either. And, yet, we can conclude from the word, “posterity,” that they are protected.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 6:11 am


believer in God says:
Obama didn’t mind at all letting the Muslims have their day of prayer in Washington, did he?
Mr. Incredible says:
EXCELLENT! Excellent. Great point! No complaints from the atheists then, huh.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 6:18 am


Rich says:
You see, you religious folks think you have a patent on morality.
Mr. Incredible says:
First, we don’t think .
Second, we don’t have a patent on Morality. God, through Christ, holds that patent. We merely enjoy what He has patented. Scoffers cannot.
Rich says:
… quit bragging about how morally superior you are…
Mr. Incredible says:
We both in Christ. God, through Christ, has sanctified us.
Rich says:
You know, this is really quite fun, tearing apart the flawed logic of you self-righteous…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Self-righteous” would mean that we are testifying of ourselves. Instead, we testify of God, through Christ. We are Christ-Righteous.
Rich says:
… x-tian punks who think you are the most precious thing on the planet.
Mr. Incredible says:
God, through Christ, says that those who are born again — and, therefore, His children — ARE the most precious thing on the planet.



report abuse
 

EllieDee

posted April 16, 2010 at 7:45 am


May I ask, wheres the win? Those who dont have a belief in God, will always want the thought of Him, removed from every aspect of life. Yet see no problem when they step on the religious beliefs of those who believe all life is sacred, most especially that of the unborn. So PRAY TELL, where’s the win here?



report abuse
 

bob johnson

posted April 16, 2010 at 8:40 am


Mr Your Name, You had me quite excited when you said “The Constitution is not a secular document. It is based on Biblical principles. I will give you a few quotes” .I had expected you to quote the constitution showing the biblical principles that were in the constitution but there were no such quotes. After looking and waiting for years for this list I have concluded there are no biblical principles in our constitution and it is truly a secular document.



report abuse
 

Erasmus

posted April 16, 2010 at 9:18 am


oh just STOP it. Iran has a religious government. So does the Vatican. Most of the world has a civic government. A civic government PRESERVES religious freedom. Of course there is no “religion” in the US government. The Revolution was to REMOVE British imperial government (where the head of state is the head of the church)and substitute a Republic which guaranteed civic protection and civil rights – including the right to religious freedom (eventually to everyone). The best protection for religion is a secular government, of course.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 16, 2010 at 12:13 pm


EllieDee,
You ask where is the “win”?
Well, the win is in staying faithful to our Constitution that has served well to insure religious liberty, both yours and mine. Please take a look at the 1st Amendment, notice the precise words where it says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. It does not say “a” religion as in a particular creed or sect, it says an establishment “of” religion, religion in general. That simple phrasing is monumentally important. The Founders knew that freedom of religion is best served when government stays away completely from the area of religion of any kind. The idea is that our government should not make any laws with reference to any kind of religion; monotheistic, polytheistic, deistic, etc.
Now, it takes some expansive thinking to understand the importance of that. I am assuming that your religion places an emphasis on prayer, most religions do. I have to ask though, would it ever be possible for a religion to develop in the US that doesn’t believe in prayer? That may seem ludicrous to you but it is quite possible, after all, it would never be our place to tell others what kind of religion they may or may not believe in. So, what happens when you have the government declaring a day of prayer, where would that leave those who practice a religion that does not believe in prayer? That would in fact be an endorsement of religions with prayer over religions with no prayer. Additionally, let’s imagine that this prayer-less religion would like to acquire new members yet the government is clearly supporting those religions that practice prayer. Certainly, you don’t want your government recommending that the citizens practice one religion over another. If you do, be careful what you wish for. They might just end up recommending another religion at some date.
You also state that some we supporters of secularism want God removed from every aspect of life. Quite wrong. I am an atheist but it ends there. Everyone is free and should be free to do as they will in the area of religion. I have no problem with those building giant mega-churches, ornate cathedrals, etc, etc. They can plaster our TV screens with commercials 24/7, create a forest of billboards alongside the highways, and flood the radio airwaves with religious broadcasting. If that is how they choose to spend their money, so be it. However, the government just needs to stay clear of the issue, let it remain in the individual hands of the citizens. So, while you may haphazardly toss out that those who support separation of church and state want God removed from “every” aspect of life, you are sorely over-reaching. Only the government aspect.



report abuse
 

Dr. Gene J. Cartwright

posted April 16, 2010 at 12:26 pm


Judge Crabb is a Wisconsin radical, uber leftist Judge. She should not even be on the bench with all her radical ideas. Hopefully, her opiniion will be overturned. Maybe she can get a job with our socialist president.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:15 pm


Judge Crabb may, or may not, have radical ideas; but this ruling certainly does not stem from one. It is unlikely that either the Seventh Circuit, or the Supreme, Court will overturn this finding. There is no reason for our government to endorse religious exercises, and ample reason for it to not do so.



report abuse
 

bob johnson

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm


The Circuit court will overturn the ruling because of lack of standing to sue.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:36 pm


@ GodChaser,
“I don’t care how much the liberal education systems tries to change history.”
Sorry, but the job of ‘changing history’ is already taken – by religionists in Texas. Or hadn’t you read about that either?



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:42 pm


To EllieDee,
“May I ask, wheres the win? “
The win (as if we must always have ‘winners’ and ‘losers’!?!?!) is that you get to follow your conscience (be it born of religion or some other entity) and your faith – AND SO DO THE REST OF US!
Not sure what business the government has declaring a day of prayer, particularly for those citizens who do not believe in it.
Or, don’t you actually believe in freedom of religion?
As my grandmother used to say, you go to your church, I’ll go to mine. Or to the movies.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:44 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
“First, we don’t think .”
Truer words were never typed on the internet.



report abuse
 

thebob.bob

posted April 16, 2010 at 2:49 pm


Of course it’s unconstitutional. The government’s job is the secular. Were the founding fathers religious? Sure, to varying degrees. Did they understand the horrors that await a country that allows religion into government? Absolutely. They were watching religious intervention in government causing wars all over The World and they didn’t want it to happen here. Want to pray, go ahead, the government will never stop you … nor will the government ever make you.
When will the religious insanity stop?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 16, 2010 at 4:27 pm


What a joke. Hypocrits at there worst, to say your helping is an outrage. The consistent condescending parade of showmanship, while elevating your own interest is abhorrent. We would hope in the future, you will not show up to claim yourself as savior to the one you took everything from…
You don’t show up to take everything that meant something to me and claim it as helpful….no she didn’t help. That would be cheating at its worst. I can see right through, when there is selfish motivation involved…especially when she took what was mine…so please, save your breath and your pitiful showdown of one -up- manship……
Why did you show up, to show your better….true people who are friends don’t show up while taking what’s important to you, with a smile on their face…sadistic…is what it is…..so please, save your breath and your abusive behavior for yourself….your nothing like me, for I would have never pranced it in front of your back or your face for self gratification, secondary to show up in front of my house while making a phone call to show what, now that is sick……..the competition is over…there never was one..
The mask of nothing…..



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 16, 2010 at 4:36 pm


It was their money…company, not yours……I give, I don’t show up and parade it as if I was the one who did it, when all the while knowing that the other person is what put her hard effort in building up the company and giving and giving and giving more ideas with every effort she could…so to take the money from it and then show up when the other person has been literally stripped of almost everything she loved and had and offer her some pitiful little opportunity, to become a fraction of the job she has…..like that was an opportunity…please….that is called somebody who is trying to destoy the other person, to show she is second while she is number 1
all that looks good, definitely is not……



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 16, 2010 at 4:42 pm


I am sickened by those that think this ruling is either Liberal, or anti-religious.
Why is it NOT good enough to have religion in your heart, home, and place of worship? Why push it into the public venue?
I am not Christian, nor am I an Agnostic or Atheist, but I am sick and tired of the Christian religious right’s rhetoric and dogma. A rhetoric pushed by unthinking sheeple who try make our nation non-secular.
It is not a mission (as they would have you to believe), but an attack on our freedoms.
Hooray for a judge with an eye on our Constitution.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm


Well that will not help you in the after life……cc



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm


That is if you believe in the afterlife. :)
My religion does, but I am not going to preach it from every corner. I consider my religion (and practice thereof) to be a private matter between me and the deity I believe in.
I don’t like people telling me what I have to believe.
I think Jesus had a word for that, the Pharisees.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted April 17, 2010 at 12:06 am


Following the logic of Judge Crabb to its logical conclusion would confirm Congress has no Constitutional authority to take over the massive health care industry and its administration unto the citizens opposing this legislative lawlessness.
Government could be helpful providing stable economic conditions favorable to private enterprise (free of tax and red tape and other obstructions), and remove itself from blocking the highway to higher GNP and general prosperity.
Government doesn’t fix problems. Government creates problems. [Ronald Regan] The best help from our (illegally) massive Central Government is to get out of our way and let us do what we do best.
The ‘train’ of government has derailed. It needs to be helped back onto the track of the U.S. Constitution.
Disarming the population, and ever increasing tyranny and power accumulation of the Central Government is telegraphing intentions of overthrowing the legitimate form of government. Its actually in progress at this time, but they greatly fear an armed population (possibly with cause).



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:15 am


==That is if you believe in the afterlife.==
GFine says:
My religion…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What “religion” is that?
GFine says:
… does, but I am not going to preach from every corner.
Mr. Incredible says:
If your so-called “religion” saves, one would think that you would want everybody to be saved, and that takes telling others.
GFine says:
I consider my religion (and practice thereof) to be a private matter between me and the deity I believe in.
Mr. Incredible says:
Again, if your so-called “religion” saves, one would think that you would want everybody to be saved, and that takes telling others about the Salvation qualities of your so-called “religion.” However, as you say, you’re selfish. Some “religion.”
GFine says:
I don’t like people telling me what I have to believe.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, you’re telling us we have-ta believe YOU. How ’bout THAT?
GFine says:
I think Jesus had a word for that, the Pharisees.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s two words.
Anyway…
Didn’t Jesus tell others what to believe?? You sayin’ He was a Pharisee?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:28 am


GFine says:
I am sickened by those that think this ruling is either Liberal, or anti-religious.
Mr. Incredible says:
We’re sorry that you are sickened by the truth.
GFine says:
Why is it NOT good enough to have religion in your heart, home, and place of worship?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz Christ says that, when a person has the Light of God, he doesn’t hide it.
GFine says:
Why push it into the public venue?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz Christ says that those who are born again must spread the Word outta love for Him.
GFine says:
I am not Christian…
Mr. Incredible says:
We already know that.
GFine says:
…nor am I an Agnostic or Atheist…
Mr. Incredible says:
We get it; you’re like a player who is his own referee.
GFine says:
…but I am sick and tired of the Christian religious right’s rhetoric and dogma.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s really tuff. The Lord is our Shepherd.
GFine says:
A rhetoric…
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God is not mere rhetoric.
GFine says:
…pushed by unthinking sheeple…
Mr. Incredible translates:

” If you don’t think like me, you are unthinking.”

GFine says:
… who try make our nation non-secular.
Mr. Incredible says:
We are???
GFine says:
It is not a mission (as they would have you to believe)…
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, Christ says it IS our mission, as it was His mission.
GFine says:
…but an attack on our freedoms.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“An attack on” what freedoms?
GFine says:
Hooray for a judge with an eye on our Constitution.
Mr. Incredible translates:

” The judge thinks like me!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:36 am


Your Name tries the dishonest ploy:

“Mr. Incredible says: ‘First, we don’t think .'”

Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, in order to try to make it work, you had to take my words outta context.
My answer was in response to what Rich wrote:

“You see, you religious folks think you have a patent on morality.”

We understand your penchant for misrepresentatio like all at all n.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:37 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Again, if your so-called “religion” saves, one would think that you would want everybody to be saved, and that takes telling others about the Salvation qualities of your so-called “religion.” However, as you say, you’re selfish. Some “religion.”
Boris says: This from someone who does everything he can to make Christians look like retards and drive people away from belief in God.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:37 am


CORRECTION
We understand your penchant for misrepresentatio like all at all n. — — > We understand your penchant for misrepresentation.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:44 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Again, if your so-called “religion” saves, one would think that you would want everybody to be saved, and that takes telling others about the Salvation qualities of your so-called “religion.” However, as you say, you’re selfish. Some “religion.”
Boris says:
This from someone who does everything he can to make Christians look like retards…
Mr. Incredible says:
I can’t make anybody do anything. I don’t have that power. However, it’s good to know that you give me that power. I don’t want it. I reject it.
Boris says:
…and drive people away from belief in God.
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t have the power to drive away from God does who never turned toward God.
If, in fact, I turn Christians away from belief in God, their belief wasn’t strong enough in the first place; they are saying that my power over them is greater than God’s power.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:45 am


Boris, you’re not telling me — telling US — that I have more power than God, are you?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:52 am


Your God has no power because it doesn’t exist. Science has proved that beyond the doubt of anyone who isn’t completely brainwashed by OTHER PEOPLE. You’re such a punk. Is that really you on face book? 5’8″ 325? What a fat slob! ROFL!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 7:27 am


Boris, the plagiarist, says:
Your God has no power…
Mr. Incredible says:

“If I say God has no power, He has no power cuz I am more powerful than God.”

Of course, if you are more powerful than God, what’s takin’ you so long to cure all disease and stop all violence? Why isn’t this place a paradise, if you are more powerful than God?
Boris, the plagiarist, says:
… because it doesn’t exist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, as you say that, just cuz it ain’t in the Constitution in so many words, doesn’t mean it’s not there, just cuz you say God isn’t there doesn’t mean that He doesn’t exist.
Boris, the plagiarist, says:
Science has proved that…
Mr. Incredible says:
Provide us the link to the unbiased, uncorrupted, empirical, scientific documentation.
Boris, the plagiarist, says:
… beyond the doubt of anyone who isn’t completely brainwashed by OTHER PEOPLE.
Mr. Incredible says:
YOU are the one who’s plagiarizing other people.
Boris, the plagiarist, says:
You’re such a punk.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Gee, am I??? Does that mean the trip to Disneyland is off??
Boris, the plagiarist, says:
Is that really you on face book? 5’8″ 325? What a fat slob!
Mr. Incredible found a picture of Boris:
http://thumbsnap.com/VMaBBizu



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 7:33 am


Boris says:
Your God has no power because it doesn’t exist. Science has proved that beyond the doubt…
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re one disappointment away from joining a project gang, aren’t you?
So, you’re telling me — telling US — that Science has proved a negative???



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 9:02 am


Boris, the plagiarist who doesn’t know what “plagiarism” means, says:
Is that really you on face book? 5’8″ 325? What a fat slob!
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t do Facebook which, apparently, you DO frequent, stalking dudes there.
Say, which one-a these — http://thumbsnap.com/xaoPIkOU — is you?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 9:08 am


Hey, Boris, who you runnin’ from here — http://thumbsnap.com/TFT1Ctre — your parole officer?
Or, are you runnin’ after the dude that stiffed you outta a tip for that lap dance you gave him last night?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted April 17, 2010 at 10:21 am


There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution.
You are right, GodChaser. The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” does not exist in our Constitution. But the phrase does exist in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and the sentiment exists in the writings of others among our founding fathers.
When we look to the Constitution to decide issues of contemporary concern we often look to the founders’ intent in writing a relevant part of the Constitution. Seldom have the founders left so clear a path for us to discover their intent.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm


GodChaser says:
There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution.
Mary-Lee says:
You are right, GodChaser. The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” does not exist in our Constitution. But the phrase does exist in the writings of Thomas Jefferson…
Mr. Incredible says:
In the WRITING of Jefferson. Mentioned ONE time, and Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution.
Mary-Lee says:
…and the sentiment exists in the writings of others among our founding fathers.
Mr. Incredible says:
The judicial order of operations is:


1. Clear language of the law.
If the language of the law is clear, the court must stop there.
2. If the language of the law is not clear, the court examines legislative intent in enacting the law.
3. If the court cannot determine legislative intent in enacting the law, it examines the history of
legislative action on the subject of the law.

There’s a lesson in that for us. If the language of the law is clear, we stop there.
However, there are people who don’t agree with a particular law. So, they say we must ignore that and go to the spirit of the law. That’s bogus.
So, then, I don’t care what the “sentiment” in their writings is, if the language is clear; and, according to Boris — who says that, if the Founders wanted to make abortion illegal, they would’ve put that in the Constitution — we must reject Cara’s argument that the word, “posterity,” refers to the unborn. Of course, Boris doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Mary-Lee says:
When we look to the Constitution to decide issues of contemporary concern we often look to the founders’ intent in writing a relevant part of the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not if the language is clear.
The most competent, authoritative interpretation of the Constitution is The Federalist Papers, by those who wrote the Constitution.
Mary-Lee says:
Seldom have the founders left so clear a path for us to discover their intent.
Mr. Incredible says:
The first path to their intent is the clear language.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:53 pm


GodChaser says:
There is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and State” in the constitution.
Mary-Lee says:
You are right, GodChaser. The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” does not exist in our Constitution. But the phrase does exist in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and the sentiment exists in the writings of others among our founding fathers.
When we look to the Constitution to decide issues of contemporary concern we often look to the founders’ intent in writing a relevant part of the Constitution. Seldom have the founders left so clear a path for us to discover their intent.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who claim to be homosexual say that Jesus never mentioned the word, “homosexual,” nor, “homosexuality.” They mean to say that, therefore, He never spoke against homosexuality.
If we’re to take what YOU say seriously, we get a clear indication that Christ is against homosexuality merely by looking at His “sentiment.”
I’ve said for a very long time now that God didn’t need to use the word, “homosexuality,” to get the idea across that He detests homosexuality. It is merely talking ABOUT it gets the idea across very nicely. Jesus’ talking to the Pharisees about divorce clearly excludes those who claim to be homosexual, regarding marriage.
So, we’re pleased to have you on our side.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:55 pm


CORRECTION
It is merely talking ABOUT it — — > His merely talking ABOUT it



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:57 pm


re:ghfine
just because i wrote that education of the secular belief will not help you in that judgement day, does not however make me a liar of religous sorts….you can believe what you want, that is the question for you, is Jesus real or not to you?
for you, by your last answer would indicate, no….so…….we dust off our cloak as they say and move on to a different city…..too bad….



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 18, 2010 at 3:25 am


Boris says:
You’re such a punk.
Mr. Incredible says:
Is my being a punk worse than your being a plagiarist?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 18, 2010 at 6:42 pm


Thanks for nothing. Your money that you get is futile.
An illusion of sorts……only to get what you want in the end.
Only to become more of what I do not want to be. I like the people that love me, not the people who act as if they are somehow better, by the car they drive. Whatever, the cause if of it all, two wrongs , does not make a right.



report abuse
 

Mjxion

posted April 18, 2010 at 9:22 pm


No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 19, 2010 at 5:03 pm


What was all the ruckus involving pro-abortionist about with pickets…they still act like it is only their body they are involving….which we know that not to be the case…
Prideful murder supporters.
cc
p.s. I received papers from the ACLJ in regards to the president elliminating abortion from the Health Care Insurance as not being valid to hold up in congress.
What I want to know is , are abortions still being funded through this Health Care Insurance Bill?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 19, 2010 at 5:04 pm


eliminating- To get rid of; remove.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 19, 2010 at 5:32 pm


We are supposed to stop the murders, not fund them?
cc
p.s.
That surprised me, Obama?
I thought you were better then that, if this is true?



report abuse
 

GodChaser

posted April 20, 2010 at 8:52 pm


Mary-lee
You are right, GodChaser. The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” does not exist in our Constitution. But the phrase does exist in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and the sentiment exists in the writings of others among our founding fathers.
Have you read the letter where Jefferson makes that statement? If you have, you would know that in the context of the letter the phrase is used in the opposite as to what the ACLU would like you to believe. Jefferson basically said that because of that wall, the church should influence goverment, but goverment should not influence the church.
I don’t know any founding father that wrote about God being excluded from Gov. CAn you please forward those quotes



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 20, 2010 at 10:29 pm


Mary-lee: The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” does not exist in our Constitution. But the phrase does exist in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and the sentiment exists in the writings of others among our founding fathers.
You are correct Mary-lee, the ‘wall of separation between church and state’ was an inexact, and unfortunate, paraphrase of Madison’s ‘separation between religion and government’.
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” Madison
The word Madison used, and the word used in the Constitution, is religion. Not church, not God. The Supreme Court has ruled that religion, the broad term, meaning things to do with religious belief, is excluded from the governmental sphere of influence, and vice versa. Well-meaning or otherwise, legislation respecting religion is out of bounds because it is not a governmental power. Seek spirituality in religion, not in government.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 20, 2010 at 10:40 pm


[If] the nature of … government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope.
— Thomas Jefferson, to Pierrepont, Edwards, July 1801, quoted from Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., “Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of Religion”
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
— Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
— Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
— Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800
Turning, then, from this loathsome combination of church and state, and weeping over the follies of our fellow men, who yield themselves the willing dupes and drudges of these mountebanks, I consider reformation and redress as desperate, and abandon them to the Quixotism of more enthusiastic minds.
— Thomas Jefferson, to Charles Clay, January 29, 1815; Writings, XIV, 232
The clergy … [wishing to establish their particular form of Christianity] … believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
— Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173



report abuse
 

Gina

posted April 23, 2010 at 12:29 am


Isn’t Thanksgiving a National Day of Prayer? This decision should be reversed.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 23, 2010 at 4:19 am


It doesn’t matter. The National Day of Prayer will go on, as scheduled next month cuz the judge stayed her order to accommodate appeals of her stupid decision. It will be overturned, of course, cuz nobody is targeted and there is no call for a particular prayer according to the dictates of any particular “religion.” It’s just like the recent SCOTUS decision regarding “Under God” and “In God We Trust.” And, anyway, Congress made no law about it; it’s a resolution, not a law.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 23, 2010 at 4:32 am


Incred: “And, anyway, Congress made no law about it; it’s a resolution, not a law.”
Well, not so fast there now Homer.
“On May 5, 1988, Congress approved Public Law 100-307, “setting aside the first Thursday in May as the date on which the National Day of Prayer is celebrated.” On May 9, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law. The current version of the statute provides:
The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 23, 2010 at 4:50 am


Mr. Incredible says:
And, anyway, Congress made no law about it; it’s a resolution, not a law.
HG says:
Well, not so fast there now Homer.

“On May 5, 1988, Congress approved Public Law 100-307, “setting aside the first Thursday in May as the date on which the National Day of Prayer is celebrated.” On May 9, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law. The current version of the statute provides:
The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation churches, in groups, and as individuals.”

Mr. Incredible says:
So, Congress told the president to proclaim the day. Congress did not issue an order for the National Day of Prayer. The order is for the president to proclaim it. A proclamation is not law.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 23, 2010 at 4:53 am


To make it more clear…
The congressional legislation sets aside the day to “celebrate.” Celebrate what?
The legislation tell the president to proclaim the day on which, the legislation says, people “may” turn to God in prayer and meditation. It doesn’t require anybody to do any of that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 23, 2010 at 5:22 am


What’s this I just pulled out of by butt crack? Why it’s something with the face of Jesus on it! I’ll sell it on Ebay!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 25, 2010 at 10:33 pm


I just realized what a total idiot I am. I guess I have to go troll for some more gay sex now. Sorry for wasting your time with my idiocy here.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 26, 2010 at 3:58 pm


What is that Mr. Incredible, a bit of sarcasm? The problem with sarcasm is, people don’t always know the perspective or the intent of the message.
cc



report abuse
 

Rev Doctor Charles Boyd

posted August 25, 2010 at 12:25 am


Our president does have the back of messianic Jews, true Jjews do not believe in jesus christ as lord and savior and all of you that try and make Americans belive that you are one and the same are a shame to your faiths and a shame before the true God. Jehovah will hold you to account for this fraud you are comiting,and obama will be exalted for his work for true Christanity.Believe me as as the Lords servant, I am watching developments as they occur.



report abuse
 

Christian Secularist

posted April 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm


It never ceases to amaze me how so many who profess to be followers of Christ make the most hateful, hurtful comments to others with differing opinions, consigning them gleefully to hell. Is this what Jesus would do?



report abuse
 

Christian Secularist

posted April 23, 2011 at 1:23 pm


If the U.S. is a Christian nation why are we the world’s largest distributor of arms and munitions?



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.