Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Supreme Court and Protecting the Rights of ALL Students

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

I’m glad you brought up this soon-to-be-argued controversy.

Americans United has also joined in on this case, filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of University of California, Hastings College of Law for their commitment to stand up against discrimination.

The case was originally brought by the Christian Legal Society (CLS) after the law school denied funding and official recognition to the organization. UC-Hastings requires that student groups remain open to all students in order to receive university funding and recognition. CLS refuses to abide by that policy and requires all of its members to sign an evangelical statement of faith, while barring membership to students who engage in “unrepentant homosexual conduct.”

In 2004, the school told the society it could not make an exception to its discrimination policy, but that “if CLS wishes to form independent of Hastings, [the university] would be pleased to provide the organization the use of Hastings facilities for its meetings and activities.”

As you can see, the school didn’t single out CLS for its beliefs, but rather, asked that the group abide by the same rules that all groups on campus must and do follow.


UC-Hastings seems more than fair in its decision. After all, if the
school gave CLS an exemption from following the non-discrimination
policy, wouldn’t that be extending a special privilege to this
particular religious group that no other student organization has?  

It seems, however, that “special privileges” for certain religious
organizations is the trend these days.  This case is not, as you
claimed, about protecting “the constitutional rights of religious
groups to set membership and leadership criteria according to the
dictates of their religious beliefs.” Those rights are already
protected. Rather, both you and I know at the heart of this case is the
issue of public funding of faith-based groups. CLS, like many other
faith-based groups, wants to take public funds and be able to
discriminate and proselytize, too.

That’s what you would like to see happen. You argue that
non-discrimination policies only apply to the government, which cannot
turn around and impose those same policies on private groups like CLS.

I beg to differ. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue, and
Americans United cites this in its brief. Though “the Constitution my
compel toleration of private discrimination in some circumstances does
not mean it requires state support for such discrimination.” Norwood v.
Harrison

In fact, the Supreme Court has said “it is beyond dispute that any
public entity, state or federal, has a compelling interest in assuring
that public dollars…do not serve to finance the evil of private
prejudice.” City of Richmond v. J .A. Croson Co.

That leads me to this simple question: Why should students be required to fund the “private prejudices” of CLS?

No other student group expects this. A current student leader from
UC-Hastings’ Jewish Law Students Association (HJLSA) said her group
accepts and welcomes students from all faith backgrounds. She
said the university doesn’t “force” them to admit students of other
faiths; it’s merely a choice of whether the group wants university
recognition and funds, or not.

In fact, HJLSA only accepts school funding to carry out its secular
activities. The group does not even use school funds for religious
events. Instead, to pay for religious activities, such as Shabbat
dinners, HJLSA relies on donations from alumni and collaboration with
the local Hillel. But the group chooses to invite all students from
different backgrounds to share in religious events.

That’s how it should be done. What I want to know is why CLS thinks
it’s above and beyond following a basic non-discrimination policy that
has been applied neutrally to all student groups – religious or not -
across the board.

I’d like to hear your answers to my questions, and I hope we can continue discussing this very important case.

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(91)
post a comment
RIch

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:27 pm


Rev. Lynn is exactly right.
I worry about this case due to the current makeup of the Supreme Court. I can easily envision Scalia and the other Catholics on the court siding with CLS, in effect forcing the taxpayer to fund a religious organization. Clearly, society at large should not be required to fund discriminatory groups. If a student group wanted to form a KKK club and restrict membership to caucasians only, no one would even for a nanosecond suggest that such a group should be eligible for public funding. Yet CLS believes it entitled to anything it wants because it is religious in nature. CLS also believes that they have the right to pick your pocket to provide them the financial means to do as they wish.
If this case is decided wrongly and Hastings is required to fund discriminatory clubs the school should immediately cancel all student group funding rather that contribute even in the smallest way to this kind of antiquated religious bigotry.



report abuse
 

Kyle B

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:40 pm


I have to hand it to the good Rev. Lynn this is exactly what this issue is about and to see it framed any other way would be a gross misinterpretation to the facts of the case.
Case in point the representative for the Jewish group:
“A current student leader from UC-Hastings’ Jewish Law Students Association (HJLSA) said her group accepts and welcomes students from all faith backgrounds. She said the university doesn’t “force” them to admit students of other faiths; it’s merely a choice of whether the group wants university recognition and funds, or not.”
As I have said before the case is open and shut, there shouldn’t even be one iota of doubt that what the CLS is doing in this case is wrong and they should not be rewarded for their behavior.
Also to Rich, I doubt we’d have to worry about the Supreme Court on this issue. Even those who would lean towards the right and are religious can’t deny that this isn’t even an issue. If every other club religious or otherwise adheres to the policy and this one group is not on the grounds that it is a religious club. Then in the end said group has no actual legs to stand on.



report abuse
 

Jerry Miller

posted April 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm


Not only is UC NOT singling out CLS with its perfectly rational policy, but CLS apparently IS singling out “unrepentant homosexuals” and not unrepentant usurers, bigots, and the like!



report abuse
 

Ben

posted April 1, 2010 at 5:14 pm


Excluding nonrepentent homosexuals is not “discrimination” per se. It is a code of conduct.
Unfortunately, the term “non-discrimination” has become a code word for the suppression of religious liberties guaranteed under the First Amendment. The fact that the good reverend doesn’t see it that way makes me suspect of his church. It’s unfortunate to see the word abused in such a manner as to cheapen it for actual victims of discrimination.
“But this is a state funded school!”
Yeah? And? That makes the free exercise of religion all the more strong. Free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion are not moot at state funded schools.
By the way, public universities discriminate by race all the time. Mine did. It was called affirmative action.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 1, 2010 at 5:39 pm


what christian organization is being funded by the government and why?
past kkk people murdered people…..



report abuse
 

Kyle B

posted April 1, 2010 at 5:47 pm


Here you go Ben, since you seem to have an issue with the definition of discrimination I thought I would help you with the dictionary.
dis·crim·i·na·tion
? ?/d??skr?m??ne???n/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or *making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit*: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
The example even has a part which states religious DISCRIMINATION just in case it wasn’t clear enough for you.



report abuse
 

Stewart

posted April 1, 2010 at 6:24 pm


Ben, what religious liberty is being “suppressed”? They are still free to practice their religion as they see fit; including discriminating against anybody they wish., What they are not being allowed to do is use student fees (paid by ALL students) and tax moneys to do so. That is only right just as an Satanic group would not be allowed to get state and student funding while banning the participation of Christians.
Any time you feel that Christians are being denied a fair shake, change the word Christian to Satanist and see if you would come to the same decision as to their rights and freedoms.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 1, 2010 at 8:07 pm


Your Name,
re: “past kkk people murdered people…..”
Indeed they did. Not sure what your point is though. I am guessing that you are suggesting that any group that has a prior history of killing innocent people should never be given official club status at any college.
Good rule! I like it! It solves the problem at hand real well. No more Christian clubs!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm


Ben,
re: “nonrepentent homosexuals”
Well, that might be your first problem, homosexuality is a permanent thing, just like heterosexuality.
You further equate vigilance against “non-discrimination” as a tool to discriminate against religious folks. I am confused, you seem to think groups should be able to discriminate against groups of people yet you complain about a secular government discriminating against discriminatory religious groups. Go figure.
As well, it is not freedom of religion when I have to pay for someone else’s religion. You make think it freedom, I consider it enslavement to religious cults.
Besides that, it is just plain rude for religious people to stand there with their hand out, impatiently tapping their foot, insisting that I open my wallet and hand over some money. The bottom line is, pay for this junk yourself!



report abuse
 

Frank

posted April 1, 2010 at 11:03 pm


Will the government fund campus gay organizations that refuse to admit unrepentant Christians?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 1, 2010 at 11:33 pm


Frank,
No, they would not. Discrimination based upon religious convictions would not be supported.
Here is a link to a UC Hastings web page showing the available student organizations. Please note at the very bottom of the page is the statement that all clubs are open to ALL students, not just certain students deemed worthy by some snotty christian kids.
Also, on the right hand side are some links to setting up student organizations. The Bylaws model link clearly contains statements indicating discrimination upon prohibited bases (race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation) will not be allowed. As well, this document continues on to state that “This nondiscrimination policy covers admissions, access and treatment in Hastings- sponsored programs and activities.” CLS is just plain wrong.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:01 pm


Somebody says:
But this is a state funded school!
Ben aks:
Yeah? And? That makes the free exercise of religion all the more strong.
Mr. Incredible says:
Does subsidizing CLS trump First Amendment “worship Rights”?? Of course not. Just as the jpro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice crowd thinks that an international group’s abortion practices shouldn’t stop US funding of their organizations. The First Amendment is the First Amendment, and that rules.
Ben says:
Free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion are not moot at state funded schools.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, I made your point before I read that. You make the point so easy to understand.
Ben says:
By the way, public universities discriminate by race all the time. Mine did. It was called affirmative action.
Mr. Incredible says:
Excellent point! Excellent.
Affirmative action is also “racial, sexual and ethnic profiling.”
And, by the way, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, an Obammy Regime hack, says “profiling” is ok. Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe “the Toughest Sheriff in the Country” Arpaio will be pleased to hear that, given all the trouble the Left nut racists, sexists and ethnists are tryin’ to give him.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:04 pm


Yes, how will campus organizations consiting of those who claim to be homosexual treat Christians who are to be allowed in those groups? Will Christians be allowed to evangelize them? You gotta better chance of Babbling Boris becomin’ the pope.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm


Rich says:
…it is not freedom of religion when I have to pay for someone else’s religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re not. The United States, as an entity, itself, subsidizes certain groups. You wanna deny Christian groups subsidies, based on “religion.” That’s a violation of the so-called “separation of Chruch and State.”



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:10 pm


hey,if they want to have the hotdog and beans club they can…so if somebody else wants the saled club and doesn’t want the hotdog club, they can go have their own salad club somewhere else…would this be discriminating against the hotdog and bean club if they didn’t want salads to join in the party of food…no, it would be just part of the requirements or occlusions…like a dress code…shoes and shirts…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:51 pm


ow rich, christians are not supposed to murder,,,,,remember,,,,,thou shalt not kill…….good rule…..needs to be followed in the government clubs……good rule, i like that one…….c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm


no rich, homosexuality is not a permanent thing….it is a verb…a description of a person or an action…actions, can be changed and so can descriptions of individuals……c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 3, 2010 at 6:02 pm


Happy Resurrection Day! heart,c
Mark 28
5
But the angel answered and said to the women, ” Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jeus who was crucified.
6

He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7
” And go quickly and tell His disciples that he is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8
So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
9
And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jeus met them, saying, ” Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.
10
Then Jesus said to them, ” Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
good tidings of joy to all…………c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 3, 2010 at 6:10 pm


JESUS-The personal name of the One whose title gave its name to the Christian religion. Since”Jesus” was a fairly common name in the first century, distinguishing phrases were used when referring to Him(Jesus of Nazareth; Jesus, Son of David; Christ Jesus; the Messiah Jesus; and Jesus Christ) The four Gospels detail His life and ministry: birth (Mathew 1: 18-25) ……..c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 3, 2010 at 6:17 pm


That was Mathew 28 : 5-10
————-
5
But the angel answered and said to the women, ” Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
9
And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them saying , ” Rejoice! ” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.
Correction-headache again….rest….c



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 4, 2010 at 3:49 am


…the changeable choice, originating in the sin nature, to claim to go with the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option, and to act out that claim choice



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 5, 2010 at 1:44 am


Cara,
Homosexuality is a verb! Good grief!
Quite frankly it saddens me that you make these pathetic pronouncements, your attitude and, quite likely, any action you take in your life based upon such stupidity actually end up hurting people. Your ignorance is astounding.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 5, 2010 at 1:45 am


Mr. Incredible,
re: “originating in the sin nature”
Another meaningless statement by an unrepentant ignorant Christian.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 2:44 am


Rich
Mr. Incredible,
re: “originating in the sin nature”
Another meaningless statement by an unrepentant ignorant Christian.
Mr Incredible says:
“Meaningless” to just another, insignificant scoffer.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 2:47 am


Rich says:
Cara,
…you make these pathetic pronouncements, your attitude and, quite likely, any action you take in your life based upon such stupidity actually end up hurting people.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which people? Oh, those who wanna do what they wanna do and who want everybody to go along with what they wanna do no matter what it is? Gee, that’s too bad.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:53 am


Yes, homosexuality originates in and resides in the sin nature, not the Godly nature. Since, thanks to Adam and Eve, we are all conceived in iniquity and born in sin, and that’s why, to those who claim to be homosexual, homosexuality seems so normal.
Cuz-a Adam and Eve, we must be born again, and, when born again, we kick the sin nature to the curb.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 5, 2010 at 4:05 am


Mr. Incredible says:
…the changeable choice, originating in the sin nature, to claim to go with the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option, and to act out that claim choice
Rich says:
re: “originating in the sin nature”
Another meaningless statement by an unrepentant ignorant Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
Your statement is straight out of the homosexual training manual.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 5, 2010 at 9:56 am


Wow. Christians have to be the largest collection of dolts on the planet. The whole original sin concept is beyond childish, I would have to say that it even rivals Mormon theology for stupidity.
Let’s see, it works like this:
A talking snake convinces a woman to eat from the tree of knowledge. Yeah, that does sound pretty bad. So, God, in a childish tantrum burdens everyone with original sin, life ain’t perfect anymore. Bummer. But there is a way to fix all this up, God sends down his kid (really himself) and if the humans just nail him to a chunk of wood it will all be better.
Jeez, comic books have better writing than that stuff.



report abuse
 

anon

posted April 5, 2010 at 11:46 am


Rich (4/5 – 9:56am), I couldn’t agree with you more!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 11:47 am


Rich, you can’t possibly believe everything you hear or see. Come on man, air is nothing more than an invisible force that we can’t see that just so happens to shape the world we live in. Just think about it, an invisible God actually loving us enough to save us from…watch out now…Hell!
If i’m right I gain everything. If I’m wrong I would lose nothing. You will lose everything if your wrong. Please my friend, search your heart and listen for God. He is everywhere…invisible like the air, but more powerful than the mightiest hurricane.



report abuse
 

House

posted April 5, 2010 at 11:49 am


Call me House. I wrote the last post.



report abuse
 

chall8987

posted April 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm


House,
Your theology of salvation is nothing more than intimidation. “Join me or else you’ll be punished.” Luckily, not all Christians spout such dribble. many Christians recognize that grace can and does operate outside of the church. They also recognize that if their faith is misrepresented by people within the church, then those who reject the misrepresentation cannot really be blamed.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm


rich,
i didn’t say it was only a verb….
your ignorance is what rich?
it doesn’t take much to figure out what is appropriate to where you put your sexual organ………hurtful…you are hurting yourself by thinking that a homosexual relationship is not sin…know if you don’t believe in sin or a black or white issue, or wrong or right, then i don’t know what to tell you…i understand when your feelings get involved and your body responds to the relationship by way of touch….our bodies have physical sensations when touched…so you can have that type of relationship with the other sex…so the excuse as that it is a permanent thing is that, an excuse…..i believe we were designed and we all know how the parts are supposed to be put together….so ignorance..i think not…..and you?
you can love people without having a sexual relationship of the same sex….no lies, no moral corruption, just loving people…
verb-the part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence in most languages. any of the words belonging to this part of speech , asbe, run, or conceive.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm


as
be
get it rich…
you don’t have to be as a homosexual or be one…..
that is the point….c
of course if you think that sin is laughable..well then…i will leave you with your own thoughts…..i will not convince you otherwise, if that is what you want to believe…?
the question is who is your leader, is it man or God?
the ideas of man can be in -line with God or not in-line with God?
of course if you believe there is no God and you created yourself by way of evolved thought process of some imaginary source, well sounds a bit acid trippy to me….c who created you, rich?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm


re: challenge8987
people misrepresent people all the time…fragments of phrases or interpretation…yes there is grace, but it does not mean that you are supposed to sin…sin, and more sin… and then just think that there is not consequences for your actions…..we all know there is cause and effect…i just see alot of hypocrisy within the Church, meaning they stand and go to church without any reflection of the character of God….don’t get me wrong, i also see allot of people being the hands and feet of the body of Christ, an active part of the church by way of ministering however they serve God……..c



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm


House,
Sounds like you would try the ol’ Pascal’s Wager deal. Sorry but that is a sorry piece of sophomoric simplistic philosophy that wouldn’t even satisfy the intellectual demands of Paris Hilton.
Here is the deal: Pascal said there were only two possibilities, the 1st that there is a god, the 2nd that there is no god. In each possibility a person can do one of two things, believe or not believe. On the “no god” path, it really doesn’t matter what you do. On the “god exists” path, believing is rewarded, disbelief is punished. So of the total of 4 outcomes, 1 is good, 1 is very bad and 2 are irrelevant. Given those odds, it makes sense to believe.
Now, here is what you need to understand. The idea that there are only 2 possibilities is really quite moronic. Only two? What about multiple gods? What about a god who doesn’t want you to believe because there is not enough evidence to drive belief, you know a god who wants you to use your brain? What about a god who just plain doesn’t care? What about a god who only rewards Muslims? or Jews? If you play with this paradigm, you can create a nearly infinite number of possibilities and, while appealing, Pascal’s Wager fails as a valid decision making tool. Sorry.
Now you can contest all this and slip back into an arrogant and overly-prideful attitude that you know the mind of God, but we all know that no human can speak for God were one to exist. Perhaps you think that you are qualified to do so.
Your idea that if you are wrong you lose nothing is really silly. What about a god who will condemn you for not believing exactly as he wants you do? Let’s say he want’s you to be a Scientologist, a Mormon or a Buddhist. They odds are equal for all.
Basically, Pascal’s Wager is about as good of a philosophical gambit as the comic book it seeks to defend.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm


Cara,
If you think there is a creator of the universe who even cares when the genitalia of two insignificant individuals of one particular species on one particularly insignificant planet come into contact, at the least, you have a wonderful imagination.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:49 pm


rich,
who says that God sees me as insignificant?
is that how you think God sees you?
who says that He sees the world as insignificant?
obviously, you do…..it is the do with whatever religion…right rich…..? what a moral and ethical society you want us to become….great people don’t stand for causes of elevating nothing as moral and just character, great people stand for loving people,,,,not pulling them down in the mirror of worthless idividuality or lack of self-control…people can have allot of knowledge, but absolutely no wisdom….wisdom comes from God….if you feel that God does not punish or have consequences for what He feels is wrong…then you are what you are…you have put yourself as your own god or enlightenment…as far as other beliefs of who God is , when not mentioning the God of the Bible as their God, well the bible tells the beginning, to the end of life as you know it…to the future…with accuracy of events and places of centuries of people before your time…the people written in the Bible are accurate….that is the point…more then your fragments of phylosophies or political views could ever be…for they are the truth, not a misguided representation of moral and ethical corruption……i call that a hardening of the heart….c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm


anon,
what are you agreeing with….?
that is a blank statement…
c



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 5, 2010 at 3:53 pm


Cara,
Your words are just meaningless nonsense. Write less, think more.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 5, 2010 at 4:27 pm


“If i’m right I gain everything. If I’m wrong I would lose nothing.”
Well, perhaps. If you are wrong, and the correct answer was Islam, you are punished in whatever their version of hell is. Likewise if the correct answer is Jehovah Witness, or Latter Day Saints.
To be quite honest, the odds are much better for a person who really doesn’t care one way or another about deity and just lives a decent life among the humans here on this planet. From my brief investigation that will get you into some version of heaven in well over 80% of the possible religious answers.
Not a bad bet. Live a decent life, treat others well, and you have a 4 in 5 chance of being rewarded in the afterlife…if there is an afterlife.
Pascal, fine fellow he was, clearly didn’t realize how many options were available to him.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 8:16 pm


rich,
that’s it, stupid is as stupid does…..
meaningless nonsense….
try not putting your part in the wrong place and holding off until marriage..
yes, things of God are meaningless to a person with a hardened heart who does not give to others and believes his views are the highest form…..so i think i will write more….so i can look at your post and realize allot about yourself rich….so it is what it is….maybe you could go take a shower and clean yourself up….the only problem with cleaning only physically is that it leaves your spirit still dirty…..you ought to be realy dirty by now….so….get some good soap….and ask God what He thinks of your cleanliness methods? no soap and water could ever clean the filth away from your immoral and corrupt spirit…. nice try though… i wonder if God feels like i do when i reach out to people and they stab you in the back and act like your a worthless peace of trash……..that
is when you leave them alone to their own thoughts of their own sinful nature, and let go of someone who doesn’t want salvation from the Lord, he wants his own will to be done…….
that is man for you….
dark, corrupt, and selfish….the flesh….c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 8:23 pm


re: hivenburen
i get it, the whatever religion…the only problem with that theory is, if there is a hell, which i believe there is one, then you would be out of luck. even if the odds of believing in 4 out of the 5 faiths , it wouldn’t help you, if, it was the 5th faith that you denied and you ended up in hell for not excepting a free gift….which is love from a loving God who came into the world to save you…..c that’s just it, He died to save you from the punishment from your own sinful nature…which your sinful nature, is really just a cause in effect reality , beacause there is deving consequences for every action….heart c no need to write back the choice is yours…it is not something i feel that i need to beat you over the head with…you either love God or you don’t…if you don’t understand who He is, then ask Him to reveal himself to you and prove who he is…and He will….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 5, 2010 at 8:46 pm


how is your house and your car coming along? thanks for your help.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 5, 2010 at 9:33 pm


Cara,
re: “try not putting your part in the wrong place and holding off until marriage..”
My wife of 35 years finds your advice rather amusing.
You do sound as though you are an expert on sexual relationships, perhaps you can write an advice column.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 2:31 pm


good Rich, glad to here it….
if people get any use out of my blogs that’s what they are advice…
if people do not get use out of my blogs, then they are what they are…
i support marriage….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 2:41 pm


or should i write, glad to read it….
that is why i did not sign my divorce papers…
i found them to be a death certificate…….turns out, i was right……
married for almost 14 years with three kids………almost half of my life blown up in smoke…i suppose that is how allot of people feel after a divorce occurred….death of a family, death of a dream, death of a spouse…so this notion as if the people just go on and don’t feel a thing…is a bunch of garbage…for they are still living…just with other people…..it’s like your spouse died, but you still get to see their bodies, only this time, they are with somebody else and they are not afraid to show you so…..they are what they are and that is why i am not with him…..c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 3:26 pm


what’s the matter you only like thing which represent you in a certain light, when meanwhile your stabbing me in the back publically…..did you get enough money….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm


what are the things you like…? yes i know that last post had some mistakes in it…only because the previous three that i wrote told exactly what i thought and why, what’s the matter, you don’t like the truth about yourself…..selfish people go after what they want, only to get what they want, not caring about how it effects others and their life…
superficiality? materialistic, ego-centered individuals?
good job…you made the world , more of what it is and ruined a relationship of what i thought was something ……..it was nothing, only an illusion….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 3:34 pm


the end………



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 4:12 pm


Freedom of religion was originally intended to allow people to preach and follow the Gospel as they saw fit. Therefore, allowing a Christian group to exclude members who do not believe in their interpretation of the Bible (including the fact that they believe the Bible explicitly states homosexuality is a sin) would fit naturally within their rights of freedom of religion.
As many people brought up in the funding of abortion debate, there are all kinds of laws that force people to pay for things they find morally abhorrent, even if that includes “discriminating” against homosexuals.
Actually, the university is treating this group differently. A group is by definition a collection of like-minded people organizing to advance a particular cause. Clearly people with liberal and conservative interpretations of the Bible are not like-minded. Why should the university be allowed to discontinue funding to certain groups and not others, simply based on the point-of-view and purpose of the group?
Finally, homosexuality is a behavior, and not a physical attribute in the same category as race or gender. Notice the group is not telling people with homosexual dispositions they cannot join, only those who are practicing homosexuals. Thus, they are not singling a group of people out based only on their natural tendencies, but on their lifestyle choices.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted April 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm


Your Name
April 6, 2010 4:12 PM
said:
Finally, homosexuality is a behavior, and not a physical attribute in the same category as race or gender. Notice the group is not telling people with homosexual dispositions they cannot join, only those who are practicing homosexuals. Thus, they are not singling a group of people out based only on their natural tendencies, but on their lifestyle choices.
endquote
Your Name, virtually the entire scientific and medical communities – all the recognized bodies of psychologists and psychiatrists, every civilized country except for the US disagree with you.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it is an unchangeable sexual orientation. There have been countless discussions through the years on beliefnet about this with the rational among us offering literally hundreds of scientifically valid studies showing this. The results are always the same: The hateful conservative Christians reject the reality of the natural world God has created because recognizing reality would mean you couldn’t justify your hatred any longer.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm


Cara,
You could not be more wrong, our Constitution prohibits aid to religion. Remember that amendment that says something about the fact that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Now that I think about it, you probably don’t remember that. Congress would have to pass a law, in this case a budget bill, that would direct funds to a religion. Any funding of a religion, in this case generic christian cultism, would have the effect of establishing that religion, again generic christian cultism.
You know what is funny though. You yammered on about how we are sometimes forced to pay for things that we find morally abhorrent. One would think that you were saying that as taxpayers we have to accept that our funds will go to provide services we don’t support. Yet, you are obviously one of those who would go insane if federal funds were used to pay for abortions.
So which is it? Should we tolerate our money supporting things we don’t want or not? Or, perhaps the real issue is that you think only Cara gets to block money to things Cara doesn’t like. What a dishonest and blatant hypocrite you are! The good thing is that your ongoing and incessant dishonesty makes it easy to identify you as a Christian cultist.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 6, 2010 at 5:03 pm


Cara,
You could not be more wrong, our Constitution prohibits aid to religion. Remember that amendment that says something about the fact that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Now that I think about it, you probably don’t remember that. Congress would have to pass a law, in this case a budget bill, that would direct funds to a religion. Any funding of a religion, in this case generic christian cultism, would have the effect of establishing that religion, again generic christian cultism.
You know what is funny though. You yammered on about how we are sometimes forced to pay for things that we find morally abhorrent. One would think that you were saying that as taxpayers we have to accept that our funds will go to provide services we don’t support. Yet, you are obviously one of those who would go insane if federal funds were used to pay for abortions.
So which is it? Should we tolerate our money supporting things we don’t want or not? Or, perhaps the real issue is that you think only Cara gets to block money to things Cara doesn’t like. What a dishonest and blatant hypocrite you are! The good thing is that your ongoing and incessant dishonesty makes it easy to identify you as a Christian cultist.



report abuse
 

Glen F

posted April 6, 2010 at 5:08 pm


It does not matter whether the club was a religious based one or not. The University has a policy of NO DISCRIMINATION. PERIOD. It wouldn’t matter if the Cat Lovers Club screened out dog lovers. They would be equally subject to the same policy.
This day and age many religious organizations feel that they are above reproach on an issue or the law. Here is a case where there is rule that is designed to prevent discrimination, but it does not restrict clubs from organizing if they are willing to accept the rules. If they are not willing to follow the rules they suffer the consequences.
This club has a choice. To not limit membership or to move off campus if they are to limit membership.
Unless Jay is awfully long winded, this case should wrap up within a few minutes. They have a choice. Period. Violate a university rule and be kicked out, or follow the rule, and remain.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm


Cara: “…there are all kinds of laws that force people to pay for things they find morally abhorrent…”
That is because people can find all sorts of things to be morally abhorrent. Regardless, the question of legality applies.
Cara: “Freedom of religion was originally intended to allow people to preach and follow the Gospel as they saw fit. Therefore, allowing a Christian group to exclude members who do not believe in their interpretation of the Bible (including the fact that they believe the Bible explicitly states homosexuality is a sin) would fit naturally within their rights of freedom of religion.”
Yes it would, but it wouldn’t make it legal to expend public funds in support of religion. It simply isn’t allowed. Not because of any finding of moral turpitude, but because government is prohibited from financing religion. Appropriations of public treasure require force of law, but Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Believe whatever you like, exclude others from your gang based upon those beliefs, fine, but don’t expect me to pay you for it! It’s illegal to force me to do so.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 7:36 pm


I will assume I am ‘Cara’, even though my post came up as ‘Your Name’.
Can anyone point me to where in the constitution it says ‘the government shall provide no aid for religion’?
If I remember correctly, the first amendment, which is what just about everyone here is refering to, refers to what the FEDERAL gov’t cannot do, and that includes prohibiting the free expression of religion.
So if you found a liberal judge and you are deriving your argument from the first amendment, you could make a weak case for stopping federal funds from going to this group. But you would have no case to block state or general alumni funds. Those would be separate cases and arguments, depending on the state’s constitution.
Also, here’s some actual objective, noncontroversial science for you. It is a biological fact that sexuality is for the production of offspring and that only a man and a woman can achieve this. I know that’s hate speech, but I can’t change the natural world. The idea of defining oneself by his or her sexual orientation is an ideological position, and the idea of not ‘discriminating’ based on this position is a moral claim. Call it a worldview, call it ideology, call it religion, whatever, but admit that’s what it is. What’s really at issue here is if the university can put a policy in place that clearly sides with secularism and liberal Judeo-Christianity. That, my friends, is an establishment of religion.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm


Cara,
You need to review the 14th Amendment, Section 1 where is states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.
The Supreme Court, using the 14th Amendment as a tool, has extended the reach of various amendments to the states. They have extended these protections for citizens (or limitations of governmental power) in a piecemeal manner. They have not extended every Bill or Right protection at this time, they can only do so a relevant cases have been brought before the court and decided. However, all clauses within the 1st Amendment has been fully extended at this time.
So, had the 14th Amendment never been enacted, you would have been right about the 1st Amendment only applying to the federal government. Thankfully, states, counties and cities are now required to live within the restrictions of the 1st. (By applying your logic and misconception, you would have thought that the local municipality could have legally prevented you from going to church. Please tell me you didn’t think that.)



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 6, 2010 at 8:29 pm


Your Name April 6, 2010 7:36 PM
“It is a biological fact that sexuality is for the production of offspring and that only a man and a woman can achieve this.”
Sexuality: the state or quality of being sexual, interest and concern with sex. Sex: either of two divisions male/female, character and distinguishing attributes of each division, anything connected with sexual gratification or reproduction or the urge for these, sexual intercourse.
Sex, an often engaged in exercise more often for recreation, gratification, than for procreation involves individuals or multiple individuals between, and within, divisions.
As for the application of the first amendment, you might be right if the school accepts no federal funds. If it is subsidized by the federal government, then such funding would be forfeit. Even without federal funding being an issue, as Glen F pointed out, the school has a right to maintain their stated policy.
Sorry if I mistook a post of yours as one of Cara’s. Really, really, sorry.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 6, 2010 at 8:36 pm


Cara,
Re: “It is a biological fact that sexuality is for the production of offspring”
Another glaring error on your part. Sorry, but not all sexuality is for having babies. Have you stopped to ponder the number of women who are naturally infertile? They have sex you know but will never get pregnant. Same for naturally infertile men, they will have sex but never father any offspring.
Indeed, humans are designed to desire sex to insure that our species continues. That doesn’t mean that is the only valid use of sex. Another legitimate use of sex is simply for pure enjoyment. (You do know that we do things for fun don’t you? Well, at least some of us anyway.) Our ears were designed to hear the sounds in the natural world so that we could protect ourselves. That certainly doesn’t mean we can’t use them to enjoy music. (Please tell me that you don’t think listening to music is a sin.) The same logic applies to your ears, nose, etc.
I keep telling you to think more and write less. Please!



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 6, 2010 at 8:49 pm


Rich: “…So, had the 14th Amendment never been enacted, you would have been right about the 1st Amendment only applying to the federal government. Thankfully, states, counties and cities are now required to live within the restrictions of the 1st.”
Hey Rich, that is a tasty tidbit to chew on, thanks.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted April 7, 2010 at 7:55 am


Cara,
That is not hate speech, though you obviously are using this false logic to justify your hatred towards me and other gay and transgender people.
If reproduction were the sole purpose for sexual attraction, it would be either asexual or limited by nature to exactly one single, solitary fashion. Instead, sex is a wonderful gift which enables two people – regardless of their respective genders – to bond and unite in love.
All these absurd arguments made on the basis of “natural law” begin with the flawed premise that sex can and may only have the one function of reproduction.
Let’s see. While my husband and I have more than a quarter of a century of loving, monogamous partnership you conservative Christians are presenting the world with one horror after the other – the number of victims is beyond count.
Boys and girls, though, of course, all you conservative Christians care about is the boys – and that only because you think it somehow makes it ‘homosexual’ when a male child of 12 is raped by a Catholic priest as opposed to a child of 11).
Funny, the very argument you perverted conservative Christians make in your hatred to defend your hateful church of rapists and abusers directly violates the whole premise of your argument.
God is not going to smile upon your efforts to impose your hatred on us. Nor is He well pleased by the way you conservative Christians have raped and abused countless children.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 7, 2010 at 2:23 pm


blah blah blah
—————-
freedom of religion
freedom of press
protect the unborn children because they are our Posterity, constitutional rights………
that is the point…..c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm


rich my words are not meaningless, i will not write to abusers who don’t take accountability….c



report abuse
 

My name

posted April 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm


“rich… i will not write to abusers who don’t take accountability….c”
Take that Rich, you bee-otch, if you’re with the Catholic church – ‘c’ won’t write to you!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 7, 2010 at 9:38 pm


Cara,
I am crushed. This is sort of like the man I see downtown, talking to himself while he counts the bricks in the sidewalk, refusing to talk to me.
Oh dear, how will I ever make it through this tragedy? It will take a lot of time to recover from this.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 7, 2010 at 9:39 pm


Actually, I am all better know.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 8, 2010 at 3:43 pm


…………you are what you are Rich, so your counting bricks on the sidewalk….no time, no time for you…..tradedy strikes the best of families worldwide, when consistantly confronted with the worse kind of individuals of darkness, how sad life has become, full of such strife and envy to the point of sick individuals who think only of themselves and hurting others……your not rich in the soul rich….too bad i thought everybody had the potencial to turn around and make something of their life, i was wrong, some people like going down the drain and pulling everybody with them…..their souls are full of darkness and pain, thus indicating the reasoning behind the slanderous abusive behaviour they inflict………………i would wrather be on an island with an inflatable volleyball named wilson, then ever meet you rich….c
i’m surprised you don’t have some big blow up doll named Theresa, who will never disagree with you rich, that way you can think your always right….they are your own kind, based on non-fiction and make believe identities with no real reasoning behind them….enjoy your twilight zone rich………zzzzzzz



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm


hopefully your rest was ok and you realized the true meaning of life.
it is not to get everything for yourself, as i know you don’t…..for we came for a purpose…to love one another…and i know you do…..c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 10, 2010 at 4:43 pm


great ball game…..c



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted April 15, 2010 at 8:59 am


How impressed I am with Ayesha Khan! Wow!
But, here is another case where I do not join in praising the Emperor’s constitutionally endangered clothes, this one not being as absurd to me as the Cross in the Desert.
After watching four articulate lawyers debate the arguments and points of view I feel that when the case gets to the floor of the court on 19 April 2010 it should be argued by opposing Clinical Psychologists. It wants renaming as “Onward Christian Soldiers vs Evil Doers Everywhere”.
Two factors laid this egg. The first is the sham martyrdom, but genuine paranoia, of the Christian Right, who has never gotten over the precipitous loss of a communist bogeyman-adversary. “He’s GONE,” they peep in alarm. The second is the self image of Knighthood that essentially identifies the Christian Law Society – a branch of which is at the Hastings law school. To =not= create this legal challenge would make them appear to the National as wusses. The result is the stadium scene from =Life Of Brian= where transvestite Eric Idle insists that men deserve an equal right to have babies. I regard laughter as the only valid response to this playpen fight.
What’s not funny is that SCOTUS granted cert. The legal consequences of the court’s decision will pale compared to the possible social consequences. The decision – if seen as answering a threat to Christianity – could be like striking a match to be placed in one of two tanks of gasoline of different sizes. – - And, in passing, I predict that if ROE is ever overturned by those moralists blindly determined to do so, it will be like detonating a hydrogen bomb.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 15, 2010 at 2:02 pm


ow trylon,
you thing that people who want to turn Roe vs. Wade over and make it an illegal activity are moralist blindly…..
so you think saving the unborn children and protecting their lives is a moral and blind activity…..
looks a bit corrupt in thinking pattern i might add…
try trying to protect babies, instead of killing them through various activities of slanderous abusive name calling world wide…..
babies are babies, and killers are killers…..
that is the point…c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm


as far as all the other post which state that homosexual activity is a permanent condition and that it is not a choice by psychological testing, however they do it through cat scans and what not….
i am not stating that there is not a brain alteration which takes place when people choose the homosexual lifestyle, which i believe in doing so does give them more homosexual thoughts….of course. i do not feel however that this is a permanent thing…..i do believe that people can be attracted to the opposite sex and carry out those feelings emotionally and physically despite the fact if they once had homosexual activities or had once thought of themselves as a homosexual permanancy.
cc
i do



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm


i do stands for the belief that we are to be with a person of the opposite sex, hence our design….i do not feel however that our bodies were designed only for procreation and then the alternative lifestyle of homosexual activities alter those conditions…meaning it is obvious how god designed us and how he wants us sexually to fit together….not to mention his word and what he says about it…
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 15, 2010 at 2:13 pm


i do believe wholeheartedly in the union of two becoming one…hence marriage….
a lady and a man….becoming one flesh…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm


think again trylon, instead of using your things to corrupt moral society with slanderous abusive writings to approve of murdering people………cc
think-to have or formulate in the mind.
thing-an entity , idea, or quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 6:58 am


panthera says:
Cara,
That is not hate speech, though you obviously are using this false logic to justify your hatred towards me and other gay and transgender people.
Mr. Incredible says:
Ours is not hate speech, either, though you obviously are using this false logic to justify your hatred towards us and other straights. Why are you so heterophobic?
panthera says:
If reproduction were the sole purpose for sexual attraction, it would be either asexual or limited by nature to exactly one single, solitary fashion.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who says?
panthera says:
Instead, sex is a wonderful gift…
Mr. Incredible asks:
A gift from whom?
panthera says:
… which enables two people…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, a man and a woman are two persons.
panthera says:
… – regardless of their respective genders – …
Mr. Incredible says:
There is where you go off the tracks.
panthera says:
… – to bond and unite in love.
Mr. Incredible says:
There can be no sex between two of the same sex. They can only masturbate.
panthera says:
All these absurd arguments…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Your arguments are absurd because you don’t think like me.”

panthera says:
…made on the basis of “natural law” begin with the flawed premise…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I deem it flawed cuz it doesn’t agree with what I think.”

panthera says:
…that sex can and may only have the one function of reproduction.
Mr. Incredible says:
The pleasure of sex is intended to draw a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, to reproduce. That is the template.
panthera says:
While my husband and I…
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, are YOU a woman who is his wife?
panthera says:
… have more than a quarter of a century of loving, monogamous partnership you conservative Christians are presenting the world with one horror after the other…
Mr. Incredible says:
We just report what’s happening.
panthera says:
… – the number of victims is beyond count.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, you’re a victim of homosexuality???
panthera says:
Funny, the very argument you perverted conservative Christians…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I think I can persuade you by calling you names.”

panthera says:
…make in your hatred to defend your hateful church of rapists and abusers directly violates the whole premise of your argument.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that we don’t defend rapists and abusers. You believe your own propaganda. That’s not healthy. Neither is homosexuality.
panthera says:
God is not going to smile upon your efforts to impose your hatred on us.
Mr. Incredible says:
We hate what God hates.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 16, 2010 at 7:05 am


Rich says:
Cara,
Re: “It is a biological fact that sexuality is for the production of offspring”
Another glaring error on your part.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that she’s not wrong.
Rich says:
Sorry, but not all sexuality is for having babies.
Mr. Incredible says:
In God’s plan, it is. Its plan is the template.
Rich says:
Have you stopped to ponder the number of women who are naturally infertile?
Mr. Incredible says:
It was not God’s plan for females not to be fertile.
Rich says:
Indeed, humans are designed to desire sex to insure that our species continues. That doesn’t mean that is the only valid use of sex.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s YOUR “reasoning.” YOUR justification.
Rich says:
I keep telling you to think more and write less.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I keep telling you to think more like me and write less what YOU think.”



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 16, 2010 at 1:41 pm


Incred: “Rich says: Sorry, but not all sexuality is for having babies.
Mr. Incredible says: In God’s plan, it is.”
A. God didn’t plan on human’s having recreational sex? Not very realistic or forward thinking of the supreme being. Events are occurring which God didn’t plan on?
B. Maybe God’s plan is different from what Incred thinks it is.
C. Maybe there is no God at all, and hence, no God’s plan.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:52 am


Rich says:
Sorry, but not all sexuality is for having babies.
Mr. Incredible says:
In God’s plan, it is.”
HG says:
God didn’t plan on human’s having recreational sex?
Mr. Incredible says:
“Recreational sex” with whom?
HG says:
Not very realistic or forward thinking of the supreme being.
Mr. Incredible says:
God knew, ahead of time, that Man would be lured by his own lusts to do what is ungodly.
HG says:
Events are occurring which God didn’t plan on?
Mr. Incredible says:
Correct. Except that He predicted the results of Man’s disobedience and provided a way out.
HG says:
Maybe God’s plan is different from what Incred thinks it is.
Mr. Incredible says:
Since what I say and write squares with the Word of God, it is not.
HG says:
Maybe there is no God at all…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you preclude yourself from knowing.
HG says:
…and hence, no God’s plan.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, if you preclude yourself from knowing that God exists, you automatically preclude yourself from knowing of God’s plan.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 17, 2010 at 5:59 am


God’s plan? ROFL!
If God is omniscient then the fact that a majority of humanity would “forsake Jesus” (and therefore suffer an eternal roasting) – was recognized by God before he chose to create Hell, before he chose to create man, before He chose to give man an eternal soul, before He chose to make the eternal destinies of human souls contingent upon “accepting Jesus,” and before He chose to make a devil to deceive man into forsaking Jesus. Stated otherwise: If God is truly omniscient as Christians believe, then He would have foreseen that His “Master Plan” would be disastrous for humanity. Yet, according to biblical doctrine He crafted His plan of contingent salvation so that billions of individuals, whom He brought into existence, would be consigned to an eternal chamber of torture. He, therefore, would bear direct responsibility for any suffering brought upon humanity.
The Christian Church maintains that “Jesus is God,” the loving and benevolent Savior, Who died on the cross to save mankind from eternal torment. But who, may I ask, is threatening to impose this eternal torment? The answer is the very same God. So Jesus, in effect, became a victim of His own judgment when dying on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice – a blood ritual that Jesus offered to Himself so that He could forgive “sin.” The entire biblical plan of salvation is therefore a bogus tautology (i.e. a needless redundancy). A truly benevolent and omnipotent God could simply let bygones be bygones and forgive “sinners” even though they adopted mistaken religious beliefs. If this universal and unconditional forgiveness is impossible for God to bestow, then He is not omnipotent. He is controlled and tossed about by circumstances superseding His authority. If He could forgive all “sinners” unconditionally, but refused, then He is not benevolent.
“But,” Christians respond, “without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin.” And God asks only that we accept the blood sacrifice that Jesus offered for us on the cross.” And who, may I ask, established this rule that “without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin.”? The answer again is “God.” If truly omnipotent, God could have proclaimed that “without the drinking of apple cider, there can be no forgiveness of sin,” or “without the expulsion of farts there can be no forgiveness of sin.” God, if omnipotent, could do anything He wanted, including forgiving all “sinners” unconditionally. The fact that God supposedly demands blood before He offers forgiveness is indicative of the bestial mindset of the primitive cultures extant when the Bible was written. The biblical God was created in man’s own vengeful, bloodletting image.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:07 am


Mr. Incredible says:
We hate what God hates.
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” – Anne Lamott



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:15 am


Incred: “Rich says: Sorry, but not all sexuality is for having babies.
Mr. Incredible says: In God’s plan, it is.”
Boris says: Who authorized you to tell anyone else what God’s plan is?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:27 am


Rich says:
Sorry, but not all sexuality is for having babies.
Mr. Incredible says:
In God’s plan, it is.
Boris says:
Who authorized you to tell anyone else what God’s plan is?
Mr. Incredible says:
God, through Christ. I have His permission. I don’t need yours.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:31 am


Mr. Incredible says:
We hate what God hates.
Boris says:

“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” – Anne Lamott”

Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t claim that God hates the same people we do. We don’t claim that God hates people. God loves everybody. That’s why He gave His Son.
We hate, in Righteousness, according to the Word of God, what God hates. God doesn’t hate what we hate in unrighteousness.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:53 am


Boris says:
God’s plan?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, God’s plan. Exciting, isn’t it.
Boris says:
If God is omniscient then the fact that a majority of humanity would “forsake Jesus” (and therefore suffer an eternal roasting) – was recognized by God before he chose to create Hell, before he chose to create man, before He chose to give man an eternal soul, before He chose to make the eternal destinies of human souls contingent upon “accepting Jesus,” and before He chose to make a devil…
Mr. Incredible says:
God didn’t create the Devil. That’s cuz He didn’t create the darkness.
Boris says:
… to deceive man into forsaking Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
God spoke Light into the wilderness. The Devil conceals the Truth. Just like you.
Boris says:
Stated otherwise: If God is truly omniscient as Christians believe, then He would have foreseen that His “Master Plan” would be disastrous for humanity.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, God gave Man choice. He foresaw that Man would be tempted away from Him. So, He gave Man a way out. Christ is that Way out. If you reject that Way out, you have no way out.
Boris says:
Yet, according to biblical doctrine He crafted His plan of contingent salvation so that billions of individuals, whom He brought into existence, would be consigned to an eternal chamber of torture.
Mr. Incredible says:
Individuals He created and whom He gave choice chose their existence which He warned them what happen, if they disobeyed Him. Having heard Him, they chose to go their own way. The consequences are THEIR fault.
Boris says:
He, therefore, would bear direct responsibility for any suffering brought upon humanity.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you believe your own propaganda. Or, should I say, the Devil’s propaganda.
God could not bear direct responsibility for what He didn’t cause.
Boris says:
The Christian Church maintains that “Jesus is God”…
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God says that Jesus is God. The Church recognizes that the Word of God says.
Boris says:
The loving and benevolent Savior, Who died on the cross to save mankind from eternal torment.
Mr. Incredible says:
Thanks for making His point.
Boris says:
But who, may I ask, is threatening to impose this eternal torment?
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil and those who follow him.
Boris says:
The answer is the very same God.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not so. God does not produce torment and suffering. He produces love. Torment and suffering are the result of disobedience. You cannot be protected by His love if you disobey, if you choose to turn your back on Him. He cannot protect you who turn your back on Him. So, if you choose to go your own way, you choose to accept the consequences.
Boris says:
So Jesus, in effect, became a victim of His own judgment when dying on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice – a blood ritual that Jesus offered to Himself so that He could forgive “sin.”
Mr. Incredible says:
The Word of God says that Jesus was our substitute. A pure act of love, on His part.
Boris says:
The entire biblical plan of salvation is therefore a bogus tautology (i.e. a needless redundancy).
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil thinks that, too.
Boris says:
A truly benevolent and omnipotent God could simply let bygones be bygones and forgive “sinners” even though they adopted mistaken religious beliefs.
Mr. Incredible says:
A loving God, like any loving parent, would not let that love get in the way of justice, discipline; and, just like any disobedient child, those who disobey cannot expect to go on disobeying and be rewarded for their disobedience.
Boris says:
If this universal and unconditional forgiveness is impossible for God to bestow, then He is not omnipotent.
Mr. Incredible says:
Universal and unconditional forgiveness is available to all. He calls all to repentance. If you refuse, you suffer the consequences. Blame yourself.
Boris says:
He is controlled and tossed about by circumstances superseding His authority.
Mr. Incredible says:
He is bound by his Word. No one is worth anything who breaks his word.
Boris says:
If He could forgive all “sinners” unconditionally, but refused, then He is not benevolent.
Mr. Incredible says:
He doesn’t refuse to forgive all sinners. Forgiveness of available to wall. Not all receive that forgiveness. That’s THEIR fault, not His.
Boris says:

“But,” Christians respond, “without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin.” And God asks only that we accept the blood sacrifice that Jesus offered for us on the cross.”

And who, may I ask, established this rule that “without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin.”? The answer again is “God.” If truly omnipotent, God could have proclaimed that “without the drinking of apple cider, there can be no forgiveness of sin”…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What kinda sacrifice with THAT be? A Cain sacrifice.
Boris says:
God, if omnipotent, could do anything He wanted, including forgiving all “sinners” unconditionally.
Mr. Incredible says:
He has. If people like YOU who reject it.
Boris says:
The fact that God supposedly demands blood before He offers forgiveness is indicative of the bestial mindset of the primitive cultures extant when the Bible was written.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus had to die so that He would be resurrected and defeat the works of the Devil. Without the Resurrection, there could be no be feeding the works of the Devil. Without the death of Jesus, there could be no Resurrection.
Boris says:
The biblical God was created in man’s own vengeful, bloodletting image.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil, in the Garden, persuaded Eve to create God in her own image. Therefore, the image you have of God is not God as He is. What YOU say He is is an act of your Will.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 6:58 am


Boris is plagiarizing again.
I challenge anyone to Google Boris’ 559a post to find the plagiarism.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 7:02 am


Actually, you can tell by the style of writing in his 559a post that Boris didn’t write it. All you have to do, therefore, is check it against his other posts. Of course, you must be careful not to check it against something else he plagiarized.
I am taking some time today to telephone those he has plagiarized, telling them the link to this page, so that they can take the appropriate action.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 17, 2010 at 7:11 am


Most of that c r a p he posted it, of course, as expected, from an atheist website, not from some objective journal. Boris cannot think for himself.
Just a few minutes ago, I tried to post the Google search link to one of the statements in Boris’ 559a post. It didn’t take. It went to the author of this blog for approval. Therefore, the right individual will be drawn to the plagiarism and deliver the lesson.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 21, 2010 at 5:02 pm


There is no law that prohibits discernment based on beliefs. CLS may reject those whose beliefs don’t align with CLS beliefs. CLS is allowed to deny those whose beliefs have a better chance of disrupting CLS business.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 22, 2010 at 6:11 am


April 22, 2010 3:25 AM
["Welcomed Decisions by 9th Circuit on Pledge and National Motto" blog]
Boris says:
I was sent by the devil…

What’s the surprise there. And no surprise.



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.