Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Supreme Court Sends Signal: Keep Cross Where It Is

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

A fractured Supreme Court yesterday decided to remand–or send back to the lower court–the contentious case involving a congressional “land swap” that allowed the Veterans of Foreign Wars to keep a cross up in the Mojave National Preserve. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the plurality opinion that noted that the federal district court that initially decided the case should have reviewed more carefully all the “facts of circumstances” surrounding the congressional action to trade the acre where the cross had been erected for a few less visible acres elsewhere.

Frankly, Jay, it seemed like Justice Kennedy and four of his colleagues were virtually ordering the lower court to find some reason (I’d say, excuse) to find that this cross was not merely a Christian symbol–that it symbolized the service of all veterans of World War I.  I find this argument highly unpersuasive. The cross is a Christian symbol.  It has no meaning (except under some historical circumstances a negative meaning) for members of the Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu faith.  It signifies nothing to humanists or non-believers, either.  Therefore, it cannot be the emblematic representation of the sacrifice of all veterans.



Moreover, the Congress members action to make this deal was only one more sad example of a “high five sign for Jesus”, its annoying impetus to do whatever looks good for their predominantly Christian constituencies.  If the object that had been illegally erected 70 years ago on what was then clearly government property had been a Buddhist shrine or a secular peace garden or any one of a thousand other symbols, Congress would not have lifted a finger. 

The lawyer who brought this case for the ACLU in Southern California noted that he still hopes to prevail in the lower court.  I certainly hope he does.  This will require that the judge there acknowledges the evidence supporting the clear preferential treatment that has long been accorded this religious symbol at this site in this desert and adds a dollop of commonsense.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(81)
post a comment
hlvanburen

posted April 29, 2010 at 3:23 pm


From Justice Kennedy’s decision: “But a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”
And thus, the Supreme Court of the United States has taken the Cross of Christ and stripped it of any religious meaning, save for it being a remembrance of the sacrifice of those buried beneath it.
Sounds to me like the Court has declared that the Latin Cross is a HUMANIST memorial, commemorating HUMAN sacrifice in defense of noble HUMAN principles.
One wonders if those Christians celebrating this decision really understand what they have traded away for their victory.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 29, 2010 at 3:40 pm


hlvanburen, it does seem that Christians are willing to trade substance for theater–they must feel terribly threatened to allow the Cross, once a symbol of eternal life, to become just a symbol of death. Just as well though, the “relationship with God” is being diminished, and the religion is in the process of fading away.



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 29, 2010 at 4:15 pm


I just have to wonder if they would do the same if it was the Jewish Star of David.
I have an idea. Let’s approach the same memorial about putting a Star of David next to the cross, and see what excuses come up from not allowing it. That would truly test whether the decision is secular or not.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 29, 2010 at 4:31 pm


“I have an idea. Let’s approach the same memorial about putting a Star of David next to the cross, and see what excuses come up from not allowing it. That would truly test whether the decision is secular or not.”
An interesting idea…and one that might happen if the local VFW chapter were to change its ideas about what form the memorial should take. After all, the only requirement that the law stipulates is that it be kept as a war memorial. Imagine if the local chapter decided that a a different symbol (Star of David, Crescent, or even the atheist “A” symbol) were a more fitting memorial. What do you suppose the reaction would be?



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm


hlvanburen, re: Gfine: “An interesting idea…and one that might happen… What do you suppose the reaction would be?”
Ah-ha, is there any doubt what the reaction of the talking-heads among Christians would be? None. It would morph into unconstitutionality in a heartbeat!



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 29, 2010 at 7:22 pm


Oh, I strongly suspect you are correct, HG. After all, in the Summum case we know where the ACLJ stood. Clearly, as long as the symbol is Christian, they are for free expression. But the moment other religions demand equal treatment…well, the real agenda of these folks comes out.
It will be interesting to see if the cross becomes as secularized as Christmas because of this decision. I can’t help but think that Jesus (assuming he ever did exist) is up in Heaven between rounds of golf looking down on his fan club and saying, “No, no, no! That isn’t what I meant at all!”



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted April 29, 2010 at 7:26 pm


Wake up kids. This whole case started when another religious group was denied their own memorial on the site…
This is just more religious dogma cloaked in the guise of tradition. The SCOTUS is loaded 7 – 2 with conservatives over liberals, yet the best they can do is 5 – 4.
That means even some conservative judges could see through the smokescreen…



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 29, 2010 at 7:37 pm


That is what I expect. They would either comply, or figure out some BS reason for exclusion.
A great example happened to a friend. He has has a seven foot tall Menorah. At City Hall they proudly display several Christmas scenes along with other ‘Christian’ symbols. He asked, in 1999, if he could place his Menorah there, and was flatly refused. Their claim is that it was a safety hazard. He decided to call the local press. The city suffered an embarrassment and called it a ‘misunderstanding’ and he could place the Menorah there.
What I have learned from this and other incidents is that when the Religious Right is involved they wouldn’t think twice about being two-faced and lying to exclude another religion. But when caught red-handed or confronted they claim its a ‘misunderstanding’ and retreat.
But, in my community, I have had to cross swords with them more than enough times for it to be more than a misunderstanding. It is narrow-minded religious bigotry.



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 29, 2010 at 7:58 pm


hlvanburen: “Oh, I strongly suspect you are correct, HG.”
I was hasty in stating that doubt there was none, because I shouldn’t pretend ability to divine Christian legal motives or modus operandi. It’s possible they could perceive some benefit in using a common umbrella before moving to consolidate. Strong suspicion based on past performance is a better way of phrasing it. Part of the argument seems to be that Christianity was preeminent in our country’s founding days, so, that makes it American history whilst other religious beliefs don’t qualify.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 29, 2010 at 9:40 pm


The lives lost on the battlefield were given by them for something of value.
The life of Jesus was given for something of value to God and to us.
The Mohave cross and the Cross of Christ signify those sacrifices as celebrations of life, not death.
Atheists are now trying, believe it, or not, to make them something they are not so as to try to divert attention from their crushing SCOTUS defeat.



report abuse
 

blueenigma

posted April 29, 2010 at 9:45 pm


It’s difficult to believe that most people in our society, and especially Christians, would agree with the notion that the symbol of Christianity doesn’t send a Christian message. Besides, there are other ways to honor all of our soldiers in a more inclusive manner and without religious symbolism.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 29, 2010 at 10:00 pm


SCOTUS says that the Mohave cross sends a Christian message, but that it is not the only message that it sends. It may not send a Christian message at all.
Yours is a perception based on your hostility toward Christians, Christianity and Christ. That is one reason the Court didn’t seriously consider the kinda arguments you bring, but gave more weight to the idea that just cuz it appears to you people to be exclusively a Christian symbol doesn’t mean that it is, in reality, only a Christian symbol all the time.



report abuse
 

Mr Incredible

posted April 29, 2010 at 10:05 pm


blueenigma says:
It’s difficult to believe that most people in our society, and especially Christians, would agree with the notion that the symbol of Christianity doesn’t send a Christian message.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody says that the Mohave cross is not a Christian symbol. SCOTUS says that it is not entirely a Christian symbol.
Atheists think it is always a Christian symbol cuz their perception is entangled in the black web of hostility toward Christ, Christianity and Christians; and, so, they must see it that way. they let their hostility control their thinking.



report abuse
 

RIch

posted April 29, 2010 at 11:22 pm


Mr. Incredible,
This case really didn’t get started because of any hostility toward Christianity, it began due to a hostility towards anything not Christian. While you may choose to yammer on mindlessly, there is still a truth that exists out there. Perhaps you may wish to take a swing at what got the whole thing started.
You know, here is what is sick about Christians like you. My father-in-law fought in WWII, he is an atheist. He is disgusted at the notion that any military monument honoring his service would solely include a cross. He understand that some of his compatriots would like a cross and it can certainly be one of many symbols used but not the only one. Per my father-in-law, the cross does not and can never symbolize his service.
Yet, his preference is ignored solely so you can advertise your religion, you have no concern for anything other than pushing your cult. You don’t really want to honor our veterans, you are just using this as an opportunity to advertise Jesus. Quite frankly, you don’t deserve the freedom that multitudes of soldiers have died to preserve.
Freedom comes only from the point of a gun. You don’t have the decency to honor those who gave that freedom to you without putting up a advertising billboard.



report abuse
 

RIch

posted April 29, 2010 at 11:36 pm


The Supreme Court is a bit short on integrity right now. The glaring lack of integrity is squarely in the conservative camp of the court.
Below is a link to an article that summarizes a conflict of interest in an upcoming case. Breyer has a conflict of interest and did the right thing by recusing himself. Thomas, with a clear and definite conflict, is refusing to do so.
It is of course worse than that. Thomas has done this before in a case involving a former employer, Monsanto, even writing the opinion. Now, he once again refuses to recuse himself and demonstrate judicial impartiality. I guess he is more worried about being a vote for his chums.
http://iowaindependent.com/32870/justice-with-past-monsanto-ties-should-recuse-himself-environmentalists-say



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 29, 2010 at 11:47 pm


Rich: “(Thomas) I guess…is more worried about being a vote for his chums.”
Colbert noted that while Diane Wood plays two instruments, Oboe and French horn, Justice Scalia only plays one; the Clarence Thomas. I found that a particularly amusing comment!



report abuse
 

RIch

posted April 30, 2010 at 12:12 am


HG,
Sounds like gospel to me. How could a person ever disagree with Colbert? Or Stewart?



report abuse
 

blueenigma

posted April 30, 2010 at 3:37 am


“Atheists think it is always a Christian symbol cuz their perception is entangled in the black web of hostility toward Christ, Christianity and Christians; and, so, they must see it that way. they let their hostility control their thinking.”
That statement is hardly in-line with the ruling. It was a 5-4 decision. None of the 4 dissenting opinions are from atheists. Here’s an excerpt from Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion:
“I certainly agree that the Nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 5:30 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Atheists think it is always a Christian symbol cuz their perception is entangled in the black web of hostility toward Christ, Christianity and Christians; and, so, they must see it that way. They let their hostility control their thinking.
blueenigma says:
That statement is hardly in-line with the ruling.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose ruling?
blueenigma says:
It was a 5-4 decision.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, the narrower the ruling, the more doubt about the ruling, is that it?
blueenigma says:
None of the 4 dissenting opinions are from atheists.
Mr. Incredible says:
Although they may have atheist sympathies.
blueenigma says:
Here’s an excerpt from Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion:

“I certainly agree that the Nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message.”

Mr. Incredible says:
So, he assumes the very thing they were deciding. Except that the Court didn’t accept his assumption. You assume that the difference between the majority and him is ideology. We’d like to see you prove that the majority, in fact, relied more on what you claim to be their ideologies than on the Constitution/law.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 30, 2010 at 9:01 am


Time will tell on this case. It may well be that the local VFW chapter decides, over time, to erect a different form of monument. If they so choose, and if it is not a cross, we will see if the Mr. Incredibles in the world are still comfortable with the idea that the monument to the fallen heroes is what is important and not the religious overtones.
As has been noted, this case is not over. The instruction from the Court does seem to make it a slam dunk, and the implied threat is that if the lower court still does not come in line the Supreme Court will revisit and “correct” the decision.
This is a can of worms that will be interesting to watch in the coming years.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 10:15 am


I wouldn’t have objected to another monument being put up. I would not have objected if a secular monument had been put up in the first place, and I would not have been offended by its secularity and campaigned to have it taken down, just on the basis of its secularity.
However, THIS monument was put up. I object to THIS monument being taken down just cuz somebody drives WWAAAAYYYY outta his way to be offended by it, or just cuz somebody who has never seen it talks himself into being offended, just to be part of a group and be liked. That would be hostility toward “religion.” SCOTUS agrees with me.
hlvanburen says:
It may well be that the local VFW chapter decides, over time, to erect a different form of monument. If they so choose, and if it is not a cross, we will see if the Mr. Incredibles in the world are still comfortable with the idea that the monument to the fallen heroes is what is important and not the religious overtones.
As has been noted, this case is not over. The instruction from the Court does seem to make it a slam dunk, and the implied threat is that if the lower court still does not come in line the Supreme Court will revisit and “correct” the decision.
This is a can of worms that will be interesting to watch in the coming years.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 10:17 am


CORRECTION
Mr. Incredible
April 30, 2010 10:15 AM
I wouldn’t have objected to another monument being put up. I would not have objected if a secular monument had been put up in the first place, and I would not have been offended by its secularity and campaigned to have it taken down, just on the basis of its secularity.
However, THIS monument was put up. I object to THIS monument being taken down just cuz somebody drives WWAAAAYYYY outta his way to be offended by it, or just cuz somebody who has never seen it talks himself into being offended, just to be part of a group and be liked. That would be hostility toward “religion.” SCOTUS agrees with me.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 30, 2010 at 11:58 am


Mr. Incredible: “SCOTUS agrees with me.”
For now. But I cannot help but think that, perhaps in a generation, Christians will look back on this decision as one of many that helped secularize the core symbol of their faith, robbing it of whatever special place it may have had in our society.
Future generations may well consider this a Pyrrhic victory at best.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 9:12 pm


Mr. Incredible:
SCOTUS agrees with me.
hlvanburen says:
…I cannot help but think that, perhaps in a generation, Christians will look back on this decision as one of many that helped secularize the core symbol of their faith…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nah. To those who are born again, the symbol of the Cross will ALWAYS have the meaning God, through Christ, intended.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted April 30, 2010 at 11:13 pm


Mr. Incredible: “Nah. To those who are born again, the symbol of the Cross will ALWAYS have the meaning God, through Christ, intended.”
Yes, but the very court with which you find yourself in agreement on this has, in the not too distant past, determined that the symbols of Christ’s birth have become sufficiently secularized to pass muster as non-religious in nature when combined with other symbols of the season.
Let us not forget that Linoleum was, at one time, a trademark. Common usage and careless oversight brought the term into the public domain.
Perhaps the cross is headed in a similar direction?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 10:03 am


Mr. Incredible says:
To those who are born again, the symbol of the Cross will ALWAYS have the meaning God, through Christ, intended.
hlvanburen says:
Yes…
Mr. Incredible says:
So, we agree that the world’s secularization of the cross is irrelevant to those who walk in Christ. The difference is signified by the difference in usage: “cross,” as opposed to “Cross.” The Mohave cross is not necessarily the Cross. The irresponsible combining of them points to a certain linguistic mushiness which, in turn, is a symptom of some sort-a mental apnea. The idea is to fine-tune language, not to make it more abstract. When a person cannot make such fine distinctions, that person cannot know HOW to think about a particular subject.
hlvanburen says:
…but the very court with which you find yourself in agreement on this has, in the not too distant past, determined that the symbols of Christ’s birth…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which cross sybolizes the Blood Sacrifice of Christ? Not all of them do.
hlvanburen says:
…have become sufficiently secularized to pass muster as non-religious in nature when combined with other symbols of the season.
Mr. Incredible says:
Which means that the “cross” is not necessarily the same as the “Cross.” So, if I “‘cross’ out” a word, or phrase, the cross-out isn’t a symbol of the Blood Sacrifice of Christ. This isn’t anything new.
hlvanburen says:
…Linoleum was, at one time, a trademark. Common usage and careless oversight brought the term into the public domain.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Linoleum” is the trademark. “linoleum” refers to a kinda flooring not necessarily a product of the company that has trademarked “Linoleum.” Again, this is nothing new. The meaning of the Cross is not diluted by the meaning of the “cross.” It is enhanced by the conscious distinction.
Over the years, I have begun to captialize “Knowledge” when I mean to refer to what God has given, and to lower-case “knowledge” when I refer to the knowledge of men which is far less and more arrogant. That doesn’t demean God’s Knowledge. It elevates it by separating it from what is corrupt and, thus, not as desireable. God’s Knowledge and men’s knowledge don’t merge and, thereby, become confusing.
hlvanburen says:
Perhaps the cross is headed in a similar direction?
Mr. Incredible asks:
In line with what I wrote above, which “cross” do you mean? The cross, or the Cross?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 10:18 am


Mr. Incredible says:
To those who are born again, the symbol of the Cross will ALWAYS have the meaning God, through Christ, intended.
hlvanburen says:
Yes, but the very court with which you find yourself in agreement on this has, in the not too distant past, determined that the symbols of Christ’s birth have become sufficiently secularized to pass muster as non-religious in nature when combined with other symbols of the season.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, then, we should expect secularists won’t have any problem with ANY display of a “cross.”



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 1, 2010 at 4:28 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Well, then, we should expect secularists won’t have any problem with ANY display of a “cross.”
Now that Christians have started to surrender the “special” nature of the Latin cross, you will likely begin seeing it in many new venues.
http://tinyurl.com/d5g3j



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm


hlvanburen: http://tinyurl.com/d5g3j
Next comes the KrapKing porta-potty, …”Don’t sacrifice comfort, look for the Cross on the door”. Not demarking where anyone actually died, but smelling like it.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 1, 2010 at 9:54 pm


Considering how many Hollywood celebs wear crosses around their necks while cavorting around town, I think we may actually have already reached the tipping point. I just find it strange that Christians are actually helping out with this effort.
Oh well…



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 8:28 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Well, then, we should expect secularists won’t have any problem with ANY display of a “cross.
hlvanburen says:
Now that Christians have started to surrender the “special” nature of the Latin cross…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that they haven’t.
hlvanburen says:
…you will likely begin seeing it in many new venues.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Seeing what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 8:39 am


Boris says:
The Romans NEVER hung…
Mr. Incredible says:
The word you want there is “hanged.”
Boris says:
… people on crosses and there are no examples of crucifixion in Roman history or any other culture.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, again, you’re wrong –

http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm

Boris says:
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is nothing more than religious fiction.
Mr. Incredible says:
That statement, in itself, is a fiction.
Boris says:
As a Jew I can tell you that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
As a Jew, you’re expected to say so.
Boris says:
Jewish writers would certainly have mentioned him otherwise.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not necessarily so.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm


hlvanburen says:
Considering how many Hollywood celebs wear crosses around their necks while cavorting around town…
Mr. Incredible says:
Each is what the Word of God calls a “stumblingblock.”



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:20 pm


Mr. I,
Re:
Boris says:
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is nothing more than religious fiction.
Mr. Incredible says:
That statement, in itself, is a fiction.
Gosh Mr. I, I didn’t know there was conclusive and empirical evidence to support the myth of Jesus being crucified. Can you direct me to a scientifically acceptable source that would change this event from one of fiction to one of verified fact? I hope so because if you unable to do so then Boris’ statement will remain correct and your counter-statement will have to be considered (by rational people anyway) as totally unsupported and therefore no different than fiction. The crucifixion is a cute story and all and would certainly make a great movie full of gripping drama and deep spirituality but I need something a bit more than cute.
Don’t bother referring me to the Bible, it is not a scientifically acceptable source.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:38 pm


Boris says:
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is nothing more than religious fiction.
Mr. Incredible says:
That statement, in itself, is a fiction.
Rich says:
Gosh Mr. I, I didn’t know there was conclusive and empirical evidence to support the myth of Jesus being crucified.
Mr. Incredible says:
A myth can’t be crucified. Jesus, a man, was crucified.
Rich says:
Can you direct me to a scientifically acceptable source that would change this event from one of fiction to one of verified fact?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
Rich says:
I hope so because if you unable to do so then Boris’ statement will remain correct and your counter-statement will have to be considered (by rational people anyway) as totally unsupported and therefore no different than fiction.
Mr. Incredible says:
No matter what I say, you people want deleted anyway. So, what’s the point?
Rich says:
The crucifixion is a cute story and all and would certainly make a great movie full of gripping drama and deep spirituality but I need something a bit more than cute.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, that’s YOU. However, even “something a bit more than cute” won’t persuade you cuz you have precluded yourself from the proof.
Rich says:
Don’t bother referring me to the Bible…
Mr. Incredible says:
You don’t get to tell me what evidence I bring.
You can choose to preclude yourself from the evidence. That, though, doesn’t discount the evidence.
Rich says:
… it is not a scientifically acceptable source.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“…not the kind-a scientifically acceptable source acceptable to me.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:40 pm


CORRECTION
you people want deleted anyway — — > you people won’t believe it anyway



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm


Rich says:
…the Bible…is not a scientifically acceptable source.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“The only evidence I will accept is evidence that agrees with me.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm


Produce the testimony of ONE person who was there who says that others who were there and saw the Crucifixion did not actually see the Crucifixion.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm


Mr. I,
re: “Produce the testimony of ONE person who was there who says that others who were there and saw the Crucifixion did not actually see the Crucifixion.”
Now, I live in a world full of religious folks so I am used to a certain amount of pathetic absurdity but that has to be at the top of the list.
Just plain pitiful!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 3, 2010 at 9:02 pm


Re: Rich
I believe Josephus produced something regarding an account of the resurrection. Although I have not studied it, I have heard that it is documented, and I have also heard that he was not a believer. In my eyes that would make the account more credible.
Josephus- A.D. 37-100?
Jewish general whose History of the jewish War is the major source of information about the siege of Masada (72-73)
I would have to look this up, his writing I believe are in ancient text which would have to be translated.
cc



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 9:30 pm


Cara,
I don’t Josephus would work as a valid source. Putting aside the serious questions about the authenticity of the writings as they relate to Jesus, there is still a significant issue as to the timeline. If his life really was 37 AD to 100 AD, he could have only written, at best, a second hand account. Many theologians theorize that Jesus was 33 at the age of his death and even allowing for a variance of some years of both the time of the crucifixion and the dates for the birth of Josephus, he would have been too young to be a reliable observer.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 10:42 pm


Rich says:
Cara,
I don’t Josephus [sic] would work as a valid source.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Josephus doesn’t work with the metrics I’m trying to impose on everybody.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 10:45 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Produce the testimony of ONE person who was there who says that others who were there and saw the Crucifixion did not actually see the Crucifixion.
Rich says:
Now, I live in a world full of religious folks so I am used to a certain amount of pathetic absurdity but that has to be at the top of the list.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“For all my bragging, I can’t produce the testimony of even ONE person to challenge the testimony of those who were there who saw the Crucifixion.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 10:48 pm


You sought evidence from me, and, so, I thought it only fair that I seek evidence of you. So, you admit you have none. We knew that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 10:58 pm


I’m not a fan of Wikipedia, but here is some info on a Josephus Jesus-sighting — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 4, 2010 at 12:08 am


Mr. I,
re: “Produce the testimony of ONE person who was there who says that others who were there and saw the Crucifixion did not actually see the Crucifixion.”
Not only are you obnoxious but your mental stability must be questioned when you pose such a ridiculous ‘challenge’. Buy hey, I figure that as an atheist I am twice the Christian you could ever hope to be so I will humor you with reasons why your synapses aren’t all connecting these days.
#1 The absence of contradicting testimony is irrelevant. I don’t have to produce any. You are the one claiming the extraordinary. It is up to you to provide proof. If you can’t do that, your claim is properly disregarded.
#2 We will never know if there was contradictory testimony. If there had been, the religious zealots would have long ago purged it. Remember, your group is full of book burners, not mine.
#3 If there wasn’t a crucifixion, it is not likely someone went home and wrote that he didn’t see a crucifixion that day. Or the Goodyear blimp. Of a machine gun toting llama singing Frank Sinatra tunes. Maybe you write in your daily diary, you know the one with the Jonas Brothers picture on the front, all the things you didn’t see that day. Probably you do, most of us don’t.
#4 Even if there was a crucifixion, it is unlikely that an observer who saw no miracles would have gone home and written “Hey, I saw an execution the other day, I hung around the tomb for 3 days and guess what, he didn’t rise from the dead.” Likely, this is something you would do. Again, most normal people don’t.
#5 There is no current valid historical testimony to the event. The books of the Bible do not meet any credible standard for veracity. You know as well as anyone that there is nothing in the Bible that would meet any legal standard of proof. Nor a scientific standard of proof.
The thing I have to wonder is if you somehow thought you were being clever. If you actually thought that was a challenge worthy of any serious consideration, well, you are truly beyond help. Your immersion in your cult is not doing you any favors. I just plain don’t see you as any different from a Scientologist or a Rajaneeshi.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 1:35 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Produce the testimony of ONE person who was there who says that others who were there and saw the Crucifixion did not actually see the Crucifixion.”
Rich says:
Not only are you obnoxious…
Mr. Incredible says:
Things are though all over.
Rich says:
…but your mental stability must be questioned…
Mr. Incredible says:
Suddenly, you’re questioning my mental stability. So what??
Rich says:
…when you pose such a ridiculous ‘challenge’.
Mr. Incredible says:
We know that you gotta say that cuz you have no evidence.
Rich says:
Buy hey, I figure that as an atheist I am twice the Christian you could ever hope to be…
Mr. Incredible says:
An atheist is in no position to know. But, again, so what?? God, through Christ, is my Shepherd, not you.
Rich says:
…so I will humor you with reasons why your synapses aren’t all connecting these days.
Mr. Incredible translates:

You don’t think like me and, so, that means your synapses aren’t all connecting these days.”

Rich says:
#1 The absence of contradicting testimony is irrelevant.
Mr. Incredible says:
Said by none other than somebody who has no evidence for his assertion.
Rich says:
I don’t have to produce any.
Mr. Incredible says:
YOU made the assertion.
Rich says:
You are the one claiming the extraordinary.
Mr. Incredible says:
You don’t believe the proof we bring. You have the burden of showing that our evidence is wrong. You haven’t done that. That’s ok, though.
Rich says:
It is up to you to provide proof.
Mr. Incredible says:
We did. You rejected it. But so what?
Rich says:
If you can’t do that…
Mr. Incredible says:
We did do that.
Rich says:
…your claim is properly disregarded.
Mr. Incredible says:
Our claims are disregarded when we bring the proof cuz you disregarded it BEFORE we brought the proof.
Rich says:
#2 We will never know if there was contradictory testimony.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not my problem. You say that what my wits say did not happen. You should be able to bring a witness to say that my wits are wrong, that they were seeing things.
Rich says:
Remember, your group is full of book burners, not mine.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, it is YOU people who refuse entry of our texts and views in public school.
Rich says:
#3 If there wasn’t a crucifixion, it is not likely someone went home and wrote that he didn’t see a crucifixion that day.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, if people were talking about the Crucifixtion, and your hypothetical wit was there and could say, “There was no such thing!” that would be your evidence. But you can’t produce that wit. That’s cuz he doesn’t exist.
Rich says:
#4 Even if there was a crucifixion, it is unlikely that an observer who saw no miracles would have gone home and written “Hey, I saw an execution the other day, I hung around the tomb for 3 days and guess what, he didn’t rise from the dead.”
Mr. Incredible says:
However, he would likely have tried to counter the testimony of those who saw it, and would make a BFD about it.
Rich says:
#5 There is no current valid historical testimony to the event.
Mr. Incredible says:
None that you’ll believe anyway.
Rich says:
The books of the Bible…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Rich says:
…do not meet any credible standard for veracity.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I don’t believe it and, so, it isn’t true. They how easy it is?”

Rich says:
You know as well as anyone that there is nothing in the Bible…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Rich says:
…that would meet any legal standard of proof.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant.
Rich says:
Nor a scientific standard of proof.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, the Word of God is evidence.
Rich says:
The thing I have to wonder is if you somehow thought you were being clever.
Mr. Incredible says:
I outscore you in that area, too.
Rich says:
If you actually thought that was a challenge worthy of any serious consideration, well, you are truly beyond help.
Mr. Incredible says:
You are going to extreme extremes to try to distract from the simple fact that you cannot back up what you said.
Rich says:
Your immersion in your cult…
Mr. Incredible says:
At the same time, you’re immersed in the cult of atheism.
Rich says:
…is not doing you any favors.
Mr. Incredible says:
I cannot get any Favor from the Lord through my own efforts. It is only through His effort on the Cross but I have Favor with Him.
Rich says:
I just plain don’t see you as any different from a Scientologist or a Rajaneeshi.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course you don’t. And 1 Corinthians 2:14 [KJV] tells us why.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 1:36 am


CORRECTION
Things are though all over. — — > Things are tough all over.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 1:44 am


Rich says:
Not only are you obnoxious…
Mr. Incredible says:
Gee, there goes another night’s sleep.
Rich says:
…but your mental stability must be questioned…
Mr. Incredible says:
By whom?? YOU??? So what? 2 Timothy 1:7.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:32 pm


Mr. I,
re: 2 Timothy 1:7
Uh, sorry but a person who hears voices in his head hardly has a ‘sound’ mind. But, it is not your fault, what with Jesus and Satan carrying on a loud conversation right between your ears, it is probably tough to even follow all the exciting stuff on the 700 Club let alone muster even an ounce of rationality.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:54 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
2 Timothy 1:7
Rich says:
Uh, sorry…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, you are.
Rich says:
…but a person who hears voices in his head…
Mr. Incredible says:
Is not a matter of the voices one hears in his head. It’s a matter of which of the suggestions goes to his heart.
Rich says:
… hardly has a ‘sound’ mind.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what you and the Devil say. God says different. I’ll go with Him. If I don’t listen to him, what makes you think I listen to you?
Rich says:
… what with Jesus and Satan carrying on a loud conversation right between your ears…
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil tries to communicate with Christ and me, but neither Christ, nor I, try to communicate with the Devil.
Rich says:
…it is probably tough to even follow all the exciting stuff on the 700 Club…
Mr. Incredible says:
God, through Christ, has GREATLY organized my mind. No problem there.
Rich says:
… let alone muster even an ounce of rationality.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“The only rationality I accept is the rationality that agrees with me.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:57 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what you and the Devil say. God says different. I’ll go with Him. If I don’t listen to him, what makes you think I listen to you?
CLARIFICATION
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what you and the Devil say. God says different. I’ll go with Him. If I don’t listen to the Devil, what makes you think I listen to you??



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm


Ow what was that, yet another post of eternal value with allot of detail, you kicked out for what?
selfish!
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm


What you find your superficial self as being relavent, but my views of what are important to me as being worthless?
What you value money, where were you when I almost died?
Don’t show up and try and take and present yourself as my friend, you are a liar and a person who is in it for yourself.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:17 pm


Did you get enough money?
cc



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 4, 2010 at 4:58 pm


Cara,
Who are you talking to?



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 4, 2010 at 8:47 pm


Rich: “Cara, Who are you talking to?”
Interesting question, ayeh.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm


Ya, it is an interesting question?
cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 4, 2010 at 11:13 pm


Thanks for the laugh cc, ya poor haggis, you don’t know who you were talking to yourself do you? Ah, well, none of us truly know that.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 5, 2010 at 6:02 pm


haggis, what are you talking about. I know exactly who I am talking to.
You look a bit confused by your last blog, HG.
Talking to myself, what?
None of us truly know that?
What are you referencing?
You look like your trying to condemn me on something that I did not do, or are looking for something within me for you to persecute, other than to look yourself in the mirror and question your own self?
God bless,
Cara Lea



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 5, 2010 at 6:08 pm


You look a bit confused by your last blog, HG?
I was making a statement, that is all.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 5, 2010 at 6:18 pm


It was just a question.
I want people to earn a bunch of money when they work real hard at things which are great and give back to society.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 5, 2010 at 6:23 pm


Anybody who does not give and takes the best from everybody and gives nothing in return.
cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 5, 2010 at 6:55 pm


Cara Lea: “haggis, what are you talking about.”
That is what Rich and I were wondering.
Cara Lea: “I know exactly who I am talking to.”
Maybe, but you were the only one.
Cara Lea: “You look a bit confused by your last blog, HG.”
I WAS confused. Still am, for that matter. Mystified. I thought you were having a seizure of some kind.
Cara Lea: “God bless”
Yeah, the Farce be with you.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm


Re HG:
You still are trying to declare slanderous remarks publically towards me on this sight. Maybe I am not seeking you for wisdom…..
Have you ever thought of that HG?
For if I did I would be like you, which by your blogs you don’t protect children. You slander and ridicule. So we are on different pages. I love the bible and you don’t. So obviously we will never agree.
good-bye
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 8, 2010 at 5:18 pm


haggis- A Scottish dish consisting of the minced heart, lungs, and liver of a sheep or calf mixed with suet,oatmeal, and seasonings and boiled in the stomach of the slaughtered animal.
Well HG, haven’t found this to be part of my envelopment, s I will not be going around your neck of the woods anytime soon. For a haggis sounds a bit creepy…….
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 8, 2010 at 5:20 pm

HG

posted May 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm


Carabellum, you don’t retain information at all do you? You don’t know what slander is, despite my having informed you. No, we don’t agree. Good-bye.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 10, 2010 at 7:34 pm


Here Hg,
slander- Oral communication of false staementwss injurious to a person’s reputation.
A false and malicious statement or report bout someone.
—————
So , you write that I don’t retain information at all, that would be slanderous.
For just the fact that I can write down this on this sight, would indicate that I retain information. I just believe you lie and mislead people all the time given your slanderous comments which are meant to ruin my reputation. Which I find to be irrelevant to these topics at hand, only to try and hurt me. For when a person has nothing of value in writing or otherwise, there would be no need to slander. For the purpose of slandering an individual would be to mislead others into thinking the false report. So, that is all. You are a liar and now I have proved it, just by what you wrote down, in your previous blog. Even if you did believe in God, you certainly would not be exuding any godly character to which I would like to respect or look up to. For leaders don’t write about topics the way you write. Your purpose would be to destroy people and their character, just by what you write down. Which your not. So, your blogs are pointless.
I stand for life and write to protect children from views like yourself, which the Constitution states that I am to defend those growing children. So we will never agree on the fact that they are a glob of tissue meant for you or anyone else to destroy for science. So, at this point I would perceive your views of choice as something threatening to life as we know it.
Good-bye,
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 10, 2010 at 7:37 pm


statements……..



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm


about……



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm


Sorry for the written error, it upsets me that you seek to try and hurt me. Although, why would I exspect you to do anything otherwise, your just following suit…..that is your intention, to hurt…So, I realize this is about yourself and not me.. There will always be darkness in the world and people that try and hurt people. Some people are dead set in trying to do so. Usually it is because they feel threatened in some way….so I will take that as a compliment. I am doing my job, which is writing down things which question the belief of pro-choice or their part, in that vote,….or law, or procedure…..
cc
I understand why people are given the choice for things, I just don’t feel that this should include killing of innocent people by choice, voted in.
End of story….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 11, 2010 at 9:56 pm


Love your neighbor as yourself. Lean not on your own understanding. Let others choose their mindless contemptuous ways…..
LOVE………CC



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted May 12, 2010 at 7:19 pm


The Supreme Court decision – with which I agree even though I have been an a-theist for 50 years – was NOT approval for the plywood box encasing the controversial Desert Cross TO BE REMOVED. The volunteer who did the maintenance and rough carpentry, Mr. Henry Sandoz, was patiently awaiting the balance of the legal process.
But, on Saturday 8 May 2010, some federal workers discovered that persons unknown had removed the plywood covering. They reported the matter to Park headquarters, and a repair team was scheduled to come to the site on Monday, 11 May, to repair (re-encase) the memorial. When they got there, however, they were astonished to discover that the CROSS WAS ENTIRELY GONE.
Within one hour, the news of this circumstance reached CNN and was immediately reported upon their website. Reactions poured in from across the country. It was mostly an outpouring of tears and not just from Christians. Several persons volunteered to pay the cost of its replacement. Henry and Wanda Sandoz were devastated, and Mr. Sandoz has already begun to gather construction materials to rebuild a cross that matches his photographs of the original 1934 monument. Henry took over the care of the disputed monument from the original caretaker, ON HIS DEATHBED. And Henry says he will keep the promise he made to that dying man, no matter what. If I lived close enough, I would gladly help him.
It is clear that this act was not some spur of the moment prank. The vandalizers had cased the site to determine what kinds of tools were needed to detach the cross from the heavy, in-ground base, the number of persons needed to lift and carry the cement-filled pipes to a vehicle, and the proper kind of vehicle. They do not seem to have left any debris or other clues, nor any foot or tire prints to cast. This event was a coup.
The Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has stated that, whomever committed this act of vandalism has just made 50 million enemies. That is only the beginning.
The intention of those who raised this monument 75 years ago deserves to be respected. They were honoring fallen comrades in the war in which THEY served, then called The Great War. They did not make the monument to honor the dead of the American Civil War, not the Spanish American War, nor any future wars until the sun goes supernova. They were doughboys.
So was Canadian Major John McCrae, Field Surgeon, who required to bury a friend and fellow warrior during a time when the chaplain was absent. The night before the burial ceremony he penned “In Flanders Field”, which has become one of the most famous battle poems in all history, mentioning “crosses row on row”. I hope that, when rationality prevails and when a VFW memorial is rebuilt, Major McCrae’s poem will be displayed at the base of the cross.



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted May 12, 2010 at 7:20 pm


The Supreme Court decision – with which I agree even though I have been an a-theist for 50 years – was NOT approval for the plywood box encasing the controversial Desert Cross TO BE REMOVED. The volunteer who did the maintenance and rough carpentry, Mr. Henry Sandoz, was patiently awaiting the balance of the legal process.
But, on Saturday 8 May 2010, some federal workers discovered that persons unknown had removed the plywood covering. They reported the matter to Park headquarters, and a repair team was scheduled to come to the site on Monday, 11 May, to repair (re-encase) the memorial. When they got there, however, they were astonished to discover that the CROSS WAS ENTIRELY GONE.
Within one hour, the news of this circumstance reached CNN and was immediately reported upon their website. Reactions poured in from across the country. It was mostly an outpouring of tears and not just from Christians. Several persons volunteered to pay the cost of its replacement. Henry and Wanda Sandoz were devastated, and Mr. Sandoz has already begun to gather construction materials to rebuild a cross that matches his photographs of the original 1934 monument. Henry took over the care of the disputed monument from the original caretaker, ON HIS DEATHBED. And Henry says he will keep the promise he made to that dying man, no matter what. If I lived close enough, I would gladly help him.
It is clear that this act was not some spur of the moment prank. The vandalizers had cased the site to determine what kinds of tools were needed to detach the cross from the heavy, in-ground base, the number of persons needed to lift and carry the cement-filled pipes to a vehicle, and the proper kind of vehicle. They do not seem to have left any debris or other clues, nor any foot or tire prints to cast. This event was a coup.
The Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has stated that, whomever committed this act of vandalism has just made 50 million enemies. That is only the beginning.
The intention of those who raised this monument 75 years ago deserves to be respected. They were honoring fallen comrades in the war in which THEY served, then called The Great War. They did not make the monument to honor the dead of the American Civil War, not the Spanish American War, nor any future wars until the sun goes supernova. They were doughboys.
So was Canadian Major John McCrae, Field Surgeon, who required to bury a friend and fellow warrior during a time when the chaplain was absent. The night before the burial ceremony he penned “In Flanders Field”, which has become one of the most famous battle poems in all history, mentioning “crosses row on row”. I hope that, when rationality prevails and when a VFW memorial is rebuilt, Major McCrae’s poem will be displayed at the base of the cross.



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted May 12, 2010 at 7:24 pm


The Supreme Court decision – with which I agree even though I have been an a-theist for 50 years – was NOT approval for the plywood box encasing the controversial Desert Cross TO BE REMOVED. The volunteer who did the maintenance and rough carpentry, Mr. Henry Sandoz, was patiently awaiting the balance of the legal process.
But, on Saturday 8 May 2010, some federal workers discovered that persons unknown had removed the plywood covering. They reported the matter to Park headquarters, and a repair team was scheduled to come to the site on Monday, 11 May, to repair (re-encase) the memorial. When they got there, however, they were astonished to discover that the CROSS WAS ENTIRELY GONE.
Within one hour, the news of this circumstance reached CNN and was immediately reported upon their website. Reactions poured in from across the country. It was mostly an outpouring of tears and not just from Christians. Several persons volunteered to pay the cost of its replacement. Henry and Wanda Sandoz were devastated, and Mr. Sandoz has already begun to gather construction materials to rebuild a cross that matches his photographs of the original 1934 monument. Henry took over the care of the disputed monument from the original caretaker, ON HIS DEATHBED. And Henry says he will keep the promise he made to that dying man, no matter what. If I lived close enough, I would gladly help him.
It is clear that this act was not some spur of the moment prank. The vandalizers had cased the site to determine what kinds of tools were needed to detach the cross from the heavy, in-ground base, the number of persons needed to lift and carry the cement-filled pipes to a vehicle, and the proper kind of vehicle. They do not seem to have left any debris or other clues, nor any foot or tire prints to cast. This event was a coup.
The Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has stated that, whomever committed this act of vandalism has just made 50 million enemies. That is only the beginning.
The intention of those who raised this monument 75 years ago deserves to be respected. They were honoring fallen comrades in the war in which THEY served, then called The Great War. They did not make the monument to honor the dead of the American Civil War, not the Spanish American War, nor any future wars until the sun goes supernova. They were doughboys.
So was Canadian Major John McCrae, Field Surgeon, who required to bury a friend and fellow warrior during a time when the chaplain was absent. The night before the burial ceremony he penned “In Flanders Field”, which has become one of the most famous battle poems in all history, mentioning “crosses row on row”. I hope that, when rationality prevails and when a VFW memorial is rebuilt, Major McCrae’s poem will be displayed at the base of the cross.



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted May 12, 2010 at 10:05 pm


Webmaster,
Someone needs to improve the software for posting to this site. I kept posting until I was confident that the post had been received. I made my first post at 7:19 p.m. and feedback of success came at 7:24 which is a FIVE MINUTE DELAY, and by which time, presuming a glitch to exist, I had posted two more times.
When any two word “security stimulus” is visually incomprehensible to me, I type pure garbage into the box. Compared to other web sites, the stimuli of this provider have too high an incomprehensibility rate.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted May 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm


I’d like to see a large Star of David erected alongside the Christian cross, to honor the Jewish soldiers who are buried at the site. I’d also gladly support a crescent moon and star erected to honor the Muslim soldiers buried there, and perhaps a Shinto shrine to honor the Japanese soldiers. And what about the Native American soldiers? What symbol will be chosen to honor their memory? Perhaps atheists would like a large X and agnostics a question mark. Whatever, what is really needed is a park where all religions and non-religions can be honored equally. If not, then ditch the cross and let each person bring his or her own sentiments to the scene. That sounds fair enough to me!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 14, 2010 at 5:06 pm


Of course because you see Jesus not as your Lord and you don’t have any respect for him at all….by your sentiments…..cc



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted July 17, 2010 at 2:46 am


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



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted July 29, 2010 at 10:45 pm


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



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.