Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Judge Crabb’s Right, You’re Wrong

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

I find your arguments regarding the National Day of Prayer decision highly unpersuasive, and quite frankly, wrong.

First, our country does not have “a long history of recognizing the national day of prayer dating back to the late 1700’s,” as you claim. The National Day of Prayer was created by Congress less than 60 years ago. James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, regretted the few instances when he issued a few prayer proclamations at the behest of Congress during the war of 1812 and later wrote that presidential prayer proclamations “nourished the erroneous idea of a national religion.” 

It’s also clear that Thomas Jefferson believed that the decision to pray should be left up to the individual. They would have scoffed at the notion of a “National Day of Prayer.” In her decision, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb held true to our Founding Fathers’ vision of church-state separation and she should be applauded. 

You are also inaccurate when you claim Crabb’s intention with this decision is to “purge all religious references and observances from Americans’ public life.”


In her opinion, Crabb writes,
“No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the
spiritual life of a believer. In the best of times, people may pray as
a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find
that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek
forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth.

“However,” she continued, “recognizing the importance of prayer to many
people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support
of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast
during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a
sweat lodge, or practice rune magic. In fact, it is because the nature
of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a
community that the government may not use its authority to try to
influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”

I don’t see what is so difficult to understand about that basic
concept. Prayer is inherently a religious practice and our Constitution
makes it clear that our government must remain neutral on the subject. Yet you and your allies don’t seem to get it.

Take lawyer and Fox News reporter Megyn Kelly. I appeared
on Fox News a couple days ago to talk with Kelly about the National Day
of Prayer decision. Kelly asserted that the National Day of Prayer
doesn’t have to be about religion. She asked, “Why can’t it be a day
where we take a moment and we stop and we acknowledge the role that God
has played in the formation of this country and its laws? What’s so
promotional about religion there?”

Jay, correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t you say God and prayer just MAY have something to do with religion?

I think most people would. And that’s why it’s time you just accept this court’s decision. It was a good one.

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(211)
post a comment
Mr. Incredible

posted April 21, 2010 at 9:13 pm


Even atheists, once in a while, say, “Jesus!” and/or “Oh, God!” and/or, “God dam-!” Those are prayers. Why do they pray to One who THEY allege doesn’t exist?



report abuse
 

Ceisiwr Serith

posted April 21, 2010 at 10:00 pm


It’s the government keeping out of religion that has allowed the US to stay religious. Look at Europe — all those officially Christian countries where almost no one believes in God.



report abuse
 

bess

posted April 21, 2010 at 10:13 pm


Where is the pride in America that once was? More dirty skin tv
shows. The family falling apart-teenagers on drugs or drunk. We
need God and we need Him now!! We need to pray for America



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 21, 2010 at 10:34 pm


Ceisiwr Serith says:
It’s the government keeping out of religion that has allowed the US to stay religious.
Mr. Incredible asks [with no hostility]:
“Keeping out of religion,” meaning what?
Ceisiwr Serith says:
Look at Europe — all those officially Christian countries where almost no one believes in God.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s a mess, isn’t it.
bess says:
Where is the pride in America that once was?
Mr. Incredible says:
It was sabotaged. Not by you, nor me, nor Cara, et al, but by the likes of the angry and hateful Boris who will show up here any minute now and fill this blog with his anti-God/anti-Christ/anti-Christian hate.
bess says:
More dirty skin tv shows.
Mr. Incredible says:
If you see that c r a p, the best way to deal with it so that it has nothing in you is to follow what Jesus did in the wilderness [Matthew 4:1-11 and do what it says in Romans 1:21 — that is, glorify [have a high opinion of] and thank God, through Christ.
bess says:
The family falling apart…
Mr. Incredible says:
Take Romans 1:21 backwards to find the source of the problem.
These families have darkened hearts cuz they have vain imaginations. They have vain imaginations cuz they don’t thank the Lord. They don’t thank the Lord cuz they don’t glorify Him — that is, they don’t have a high opinion of Him.-teenagers on drugs or drunk.
bess says:
We need God and we need Him now!!
Mr. Incredible says:
We got Him already, IF we receive what He has already given. He’s done all He can. It’s up to us, not Him.
Many say that they wait on the Lord; but He waits on us.
The prayer is not for Him to give us more than what He has already given [“Mr Grace is sufficient.”], rather, first, to glorify and praise Him and thank Him for what we DO have, then to ask His guidance for the answer in the Word.
bess says:
We need to pray for America.
Mr. Incredible says:
Praise and glorify Him first. Then, thank Him. Then ask for guidance for us and America. If we receive His Word and we can discern His voice from among many voices, we will get His guidance.
Remember Genesis 4:7 — If you do well, you will be accepted. If you do not do well, sin is at the door, and you will open the door to it cuz you can’t distinguish what voice is whose and what.
Also remember Martha and Mary, and Martha runnin’ around and begging Jesus to tell Mary to get up and help her. However, Jesus told her that Mary is doing the “needful” thing — that is, she was listening to Him. Listening to Him is “needful.” Our need is to listen to Him, not our own lusts in unrighteousness.
Hope that helps.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 21, 2010 at 10:43 pm


CORRECTION
that is, they don’t have a high opinion of Him.
Bess says:
…-teenagers on drugs or drunk.
Mr. Incredible says:
The world, today, discourages Godly counseling for these kids. Too many Christians are intimidated into not saying anything, even amongst Christians. I am not one-a them cuz I’d rather do what the Lord says than what the world says, thank you very much. I don’t care whether somebody gets mad at me, for I’d rather give him what he needs for his Salvation cuz THAT’s more important than helping him justify his sinning. If I help him justify his sinning, I am guilty, too. So, I must speak up, and I will, and I do.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 21, 2010 at 11:42 pm


Bess,
I don’t really see any increased level of Christianity being a solution to our common social ills.
America has always been a nation in which the majority population was Christian. Consequently, Christians have generally held the reins of governmental power throughout our entire history. Those controlling our government have always been widely supported by the Christian population.
So, I have to ask that you consider a few questions.
1. At the time of our founding, Christianity was the main philosophical perspective for just about everyone except for a few of the more educated elites, i.e. Jefferson and Madison. Given the overwhelming Christian population, how is it that slavery was not only tolerated but widely supported?
This is clear evidence that the presence of a Christian majority in the population is no guarantee of moral behavior.
2. Racism continued long after the Civil War and was alive and well throughout America in the form of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s. Again, where was this supposedly superior morality when blacks were still being forced to drink from separate drinking fountains?
Your comment reminded me of the many Christians who constantly lament the supposed day in 1963 that “God was kicked out of the classroom”. They are referring to the Supreme Court decision in the Abington Township School District vs. Schemp case in which the Court struck down government sponsored Bible reading and prayer in public schools. I constantly hear how things in America have just gone to hell in a handcart since then.
But, haven’t things really gotten better since 1963? The Civil Rights Act was passed a year later in 1964, a much needed and overly-long delayed step forward for America, no more separate drinking fountains. Gays are no longer instantly treated as criminals and thrown into institutions for the criminally insane. (You may not like gays but they are no more criminal or insane than the average person, just gay is all.) We now have more effective and more frequent enforcement of laws that protect a married person from spousal abuse, something to which Christianity historically turned a blind eye.
You also mention alcoholism. The rate of drinking in America only really dropped during the years of Prohibition. It doesn’t appear that the presence of Christianity has ever impacted the rate of drinking in our culture.
Certainly, young kids today are much too-focused on personal appearance and trying to look like a hollywood star. I wish they weren’t, it seems silly and vain to me but hasn’t every generation really tried to look and dress in a certain way that outraged the older generation? I don’t really think there is enough there to predict the doom of America.
I myself was a child in the 50’s. Just outside of the good Christian community that I grew up in was a segregated town, blacks only. No black were allowed to buy land in my town. I personally think we are much more moral people today than we were back then.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 12:08 am


Judge Crabbe: “…recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, …the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”
Barry L.: “I don’t see what is so difficult to understand about that basic concept. Prayer is inherently a religious practice and our Constitution makes it clear that our government must remain neutral on the subject. Yet you and your allies don’t seem to get it.”
It doesn’t SEEM so difficult to comprehend, perhaps obstinacy plays a part. Most people understand prayer is an inherently religious practice, the dictionary does, …this game of claiming that agnostics are “praying” when they use the Lord’s name in vain is silly. Typical.
Barry L.: “And that’s why it’s time you just accept this court’s decision. It was a good one.”
Yes, if we must proclaim a National feel good day (and I don’t see why the President should be required to proclaim any such thing), let’s just call it the National Day of “Hope something good happens.” The religious can hope to whatever supernatural being they believe in to MAKE something good happen, and those without religious beliefs can recognize anything good that happens as a random event (unless some god puts in an actual appearance on the Tonight Show or something!).



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 12:15 am


Bess,
Don’t let them sweettalk you out your faith.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 22, 2010 at 1:52 am


Mr. Incredible,
No one is trying to sweet talk Bess out of her faith. Bess might be a nice person and I will treat her as such until she demonstrates differently.
If you discerned that I used a different tone with Bess than I do with you, it is because she has not shown herself to be a completely dishonest hypocritical self-righteous ignorant and paranoid whining buffoon like a certain incredibly special guy who hangs around here vomiting on his keyboard and calling it spreading the faith.
Hey, help me out here, what was it Jon Stewart said to the FOX Comedy News Channel?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 5:02 am


Bess,
Again, don’t let them sweettalk you out your faith.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:19 am


Bess,
The unbelievers are tryin’ to woo you with other than the Word of God.
Remember Genesis 3:1 —
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field…”
The serpent comes to you sweettalkin’ everything but the Word of God.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:32 am


Rich says:
Mr. Incredible,
No one is trying to sweet talk Bess out of her faith.
Mr. Incredible says:

(Gen 3:1) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field…

(2Co 11:3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

(Psa 58:4) Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear…

(Psa 140:3) They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders’ poison is under their lips. Selah.

(Pro 23:32) At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.

(Ecc 10:8) He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.

(Ecc 10:11) Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.

All I’m sayin’, Bess, is be careful with this bunch; they do not have your best interests in mind.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:58 am


Rich says:
Bess might be a nice person…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Bess may, or may not, agree with me; we’ll see.”

Rich says:
And I will treat her as such until she demonstrates differently.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“As long as she indicates no threat to my ideas, or, as long as she agrees with me, I will not jump her. If she indicates any disagreement with me, I will come down on her like Oprah on a baked ham.”



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:35 am


The ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ principle is at the heart of not only the Christian faith (“the SUM of the laws”) but also of the world’s 13 major religions.
Why is it then, that so many Americans who call themselves “Christian” cannot embrace that simple life guide?
They cannot imagine what it would be like to hear people praying: “In Buddha’s name, Amen.” Or, “In Vishnu we trust.” Or, “Thank Allah.”
No. It’s always – and only – their God, their faith to the exclusion of all others.
A challenge: if you observe this day of prayer, try – just once – substituting “Jesus” with “Zeus” and see how silly it all sounds to someone who is NOT of your faith.
If you cannot put yourself in the shoes of othehrs who believe differently than you do (or not at all), then by what right must your faith, your beliefs, your tenets be pushed front and centre – by your government, no less – into a “National” day???
Would you accept a “National Day of Non-Belief”? I sincerely doubt it.
Or, don’t you actually believe in freedom of (and from) religion anymore?



report abuse
 

Linda Stephens

posted April 22, 2010 at 1:36 pm


Reverend! It’s simple.
Jehovah Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas. Are they being lined up before the firing squad because they choose not to celebrate?
Are Christians demanding that anyone who does not recognize A National Day of Prayer be shot, hung, or burned to death?
So what is your fear? Reverened?



report abuse
 

Carl

posted April 22, 2010 at 2:11 pm


What’s wrong with a nation giving thanks for how they have been blessed? Have you noticed how other countries live, because they won’t let God in their lives. Some people still live like they did two thousand years ago. They in huts with thatched roofs and dirt floors, and they are led by dictators that control them with fear; etc..etc..etc.
Here’s somthing for you to think about. The minute Wisconson decided to reject God’s laws, they were almost struct by a meteor. It is only by God’s grace that we exist as a nation today. I feel so sorry for people that fight against God. They have no idea what they are missing.
Here’s one more thing for you to think about. If Christians are wrong, they have nothing to loose, but if athiest are wrong they could loose their souls. As for me and my house, we will trust the Lord ( the creator of this universe )



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 22, 2010 at 2:19 pm


Linda Stephens,
Yes, it is simple. We all pay for the government to do the basic tasks of governing. Recommending prayer is not one of those tasks.
Ask yourself some questions:
1. Why would I, as an atheist taxpayer who views religion as a malevolent and insidious social evil, want the government to use my tax dollars to recommend to the population the very thing I advise my children to avoid? Is it the government’s business to tell my children what I tell them about religion is wrong? If you believe that it is, how would you feel about the government broadcasting that prayer is a waste of time?
2. Why is it that we have a NDOP but not a National Day of Chanting? No National Day of Scientology Personality Audits? No National Day of Peyote Trances? The fact that Congress has neglected to come up with National Days for any other religion makes it abundantly clear that the government seeks to promote one religion and one religion only, the Judeo-Chistian religion. Again, it is not the government’s job to do this.
3. Until prayer can be scientifically proven to have beneficial effects, isn’t it senseless for the government to encourage people to engage in any activity that has not been proven to be efficacious? It is important to note that while prayer has been studied, no concrete results have shown any benefit, in fact, some of these studies have shown negative results. It seems reasonable to expect our government not to recommend something until it meets the rigors of scientific scrutiny. Some people think that honey is a cure-all for many ailments yet medical science has found no proof of that. Should our government recommend it anyway?
You ask why folks are fearful of a National Day of Prayer. I don’t know that anyone is immediately fearful of praying Christians, seems harmless enough to me. However, what I do fear is a blatant disregard for the law of the land, the US Constitution. Once we start ignoring the Constitution because we think our particular religion is more important, then we really don’t have a nation of laws anymore. Separation has served us well, Christianity has thrived. Just drive down the road and count the Christian churches. Christians are doing just fine as is.



report abuse
 

Carl

posted April 22, 2010 at 2:55 pm


to grumpy! I could spend hours debating with you but, it would be useless. You make a good point about the other religeons, but you need to go back to the beginnig. Our forefathers left England and other countries, to get away from religeous persicution and to start over again. They were Godly men that opened their sessions with prayer and they relied totally and completely on God for their protection and sustinance.
They made a lot of mistakes along the way and no one was ever perfect. More blood has been shed over religeons, than any other wars on this earth. But the is America. The land of the free, the home of the brave. One nation; under God; indivisble with liberty; and justice for all.
America worships God! Not Budda, or zues or any other god. We worship God; the creator of the universe. How people see God may differ. But, God came first. We believe that He is the creator of the universe ( just as our forefathers did ). If these people don’t like the way our laws were established. Then, let them go back to where they came from and worship as many gods as they like.
This is America. We are different than other countries. Our language is English. If we catered to every religeon in this world or showed favoritism to other languages, our nation would be total chaos.
You live in America. Try living in another country and put down their laws; then let’s see how far you get. We are are Americans. Our motto is; “In God we Trust.” If you or they, don’t like the way things are done here, go back to where they came from and try living under their laws.



report abuse
 

blueenigma

posted April 22, 2010 at 2:59 pm


Barry is correct and yes, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both expressed concern about the National Day of Prayer.
Thomas Jefferson – “Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”
James Madison – “They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.”



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted April 22, 2010 at 3:10 pm


Mr. I said:
“Even atheists, once in a while, say, “Jesus!” and/or “Oh, God!” and/or, “God dam-!” Those are prayers. Why do they pray to One who THEY allege doesn’t exist?”
Come on guy, Atheists by the very word DO NOT believe in a God or Gods.
To use Jesus in anything means absolutely nothing to them…it’s a word and nothing more. I think you’re trying to make more out of something than is there…for your own arguments sake.



report abuse
 

David Rubin

posted April 22, 2010 at 3:20 pm


I have no problem with prayers and religion in public. Wear a religious tee shirt, read the scriptures at public squares, even start a religious radio or television station, but don’t involve the government. When people us the power of the government to even “suggest” a right time or place to pray we’re all in trouble.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 3:44 pm


“I have no problem with prayers and religion in public… but don’t involve the government.”
Excellent comment David.
But Jay Sekulow, according to the following comment, feels they should be allowed to involve government.
“First, the National Day of Prayer is ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a federal judge. Now… there is controversy over rescinding the invitation to Franklin Graham as a speaker for National Day of Prayer events – because he’s too ”exclusive” in his beliefs as a Christian.
This is absurd! I will not tolerate such pervasive anti-Christian bias … and I will not stand by while prayer is ruled as offensive to the national public by an activist judge. …if this misguided ruling stands, we could see future observances canceled.
And I won’t allow that to happen.
We cannot sit by and let atheist organizations strip our nation of its religious heritage or let liberal courts rewrite our Constitution!”
The only ones trying to rewrite the Constitution are you guys Jay! Get a load of this load that Carl dumped…
“America worships God! Not Budda, or zues or any other god.”
Really Carl? How about no god, are Americans allowed to worship no god at all?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 22, 2010 at 3:51 pm


I can’t believe these arguments….No one is forcing you to do anything. If you don’t want to pray…don’t pray. But, don’t take away my right to do what I want. If you don’t like the show, turn the channel.
Christians don’t have to prove anything. You are the one refusing the Gift. It is offered to anyone that is willing to take it.
Why doesn’t out Gov. cater to other religions? Because our forfathers were Judeo-Christians, who started a country under Judeo Laws.
I feel so sorry for you and your children. You really do not know what you are missing. God is a loving, merciful, God. It is man that is evil. Some people twist the truth, or distort things so much that I don’t blame you for being so bitter.
True believers help each other and they pray for each other. They don’t don’t go around blowing up their own children before they’ve had a chance to taste life. Or they don’t abort their babies. No one is perfect. We all sin.
But, Christians are the only ones who stand up for what is right. They strive to be better people in society. They are peacable and loveing and kind. ( Im’ not talking about hypochrits….you will always see hypochrits or someone screw up )
But, Christians have soemthing that the world doesn’t have. It’s not a new age thing or a mystic thing but, it’s an undiscribeble joy that can’t be explained. Even in hard times or suffering. The world can’t understand it because they don’t have it. We accept the fact that we were created by God, so He reveals Himself to us in our hearts.
That what makes us different. Some of us are weird and we may go a little overboard. But, spiritually, we have been born again. We feel clean and brand new. We want to change the way we used to live because we come to the realization that our past lives were wrong. No one forces us to change. We want to.
I just can’t understand why the world hates us so much. All want to do is be better people and help others. Same as God. You wouldn’t believe how much He loves you. He just can’t show you until you let Him.
I want you to take this little test. What is your favorite food? Now…what is your favorite music? Your favorite smell, animal, your favorite flower? God did that just for you. Even sex. Everything you taste, touch, feel, smell, or see, was His gift to you. But, it’s how you use it, that will determine joy in your life.
Then, He gave the greatest gift of all. He sent His Son to die in your place. To die for every evil thought or every evil thing that you did. Past, present, and future. Now…You tell me, what’s so bad about that? What’s so bad about given a second chance in life.
It’s all about grace and faith. I wasn’t there to see Jesus die and I can’t prove that He did. But, God is so real to us that He’s like our best friend. He lives in our hearts. Not like other gods that demand the sacrifice of their children, or a god of hate. But, a God of Love, and Mercy. All you have to do is ask Him to forgive you for being so blind and ask Him to come into your heart…then your life will change like you would not believe.



report abuse
 

Carl

posted April 22, 2010 at 4:06 pm


Let’s see…We can can have ‘Earth Day’…and worship mother earth…but we can’t have ‘National Day of Prayer’….hmmmm!
I think I’ll pray to God, the ‘Creator of the Earth’ that day…



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 4:15 pm


YN, 3:51pm: “If you don’t want to pray…don’t pray. But, don’t take away my right to do what I want.”
If you want to pray, go ahead and pray, nobody is taking that right away from you. Does this ruling stop you from praying? No, it simply keeps government out of the equation.



report abuse
 

blueenigma

posted April 22, 2010 at 4:19 pm


>Because our forefathers were Judeo-Christians, who started a country under Judeo Laws.
You might want to research that a bit. The Constitution is the law of the land and it’s secular in nature.
And here’s another quote from one of our founding fathers, James Madison:
“An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against……Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance……..religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.”[James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 4:48 pm


“I can’t believe these arguments….No one is forcing you to do anything. If you don’t want to pray…don’t pray. But, don’t take away my right to do what I want. If you don’t like the show, turn the channel.”
Nobody is taking away your rights. If you want to pray, go ahead and pray. If you want to gather in a hall somewhere with others and have a national day of prayer, go right ahead.
Why do you need government sponsorship? Is your religion so weak that it cannot exist without government approval and support?
If this decision prevents you from praying to the god you choose to worship, I really have to wonder if that god is worth it.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 22, 2010 at 4:49 pm


Carl,
re: Earth Day
Actually, personally I think Earth Day is pretty stupid. I seriously doubt it helps protect our environment.
However, I don’t believe it officially involves prayer to or worship of any kind of “Mother Earth”. If there are some wackos out there praying to Mother Earth then they are doing that on their own, not by government sponsorship or recommendation.
And, just to poke you a bit here, if there are people praying to Mother Earth, at least they can prove that the Earth exists.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 5:14 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Even atheists, once in a while, say, “Jesus!” and/or “Oh, God!” and/or, “God dam-!” Those are prayers. Why do they pray to One who THEY allege doesn’t exist?
Gwyddion9 says:
…Atheists by the very word DO NOT believe in a God or Gods.
Mr. Incredible says:
They believe. Theirs is a belief. They believe there is no God.
Gwyddion9 says:
To use Jesus in anything means absolutely nothing to them…
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, they “pray” to Him. Why use His Name — appeal to Him — if they believe He doesn’t exist? It’s non-sensical, and atheists say they are nothing if not sensical.
Gwyddion9 says:
…it’s a word and nothing more.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, it’s a word that refers to Someone they say doesn’t exist. If they believe He doesn’t exist, and they are adamant about it, one would think that they would make a special effort NOT to say His Name, just to make sure His Name is not in their heads and interfering with their watching porn all the time.
Gwyddion9 says:
I think you’re trying to make more out of something than is there…
Mr. Incredible says:
I think you’re trying to diminish and discount a good point that damages the atheist argument.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 22, 2010 at 5:16 pm


The key phrase is -may pray.
so…..
You don’t have to… as for any good coming from a Rev. who says not to pray about country, well you know my answer on that one…I think our country needs prayer about everything right now.
If you don’t want to pray, you can not stop me from doing so…
cc
p.s. I don’t want to be under an athiest society view of anything. People who force their agenda on the ticket of being secular.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 22, 2010 at 5:37 pm


I am not looking to you for my approval. Ow, you don’t think the bible is any good for the country?
You can not take the Word out of the hearts of believers who are firmly rooted in the Word of God.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 5:44 pm


Rich says:
…if there are people praying to Mother Earth, at least they can prove that the Earth exists.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which is it?? Are they praying to “Mother Earth,” or to “Earth”???



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 5:45 pm


If they’re praying to “Mother Earth,” they cannot prove that there IS a “Mother Earth.”



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:08 pm


hlvanburen: “Nobody is taking away your rights. If you want to pray, go ahead and pray. …Why do you need government sponsorship? Is your religion so weak that it cannot exist without government approval and support?”
My point exactly, and one to which we have not received a reply. They project the fabricated persecution of being denied the right to pray, often claiming it is our objective to purge America of all religious conversation or reference–never noting that we only object to the government sponsorship. Megan Kelly did the same thing during the interview with Rev. Lynn, stating the accusation that he works to get religious references out of EVERYTHING. Just another shrill blonde shrew trying to look good, but looking really bad, on Fox.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:19 pm


hlvanburen says:
Nobody is taking away your rights.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what they thought in Canada, too.
hlvanburen says:
If you want to pray, go ahead and pray.
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t need permission and, therefore, we’re not asking for permission.
hlvanburen says:
Why do you need government sponsorship?
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t. However, Congress offers a day of focused prayer, no matter what the prayer is — cuz, after all, even atheists pray in one form, or the other — and, so, we will take what Congress offers. Just like the First Amendment is said to offer Freedom “from” so-called “religion,” but still is in the Constitution, the National Day of Prayer also offers the Freedom not to pray.
hlvanburen says:
Is your religion so weak that it cannot exist without government approval and support?
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, that ol’ accusation.
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t have “religion.” We have a relationship with God, through Christ. Muslims have religion. Buddhists have religion. Confucians have religion. Atheists have religion, based on the belief that there is no God.
Is the atheist religion so weak that it cannot exist with the National Day of Prayer?



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm


Incred’s response is typical…we don’t NEED government to sponsor prayer–but we are entitled to it. No, you aren’t.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:38 pm


HG says:
Incred’s response is typical…we don’t NEED government to sponsor prayer–but we are entitled to it.
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t say that we are entitled to it.
I wrote that Congress offered it and we will take it. We don’t need it, but we will take it. Somebody offers me ten dollars out the blue, I don’t need it, but I will take it.
HG says:
No, you aren’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
If it’s offered, yes we are.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:49 pm


JESUS IS LORD!

HG says:
If you want to pray, go ahead and pray…
Mr. Incredible says:
If you want not to pray, go ahead and not pray.
HG says:
… nobody is taking that right away from you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is taking the Right not to pray from you.
HG says:
Does this ruling stop you from praying? No…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Does the National Day of Prayer require you to pray? No.
HG says:
… it simply keeps government out of the equation.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you people are now requiring the government to impose YOUR Will on the rest of us. You want the government IN the equation but on YOUR side.

JESUS IS LORD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:51 pm


JESUS IS LORD!

blueenigma says:
The Constitution is the law of the land and it’s secular in nature.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, why does the Constitution refer to God, in His Covenant Name?

JESUS IS LORD!



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm


hlvanburen says:
Nobody is taking away your rights.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what they thought in Canada, too.
hlvanburen says:
Of course, Canada lacks a First Amendment.

hlvanburen says:
If you want to pray, go ahead and pray.
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t need permission and, therefore, we’re not asking for permission.
hlvanburen says:
Excellent! We agree on that point.

hlvanburen says:
Why do you need government sponsorship?
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t.
hlvanburen says:
Excellent! Yet another point of agreement.

Mr. Incredible says:
However, Congress offers a day of focused prayer, no matter what the prayer is — cuz, after all, even atheists pray in one form, or the other — and, so, we will take what Congress offers. Just like the First Amendment is said to offer Freedom “from” so-called “religion,” but still is in the Constitution, the National Day of Prayer also offers the Freedom not to pray.
hlvanburen says:
Congress permits people of all faiths and no faiths to lead the opening “prayer” session in Congress. Funny how the foundation behind this National Day of Prayer refuses to follow their model and do likewise.

hlvanburen says:
Is your religion so weak that it cannot exist without government approval and support?
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, that ol’ accusation.
hlvanburen says:
Well, impotency does hit at odd times, and it seems that your god gets it annually around May 1 and December 25. What’s up with that?

Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t have “religion.” We have a relationship with God, through Christ. Muslims have religion. Buddhists have religion. Confucians have religion. Atheists have religion, based on the belief that there is no God.
hlvanburen says:
And absolutely nothing in this decision prevents you, or anyone else, from enjoying that relationship with your impotent god to its fullest.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:13 pm


blueenigma says: The Constitution is the law of the land and it’s secular in nature.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, why does the Constitution refer to God, in His Covenant Name?
John Adams says:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:22 pm


Mr. Incredible,
re: “We don’t have “religion.” & “We have a relationship with God”
Well, problem solved then. We don’t need to worry about your freedom of religion since you don’t have one.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:24 pm


hlvanburen, who “quotes” John Adams without providing any citation, says:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Mr. Incredible says:
However, the same John Adams — with citation — says

“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.

Do you suppose John Adams was confused?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:29 pm


“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.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:29 pm


hlvanburen: “John Adams says: “…it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Adams didn’t know George W. Bush.
Incred: “HG says: Does this ruling stop you from praying? No…
Mr. Incredible asks: Does the National Day of Prayer require you to pray? No.”
No, the NDOP used to require the President to announce government sponsorship of the idea that prayer (an inherently religious exercise) is worthwhile. When this is finally decided, that will no longer be the case.
Incred: “I wrote that Congress offered it and we will take it.”
Congress had no right to offer it.
hlvanburen: “And absolutely nothing in this decision prevents you, or anyone else, from enjoying that relationship with your impotent god to its fullest.”
Absolutely right, all it does is remove the government from where it has no business.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:32 pm


Rich: “Mr. Incredible, re: “We don’t have “religion.” & “We have a relationship with God”
Well, problem solved then. We don’t need to worry about your freedom of religion since you don’t have one.”
Heh-heh, sweet.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:35 pm


HG says:
Does this ruling stop you from praying? No…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Does the National Day of Prayer require you to pray? No.
No, the NDOP used to require the President to announce government sponsorship of the idea that prayer (an inherently religious exercise) is worthwhile.
Mr. Incredible says:
It does not require the president to announce State support of what you allege to be a “religious exercise.” It does not require him to announce that it is worthwhile. It requires him only to announce it, if that.
HG says:
When this is finally decided, that will no longer be the case.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s never been the case.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:37 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
I wrote that Congress offered it and we will take it.
HG says:
Congress had no right to offer it.
Mr. Incredible says:
My understanding is that the enactment is a resolution, not law. Therefore, enactment of a resolution does not violate the First Amendment, in that Congress made no law.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:37 pm


Mr. Incredible: “hlvanburen, who “quotes” John Adams without providing any citation…”
*headslap* Oh, silly old me. I figured you would be familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli, as I have quoted it to you in many previous discussions on this topic. However, since you may have forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory.
The treaty begins on this page: memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=340
And concludes on this page: memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=341
The section I quoted is Article 11 of that treaty.
And, as it was ratified by the US Senate, in accordance with the requirements of the US Constitution, that treaty is considered the Law of the Land.
And I am sure that Mr. Incredible will remind us that the letters and speeches of the various and sundry founders, though interesting in their insight into the minds of these men, are trumped by the Law of the Land.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:42 pm


Incred: “…what you allege to be a “religious exercise.”
I’m only going by the guidance of the court, and the dictionary, and common understanding.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:43 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
hlvanburen, who “quotes” John Adams without providing any citation…
hlvanburen says:
I figured you would be familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli…
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Corky decisions after that Treaty have said that this is a Christian nation.
hlvanburen says:
And I am sure that Mr. Incredible will remind us that the letters and speeches of the various and sundry founders, though interesting in their insight into the minds of these men, are trumped by the Law of the Land.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, insight into the mind of these men is key to understanding their intent. For that, we go to their writings to interpret what the Law of the Land is.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:46 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
… what you allege to be a “religious exercise.
HG says:
I’m only going by the guidance of the court…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I’m going only by my interpretation of what I think is the guidance of the court…

HG says:
…and the dictionary…
Mr. Incredible says:
The dictionary is not a lawgiver. It is the history of usage.
HG says:
… and common understanding.
Mr. Incredible says:
Whose “common understanding”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:48 pm


CORRECTION
Corky decisions — — > court decisions



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:55 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
hlvanburen, who “quotes” John Adams without providing any citation…
hlvanburen says:
I figured you would be familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli…
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Corky decisions after that Treaty have said that this is a Christian nation.
hlvanburen says:
Which brings us back to what the FOUNDERS intended, and in this instance their words speak loudly of their intent. After all, many of the men who voted on that treaty were indeed present and involved in the crafting of the founding documents of the nation. Now, were they confused or lying, and in which instance?

hlvanburen says:
And I am sure that Mr. Incredible will remind us that the letters and speeches of the various and sundry founders, though interesting in their insight into the minds of these men, are trumped by the Law of the Land.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, insight into the mind of these men is key to understanding their intent. For that, we go to their writings to interpret what the Law of the Land is.
hlvanburen says:
Indeed so, and also important is how they lived their lives. In the case of John Adams, we have someone who lived the life of a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. He did not accept the deity of Jesus.
http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html
www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnadams.html
A life of Unitarian belief is the context in which those statements you quote need to be couched.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:57 pm


Incred: “Mr. Incredible translates: “I’m going only by my interpretation of what I think is the guidance of the court…”
You have such difficulty with the language as to be unable to discern the meaning of this statement by the court: “…is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise…” ?
Does that mean anything other than that the court finds prayer to be an inherently religious exercise to anyone other than Incred.?



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 7:59 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
hlvanburen, who “quotes” John Adams without providing any citation…
hlvanburen says:
I figured you would be familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli…
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Corky (later corrected to “court”) decisions after that Treaty have said that this is a Christian nation.
hlvanburen says:
Yes, those activist judges on the Supreme Court, who do not keep their proper place and allow the Legislature, the representatives of the People, to set the laws. Strange that you would cite them in this instance while rejecting their more recent decisions.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:08 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
hlvanburen, who “quotes” John Adams without providing any citation…
hlvanburen says:
I figured you would be familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli…
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Corky decisions after that Treaty have said that this is a Christian nation.
hlvanburen says:
Which brings us back to what the FOUNDERS intended, and in this instance their words speak loudly of their intent.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that court decisions coming after the Treaty say that this is a Christian nation.
hlvanburen says:
Now, were they confused or lying, and in which instance?
Mr. Incredible says:
The details of the Treaty are not as you say.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:09 pm


hlvanburen says:
And I am sure that Mr. Incredible will remind us that the letters and speeches of the various and sundry founders, though interesting in their insight into the minds of these men, are trumped by the Law of the Land.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, insight into the mind of these men is key to understanding their intent. For that, we go to their writings to interpret what the Law of the Land is.
hlvanburen says:
Indeed so, and also important is how they lived their lives. In the case of John Adams, we have someone who lived the life of a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. He did not accept the deity of Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
He promoted the principles of Christianity. There is no Christianity without Jesus. There is no Jesus without deity.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:10 pm


HG says:
You have such difficulty with the language…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“You must have difficulty with the language if you don’t agree with me.”

HG says:
…as to be unable to discern the meaning of this statement by the court:

“…is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise…””

Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what the COURT says. That’s not what the resolution says.
HG says:
Does that mean anything other than that the court finds prayer to be an inherently religious exercise to anyone other than Incred?
Mr. Incredible says:
You people read a lotta things into things.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:14 pm


hlvanburen says:
And I am sure that Mr. Incredible will remind us that the letters and speeches of the various and sundry founders, though interesting in their insight into the minds of these men, are trumped by the Law of the Land.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, and law, since the Founding, can change from what the Founders intended to what the Founders did not intend. Like the so-called “separation of Church and State.” After all, as goofy Boris is paraphrased, if they intended to put “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution, they would’ve put it there.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:14 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
hlvanburen, who “quotes” John Adams without providing any citation…
hlvanburen says:
I figured you would be familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli…
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Corky decisions after that Treaty have said that this is a Christian nation.
hlvanburen says:
Which brings us back to what the FOUNDERS intended, and in this instance their words speak loudly of their intent.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that court decisions coming after the Treaty say that this is a Christian nation.
hlvanburen says:
And numerous court decisions have also come after the Treaty that reference the wall of separation between church and state. Your point?

hlvanburen says:
Now, were they confused or lying, and in which instance?
Mr. Incredible says:
The details of the Treaty are not as you say.
hlvanburen says:
I posted links to the two pages of the treaty, as published on the Library of Congress website. I quoted Article 11 in its entirety.
Prove your unsupported statement, Mr. Incredible.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:17 pm


hlvanburen says:
Now, were they confused or lying, and in which instance?
Mr. Incredible says:
The details of the Treaty are not as you say.
hlvanburen says:
I posted links to the two pages of the treaty, as published on the Library of Congress website. I quoted Article 11 in its entirety.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you didn’t put it in context.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:23 pm


hlvanburen says:
And I am sure that Mr. Incredible will remind us that the letters and speeches of the various and sundry founders, though interesting in their insight into the minds of these men, are trumped by the Law of the Land.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, insight into the mind of these men is key to understanding their intent. For that, we go to their writings to interpret what the Law of the Land is.
hlvanburen says:
Indeed so, and also important is how they lived their lives. In the case of John Adams, we have someone who lived the life of a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. He did not accept the deity of Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
He promoted the principles of Christianity. There is no Christianity without Jesus. There is no Jesus without deity.
hlvanburen says:
Then John Adams was not a Christian. Either that or he lived a lie throughout his life by fellowshipping with Unitarians, proclaiming Unitarian doctrine, and denying openly the teachings of both Protestant and Catholic churches regarding Jesus.
He may have held to the principles of Christianity, as did many other of our founders who also denied the deity of Jesus (Jefferson, Payne, Franklin, among others), but as I am sure you would agree, merely holding to the principles of Christianity, even proclaiming their value, does not make one Christian.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:26 pm


hlvanburen says:
Now, were they confused or lying, and in which instance?
Mr. Incredible says:
The details of the Treaty are not as you say.
hlvanburen says:
I posted links to the two pages of the treaty, as published on the Library of Congress website. I quoted Article 11 in its entirety.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you didn’t put it in context.
hlvanburen says:
:-) You are grasping at straws, Mr. Incredible. :-)
The treaty is there for all to read. The statement of the US Senate, signed by the US President, and part of the law of the land, states that the government of the United States was “in no way” based on the Christian religion.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:28 pm


Incred: “hlvanburen says: I posted links to the two pages of the treaty, as published on the Library of Congress website. I quoted Article 11 in its entirety.
Mr. Incredible says: However, you didn’t put it in context.”
Put this in context. “The 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was officially signed by President John Adams, and before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation:
“Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof” (p. 383).”
Taken from essay by Gene Garman, whose book America’s Real Religion is terrific by the way.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:30 pm


hlvanburen says:
And I am sure that Mr. Incredible will remind us that the letters and speeches of the various and sundry founders, though interesting in their insight into the minds of these men, are trumped by the Law of the Land.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, and law, since the Founding, can change from what the Founders intended to what the Founders did not intend. Like the so-called “separation of Church and State.” After all, as goofy Boris is paraphrased, if they intended to put “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution, they would’ve put it there.
hlvanburen says:
Which is why it is important to examine both the words and deeds of the founders, especially the laws they enacted in the early years of this nation, for direction as we move forward. After all, if they intended to found this nation on the Christian religion, they wouldn’t have denied it so quickly after drafting the founding documents.
They may well have paid lip service to the principles of the Christian religion, but their actions, both legislatively and personally, speak to a much larger picture.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:32 pm


Treaty of Tripoli 1796:
This is not a Christian nation.
However, for 140 years after ratification, the courts reaffirmed the Christian Foundation of this country. They actually encouraged government support of the Christian faith:
Runkel vs. Winemiller (1799) Supreme Court of Maryland:
This is a Christian nation.
The People vs. Ruggles (1811) Supreme Court of New York:
This is a Christian nation.
Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth (1824) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: This is a Christian nation.
Vidal vs. Gerard’s Executioners (1844) United States Supreme Court: This is a Christian nation.
Commonwealth vs. Abner Kneeland (1838) Supreme Court of Massachusetts:
This is a Christian nation.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) United States Supreme Court:
This is a Christian nation.
Said, done and settled.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:33 pm


HG says:
Does that mean anything other than that the court finds prayer to be an inherently religious exercise to anyone other than Incred?
Mr. Incredible says:
You people read a lotta things into things.
hlvanburen says:
So you do not view it as problematic when Congress opens its daily sessions in prayer led by a non-Christian cleric, such as, say, a Muslim Cleric?



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:35 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
However, for 140 years after ratification, the courts reaffirmed the Christian Foundation of this country. They actually encouraged government support of the Christian faith:
hlvanburen says:
Yes, and then, after 140 years of denying the clear actions of the Founders, the same courts began undoing the mistakes their predecessors had committed, restoring our nation to that which John Adams envisioned when he signed that treaty.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:38 pm


Incred.: “Mr. Incredible says: That’s what the COURT says.”
Yes, and I said I way only going by the guidance of the court; and while your subsequent “TRANSLATION” left much to be desired, now I see you’ve come around to agreeing with me.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:43 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Hey I got a question for you. And, since you consider yourself ‘in-the-know’ on all things Christian, I was wondering if you could tell me if a definition of Christianity that I came across on the ol’ interweb is factual. Here it is, a definition of Christianity:
“The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.”
What do you think, does that about sum it up?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:46 pm


Mr. Incredible,
I want to be ‘fair and balanced’ so here is another definition I found:
A pyramid scheme based on a philosophy that was fairly progressive 2000 years ago. It has been rendered obsolete by modern scientific understanding largely due to its inability to resolve its inconsistencies through intelligently-applied critical thinking. It now serves as a means of deterring social and political advancement and as a tax on the gullible.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm


Mr. Incredible mentions a number of cases but does not actually quote them:
Runkel vs. Winemiller (1799) Supreme Court of Maryland:
This is a Christian nation.
The People vs. Ruggles (1811) Supreme Court of New York:
This is a Christian nation.
Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth (1824) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: This is a Christian nation.
Vidal vs. Gerard’s Executioners (1844) United States Supreme Court: This is a Christian nation.
Commonwealth vs. Abner Kneeland (1838) Supreme Court of Massachusetts:
This is a Christian nation.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) United States Supreme Court:
This is a Christian nation.
Let us examine the case listed last here, Holy Trinity v. United States.
supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html
“If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation? ”
Interesting is the section that follows the oft-quoted phrase that Mr. Incredible and Wallbuilders has memorized.
“Suppose, in the Congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil, and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts under those circumstances to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.”
Interesting the examples cited in that last section: Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, and Jewish clerics. All four are from religious groups that suffered persecution in this nation and (with the exception of the Episcopals) in England.
Context, Mr. Incredible, is everything. One wonders if the Christianity you practice might even be recognizable as such by either the Founders or the Justices who authored this opinion. It seems to this humble unbeliever that the Christian principles espoused by the Founders and mentioned by the Court are far more inclusive and welcoming than that you seem to uphold.
Perhaps that is because the Founders and these Justices recalled the persecutions that Catholics, Anabaptists, Universalists, Episcopalians, and Jews received in the days prior to our official founding.
In any case, as you correctly cite, the whims of the Judiciary do not change the facts upon which this nation was founded. In the words of our Second President, as ratified by the US Senate, we were not founded upon the tenets of the Christian religion.
Game. Set. Match.



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted April 22, 2010 at 8:57 pm


“Prayer is inherently a religious practice.”
This is tautological and weakens the argument. Over on CNN I proposed two “offensive” days and made the point that the real concern is the right to have a National Day that ticks some people off. If the suggestion were made for a National Day to Which Nobody Objects, folks would come out of the woodwork to denounce it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 9:22 pm


The Treaty of Tripoli is only one of a bunch of treaties by which several countries officially recognized the “religion” of others. They were trying to preclude further escalation of the so-called “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims.
[Morocco; see Articles 10,11,17 and 24;
Algiers; see Treaty of 1795, Article 17, and Treaty of 1815, Article 17;
Tripoli; see Treaty of 1796, Article 11, and Treaty of 1805, Article 14;
Tunis; see forward to Treaty]
The Treaty of Tripoli reads:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselman and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

You can read this in two ways — as the critics do, stopping after the phrase “Christian religion”; or entirely, stopping when the punctuation tells you to pause, or stop.
However, even if you stop after the phrase “Christian religion,” the statement is not necessarily untrue cuz it refers to they FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Notice that the Founders, themselves, openly discussed America as a Christian nation. They included a constitutional prohibition against establishment by the federal; they left the matter of “religion” solely to the individual states.
So, if you read the article as a decree that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of America is not in any sense Founded on Christianity, that statement does not repudiate the fact that the Founders considered America a Christian nation.
The Article just distinguishes America from the historical problems of European Christianity which had a hatred of Muslims; all it does is to have assured the Muslims that America is not a Christian nation as those of by-gone eras, that they would not start a holy war against them. The distinction between American Christianity and centuries-old European Christianity was cleared up by this Treaty.
Noah Webster:

“The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support to radical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruption of it.” [Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), page 339.]

Daniel Webster explains American Christianity:

“Christianity to which the sword and the fagot are unknown — general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!” [Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In Favor of the Religious Institution of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girardi’s Will (Washington: Gales and Scaton, 1844), page 52.]

Therefore, the Treaty is not a declaration that the United States is not a Christian nation. The Founders would not say, in their writings, that this is a Christian nation, then, somewhere else, say that this is not a Christian nation.
So, it’s clear that scoffers take the phrase outta context. The context tells us what the phrase REALLY says.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm


hlvanburen says:
In the words of our Second President, as ratified by the US Senate, we were not founded upon the tenets of the Christian religion.
John Adams says:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were… the general principles of Christianity… I. will about 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.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 9:32 pm


CORRECTION
I. will about — — >I will of avow



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 9:34 pm


CORRECTION AGAIN
I. will about — — >I will of avow — — >I will avow



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 22, 2010 at 9:41 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Knock, knock.
I am pretty sure that official governmental acts trump the personal writings of the founders, especially given that the personal writings are often equivocal. By your logic, the amendments ending slavery would be null and void if any president around that timeframe disclosed in his writings that black ought to remain slaves.
Actually, hlvanburen had game, set and match awhile ago. You were clearly bested. Give up. You lost.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:00 pm


Rich says:
Mr. Incredible,
I want to be ‘fair and balanced’ …
Mr. Incredible says:
That would be refreshing.
Rich says:
… so here is another definition…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“So, here’s another gospel…”

Rich says:
…I found:…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“… but won’t tell you where. “

Rich says:

“A pyramid scheme based on a philosophy that was fairly progressive 2000 years ago. It has been rendered obsolete by modern scientific understanding largely due to its inability to resolve its inconsistencies through intelligently-applied critical thinking. It now serves as a means of deterring social and political advancement and as a tax on the gullible.”

Mr. Incredible says:
That’s just a scoffer’s/scoffers’ rehash. Of course, it’s trash. But you know that already.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:01 pm


Rich says:
Mr. Incredible,
Hey I got a question for you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Gee, and I’ll bet that you REALLY wanna answer, too.
Rich says:
I was wondering if you could tell me if a definition of Christianity that I came across on the ol’ interweb is factual. Here it is, a definition of Christianity:

“The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.”

Mr. Incredible says:
Well, it’s “factual” for YOU cuz, after all, you want it to be true for YOU. Of course, you’ve been making things up all along, so, why stop now?
Rich says:
… does that about sum it up?
Mr. Incredible says:
“Sum up” what? YOUR idea of what it is, or what it is? I agree that your made-up version is not what it is. Scoffers cannot fathom what Christianity REALLY is.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:02 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what the COURT says.
HG says:
Yes, and I said I way only going by the guidance of the court…
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, both of you are wrong.
HG says:
… now I see you’ve come around to agreeing with me.
Mr. Incredible says:
You got that wrong, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:02 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
However, for 140 years after ratification, the courts reaffirmed the Christian Foundation of this country. They actually encouraged government support of the Christian faith:
hlvanburen says:
Yes, and then, after 140 years of denying the clear actions of the Founders, the same courts…
Mr. Incredible says:
With different members presiding.
hlvanburen says:
…began undoing the mistakes their predecessors had committed…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“… began undoing the correct interpretation of the intent of the Founders…”

hlvanburen says:
…restoring our nation to that which John Adams envisioned when he signed that treaty.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that John Adams said that his country was Founded upon the principles of Christianity.
The Treaty is not as you explain. I have outlined the reason for the Treaty. THAT is the context of the Treaty.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:03 pm


HG says:
Does that mean anything other than that the court finds prayer to be an inherently religious exercise to anyone other than Incred?
Mr. Incredible says:
You people read a lotta things into things.
hlvanburen says:
So you do not view it as problematic when Congress opens its daily sessions in prayer led by a non-Christian cleric, such as, say, a Muslim Cleric?
Mr. Incredible says:
Given this country’s Founding on the principles of Christianity, opening Congress everyday by a Christian prayer is appropriate.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:05 pm


hlvanburen says:
So you do not view it as problematic when Congress opens its daily sessions in prayer led by a non-Christian cleric, such as, say, a Muslim Cleric?
Mr. Incredible says:
Given this country’s Founding on the principles of Christianity, opening Congress everyday by a Christian prayer is appropriate.
However, as long as he’s not spouting off on Islam and Moe…



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:11 pm


Rich says:
I am pretty sure that official governmental acts trump the personal writings of the founders, especially given that the personal writings are often equivocal.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, we can gain insight into their intent only by examining what they wrote.
Rich says:
By your logic, the amendments ending slavery would be null and void if any president around that timeframe disclosed in his writings that black ought to remain slaves.
Mr. Incredible says:
Depends.
Rich says:
Actually, hlvanburen had game, set and match awhile ago.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Since he agrees with me, he wins.”

Rich says:
You were clearly bested.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Since he agrees with me, he bested you.”

Rich says:
Give up.
Mr. Incredible says:
Why should I, when I’m winning in Christ?
Rich says:
You lost.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not as long as I’m in agreement with Christ.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:19 pm


Gosh Mr. Incredible,
re: “… but won’t tell you where. ”
I did tell you that I found it on the ol’ interweb. Did you really want a URL for that definition? Or, were you just being a jerk? You never know with you.
You know, come to think of it, do you really need a URL in order to tell me if there was anything wrong with the definition given? I thought it was factual with no errors in statement. Hey, I couldn’t find anything untrue about it. Zombie are creatures that rise from the dead aren’t they? Jesus was Jewish wasn’t he? Was there anything in it that is not true about Christianity?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
but won’t tell you where.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
I did tell you that I found it on the ol’ interweb. Did you really want a URL for that definition?
Mr. Incredible says:
And, here, we thought you are so intelligent. You couldn’t figure that out?
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Or, were you just being a jerk? You never know with you.
Mr. Incredible says:
I always know with me. I’m not a jerk. I don’t care what YOU people think.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
You know, come to think of it, do you really need a URL in order to tell me if there was anything wrong with the definition given?
Mr. Incredible says:
I get it. You’re afraid to give a link cuz, if you have a link, it’s bogus.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
I thought it was factual with no errors in statement.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil thinks so, too.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Hey, I couldn’t find anything untrue about it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Neither can the Devil.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Zombie are [sic] creatures that rise from the dead aren’t they?
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you don’t make the distinction between Jesus and what your imaginations tell you are “zombies.” We get it.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Jesus was Jewish wasn’t he?
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, are YOU saying that Boris is a zombie??
The Big Bad Scoffer asks:
Was there anything in it that is not true about Christianity?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm


Mr. Incredible,
You seem to think quite a bit of your argumentation and persuasiveness.
Just a question for you. How many folks on here have you ever convinced of anything? My guess is zero. Well, maybe one. That one person might be you but I ain’t so sure. Your over-the-top proclamations of your (I am sure very masculine and not homosexual) love for Jesus are pretty good but not enough to concretely convince me of your genuine belief in the Jewish Zombie.
Okay, now this is where you notice your ‘fool button’ has just been pressed and you rush to the keyboard and type some more “I heart Jesus” or some other inanity. Go for it dude.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:30 pm


Incred.: “HG says: Yes, and I said I way only going by the guidance of the court…
Mr. Incredible says: Well, both of you are wrong.”
Yep, that’s what you said about the Roe decision too. The court is wrong and Incred. is right, nanny nanny boo boo. Except the court rules, and Incred. whines.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:35 pm


Hey since I am still in ‘scoffer’ mode, I thought I would amuse you with a link to one of the innumerable sites with the comical Jewish Zombie thing.
(You know, my browser has this box and if I type in some word or phrase, press enter, my computer screen reappears with stuff on it that is, miracle of glad surprise, related to the thing I typed into the box. It is a freakin’ miracle! Praise Jesus! I wonder if you could do that. Nah, only Jesus does miracles for you. Well, at least that very personal one.)
We having fun yet?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:51 pm


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Praise Jesus!
Mr. Incredible says:
Thanks, I will! But I don’t need you to tell me that.
HG says:
… only Jesus does miracles for you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus says what His Father says. He does what His Father does. I welcome His Miracles.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:52 pm


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
You seem to think quite a bit of your argumentation and persuasiveness.
Mr. Incredible says:
The “seeming” is YOUR responsibility.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
How many folks on here have you ever convinced of anything?
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
My guess is zero.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus, in the wilderness, didn’t try to persuade, nor convert, the Devil.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Your over-the-top proclamations…
Mr. Incredible says:
I can understand your eyes and ears are burning.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… of your (I am sure very masculine and not homosexual) love for Jesus are pretty good but not enough to concretely convince me of your genuine belief in the Jewish Zombie.
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t know any “Jewish Zombie.”
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Go for it dude.
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t ask for permission. I don’t need your permission.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 10:53 pm


HG says:
Yes, and I said I way only going by the guidance of the court…
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, both of you are wrong.
HG says:
Yep, that’s what you said about the Roe decision too.
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t say that Roe decision is wrong.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:07 pm


Christians can never face the truth about anything. The person hood argument fails because even if you give a fetus person hood it still has no right to be inside another person because no such right exists. Case closed. Incredible Coward, your empty head was just slam dunked AGAIN. No wonder you can’t comprehend anything after the intellectual beatings you’ve taken on this blog. Guess what. You’re NOT still standing. You’re squealing like a pig for us. Louder piggy piggy. ROFL!



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:07 pm


Incred.: “HG says: … only Jesus does miracles for you.”
No, HG doesn’t say that (misquote from Incred.), take it from the source, HG says Jesus is an imaginary being.
“Mr. Incredible says: Jesus says what His Father says. He does what His Father does.”
Just as the Scoffer quoted in the Jewish Zombie–those are good.
Off topic, since we already were:
“NEW YORK — A radical Muslim group has warned the creators of “South Park” that they could face violent retribution for depicting the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during last week’s episode.”
I am hoping there will be a discussion of this topic here. These religious extremists can be a crazy bunch, but knuckling under to these knuckle-heads is a bad idea.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:20 pm


Boris says:
Christians can never face the truth about anything.
Mr. Incredible says:
We face God’s Truth. The Lord is our Shepherd. Not you.
Boris says:
The person hood [sic] argument fails…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that it doesn’t fail.
Boris says:
…because even if you give a fetus person hood [sic] it still has no right to be inside another person…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nature says different.
In any case, the woman who has unprotected sex understand that she may become pregnant. Therefore, she gives the unborn child permission to be in her womb by default.
Boris says:
… because no such right exists.
Mr. Incredible says:
When a woman has unprotected sex, she take the chance that she will become pregnant. She knows that’s the nature of things. By default, then, she gives permission for the child to be in her body.
Boris says:
… the intellectual beatings you’ve taken on this blog.
Mr. Incredible says:
You haven’t touched me yet. You’re just beating air. Shadowboxing.
Boris says:
You’re NOT still standing.
Mr. Incredible says:
I AM still standing. You haven’t touched me yet.
Boris says:
You’re squealing like a pig for us.
Mr. Incredible says:
Is this — http://www.allfunnypictures.com/pages3/gardenfairy.html — you practicing just in case some dude comes along?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:25 pm


HG says:
… only Jesus does miracles for you.”
HG says:
No, HG doesn’t say that (misquote from Incred.)…
Mr. Incredible says:
HG DId write that. It’s not a misquote. And it is in context.
HG says:
… take it from the source, HG says Jesus is an imaginary being.
Mr. Incredible says:
We can take it from you. You are not trustworthy.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:26 pm


HG says:
These religious extremists can be a crazy bunch, but knuckling under to these knuckle-heads is a bad idea.
Mr. Incredible says:
WHEW! I’m glad I’m not a religious extremists. After all, I’m not in religion with God, through Christ. I’m in a relationship with God, through Christ.
I agree that religious extremists like Muslims can be a crazy bunch. We should not be knuckling under to religionists like Muslims.



report abuse
 

martha

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:38 pm


Hi Jay,
Re: the song ‘prayer fails’ – from a Christian perspective, I hate to say it but in some sense, the song is actually right; it does fail if you aren’t in Christ (Wide is the way, and narrow is the gate and no one comes to the Father but by Me). I counsel. and my favourite story to address why prayer doesn’t work for people is through an analogy. We know there are electric wires all through the walls, around the room, with the power to turn on the lights over head, but that power is useless to us if we don’t activate the switch. If I were to demand they come on, beg,beat myself,tear my clothes, bargain,etc. to get those lights on, those lights just won’t come on – similar to some folks approach to prayer who demand, beg, beat themselves, tear their clothes, bargain, etc – prayer fails, unless they activate the switch. Jesus Christ is the switch.
Futher – It is all about what they do with Jesus. God privileges us to come to Him in prayer, pending we are adopted into His family. Can’t go to my neighbors and help myself to their things, as not part of the family. God bless you to keep up the good fight.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:40 pm


Mr. (Wants so bad to be) Incredible,
Boy, that was a big time fail on your part re:
“When a woman has unprotected sex, she take the chance that she will become pregnant. She knows that’s the nature of things. By default, then, she gives permission for the child to be in her body.”
Could you now please address the issue of forcible rape?
Thanks, I can’t wait to hear this! (And you thought you were so smart!)



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:45 pm


I knew you’d agree with me on this one Incred. They may be the only ones what are nuttier than you is.
Incred: “Mr. Incredible says: HG DId write that. It’s not a misquote. And it is in context.”
I don’t suppose you’d be able to produce the topic and time?
“Mr. Incredible says: We can take it from you. You are not trustworthy.”
I certainly wasn’t trustworthy IF I wrote, in seriousness, that “… only Jesus does miracles for you.” Somehow, I feel much more trustworthy in stating my belief that the Jesus/God story is a work of fiction.
As for your relationship with God through Christ, I’m not into three-ways.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:53 pm


HG,
I saw that today also with reference to South Park. Indeed, militant fundamentalist Islamic types are bad news. They are clearly more violent that modern day conservative fundamentalist Christians. The only reason for that is that we pretty much de-fanged Christianity in 1789. They have been whining ever since.
I do hope either Sekulow or Lynn kickstarts a discussion on this very thing.
As well, another news article today about a 12 year old Saudi girl who was able to finally secure a divorce from the 80 year old man she was forced to marry. The linked article refers to how Muhammad married a 9 year old and thus there is religious resistance to amending age of consent/marriage laws.
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/12-year-old-saudi-girl-wins-divorce-from-80-year-old-husband/19450389
And people wonder why a bunch of us see religion as a force for evil.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:54 pm


HG says:
HG DId write that. It’s not a misquote. And it is in context.
HG says:
I don’t suppose you’d be able to produce the topic and time?
Mr. Incredible provides:
The Big Bad Scoffer
April 22, 2010 10:35 PM
Mr. Incredible says:
We can take it from you. You are not trustworthy.
The wording is supposed to be “We can’t…”
HG says:
I feel much more trustworthy in stating my belief that the Jesus/God story is a work of fiction.
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?
HG says:
As for your relationship with God through Christ, I’m not into three-ways.
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 11:55 pm


HG says:
I knew you’d agree with me on this one Incred.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, I don’t.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 23, 2010 at 12:00 am


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Mr. (Wants so bad to be) Incredible…
Mr. Incredible says:
I already am, thanks to God, through Christ.,
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Boy, that was a big time fail on your part re:

“When a woman has unprotected sex, she take the chance that she will become pregnant. She knows that’s the nature of things. By default, then, she gives permission for the child to be in her body.”

Could you now please address the issue of forcible rape?
Mr. Incredible says:
The unborn child is no less a life. The child should not pay for the crime.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 23, 2010 at 12:02 am


Incred: “Mr. Incredible provides:
The Big Bad Scoffer
April 22, 2010 10:35 PM”
Ah-Hah-hah-ahahh-ahahhh-hhahaha. What a bone-head! I’m a scoffer, but not The Big Bad Scoffer. Wrong again, so it was a misquote! What a dildo.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 23, 2010 at 12:09 am


HG,
Your reference to Mr. Incredible as a dildo is an insult to dildos.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 23, 2010 at 2:40 am


THE B.B.S.: “HG, I saw that today also with reference to South Park. Indeed, militant fundamentalist Islamic types are bad news. They are clearly more violent that modern day conservative fundamentalist Christians.”
I was happy to see Jon Stewart give an encore performance of the Soul rendition of Go F&@k Yourselves, addressed specifically to these bungholes. Getting a little scary when the U.N. attempts to make policy, law, regarding free speech v Islamic pride. I realize that patience is a virtue, and change takes time…but I’m used to calling a horse-apple what it is, and I insist on being allowed to do so.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 23, 2010 at 4:36 am


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
HG,
Your reference to Mr. Incredible as a dildo is an insult to dildos.
Mr. Incredible says:
Gee, that’s so original. Heh. You can’t come up with anything more creative than that???



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 23, 2010 at 10:44 am


Mr. Incredible,
Gosh, I wasn’t trying to be especially creative, I was just relating a fact.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 23, 2010 at 10:58 am


Mr. Incredible seems to want to have it both ways. When the clear reading of a law, treaty or court decision favors his viewpoint he grasps at them like a man dying of thirst would grasp for water. Yet when the clear reading of these texts fail him he appeals to the winds of interpretive reading not unlike that offered by the great Haiku masters like Basho.
Then, in an attempt to support his position he runs to the letter and speech archive of his favorites (ignoring the fact that in many cases they denied the deity of the very Christ he wishes to uphold) and grasps selected renditions of their documents, bereft of context, to support his case. Of course when this same archive undercuts his opinion he disavows association with it.
And then, in a final futile attempt to salvage his case he mounts the wayward steed known as The Supreme Court, and finds that early on its course is amenable to him. Later on as it becomes more mindful of the intent of the founders and seeks to return to the path they illuminated so long ago he chafes and rails at the wayward beast, no longer trusting it to guide his journeys.
Thus Mr. Incredible once again proves the truth of the old lawyerly axiom, “If the law is against you, bang on the facts. If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If both are against you, bang on the table.”
Keep banging that table, Mr. Incredible, and have a wonderful weekend.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 23, 2010 at 1:30 pm


Here’s why Mr. Incredible is the way she is. Or should it be Mr. Incredichanga? Or perhaps Jimmy Changcredible? ROFL! I wonder how long it will take this loser to extract his smelly foot from his big fat mouth this time. I mean he really stepped in it this time. We may actually have seen the last of this creep.
Normally, there are a variety of sources of knowledge or “truths” in life. People look to the evidence of their own senses, the results of scientific study, life experience, their own intuitions and thought processes. Secular people assume that new information can be discovered through systematic investigation. In the Christian mindset, however, the only respected source of knowledge is authority. The ultimate authority of God, and the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, absolute and unchanging. This view of knowledge serves to further institute and control the believer. Truth is not found; it is revealed (cf. James 1:21). Facts are irrelevant in this system. If a belief is in place, based on interpretation of supposed revealed truth, it doesn’t matter what worldly discoveries take place. In the Christian system, the idea of being a “child of God” has a charm that many relate to. You remain a child, dependent and cared for by your heavenly father. You never have to learn self-reliance or turn to yourself for strength and wisdom. And you have no source of knowledge but outside authority.



report abuse
 

Ricky McDermon

posted April 24, 2010 at 12:08 am


Mr. Lynn, have you any dignity whatsoever? You must be an extremely miserable existence! To make it your lot in life to prove Nietche(sic), Hitler, the Marxist philosophy of no philosophy, or believing the bull you speak of. Jesus said,”If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself.” He was speaking of His death by crucifixion, but each time the Gospel of Christ is preached, taught, prayed openly to as He is Spiritually lifted up each & every time! Seeds are sown whenever the name of Jesus Christ is lifted up! No one has ever had such passion in squashing out that name, Jesus, than you! It is so peculiar, yet very worthy of pity. Stop fighting and allow the Truth of the Gospel of God’s only begotten son to grant you, Mr. Lynn, Peace and true Freedom with God’s covenant and justifiable promise of eternal life! The first man ever accused before the rulers in his time of “sedition” was St. Paul! He was set at liberty by king Agrippa! You have no excuse, Barry. You know the Lord of Whom I speak. Ricky McDermon



report abuse
 

Ricky McDermon

posted April 24, 2010 at 12:39 am


As I was reading your blog, I noticed the very shallow and frankly naive approach to prayer in the life of Christians! I just pray; all the time. I pray mostly for God’s mercy on those suffering. As for me, I find myself praying for His forgiveness! And I pray for a deeper understanding of my Lord Jesus Christ. I pray, as I read His Word, for the renewing of , and strengthening, of my faith in Him. Micah 6:8 is simple. God reminds me constantly as I read His Word, that God is Sovereign, and Proverbs 3:1-5 is still applicable! I pray, more than anything, for Peace. Not just absence of war, which is growing more difficult with America’s delusional leaders, and the simultaneous build up of defensive capacities of those entities that hate us! Which begs the question: Why are so many of America’s leaders favoring our enemies rather than showing a willingness to create alliances with our fellow countrymen? It is rather baffling when given serious thought! Ricky McDermon



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 24, 2010 at 11:16 am


OMFG,
Yet another thread hijacked by the not-credible one.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 24, 2010 at 11:47 am


Ricky McDermon,
Wow, what is deal with you religious wackos? You said “I noticed the very shallow and frankly naive approach to prayer in the life of Christians!”. Jesus Freakin’ Christ! Not only do you insist that all Americans need to pray but that they need to it the ‘Ricky McDermon’ way!
I am not so sure that you have the credentials to make such a sweeping pronouncement about how a person must pray. I think you need to talk to our frequent poster Mr. Incredible and sort this out between the two of you. You see, Mr. Incredible has a direct line to God, Jesus talks to him and even the Devil is personally mad at him. I am sure you are nuts for Jesus and all but you would likely have a long way to go to prove you are as nuts for Jesus as Mr. Incredible.
Also, I couldn’t help but notice that you pray for and end to the suffering in the world. How is that working out for you? Now, it may just be me but I haven’t noticed any reduction in that kind of thing. Is this some new and hyper-effective prayer program that you Christians just implemented and I just need to wait a bit for the results to kick in? I hope you are not using that same old prayer routine that believers have been using for thousands of years hoping to end pain and suffering because I am pretty sure that one ain’t done a damn thing.
And also, what is this stuff about our leaders creating alliances abroad rather than at home? I am assuming that you have some sort of tortured notion in your brain that a National Day of Prayer would bring us together at home. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing a government endorsement of prayer does for me and my extended family is make us more distrustful of our government. How do you think that you can bring people together with religion when somewhere between 10% and 15% of the American population think it is complete nonsense? I guess you forgot that not everyone thinks prayer is a good thing. You are right though, the fact that you would suggest such a thing “is rather baffling when given serious thought”, ‘serious thought’ being the key phrase.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 24, 2010 at 12:02 pm


Ricky McDermon,
I also need to slap you around a bit for your first post and its not-so-veiled comparison of Barry Lynn to Hitler. I guess I could go over the moronic nonsense you wrote line by line but before we get to that I should probably first ask if you were drunk when you wrote that. Were you? It really had all the hallmarks of a person in the throes of chemical delusion; rambling sentences, impossible linkages, illogical conclusions, paranoid assertions and claims of persecution. Get back to me when you are a bit more sober.



report abuse
 

blueenigma

posted April 24, 2010 at 2:01 pm


>Why are so many of America’s leaders favoring our enemies rather than showing a willingness to create alliances with our fellow countrymen?
If your intent is to come across as ridiculous and absurd, you’re succeeding.



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted April 24, 2010 at 3:20 pm


Ricky McDermon is a pseudonym used by Christopher Hitchens. No real Christian could be so stupid as to believe that such a post would advance his cause. On the other hand, they do tout the Holy Spirit and similar unproven nonsense.



report abuse
 

Still Scoffing

posted April 24, 2010 at 3:21 pm


Ricky quoted Jesus a few comments ago- “Jesus said, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself.”
Jesus was way wrong about that. Way wrong! Turns out that some were drawn to Jesus but not even close to “all”. You have to wonder about how the supposed son of God could be so wrong. The Earth has about 6.7 billion folks, Christians are about 32% of that. So, Jesus missed the mark by only a mere 68% or approximately 4.5 billion people.
Way to go Jesus! Good job!
(Okay Bible-quoters, does this help you understand why we need you to think more about the things you say? You can’t just throw out words and quotes and not expect that some of us will do a critical analysis of the literal meaning of the words. We are not going to base our lives upon something that does not meet even the most basic test of logic. And, it makes no sense to quote a book that is clearly so full of false statements like the one above.)



report abuse
 

maour msoi sojendoun

posted April 25, 2010 at 7:41 am


the word of God is true and inerant and no one will make it erant and untrue



report abuse
 

maoiuo siusuh

posted April 25, 2010 at 8:36 am


Naturally still scoffing joins the other atheists in still getting it all wrong. why should anybody be surprised at that? we’re not.



report abuse
 

Moe Amour Kuduffy

posted April 25, 2010 at 8:46 am


THank you maoiuo and maour for your finally intelligent comments. I have witnessed and testified to the TRUTH of Word of God all over the place and He is received gladly by all the people. I thank God for His help and that He changes hearts of those who want change. I am sorry for people who turn Him down. They will pay.



report abuse
 

Desertman

posted April 25, 2010 at 9:06 am


Mr. Incredible sez:
Even atheists, once in a while, say, “Jesus!” and/or “Oh, God!” and/or, “God dam-!” Those are prayers.
Desertman sez: If you seriously think those are prayers, you are delusional.



report abuse
 

Desertman

posted April 25, 2010 at 9:11 am


Mr. Incredible sez:
My understanding is that the enactment is a resolution, not law. Therefore, enactment of a resolution does not violate the First Amendment, in that Congress made no law.
Desertman sez:
No, it was not a resolution that mandated the President recognize a NDOP, it was a law: 36 USC 119.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 25, 2010 at 9:14 am


It doesn’t matter whether they are serious, or not. They are prayers, even in emotion, directed to God and Jesus. If they don’t believe in God, nor Jesus, why mention Them at all.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 25, 2010 at 9:16 am


The president is ordered by Congress to declare the National Day of Prayer, not recognize it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 25, 2010 at 9:17 am


In any case, Congress did not establish a religion.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 25, 2010 at 11:01 am


Mr. I,
re: “In any case, Congress did not establish a religion.”
Nope, he didn’t establish a religion but Congress did pass a lass respecting an establishment of religion.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 25, 2010 at 2:33 pm


The proclamation of a National Day of Prayer does not have to establish a religion to be unconstitutional. The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means that the government cannot pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion or another. I haven’t read all of Judge Crabb’s entire 66-page ruling yet. One argument I found particularly compelling was her legal opinion that a National Day of Prayer “serves no purpose but to encourage a religious exercise.” So by aiding religion the proclamation of a day of prayer is clearly unconstitutional. The judge delayed enforcement of the ruling until there is an appeal. President Obama can ether uphold his oath to defend the Constitution or pander to the same ignorant people who have been calling him a baby-killer, “Obammy” and all the other sick names. In view of the other things he’s already done I doubt him refusing to go along with this day of delusion would hurt him politically.



report abuse
 

Craig

posted April 25, 2010 at 10:10 pm


I can’t believe the person who posted this:
“I can’t believe these arguments….No one is forcing you to do anything. If you don’t want to pray…don’t pray. But, don’t take away my right to do what I want. If you don’t like the show, turn the channel.”
It’s NOT about being forced to pray. It IS about the government promoting religion by sponsoring a national day of prayer.
He also said:
“Christians don’t have to prove anything. You are the one refusing the Gift. It is offered to anyone that is willing to take it.
Why doesn’t out Gov. cater to other religions? Because our forfathers were Judeo-Christians, who started a country under Judeo Laws.”
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong… First of all, there is no such thing as a judeo-christian. Either you are Jewish or christian, but christians and jews are NOT the same, as has been demonstrated by christian persecution of Jews throughout the existence of christianity. Secondly, the founders were primarily deists, not particularly religious, or in some cases clearly a-religious. The Constitution only refers to religion to prohibit its use in making laws or as a test for public office and never refers to god. Even the Declaration of Independence when it refers to god never uses the word Jesus, but refers to god in more of a generic sense.
“I feel so sorry for you and your children. You really do not know what you are missing. God is a loving, merciful, God. It is man that is evil. Some people twist the truth, or distort things so much that I don’t blame you for being so bitter.”
I’m happy for you that you find some comfort in this, but I can never understand how anyone can have such strong beliefs while not recognizing that others may have equally strong beliefs regarding a totally different conception of god. The only way to reconcile these conflicting views is to conclude that all conceptions of god are man made devices to help understand things that primitive people couldn’t understand on their own.
“True believers help each other and they pray for each other. They don’t don’t go around blowing up their own children before they’ve had a chance to taste life. Or they don’t abort their babies. No one is perfect. We all sin. But, Christians are the only ones who stand up for what is right. They strive to be better people in society. They are peacable and loveing and kind.”
What about the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the catholic church covering up pedophilia? Those who participated in this were/are the most “devout” christians. You are the one who is deluded.
“I just can’t understand why the world hates us so much. All want to do is be better people and help others. Same as God. You wouldn’t believe how much He loves you. He just can’t show you until you let Him.”
I have to laugh at your complaints about the world hating you. Christians are more often on the hating side, not the ones being hated. As someone raised Jewish, but who has come to the rational conclusion that any god belief is irrational and unproductive, I can give you many examples of christian “love” that I endured while growing up. I even have a few scars from some of it.
This is NOT about hating christians, but about trying to prevent the government from favoring a religion or family of religions at the expense of the rest of us. If you just wanted to pray by yourself and not try to impose your beliefs on everyone else nobody would care. It is those who try to force the rest of the country to believe their way who cause backlash. You are NOT going to “save” us, as if such a thing really existed. If there is an afterlife, it is most certainly nothing that you or I can ever know about in this life. I am willing to consider the possibility that there is more to life than just the physical bodies of which we are a part. I just think that making death (heaven) so attractive that it seems better than life is a horrible thing to teach our children.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted April 26, 2010 at 9:44 am


I think it is just dumb to insist on a national day of prayer. If people are going to pray, they will. If not, they won’t. A national day of prayer is needed like… like a fish needs a bicycle.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 26, 2010 at 2:33 pm


@ Carl
April 22, 2010 2:11 PM
“What’s wrong with a nation giving thanks for how they have been blessed?”
You mean like, “Thank Vishnu for all the blessings he hath bestowed on us.” Ain’t never gonna hear (allow) THAT in no “National” Day of Prayer.
What is “wrong” with it is that it EXCLUDES many people of faith (or of NO faith) – in a country that ‘guarantees’ freedom of religion. THAT’S whats “wrong”.
“Have you noticed how other countries live, because they won’t let God in their lives.”



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted April 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm


Carl,
“Here’s somthing for you to think about. The minute Wisconson decided to reject God’s laws, they were almost struct by a meteor.
You sound (and preach) like Jerry Falwell – which is to say that you do so in a mean-spirited, false witness kind of way. ‘The minute America decided to reject God’s laws and be tolerant of homerseckshoowalidy, they were actually stuck by Hurricane Katrina.’
“It is only by God’s grace that we exist as a nation today.”
How do you know it isn’t by Buddha’s grace that America exists as a nation today? Such simple-minded foolishness.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 26, 2010 at 2:42 pm


“Our forefathers left England and other countries, to get away from religeous persicution and to start over again.”
Their plight was to ensure freedom of religion. And yet, here you are ‘arguing’ that we should all follow YOUR religion. Proof positive that irony is NOT dead.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm


“the word of God is true and inerant “
So you mean we SHOULD stone disobedient children and gay people and the victims of incest to death? So you mean we SHOULD deny communion to the disabled? So you mean eating lobster and shrimp IS “an abomination”? So you mean women really SHOULDN’T be allowed to preach or teach or wear their hair short? So you mean farmers really SHOULDN’T cross-pollinate their fields?
U 2 funnee.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm


Re: Boris
Even if a child within the womb gets personhood they are still considered a minor under the custody of their parents which would include a safe environment within the womb.
As for intellectual criticism, well if a person is beaten down time and time again eventually their health will suffer, because of lack of support and continual condemnation of views brought forth by abusive people, who have nothing better to do then scoff.
Re:
HG
So your against national prayer because you want things secular?
Which could be perceived as self serving and certainly not reliant on a God. Which can be perceived as arrogant. cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 26, 2010 at 4:02 pm


Go Lakers,
Don’t worry I still have faith in you, and I know your doing your best. Your still young and you can take it to the top of your game, despite the setbacks on the road.
cc



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm


Cara,
You state that HG’s preference for a secular government is “certainly not reliant on a God”. Indeed, you are correct.
In America HG is free to choose not to be reliant upon God. As well, the government can neither require nor encourage HG to be reliant upon God. You, as a proselytizing citizen, are free to encourage everyone to be reliant upon God, and everyone is free to heed your advice or ignore you completely.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 26, 2010 at 9:40 pm


Cara said: Even if a child within the womb gets person hood they are still considered a minor under the custody of their parents which would include a safe environment within the womb.
Boris says: First of all a fetus is never going to granted person hood in the Unites States. But for the sake of argument suppose a fetus was granted person hood. The fetus still has no right to be inside another person because no such right exists. There is no law that says a woman must let another person be attached to her for nine months and there won’t be. A woman has a right to make a baby and she has therefore the right not to make a baby.
Cara said: As for intellectual criticism, well if a person is beaten down time and time again eventually their health will suffer, because of lack of support and continual condemnation of views brought forth by abusive people, who have nothing better to do then scoff.
Boris says: Didn’t your parents tell you when you were a small child that sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you? The reason our words bother you is because you know we’re right and you’re wrong.
Cara said: So your against national prayer because you want things secular?
Which could be perceived as self serving and certainly not reliant on a God. Which can be perceived as arrogant. Cc
Boris says: People who don’t believe in God aren’t atheists because they are arrogant or stubborn or rebellious or obstinate. We don’t believe in any Gods because there isn’t any evidence for any God. It’s arrogant and self-serving for you to tell people otherwise because you don’t know what you are talking about.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:56 am


Congress did not pass a lass respecting an establishment of religion. It passed a law which identifies no particular God, nor god, nor prticular prayer, nor religion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:57 am


The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means that the government cannot pass laws that aid one religion, but this law aids no particular “religion.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:58 am


The judge says that the law serves no purpose but to encourage a “religious exercise.” And, yet, the law establishes no religion. This law sponsors no, particular “religion.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:59 am


The judge delayed enforcement of the ruling until there is an appeal. This means that the National Day of Prayer will go on as scheduled.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 6:00 am


If people think the National Day of Prayer is not needed, it’s also no harm to have the National Day of Prayer.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 6:01 am


Carl says:
Here’s somthing for you to think about. The minute Wisconson decided to reject God’s laws, they were almost struct by a meteor.
Grumpy Old Person says:
You sound (and preach) like Jerry Falwell – which is to say that you do so in a mean-spirited, false witness kind of way.
Mr. Incredible says:
Sorta like the atheists on this blog.
Carl says:
It is only by God’s grace that we exist as a nation today.
Grumpy Old Person says:
How do you know it isn’t by Buddha’s grace that America exists as a nation today?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz Buddha didn’t die for our sins and defeat the works of the Devil; and Buddha is still in his grave.
==Our forefathers left England and other countries, to get away from religeous persicution and to start over again.==
Your Name says:
Their plight was to ensure freedom of religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it was not. They, themselves, said that they came here to “advance Christianity.”
In England, they were required to access God through the Church of England whose high priest was the king [the First Amendment is the result of hostility toward that system]. They were not allowed to read the Word of God. They came here, simply, to have the freedom to worship God through His Word. England branded them traitors for doing so.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 6:02 am


==the word of God is true and inerant ==
Your Name says:
So you mean we SHOULD stone disobedient children and gay people and the victims of incest to death?
Mr. Incredible says:
That is Old Testament. Those who are born again are New Testament creatures.
Your Name says:
So you mean we SHOULD deny communion to the disabled?
Mr. Incredible says:
That is Old Testament. Those who are born again are New Testament creatures.
Your Name says:
So you mean eating lobster and shrimp IS “an abomination”?
Mr. Incredible says:
That is Old Testament. Those who are born again are New Testament creatures.
Your Name says:
So you mean women really SHOULDN’T be allowed to preach or teach or wear their hair short?
Mr. Incredible says:
Where is that said, by whom and to whom?
Your Name says:
So you mean farmers really SHOULDN’T cross-pollinate their fields?
Mr. Incredible says:
That is Old Testament. Those who are born again are New Testament creatures.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 27, 2010 at 11:39 am


Mr. I,
re: “That is Old Testament. Those who are born again are New Testament creatures”
Glad to hear the Old Testament doesn’t apply any longer, especially all those primitive and quite ignorant prohibitions in Leviticus.
Hold it, the 10 Commandments are the Old Testament! Did you guys abandon those too while no one was watching? That would explain quite a bit about the ACLJ, Conservative Christians and the Republican Party these days.



report abuse
 

Gonzo

posted April 27, 2010 at 11:42 am


So the 10 Commandments are not valid…after all, they too are Old Testament and not mentioned in the New.
As for the national day of prayer…it violates what your Jesus allegedly said with regard to public prayer. So, if you are actually a follower of Jesus, you should be arguing that this as un-Christ-like as you can get!!



report abuse
 

A Sweeney

posted April 27, 2010 at 3:03 pm


Yea, those darn laws from leviticus.
Just think if they were inacted today – Chelsea King wouldn’t have been raped and killed because John Albert Gardner would have been dealt with effectively rather than setting him free to hurt another young woman.
Then maybe, just maybe Phillip Garrido wouldn’t have been there to take Jaycee and she could have had a different life.
It’s good to know my tax dollars are giving these men food and shelter while the rehabilatation programs work so ineffectively.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:00 pm


Re: Rich
The point I am trying to make is, of course you can pick your own religion and your free to not pray. I am simply stating that you can not force the secular ticket, by trying to not give everybody else the chance to do so.
Re: Boris
As for you, I am not the one throwing the sticks or the lies of misconseptions to make people believe a certain bunch of thrown out lies to try and get people to bully up on an individual. I thought that was over a long time ago on the playground. I don’t want to play in the sandbox with a bunch of bullies, whos agenda is to slander and corrupt society into believing that it is ok to murder children and to do it privately.
As for personhood to be established for the unborn, well that will be up to the courts to decide when those laws to be achieved are established in place of the murder policies. For those laws presently which corrupt society into believing that the unborn is somehow not our Posterity which need to be protected by our Constitution, are the laws which need to be abolished.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:08 pm


Re: Mr. Incredible
I am for The New Testament
Which is about loving people right where they are at and helping them get through the tough times. I do not believe in stoning if that is what you are suggesting. I look at The Old Testament, as what they used to do in the past before Jesus came for their forgiveness. So there was allot of things in The Old Testament, which do not apply for the modern day believers of The New Testament except as reference in days of old. Love your neighbor as yourself and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your path. Love God with all your heart.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:28 pm


As for those who have continually picked on my education as being something of relevance to whatever they were deciding to pick on for the moment. I believe in furthering your education to build knowledge in areas which will be helpful in the career of your choice or simply to gain knowledge in a certain field. The old sang knowledge is power, is a truthful statement when the knowledge you have learned which is truth is applied to a direct field.
As for my education, I continued in some outside career training in medical assisting, dental assisting and dental x-ray licensing, as well as started going for an interior design degree at a technical institute. Unfortunately I had to drop out of that design institute because of a continual back injury flaring up when I leaned over a drafting table. I decided to focus my mind towards ending abortion and the laws in place which enforce it over the past two years.
Unfortunaley I did not like secular highschool or college for that matter. I would have preferred to go to a private school to further my education. At least we would have been on the same page, instead of a secular education plan which is intended for secular education only. The occupational programs which I attended in medical and dental I received A’s for. The Interior Design class I attended, I did not attend long enough to get an established grade going, I was working on a project. So, enough with the continual battering of words of whatever you see fit, for whatever reason to belittle me.
So, not that this is of any importance other than to stop you from focusing on some sort of cop out, like I never was in school for any type of education and I am some sort of stupid dummy that you like to protray to the rest of the world. So, case closed.
cc



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 27, 2010 at 10:47 pm


Cara moaned: As for you, I am not the one throwing the sticks or the lies of misconseptions to make people believe a certain bunch of thrown out lies to try and get people to bully up on an individual.
Boris says: Stop acting like you’re some kind of martyr. You feel persecuted because no one agrees with you. And you are throwing lies and misconceptions especially when you call abortion murder. Abortion is not murder no matter how many times you lie and say it is. Murder is a legal term and you don’t get to define legal terms.
Cara moaned: I thought that was over a long time ago on the playground. I don’t want to play in the sandbox with a bunch of bullies, whos agenda is to slander and corrupt society into believing that it is ok to murder children and to do it privately.
Boris says: On what do you base your claim that abortion is murder? You certainly can’t back up that claim with the Bible. 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. So when you claim abortion is murder you are going against what the Bible says.
Cara moaned: As for personhood to be established for the unborn, well that will be up to the courts to decide when those laws to be achieved are established in place of the murder policies.
Boris says: The courts HAVE ALREADY decided Cara. Organizations like the ACLJ purposely keep you misinformed about this issue so anti-choice maggots will continue to send their failed law firm money.
For those laws presently which corrupt society into believing that the unborn is somehow not our Posterity which need to be protected by our Constitution, are the laws which need to be abolished.
Boris says: It’s no wonder people make fun of your incoherent ramblings. The Constitution protects women from fascist fanatics like you and Mr. Incredible who would even force victims of rape to give birth to a rapist’s child thereby being reminded of the horrific act every time they look at the child. You really need to find something else to devote your time to. Neither the Bible nor the Constitution support your views on abortion and neither one of them is going to get a total rewrite any time soon.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm


Re: Boris
As for abortion being murder, only an idiot would believe otherwise. It is evident to me that it is another person growing, hence reproduction. That would be reproducing a person, not a bunch of unknown declassified cells which are not male or female. Quite the contrary, so the very fact that these little people developing have blood types of their own and their own dna which form them into developing individuals with their very own characteristics other then you or I. Enough said, like I said before, I don’t want to play in the sandbox. I think I learned about the birds and the bees in the 5th grade. The male and female reproductive parts and how they make a baby. So, the very fact that you would try and argue the point contrary to that, would indicate that your somewhere in kindergarten by way of thinking in reproduction activity. You might want to go back to the basics and pick up some grade school health book to explain it to you, so you understand that those are children developing in the womb.
cc



report abuse
 

C.C. Rider

posted April 28, 2010 at 6:32 pm


As for abortion not being murder, only an idiot would believe otherwise; …or two idiots, or a boatload of idiots…



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 28, 2010 at 8:53 pm


Cara,
Please do the Pro-Life movement a favor and switch sides.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 28, 2010 at 10:21 pm


The atheists say, Cara, that you may wanna pick up and read an atheist science book and learn that atheist science disagrees with us. Duh.
BTW, did you see the SCOTUS decision on the Mohave cross? The atheists are now on suicide watch.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 28, 2010 at 11:02 pm


Hey Mr. Incredible, you’re back. How was rehab?
re: “The atheists are now on suicide watch.”
Hmmm, don’t know about that. In fact, that might even be a stupid thing to say completely devoid of meaning but that wouldn’t make sense that you could say anything stupid what with you being all imbued with special powers from Jesus. Did Jesus give you a cool cape that you wear whilst at your keyboard fighting secular humanists?
re: “read an atheist science book”
Science books are atheistic? No, not actually. Not a real one anyway, I can’t speak to the ones from Texas. You see, some things are neither atheistic nor theistic. For example, the instruction manual you used to assemble your Barbie 3-Story Dream House didn’t cover matters of theology, it just showed you how to put the damn thing together. Of course, this is America and you are now free to populate your Dream House with Evangelical Barbie successfully converting Evolutionist Barbie, Abortionist Doctor Barbie and ACLU Barbie to the Word of God. I am sure it is lots of fun for you.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 29, 2010 at 1:30 am


Boris,
Just in case you were worried that the world wasn’t weird enough as is:
http://www.hs.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=105139079524495



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 29, 2010 at 8:57 am


Mr. Incrfedible says:
The atheists say, Cara, that you may wanna pick up and read an atheist science book and learn that atheist science disagrees with us. Duh.
Boris says: There is only one kind of science…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, to YOU, it’s atheist science.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incrfedible

posted April 29, 2010 at 9:08 am


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Hey Mr. Incredible, you’re back.
Mr. Incredible says:
I never left.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
How was rehab?
Mr. Incredible says:
And you couldn’t come up with anything but a cliché????
The atheists are now on suicide watch.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Hmmm, don’t know about that.
Mr. Incredible says:
I do. They are.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
In fact, that might even be a stupid thing to say completely devoid of meaning…
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand that that it’s over your head.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Did Jesus give you a cool cape that you wear whilst at your keyboard fighting secular humanists?
Mr. Incredible says:
Now, just His Word.
read an atheist science book
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Science books are atheistic?
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t say that. REAL Science books are not atheistic. You people promote atheistic science, not Science.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 29, 2010 at 10:50 am


I wouldn’t normally give a clue, in message boards, where I live. Normally, it doesn’t matter.
However, I feel compelled.
I live in Arizona, and — the point of this is — I’m one-a the 70% that support SB1070. And, y’know, I don’t care what anybody else thinks about us about it, too.
I don’t care about San Franfreako and Lost Angeles and whether they do business with us, and I would hope that San Franfreako, a so-called “sanctuary city,” would take all 500 thousand illegals living in this state. Traffic and crime here would ease and everybody would be happy, especially the homos in San Franfreako with the fresh meat, and the Moral climate here would improve 100%. So, Freako, take’em all.
I don’t care whether anybody likes 1070 cuz WE’re tired of the situation here and we’re the ones suffering. So, if anybody doesn’t wanna come here cuz-a this, I’m happy. Stay away, and, if you’re anywhere here, get the Hell outta here if you don’t like it.
Now, I challenge anybody who’s read 1070 to point out the unconsitutionality of the law — http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf — cuz it ain’t in section 2, nor in 4, and those seem to be the focus of charges of the allegations of “unconstitutionality.”
By the way, the protests and boycotts will hurt HisPANIC businesses first. Not a great thing in this economic situation.



report abuse
 

Kenneth Kingston

posted April 29, 2010 at 3:04 pm


I think that rev. lynn is a disgrace to the title he holds as Rev. Words can not express the disgust I have for people like him that portray themselves as christians and say the things he is stating. Mr Lynn should remove the Rev. from his name permanently.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 29, 2010 at 9:30 pm


Ken, you couldn’t have said it better!



report abuse
 

RIch

posted April 30, 2010 at 12:06 am


Kenneth Kingston,
It is you who are a disgrace to the title of American, your words clearly show you do not deserve that title. A real American would respect the autonomy of a different church.
Rev. Lynn is free to use the honorific as long as the church he represents continues to feel his merits it. It is not for you to decide.
It is quite revealing that because Barry Lynn has a different perspective than you on separation you appoint yourself ecclesiastic judge, jury and executioner all at once. Wow, you must hold a high opinion of yourself.
By the way, isn’t there some Christian deal about not casting the first stone, etc, etc. Since you don’t abide by that, I guess it is safe to assume that you are not a Christian. What are you? Some sort of Satanist?



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 30, 2010 at 12:14 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Okay, so you had you screed in favor of Arizona’s new law. Nice. But you know, I always wonder about you so-called loving Christians actually following your moronic book. I think if would be great if you could open up your Bible and turn to Leviticus 19:34 and read:
“But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”
Now, maybe it is just me and the revealed word of God is really a living document and can be interpreted differently as the need arises to justify your racism but I had always figured that you guys were sort of in the literalist camp. Who knows really, but I suspect that you follow the parts of the Bible that make you see yourself as superior to everyone else and ignore the parts that really require you to be a decent human.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 10:32 am


The Big Bad Scoffer
…Leviticus 19:34:

“But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

Mr. Incredible says:

“‘But a stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you…’…Especially if a proselyte of righteousness; for then he enjoyed the same privileges, civil and religious, the Israelites did, for there was one law for them both, Exo_12:49″

– John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Exodus 12:49 –

“One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.”

So, the law applies to them.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 10:36 am


RIch says:
Kenneth Kingston,
…isn’t there some Christian deal about not casting the first stone, etc, etc.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus said that to the unrighteous. He told the Righteous to “judge Righteous judgment — that is, according to the Word of God.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 1:36 pm


Mr. I,
Well, aren’t you just the special Christian! So, let me see if I understand this, the unrighteous are advised not to be judgmental but the righteous are free to go all postal on anyone they see as less than worthy. And, what shocking surprise it is that you place yourself in the “righteous” category. I guess that is what that “Mr. I am so incredible” stuff is about, you see yourself as a kind of modern day Jesus.
Here is the thing, not being a Christian and all, do I have it wrong that you are supposed to pay heed to the stuff written in your very Wholly Babble or does that not apply to really cool Christians who call themselves incredible. I mean a quick internet search on ‘bible on sin of self-righteousness” easily brought up Romans 2 verses 1 through 29. The first of those verses reads:
‘Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.’
Now personally, you can be as judgmental as you want to be, the Bible carries no weight with me. However, it is your book and you seem to think it is the revealed word of Zeus and all that so I sort of figured that you would try to abide by its precepts. Since I don’t have to abide by your book, this is where I would normally be judgmental but I don’t have time today to point out that you are an obviously self-absorbed and self-agrandizing hypocrite. I can maybe make time for that tomorrow.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 2:29 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I,
Well, aren’t you just the special Christian!
Mr. Incredible says:
Exciting, isn’t it.
Rich says:
So, let me see if I understand this…
Mr. Incredible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV
Rich says:
…the unrighteous are advised not to be judgmental…
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz they have motes and beams in their eyes, yes.
Rich says:
…but the righteous [sic] are free…
Mr. Incredible says:
If the Lord sets you free, you are free indeed; know the Truth and the Truth will set you free, etc.
Rich says:
…to go all postal on anyone they see as less than worthy.
Mr. Incredible says:
What’s “go postal”?
Seems as though you’re not asking as much as your commenting. Which is it?
Rich says:
And, what shocking surprise it is that you place yourself in the “righteous” category.
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t place me in that category. God, through Christ did. Argue with Them about it and see whether you can get them to change Their minds.
Rich says:
I guess that is what that “Mr. I am so incredible” stuff is about…
Mr. Incredible says:
And you guess wrong, as usual.
Rich says:
…you see yourself as a kind of modern day Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, we ARE both sons of God. I inherited from Him. 1 Corinthians 2:16. We know you don’t understand it.
Rich says:
…do I have it wrong…
Mr. Incrfedible says:
You have so far. Why stop now?
Rich says:
…that you are supposed to pay heed to the stuff written in your very Wholly Babble…
Mr. Incredible asks:
I don’t know what a “Wholly Babble” is. So I don’t have one. Sounds more like something YOU follow.
Rich says:
…or does that not apply to really cool Christians who call themselves incredible.
Mr. Incredible says:
What doesn’t apply?
Rich says:
…a quick internet search on ‘bible on sin of self-righteousness” easily brought up Romans 2 verses 1 through 29. The first of those verses reads:

“Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The phrase, “for you who judge practice the same things,” refers to the unrighteous, just as Matthew 7:1-5 refers to the unrighteous.
Christ tells those He has made Righteous — that is, those who are born again — to “judge Righteous judgment” — that is, according to the Word of God, not according to their own standards, as the unrighteous do.
Rich says:
Now personally, you can be as judgmental as you want to be…
Mr. Incredible says:
As judgment will as Christ says He wants me to be, according to the Word of God.
Rich says:
… the Bible…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Rich says:
…carries no weight with me.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, you refer to Him.
Rich says:
However, it is your book…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one is MY “book”?
Rich says:
…and you seem to think it is the revealed word of Zeus…
Mr. Incredible says:
I do??? You haven’t been paying attention. No surprise there.
Rich says:
… and all that so I sort of figured that you would try to abide by its precepts.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What does the scoffer know about the precepts of the Word of God?
Rich says:
Since I don’t have to abide by your book…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What “book”??
Rich says:
…this is where I would normally be judgmental…
Mr. Incredible says:
You mean to tell us that, up to now, you haven’t been???
Rich says:
… but I don’t have time today to point out that you are an obviously self-absorbed and self-agrandizing hypocrite.
Mr. Incredible says:
Gosh, is that all? After all this time, that’s all you can come up with???
Anyway, the Devil says that to me all the time. However, Romans 8:1 [KJV].
Rich says:
I can maybe make time for that tomorrow.
Mr. Incredible says:
You do that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 2:37 pm


Rich says:
…you are an obviously self-absorbed and self-agrandizing hypocrite.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Gee, does that mean the trip to Disneyland is off? No Dairy Queen now, either???



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 2:40 pm


Rich says:
And, what shocking surprise it is that you place yourself in the “righteous” category.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m not self-righteous; I’m Christ-Righteous. I inherited the Righteousness of Christ just as He promised.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:09 pm


Mr. I,
Yep, you just keep thinking that you’re not self-righteous.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I,
Yep, you just keep thinking that you’re not self-righteous.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not about what I think, nor what you say you think you think, rather what God, through Christ, thinks. I’m with Them. You don’t have-ta like it. You don’t have-ta agree. I don’t need your permission. I got Theirs.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:28 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I,
Yep, you just keep thinking that you’re not self-righteous.
Mr. Incredible says:
You keep telling me what the Devil tells me. What makes you think I listen to you if I don’t listen to him???



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm


Mr. I,
re: “You keep telling me what the Devil tells me.”
The Devil talks to you now does he?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 3, 2010 at 9:28 pm


Ow look somebody erased my post. I suppose they don’t like the truth. They like to meet at will and slander me publically. Not to mention, try and intimidate me. Your showing your colors. If you were truely there for me, you would have been a support system, you wouldn’t be trying to prove that you are better by flaunting a whole bunch of stuff which has nothing to do with being a friend. So you guys, can keep your slandering blogs and all your inferior complex issues which you feel you have to come and show me.
cc



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 10:52 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
You keep telling me what the Devil tells me.
Rich says:
The Devil talks to you now does he?
Mr. Incredible says:
But I don’t listen any more than Jesus listened in the wilderness. I am not ignorant of the Devil’s devices.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 11:09 pm


Cara, they can put up with foul insults from the pit of Hell, but not the truth from you. Amazing.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 4, 2010 at 12:21 pm


Mr. I,
re:
Rich says:
The Devil talks to you now does he?
Mr. Incredible says:
But I don’t listen any more than Jesus listened in the wilderness. I am not ignorant of the Devil’s devices.
Hmmm, not much to say. I would bet those voices you hear in your head are inconvenient to say the least. However, don’t despair:
http://www.zyprexa.com/index.jsp



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:46 pm


Rich says:
The Devil talks to you now does he?
Mr. Incredible says:
But I don’t listen any more than Jesus listened in the wilderness. I am not ignorant of the Devil’s devices.
Rich says:
Hmmm, not much to say.
Mr. Incredible says:
No doubt.
Rich says:
I would bet those voices you hear in your head are inconvenient to say the least.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not as inconvenient as they would be if they went to my heart. Thanks to God, through Christ, they don’t.
Rich says:
However, don’t despair
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t — Romans 8:1 [KJV]



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:22 pm


Here is the deal, the baby in the womb are people.
This is not the body of the mother in question.
The baby needs to be protected and be able to be given the opportunity of life. The mother can give the baby up for adoption.
The end. End of story. There does not need to be coat hanger abortions or the like. That is just an excuse to keep the abortion legal.
Amen!
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:26 pm


Sorry for the witnings I feel the baby is getting left out of the picture.
No my education is fine, I did not proofread. I have studied the bible practically my whole life. I found secular education and athiest to be very selfish. I am not saying that secular education is not relavent to secular jobs, it very much is. I just believe that you can have both, and when one view is given and the biblical view is squashed out, then you have a distortion of reality.
I am done with the superficial people of todays times who wish only to better themselves and get more stuff. I find it repulsive.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:30 pm


Stop messing with my blogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop tampering with my writings and my post.
You only want to present me the way you want, thanks for the selfish support.
You did nothing to better my life, only to take what was the best of me, for what.
Babies and writing…..
That is what I like to do and I love babies…
So keep your babling comments of whatever which present yourself as superior to me to yourself. For you did not represent me in a light equal to yourself and that I found to be, misleading and biased.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm


babble- To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds……
cc



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 4, 2010 at 5:02 pm


Mr. I,
Please note that Cara is on your side, you both believe in the same things, you both feel that you live in Christ (whatever that means), and that you both agree with each other.
Does that tell you anything?



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 4, 2010 at 8:51 pm


I’m ‘hearing’ that familiar Rod Serling tune again (I must have a “sound” mind).



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 11:01 pm


I believe we are in the body of Christ. Meaning those who carry out what God wants us to do. The hands, the feet, you get the picture. I believe some who call themselves Christians are not in the body of Christ or acting out the character of God. Nor do I claim that I embody this character all the time. I have my flesh to contend with, like anybody else. A sound mind, well what is that anymore? I don’t believe that would be one believing in the big bang theory and no creator at best. So monkey and apes are your ancestry, eh?
I hear the old familiar song playing to….
your song of choice, twilight zone, mars and jupiter….whatever….
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 11:09 pm


The very fact that you like to compare me to yourself in intellect or whatever is what it is. I don’t like to compare myself to anyone except measuring myself up to the God’s Word on the subject. For if you look at the magazines, or the latest doctors journal or some huge recipe with tones of ingrediants in it only to make the perfect dish, who lives up to all of that, anyway?
I find the simple things in life the most pleasing. Some complex designs are nice to throw in, but other than that. the simplest things can be the most enjoyable for me. A walk in the park, the blue sky. The color of the ocean. The way the light hits my daughters hair. My kids smirky smile when they want to laugh. The way a person leans against the seat of a chair. This is what makes life enjoyable to me. Observing the innocence of a person in the momment of serenity.
Have a good night.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 11:19 pm


incomplete sentences, who cares in the long run of things, it is not like i am turning this in for a grade of something………..
enjoy…..



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 4, 2010 at 11:47 pm


cc: “So monkey and apes are your ancestry, eh?”
The Big Bang is my ancestry. We’re stardust. Is IT alive? Was IT always alive? We can’t answer those questions. What is, is. That’s about the best we can do plus or minus.
We wish each other well, but you include the unborn while I do not. I do understand, somewhat, that creates a dividing line between us. Our countries legal system has agreed with my verdict, the unborn are not protected as people because that would remove freedom from recognized citizens and people to decide their own fate. Convince those whom you may that embryos are worth nurturing, you are NOT empowered to decide for them.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted May 6, 2010 at 10:47 am


Your Name says:
So you mean women really SHOULDN’T be allowed to preach or teach or wear their hair short?
Mr. Incredible says:
Where is that said, by whom and to whom?
For someone who (selectively) quotes so much of the bible, you should know who said it, and where, and to whom.
But, like everyone else here has pointed out, you are simply selective in what you quote, despite the claim that the (whole) Bible is true and inerrant.
So shallow. And SOOO wrong.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 6:52 am


Your Name says:
So you mean women really SHOULDN’T be allowed to preach or teach or wear their hair short?
Mr. Incredible says:
Where is that said, by whom and to whom?
Grumpy Old Person says:
For someone who (selectively)…
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re free to show us, through Scripture upon Scripture interpretation of the Holy Spirit, where I am wrong. You may do that at any time.
Grumpy Old Person says:
… quotes so much of the bible…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Grumpy Old Person says:
…you should know who said it, and where, and to whom.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, if you make a statement, you must bring the evidence to prove the statement. You haven’t cuz you can’t.
Grumpy Old Person says:
… you are simply selective in what you quote…
Mr. Incredible says:
Scripture upon Scripture interpretation — the proper interpretation — works that way.
Grumpy Old Person says:
…despite the claim that the (whole) Bible…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Grumpy Old Person says:
…is true and inerrant.
Mr. Incredible says:
Which one is true and inerrant?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 8:43 am


cc says:
So monkey and apes are your ancestry, eh?
HG says:
The Big Bang is my ancestry.
Mr. Incredible says:
Prove, by your own observation, there was “Big Bang.”
HG says:
We’re stardust.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who says?
HG says:
Is IT alive? Was IT always alive? We can’t answer those questions.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How come all of a sudden?
HG says:
What is, is.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What is is? How do YOU know what is? How do you know what isn’t beyond your knowledge?? How can you say, with certainty, what isn’t, if your knowledge doesn’t go that far?
HG says:
…the unborn are not protected as people because that would remove freedom from recognized citizens and people to decide their own fate.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that that would change with the introduction to the Court of the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 9:59 am


Rich says:
Mr. I,
Please note that Cara is on your side…
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, duh.
Rich says:
…you both believe in the same things…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Like what?
Rich says:
… you both feel that you live in Christ…
Mr. Incredible says:
To “feel” that I live in Christ is not to live in Christ. It’s not a matter of “feeling.” It’s a matter of Knowledge and Understanding.
Rich says:
… (whatever that means)…
Mr. Incredible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14 [KJV]
Rich says:
…and that you both agree with each other.
Mr. Incredible says:
Amos 3:3 [KJV]
Rich says:
Does that tell you anything?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Does WHAT tell me WHAT?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 10:07 am


cc says:
So monkey and apes are your ancestry, eh?
H “Dr. Saius” G says:
The Big Bang is my ancestry.
Mr. Incredible says:
Non-responsive.
H “Dr. Sais” G, did your ancestors have scratch’n’sniff, technicolor butts?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 10:09 am


CORRECTION
“Dr. Sais” — — > “Dr. Saius”



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted June 16, 2010 at 8:21 pm


et unlikely clitoral stimulation with the Vivid Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you utilize the bunny ears more than the realized rabbit vibrator this coupling play with is in behalf of you.
The dazzling Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the pole so it is perfect for clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the normal bunny ears and has its very own powerful vibrating bullet so your clit resolve get all the publicity it needs.
Good rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to throw in the towel away to whole winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are vein alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted June 16, 2010 at 8:58 pm


et fantastic clitoral stimulation with the Fresh Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you use the bunny ears more than the verified rabbit vibrator this sex imitation is in behalf of you.
The dazzling Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the pole so it is improve for clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the orthodox bunny ears and has its entirely own powerful vibrating bullet so your clit resolve get all the attention it needs.
Decorous rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to act away to one winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are mine alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted June 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm


et queer clitoral stimulation with the Graphic Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you basis the bunny ears more than the existent rabbit vibrator this intimacy toy is in behalf of you.
The fresh Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the pole so it is fully realized in the service of clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the normal bunny ears and has its extraordinarily own weighty vibrating bullet so your clit resolve have all the publicity it needs.
Tolerable rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to give away to joined winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are probe alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted June 16, 2010 at 10:04 pm


et queer clitoral stimulation with the Vivid Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you use the bunny ears more than the actual rabbit vibrator this intimacy toy is for you.
The vivid Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the shaft so it is perfect in return clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the normal bunny ears and has its entirely own intense vibrating bullet so your clit will leave a mark on all the publicity it needs.
Tolerable rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to give away to joined winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are vein alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted June 17, 2010 at 12:31 am


et queer clitoral stimulation with the Fresh Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you basis the bunny ears more than the actual rabbit vibrator this sex kickshaw is for you.
The lucid Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the duct so it is fully realized an eye to clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the normal bunny ears and has its entirely own sturdy vibrating bullet so your clit inclination enter all the distinction it needs.
Good rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to give away to joined winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are probe alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Diltidodibe

posted June 20, 2010 at 12:33 pm


Filthy Sexy Lingerie wholesale Lingerie wholesale can be whole of the mains and most far-out things. If you Sexy Lingerie wholesale can not be included in a shopping also waggon and is occult sooner than the week’s food at the supermarket, then perhaps you do not sense that you entertain sufficient self-confidence to accept it – and certainly do not miss to bump into one of other moms from your children’s equip, while you are deciding whether the chosen G-strings are of your dimensions or not! Although there is no shame in wanting to exploit venereal underwear that will succeed a do over you feel inviting and feminine, there is tranquil some community stigma that many women feel take buying sexy underwear, and the Internet has the complete decipherment of this can of worms!
There is no need to Sexy Lingerie wholesale utilize Sexy Lingerie wholesale leather underwear from Captivating Lingerie wholesale inform on to produce a scant rebound in you step. There is so much that you vex, but there are also a apportionment of items you do not challenge to put on.Sexy Lingerie wholesale http://www.lovefantasys.com/Sexy-Lingerie-wholesale.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted June 29, 2010 at 7:14 am


et weird clitoral stimulation with the Fruitful Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you basis the bunny ears more than the existent rabbit vibrator this fucking play with is for you.
The dazzling Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the pole so it is improve in the service of clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the orthodox bunny ears and has its remarkably own weighty vibrating bullet so your clit pass on enter all the r?lame it needs.
Decorous rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to act away to united winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are probe alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Diltidodibe

posted July 7, 2010 at 5:34 am


Lascivious Sexy Lingerie wholesale Lingerie wholesale can be united of the particular and most alluring things. If you Striking Lingerie wholesale can not be included in a shopping also waggon and is veiled nearby the week’s food at the supermarket, then probably you do not feel that you receive sufficient coolness to accept it – and certainly do not miss to bump into one of other moms from your children’s equip, while you are deciding whether the chosen G-strings are of your dimensions or not! Although there is no loss of face in shoddy to expend erotic underwear that hand down make you think sexy and feminine, there is tranquil some group stain that many women feel adjacent to buying suggestive underwear, and the Internet has the perfect solution of this can of worms!
There is no need to Sexy Lingerie wholesale partake of Sexy Lingerie wholesale leather underwear from Captivating Lingerie wholesale seek to carry out a tiny backlash in you step. There is so much that you wear, but there are also a apportionment of items you do not dare to tender on.Sexy Lingerie wholesale http://www.lovefantasys.com/Sexy-Lingerie-wholesale.html



report abuse
 

Diltidodibe

posted July 19, 2010 at 3:28 pm


Obscene Sexy Lingerie wholesale Lingerie wholesale can be whole of the dominant and most exciting things. If you Improper Lingerie wholesale can not be included in a shopping pushcart and is occult by the week’s comestibles at the supermarket, then probably you do not sense that you have adequacy self-confidence to go for it – and certainly do not impecuniousness to knock against into one of other moms from your children’s school, while you are deciding whether the chosen G-strings are of your extent or not! Although there is no ignominy in shoddy to expend venereal underwear that will create you have the impression sexy and deferential, there is tranquil some community blot that tons women be conscious of about buying vulgar underwear, and the Internet has the matchless dissolving of this can of worms!
There is no demand to Sexy Lingerie wholesale profit by Sexy Lingerie wholesale leather underwear from Raunchy Lingerie wholesale seek to bring a little rebound in you step. There is so much that you vex, but there are also a portion of items you do not challenge to throw on.Sexy Lingerie wholesale http://www.lovefantasys.com/Sexy-Lingerie-wholesale.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted July 20, 2010 at 9:17 am


et unlikely clitoral stimulation with the Fruitful Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you utilize the bunny ears more than the verified rabbit vibrator this fucking kickshaw is for you.
The vivid Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the stanchion so it is exquisite in return clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the normal bunny ears and has its extraordinarily own sturdy vibrating bullet so your clit will leave a mark on all the r?lame it needs.
Good rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to act away to one winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are probe alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:14 am


et queer clitoral stimulation with the Graphic Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you play the bunny ears more than the existent rabbit vibrator this sex toy is in place of you.
The vivid Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the shaft so it is fully realized in the service of clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the universal bunny ears and has its entirely own weighty vibrating bullet so your clit will leave a mark on all the r?lame it needs.
Good rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to give away to joined winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are mother-lode alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



report abuse
 

Madoacino

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:39 am


et queer clitoral stimulation with the Fruitful Bunny rabbit vibrator. If you utilize the bunny ears more than the verified rabbit vibrator this intimacy toy is in behalf of you.
The vivid Bunny is a rabbit vibrator rabbit vibrator without the shaft so it is improve in return clitoral stimulation. It is larger than the orthodox bunny ears and has its very own weighty vibrating bullet so your clit pass on get all the attention it needs.
Flattering rabbit vibrator Vibrations provided me with the Aqua Rabbit Vibrator to give away to whole winner. No other compensation was offered and opinions expressed are probe alone rabbit vibrator . http://www.lovefantasys.com/rabbit-vibrator.html



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.