Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


A Big Win at the Supreme Court

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Today,
Americans United is celebrating another victory – this time at the U.S. Supreme
Court.

This
morning, the high court upheld a policy at University of California, Hastings
College of the Law that prohibits school-subsidized clubs from engaging in
religious discrimination.

The
Christian Legal Society insisted that its student chapter should be exempt from
this policy and be able to discriminate against those who do not sign an
evangelical statement of faith or prevent students who engage in “unrepentant homosexual
conduct” from joining.

The
Supreme Court did not agree.  

Writing
for the 5-4 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that Hastings’ policy
was constitutional and must be followed by all student groups.  

“In requiring CLS–in common with all other student
organizations–to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the
benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress
constitutional limitations,” wrote Ginsburg. “CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not
parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’
policy.”

The
court said Hastings open access policy was reasonable and ensured that
leadership, educational and social opportunities were available to all
students. The court also noted that since recognized student organizations
receive funds through the student-activity fees, the school’s policy ensures
“that no Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject her as a
member.”

Americans
United filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case, and is pleased with the
court’s decision. Simply stated, the Christian Legal Society sought to ignore
rules that every other group complied with. The organization sought
preferential treatment simply because it is religious. Thankfully, the court
said no to that.

This
is a huge step forward for fundamental fairness and equal treatment. Religious
discrimination is wrong, and a public school should be able to take steps to
eradicate it. Today’s court ruling makes it easier for colleges and
universities to do that.

The case is  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(95)
post a comment
Rich

posted June 28, 2010 at 6:07 pm


I am relieved that this ruling went the right way. I continue to be amazed Alito’s dissent in which he worried greatly about the free expression rights of CLS but has no problem stomping all over non-theists rights and forcing them to fund CLS. The thing that Alito seems to dense to understand is that CLS is free to form any private discriminatory association it desires, its free speech rights remain unfettered. What it cannot do it demand that everyone fund its little club. It really isn’t any different than
Perhaps to drive the point home to Alito, Robert, Thomas and Scalia, the nine justices can form a weekly lunch club and sample a nice restaurant each week. To facilitate these outings, all justices would be required to drop $50 into the kitty each week. Oh, one more thing, sorry but if you are a unrepentant conservative Catholic you can’t go to lunch with everyone else.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 28, 2010 at 6:13 pm


My old initials were CLS
So whatever…., obviously religions can not be funded through government…So, I do believe in freedom of press..
So, whatever there intent is, if it is to convert people into their religion with government funds, that would be wrong…
As for things being held in location which have a religious basis, it does not matter if the content of the program does not contain a religion…For buildings do not make a religion… It is the heart of the matter….cc



report abuse
 

Ellen

posted June 28, 2010 at 6:29 pm


Great Ruling. Here’s hoping the Supremes continue this clear thinking and doing their part to ensure no American is allowed to be treated as a second class citizen by any organziation receiving public funding.



report abuse
 

HG

posted June 28, 2010 at 6:48 pm


“To facilitate these outings, all justices would be required to drop $50 into the kitty each week. Oh, one more thing, sorry but if you are a unrepentant conservative Catholic you can’t go to lunch with everyone else.”
That is Rich, I’m sure everyone would gladly fork over the weekly fifty!



report abuse
 

Rob the Rev

posted June 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm


“O God, we thank you for the tradition of separation of church and state in our United States and for the freedom of individuals to worship and follow You as they are led by their conscious without coercian by religious institutions using the power of the state to force their beliefs on those who don’t accept them. We thank you that our founding Fathers realized the dangers of state sanctioned religion that allows one set of beliefs about you to become legally enforceable against its citizens and to persecute, torture, and even put to death those who don’t accept the state religion. We thank you that they drew up and passed a secular Constitution that established a secular state that disallows any religious sect to usurp state power to coerce its citizens to follow its creed. We pray now that you will guard these liberties in an era when there are those sects that seem intent on limiting them. God, we ask for a renewal and revival of faithful passion. Ignite a rising fire of passion in us to stand against any erosion of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. We ask your blessing upon organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation who fight and work to maintain this Constitutional precept. Step in by your own direct intervention as well as through the active intervention of your people to stem the tide of governmental intrusion by into the spiritual convictions of private citizens. Give us courage to defend our rights, and a gentleness and humility to do so with grace and love for those who stand against us. In Your name as the Creator of All. God, bless America and all nations of the world.”



report abuse
 

Pete

posted June 29, 2010 at 1:16 pm


Has this decision overtuned the Lamb’s Chapel decision? So now, religious organizations will be preferentially barred from access to public facilities solely on the basis that they are religious? I hope we see this carried out in Muslim , Jewish, Christian, Buddist, Shinto, and free thinker’s organizations equally. What about cultural organizations? Will La Raza permit Tea party folks to become members? How about the Muslim groups letting Jewish members run for office? Don’t bet on it! This will be preferentially pressed on Christians. You can bet on it!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted June 29, 2010 at 1:38 pm


Pete,
I am guessing that you just plain don’t get it. This had nothing to do with the fact that CLS was Christian in orientation. It had to do with a group acting private when it came to discrimination but then acting public when it came to funding. You can’t be both private and public at the same time. As well, you can’t demand that the entire public support you and then turn around and deny admission to particular individuals.
re: “So now, religious organizations will be preferentially barred from access to public facilities solely on the basis that they are religious?”
Totally wrong of course. A non-discriminatory religious group is fine, a discriminatory religious group is not ok to receive public funds. Any group, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, etc. is subject to the same rules. An atheist group on campus would not be eligible to receive funding from a public university if is required Christian applicants to take an oath denying the existence of God.
And yes, if La Raza receives public funding, it better not be denying people admittance based upon religion or race.
This stuff is really pretty darn simple, there is no need for any Christian paranoia and claims of Christian persecution. I am just unable to understand why that is so hard for some folks to understand.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 29, 2010 at 3:14 pm


I thought the church was supposed to embrace individuals, not bar them from society, when all the while they were trying to make the world a better place..
I suppose if your quiet and you don’t say a word, and you agree with everything from some preachers view then your excepted into the church at large…
What about the person that wants to buck the system and say ” You want everybody to be like you, dressed so, showing no signs of a past or present problem, smiling away….at everything and anything, as long as you get a nice little pastry and some coffee at the tea table after church, and tell the pastor that his sermon was wonderful, are then you excepted into the greater church at large?
What about the person that says here I am broken discouraged, outraged at society, broken hearted at fellow church body members for their superficial hypocritical actions? What about the person that says I want to see this Christ like character in people when they go to church…., not somebody gossiping away in a sport activity event about how they did this and that, and how they are somehow better because they fit the bill of fakeness to fit in….
The heart, remember folks…., it is all about the heart of the intent of the individual… Are they trying to love you? Or, are they trying to put you on a lower plank of sorts so they can appear to be on the pedastal of perfection? Nobody is perfect, and church as a whole and people have let me down… I suppose that is no reflection on who God is and what he wants and has for me in my life…For God loves and wants the best for me, not somebody trying to take away everything that I love, including my self-worth… That’s people for you mean to the bone….. I suppose that is why they say dogs are mans best friends….cc



report abuse
 

Swift

posted June 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm


Rich,
I take it you didn’t actually read the case, since Alito’s dissent points out that the La Raza organization at Hastings DID IN FACT require its members to be of Latino origin. Many other organizations required members to affirm the group’s mission or agree not to disrespect it. Are those things different in your mind than CLS’s requiring members to affirm Christianity? I cannot see how they could be different — except for the identity of the CLS as a Christian organization. That, I take it, is the source of Pete’s criticism, and I for one think he’s dead-on.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 29, 2010 at 5:39 pm


Of course most athiest, agnostics don’t care one bit if things go down in favor of a Christian person, as long as they get what they want….eh?
That is what you call discrimination….., or biases



report abuse
 

Rich

posted June 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm


Swift,
I only skimmed over Alito’s dissent, mostly just looking at his tone. His dissent is really irrelevant, only the majority opinion defines the law.
Interestingly though, I was able to find UC Hasting La Raza’s bylaws online, dated 8/2007:
http://www.uchastings.edu/student-services/docs/bylaws/bylaws-la-raza.pdf
The bylaws do have the generic language about not discriminating on any of the standard prohibited bases. The other membership requirement is that student support the general “goals and objectives” of the organization. If they discriminated in the past based upon race, that would have been clearly wrong and they should have been denied official recognition just as CLS was.
As to requirement to be supportive of the goals and objectives of the club, I do see them as different because they are not recognized as prohibited bases of discrimination.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted June 29, 2010 at 6:54 pm


Swift says: “I take it you didn’t actually read the case, since Alito’s dissent points out that the La Raza organization at Hastings DID IN FACT require its members to be of Latino origin. Many other organizations required members to affirm the group’s mission or agree not to disrespect it. Are those things different in your mind than CLS’s requiring members to affirm Christianity? I cannot see how they could be different — except for the identity of the CLS as a Christian organization.”
Alito’s dissent alleges that several groups at the University contained both nondiscriminatory language while at the same time requiring members to adhere to the stated purposes of the organization. What is significant is that the University required those organizations to clean up their language and remove any ambiguity: You cannot receive official recognition or funding if you deny admission to any student, period. And every group came into compliance, causing CLS to file the suit.
Pay attention, people. The Supreme Court is tilted way over to the right with only two justices appointed by (liberal) Democrat Presidents. The fact that you can’t get 5 out of 7 of the others to vote for your position should be evidence enough that your position is indefensible, even by your conservative allies on the court.
Personally I think it is a serious and tragic flaw that major case law is decided my a simple and often temporary majority, especially with such an obvious slant.



report abuse
 

Curtis

posted June 30, 2010 at 12:53 am


This ruling is as absurd as the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that the liberals would love to pass. What sense does it make to be forced to allow individuals that are opposed to the very focus of the club? I’m sure there are plenty of atheist, homosexual, or Democratic clubs on campus that enjoy the same benefits of the use of facilities and other perks of being identified as an official school club. Should the right-wingers go join their clubs? This most definitely because it’s a Christian club.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted June 30, 2010 at 1:52 am


Curtis,
Again, another case of Christian paranoia. This was not about, never was about the fact that it was a Christian club. What it was about was a bunch of self-righteous Christians who attempted to confer upon themselves the right to make everyone pay for their club.
We have seen this before with the Boy Scouts, wanting public money and perks but feeling supremely above everyone else and too special to allow the general public to join. I just don’t know why this has to be said repeatedly but you can’t act public when it comes to funding and then act private when it comes to admission.
Tell me Curtis, do you really think it is fair that everyone should be forced to pay for and support a club that would not have them for a member? Don’t you think it is more equitable that if everyone has to pay money to support the student groups then anyone who pays money should be able to join any club?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 1, 2010 at 8:35 am


What sense does it make to be forced to allow individuals that are opposed to the very focus of the club?
What sense does it make to have a club that everyone cannot join without compromising their own conscience?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 1, 2010 at 7:30 pm


That would be the liberal pro murdering choice activist..
For taking a forming human being at any stage of the process is in fact a violation of conscience….
cc



report abuse
 

V of R

posted July 2, 2010 at 2:36 pm


That would be the Puritanical-activist position, forcing people to have unwanted children because of a sexual urge. Nevermind that abortion is generally safe and legal; when dirty little humans have sex they should expect and accept that it might result in becoming a parent– despite their own feelings on the subject. One should never have sex unless one is willing to have a baby as a result, …how seventeenth century!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 2, 2010 at 4:43 pm


No, that would be the person who does not think it is ok to kill other human beings however and whenever they were formed just because some selfish or misquided individual of the world feels that they are more superior then the next…..
Thanks anyway, but I will stick to the people who give a damn about life, instead of the controlling depriving humanist who think they are somehow more deserving of life, that they qualify for a human being more then another….cc



report abuse
 

Voris

posted July 2, 2010 at 5:47 pm


“Thanks anyway, but I will stick to the people who give a damn about life, instead of the controlling depriving humanist…”
You think that because people want to control their own lives, when to become a parent, they don’t give a damn about life? Odd. They who would control the lives of others, not giving a damn about them, are they who would force people into unwanted parenthood due to a natural biological urge. You’re entitled to stick to them, but not to force your viewpoint upon the population at large. This is called choice, and it’s the law in America for good reason.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 3, 2010 at 7:42 pm


Ow yes, I think that a person that would write a blog on-line which suggest to others that their right to murder their own child is a greater value then for the child to live, is at its very least selfish in nature.
Your right to decide when to become a parent should be when you decide when or not to have unprotected sex with a person… That would be your choice in the matter…. Don’t give me this bull which suggest that it is ok for you to kill over anothers right to live…
And another thing, V, the very fact that you would suggest that it only involves your body of conscern is what conscerns me…
For it is taking another persons life, where do you suppose that you came from…?
When two individuals decided to have sex and that created you. There is your choice in the matter… Not murder, thank you very much.
cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 4, 2010 at 12:44 am


cc: “There is your choice in the matter… Not murder, thank you very much.”
What choice? The sex act is not a choice which indicates desire, or ability, to parent a child. That is a separate choice. I was created because my mother chose to undergo pregnancy, not because she decided to have sex.
What murder? There is no murder where the unborn are concerned, why do you continue to tell this lie?
cc: “Your right to decide when to become a parent should be when you decide when or not to have unprotected sex with a person”
So, let me get this straight, if you use protection during sex but still wind up getting pregnant (none of them is 100%) then it’s okay to have an abortion? Is that what you are intimating by stipulating that only “unprotected sex” is the villain? Bullcrap. You believe any sex, protected or otherwise, resulting in pregnancy is an irrevocable acceptance of parenthood. Not according to American law. No murder involved. You’re a loon.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 6, 2010 at 10:00 am


But the radical racist ‘religious’ ‘right’ have been loony for eons. Nothing new there.
Not all people of faith equate abortion with murder – only the loonies.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:12 pm


Ow yes HG and your name of above mentioned blog…
It is not your body that they are killing..
The loony individuals are those which state that they have the right to kill the living and forming baby which they just helped produce and then they did not like their decision, thus saying now it ok for themselves to kill it because they so desire…
——————————-
So here is the truth:
It is still killing people regardless if you write and write your insensive selfish blogs of corruption which contaminate society at large in the fact that it is ok to value their opinions of their decisions of their murdering policies over protecting those children in the womb and elsewhere in the growing stage..
There is the beef…..
One group decided to become completely selfish in nature to the fact that they can kill another , while another group decided that they were going to stand and try and protect those individuals forming in the womb and elsewhere with everything they can do…
So I don’t want to hear this bull….crap…..about how you support the choice to murder the children…
Who are you….That would have been Hitler in concept, and that is what really chaps my hide…..For if that is what you stand for, then you should be put into some half-way house for the mentally challenged individual who thinks that their life matters over another and they still think it is ok to kill people….There might be some worped brain cells there….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:15 pm


it’s
IT’s not your body ladies and gentlemen…
That is the point…………cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:27 pm


I’m glad the feeble thinkers don’t have control. They find children where they aren’t, and murder where it isn’t. In other words, they find punishable crime where there is none–very much like Hitler.



report abuse
 

stacey

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm


Some sound like abortion began and will end with the begining and or ending of the law. You are rediculouse! People (most) under great
stress and pain make the dicisions they do. No sin is greater than another in the eyes of god. Back up what you believe in by supporting someone you know by not being so judmental and harsh, so such choices don’t need to be made . Sex is not new; nothing is new here.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm


RE Hg:
Don’t really understand what you are trying to point out there..
Children grow in the womb…
Remember…..
Murder is killing other people….
So, it is not my fault that some law maker decided that people developing are not considered as valuable as a person as when their mother was feeding them a bottle or breast fed…For, if they murdered them at that point, just maybe we wouldn’t have the legal murder law now…..cc
As for Stacey:
Don’t know what you are trying to point out there.
Of course people have sex…, that is not the point..
The point is that is there choice which involves their body..
Here is where the harshness needs to apply…
To the law in place which considers the person in the womb growing not relevent enough to vote, breath, or grow..
So yes, I think that it is totally selfish and is murder to the point of pre-meditated in the first degree…
Yes people are in trouble when they become pregnant sometimes.
This does not however take away the fact that those are people growing…
So your point of your last blog was what..
People have sex..
The compassion needs to be for those who are pregnant who are going through a tough time either giving their child up for adoption or for those who didn’t want to become pregnant. Meaning we need to be compasionate with those individuals. Not the people who want to kill their children…..
Thanks for your blog, but if you were attempting to side with the killing law, I would recommend you to the half way house as well, for the mentally challenged individuals who think of themselves superior to the next…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 6, 2010 at 8:43 pm


relevant-
having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand
their-
of or relating to them or themselves esp. as possessors,agents, or objects of an action…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 6, 2010 at 8:55 pm


As for Hitler:
I picked up a book of the shelves in the library on Hitler… You can tell allot about people from a picture…
Flipped to the picture sections and found that away from his public speaches he appeared to be looking normal, somewhat intraverted, like he held things personal inside, while smiling at the ladies as if he was just a charming young fellow..
Remember charm is deceitful,and what I found to be relevant was the fact that he could appear normal publically, while murdering all those people based on a religion…, beautiful people who had families, mothers, fathers, children, aunts uncles, grandmothers, and he stuffed them in trains and he killed them some in masses some one by one, and some sent off to a science lab as if they were less then human…
The thing they had to endure to stay alive, was beyond words.
I saw pictures of people having to cart away bodies, for a job just to stay alive…
The gold taken out of their teeth, their hair shaven and put in blank uniforms as if they were nothing…, deserving of nothing. And yet Hitler could smile and hold his head proud as if he was this wonderful person with a wonderful plan of action…
That is the point, somebody somewhere thought of himself more important then another to the point that he could destroy people based on the fact that they were not like him…, or based on the fact that he had the power and the inclination to do so…..
So the law was not so innocent when they could kill innocent people in their country based on a belief other then their own…? cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 6, 2010 at 8:59 pm


Hitler killed people based on the idea and the fact that they were different then him….
So are babies different then you when they are growing in the womb?



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 7, 2010 at 4:50 pm


“RE Hg: Don’t really understand what you are trying to point out there..” cc
Oh, well, let me show you what I said again. “The sex act is not a choice which indicates desire, or ability, to parent a child. That is a separate choice…There is no murder where the unborn are concerned”
Seems pretty easy to follow, what don’t you understand?
“So, it is not my fault that some law maker decided that people developing are not considered as valuable as a person” cc
The Supreme Court (not “some lawmaker”) decided the unborn are not “people” under the Fourteenth amendment. No, it isn’t your fault they decided as they did, but neither is it within your power to change the Constitution (thankfully). When you state that aborting a fetus is “murder to the point of pre-meditated in the first degree”, or compare someone to Adolph Hitler because they support abortion rights, you display vast ignorance and error.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2010 at 6:30 pm


Once again another lie to behold from the blogger….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2010 at 6:32 pm


The deal is that they are killing the children before they are born..
Get it?
And as for desire in sex, what is the issue about parenting in that…
For when a person becomes pregnant and the person is growin inside of them, their choice in the matter is to decide when and if they want to raise that child..
For if they do not want to parent, give the child to someone who does…cc
There is your pro-choice in the matter…cc



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 7, 2010 at 11:57 pm


HG says:
The Supreme Court (not “some lawmaker”) decided the unborn are not “people” under the Fourteenth amendment.
Mr. Incredible says:
SCOTUS decided that the Fourteenth Amendment, which defines “citizenship,” doesn’t apply to the unborn cuz the unborn person — a person — still needs to be born in order to be a citizen. So, for the purpose of citizenship, the unborn person is not a citizen until that person is born.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 8, 2010 at 3:16 am


HG says:
The sex act is not a choice which indicates desire, or ability, to parent a child.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. Everybody knows the risk of pregnancy, that that is the main purpose of sex. What they actually use it for, or what they persuade themselves is what it’s for, is another matter.
Outside-a marriage — properly between a man and a woman — sex objectifies people. That is idolatry.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 8, 2010 at 4:41 pm


For some the main purpose of sex is not to have another child…, sometimes it is just sex..
So, if there is a chance that those people could become pregnant who do not want children, then by choice, as in pro——protect yourself…cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 8, 2010 at 4:42 pm


cc “And as for desire in sex, what is the issue about parenting in that…
You, seriously, do not see the connection between sex and parenting? The sex act can result in a fertilized egg yielding the choice for women to undergo pregnancy, and, after that …parenting. See the connection now? However, electing to have sex, a natural biologic urge, is not the same as electing to become a parent. Mr I. claims this is “irrelevant”, which is incorrect. It is relevant because people have sex quite a bit more often than they want children, and abortion separates the two endeavors. If the sex were for recreation, exercise, fun, aggression, or just a drunken mistake; then no one can rightly tell them that their sex was actually “for” procreation. If it was not intended for procreation, and procreation is not desired, and procreation need not be accepted–then it doesn’t result. I’d say that’s relevant for individuals and society.
Mr. I: “SCOTUS decided that the Fourteenth Amendment, which defines “citizenship,” doesn’t apply to the unborn cuz the unborn person — a person — still needs to be born in order to be a citizen. So, for the purpose of citizenship, the unborn person is not a citizen until that person is born.”
Again, here is what the Court actually wrote… “the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” You refer to the unborn as a person, the Supreme Court says the term doesn’t apply under the Fourteenth, never has and never will.
If you think sex outside marriage is idolatry and objectifies people, then you are free to choose other activities. You are not empowered to force this view upon others any more than you can force them to become parents due to commission of the sex act. That decision is up to them even after having sex (there is your pro-choice in the matter) and all others’ opinions in such matters are truly irrelevant.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 8, 2010 at 6:38 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
SCOTUS decided the Fourteenth Amendment, which defines “citizenship,” doesn’t apply to the unborn cuz the unborn person — a person — still needs to be born in order to be a citizen. So, for the purpose of citizenship, the unborn person is not a citizen until that person is born.
HG says:
Again, here is what the Court actually wrote… “the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
Mr. Incredible says:
[By the way, when you quote something inside of a quote, the thing quoted inside of a quote takes single quoteation marks.]
The Fourteenth Amendment defines what it means to be “citizen.” It says that a person who is born in the United States is a citizen. In other words, a person who is not yet born is not a citizen.
The Court, in what you write, is talking in the context of citizenship. The Court is saying that the word “person” cannot apply to the unborn cuz the unborn cannot be a citizen.
Justice Blackmun says that, if somebody can present the Court with legal evidence that the unborn are persons, the court will rule the other way.
HG says:
You refer to the unborn as a person, the Supreme Court says the term doesn’t apply under the Fourteenth, never has and never will.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says that, if the mere suggestion of the [legal] establishment of “personhood” is presented to the Court, the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
HG says:
If you think sex outside marriage is idolatry and objectifies people
Mr. Incredible says:
God thinks so, too.
HG says:
…then you are free to choose other activities.
Mr. Incredible says:
Such as posting here.
HG says:
You are not empowered to force this view upon others…
Mr. Incredible says:
Where is the force???”? Do you feel “forced”? Tough.
HG says:
… any more than you can force them to become parents due to commission of the sex act.
Mr. Incredible says:
Civilized society — especially one, as this, that has a Constitution that protects persons — as a duty to protect persons. ALL persons.
HG says:
That decision is up to them even after having sex (there is your pro-choice in the matter) and all others’ opinions in such matters are truly irrelevant.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except when there is a person in the womb.



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 8, 2010 at 7:28 pm


You don’t like me leaving the quotation marks the way they were in the quote–tough.
I: “The Court, in what you write, is talking in the context of citizenship.”
The Court is talking about personhood as relates to the Fourteenth Amendment.
I: “Except that Justice Blackmun says that, if the mere suggestion of the [legal] establishment of “personhood” is presented to the Court, the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
To suggest that a Supreme Court decision builds anything other than the firmest precedent is an error. The case was heard, the question has been thoroughly answered by the Court. No future “if, ands, or buts” exist under this constitution.
I: “God thinks so, too.”
You don’t know if there IS a god, much less what they think, pretender.
I: “HG says:… any more than you can force them to become parents due to commission of the sex act.
Mr. Incredible says: Civilized society — especially one, as this, that has a Constitution that protects persons — as a duty to protect persons. ALL persons.
All persons covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, which does not include the unborn.
I: “HG says: That decision is up to them even after having sex (there is your pro-choice in the matter) and all others’ opinions in such matters are truly irrelevant.
Mr. Incredible says: Except when there is a person in the womb.”
There is no person in the womb as regards the Fourteenth so there is no “except”. The decision is up to the pregnant person even after having sex, that is the law in our civilized society.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 8, 2010 at 10:25 pm


HG says:
You don’t like me leaving the quotation marks the way they were in the quote–tough.
Mr. Incredible says:
It doesn’t matter to me if you wanna be stubborn and leave everybody with the impression that you’re ignorant about punctuation.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Court, in what you write, is talking in the context of citizenship.
HG says:
The Court is talking about personhood as relates to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Fourteenth Amendment defines what it means to be a citizen. It is about citizenship.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says that, if the mere suggestion of the [legal] establishment of “personhood” is presented to the Court, the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
HG says:
To suggest that a Supreme Court decision builds anything other than the firmest precedent is an error.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s good, then, that I’m not in error.
HG says:
The case was heard, the question has been thoroughly answered by the Court.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Court answered as I say it answered.
HG says:
No future “if, ands, or buts” exist under this constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says that, if someone brings a “suggestion of the establishment of personhood the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
Mr. Incredible says:
God thinks so, too.
HG says:
You don’t know if there IS a god…
Mr. Incredible says:
I know better than you whether I know. I’ve said all along that God exists. You don’t have to believe it. It’s still true that He exists. It’s just that you don’t see Him. That you’re blind is YOUR fault.
HG says:
… much less what they think…
Mr. Incredible says:
God tells us what He thinks in His Word. It’s not required that you believe it.
HG says:
…pretender.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil tells me that, too. I don’t listen to him, either. Romans 8:1 [KJV]
HG says:
… any more than you can force them to become parents due to commission of the sex act.
Mr. Incredible says:
Civilized society — especially one, as this, that has a Constitution that protects persons — as a duty to protect persons. ALL persons.
HG says:
All persons covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, which does not include the unborn.
Mr. Incredible says:
The unborn, while persons, cannot be citizens. A citizen, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, is a person who is born in the United States. A person who is not born is not a citizen.
HG says:
That decision is up to them even after having sex (there is your pro-choice in the matter) and all others’ opinions in such matters are truly irrelevant.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except when there is a person in the womb.
HG says:
There is no person in the womb as regards the Fourteenth…
Mr. Incredible says:
Since the Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizen,” not “person,” there can be no citizen unless that person is born in the United States.
However, Justice Blackmun says, in effect, that, if the “suggestion of the establishment of personhood” is brought before the Court, the Court will have-ta rule the other way, and, also in effect, the unborn person will be a citizen.
HG says:
The decision is up to the pregnant person even after having sex, that is the law in our civilized society.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, if the Court ruled the other way after “personhood” is brought before the Court, according to Justice Blackmun, THAT person will have the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment as a citizen.



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 8, 2010 at 11:59 pm


Justice Blackmun said nor insinuated any such thing. The issue was before the court THEN, and if personhood was established THEN, then THAT “person” would be entitled to protection under the fourteenth. The question was not left open to future re-interpretation after it was settled by the court; the unborn are not, have never been, will never be considered persons under the fourteenth. Try until you die, it won’t change anything.



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 9, 2010 at 1:23 am


I: “HG says: You don’t know if there IS a god…
Mr. Incredible says: I know better than you whether I know.”
No, I don’t think you do. You see, I know that you don’t know. Insisting God and His Word exist, doesn’t make such statements factual. Your acceptance as fact that “God tells us what He thinks in His Word.” does not make it so. You can pretend to know, but you don’t. You can feel like you know, but you don’t. You can say that you know, but you don’t…and I know that you don’t. Its not a secret that no one knows. Everybody knows that nobody knows, except for those who, fearing breach of faith and the resulting torment here and hereafter, claim, irresponsibly, to know that which they do not. It should come as no surprise that those who pretend to know make the rest of us laugh.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 4:31 am


HG says:
Justice Blackmun said nor insinuated any such thing.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that he did.
HG says:
The issue was before the court THEN, and if personhood was established THEN, then THAT “person” would be entitled to protection under the fourteenth.
Mr. Incredible says:
The question is still open, and Justice Blackmun leaves the door open for the time when somebody brings “personhood” before the Court.
HG says:
The question was not left open to future re-interpretation after it was settled by the court…
Mr. Incredible says:
The question is still open. Personhood was not brought before the court in Roe, and Justice Blackmun says that, had it been, the Court would have had to rule the other way. This means that if it is brought before the Court, the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
HG says:
…; the unborn are not, have never been, will never be considered persons under the fourteenth.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says things can change if “personhood” is brought before the Court.
HG says:
Try until you die, it won’t change anything.
Mr. Incredible says:
You keep thinking that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 4:32 am


HG says:
You don’t know if there IS a god…
Mr. Incredible says:
I know better than you whether I know.
HG says:
No…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
…I don’t think you do.
Mr. Incredible says:
It doesn’t matter what you think.
HG says:
You see, I know that you don’t know.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s important only that God knows that I know. It doesn’t matter what you think.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 4:33 am


HG says:
Insisting God and His Word exist, doesn’t make such statements factual.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s true that JUST CUZ I say so doesn’t make it true. I respond to the fact that God and His Word exist.
HG says:
Your acceptance as fact that “God tells us what He thinks in His Word.” does not make it so.
Mr. Incredible says:
The fact that God tells us what He thinks in His Word is a fact independent of what I say. The fact is that I happen to say what is fact. I have no control over that fact. I merely realize it.
HG says:
You can pretend to know…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I don’t pretend.
HG says:
…but you don’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
But I do.
HG says:
You can feel like you know…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not a feeling. It’s His Knowledge.
HG says:
…but you don’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
But I do know.
HG says:
You can say that you know…
Mr. Incredible says:
I say what I know.
HG says:
…but you don’t…
Mr. Incredible says:
But I do.
HG says:
… and I know that you don’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
You know that I know, but you wish to portray yourself as thinking that you know, but you don’t.
HG says:
Its [sic] not a secret that no one knows.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except those who are born again. That’s no secret.
HG says:
Everybody knows that nobody knows…
Mr. Incredible says:
Scoffers don’t know that they don’t know. They can’t know.
HG says:
…except for those who, fearing breach of faith…
Mr. Incredible says:
God gives no spirit of fear. There is no fear with God, through Christ.
HG says:
…and the resulting torment here and hereafter…
Mr. Incredible says:
There is no torment that affects us. Romans 8:1 [KJV]
…claim, irresponsibly, to know that which they do not.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that we DO know.
HG says:
It should come as no surprise that those who pretend to know make the rest of us laugh.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then quit saying that you know, and we’ll quit laughing at you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 5:03 am


HG says:
The issue was before the court THEN, and if personhood was established THEN, then THAT “person” would be entitled to protection under the fourteenth [sic].
Mr. Incredible says:
The principle of constitutional protection rests on “personhood.” This is the principle on which Justice Blackmun is talking in Roe. The principle continues. It is never-ending. Therefore, when “personhood” is brought before the Court, the unborn person will get the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 9, 2010 at 4:16 pm


No, the principle doesn’t continue, nor is it never-ending; it ended with the Supreme Court case. That’s what the Supreme Court does, decides things. You seem to not accept the concept of Stare decisis. Not too bright are you?
Go on claiming that you “know” God exists and that you “know” His Word; we’ll go on laughing at you, knowing that you don’t know. I do not say that I know, only that I know you don’t. You insist on being among the biggest liars on land, have it your way, …it shows.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 6:44 pm


HG says:
No, the principle doesn’t continue…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, it does. Justice Blackmun’s language makes that possible.
HG says:
… it ended with the Supreme Court case.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says otherwise.
HG says:
That’s what the Supreme Court does, decides things.
Mr. Incredible says:
Decisions change, based on new arguments. Justice Blackmun gave us the argument we need.
HG says:
You seem to not accept the concept of Stare decisis.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, I do. Except that decisions change when there is new, valid thinking. Justice Blackmun left the door open for new thinking.
HG says:
Not too bright are you?
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re blind. It’s no wonder you can’t see how bright I am.
HG says:
Go on claiming that you “know” God exists…
Mr. Incredible says:
I will go on saying that I know God exists cuz I know God exists. I can say only what I know. I know from experience.
You can’t say that you know God exists cuz you don’t have the experience of Him. That’s not my fault. That’s not His fault.
HG says:
… and that you “know” His Word…
Mr. Incredible says:
That I do.
HG says:
… we’ll go on laughing at you…
Mr. Incredible says:
HA! Scoffers laughing at us! That’s how we know, for certain, we’re on the right track!
HG says:
… knowing that you don’t know.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“We think we know that we think you don’t know, but we don’t know that you don’t know, but we must say that you don’t know cuz we wanna try-ta deceive everybody into thinking that we DO know, when we don’t.”

HG says:
I do not say that I know, only that I know you don’t.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I must portray confidence in something I can’t possibly have confidence in cuz I can’t possibly know cuz I reject everything you say which, of course, precludes me from knowing. I’m ignorant, but I’m too silly to admit it.”

HG says:
You insist on being among the biggest liars on land, have it your way, …it shows.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil tells me that, too. I don’t listen to him, either. Romans 8:1 [KJV]



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 7:12 pm


HG says:
You insist on being among the biggest liars on land, have it your way, …it shows.
Mr. Incredible says:
If what I write doesn’t align with you, rather with God’s Word, I can see why you and the Devil would call me a “liar.” As long as I tell God’s Truth, God is happy, even if you and the Devil are not. If you and the Devil are not happy, that’s too bad. If you and the Devil laugh at me, there’s no impact on me cuz, if you scoffers laugh at me, it is certain indication that I am on the right track. After all, Romans 8:1 [KJV].



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 7:24 pm


HG says:
No, the principle doesn’t continue…
Mr. Incredible says:
The Constitution protects persons. The Constitution does not define “person.” The Fourteenth Amendment defines what it means to be “citizen.”
Where Justice Blackmun, in Roe, tells us, and the appellant agrees, that, if the mere “suggestion of the establishment of personhood” had been brought before the Court, the Court would’ve had to rule the other way, Justice Blackmun is leaving the door wide open to anyone to bring the “suggestion of the establishment of personhood” before the Court.
Therefore, the principle that ALL persons are protected, continues. The suggestion and recognition by Justice Blackmun that all we need is the “suggestion of the establishment of personhood” — that is, something in law — continues.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 7:30 pm


Justice Blackmun says, “If this suggestion of personhood ‘IS’ [my emphasis] established…”
“Is.” The action continues. The principal continues. The door is left open. He didn’t say “was.” He didn’t say “were.” He says “is.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 7:38 pm


So, according to Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, if this suggestion of personhood “is” brought before the Court, say, tomorrow, or next week, or next year, the Court, according to his majority opinion, will reverse itself.
In other words, the word, “is,” does not mean, “was, nor, “were.” Justice Blackmun doesn’t limit the argument of “personhood to the past. He doesn’t say, “Oops, that’s too bad that you didn’t do it then!” He says, in effect, “It wasn’t done then, but, if it comes up later, this ‘IS’ what will have-ta happen cuz the Constitution protects persons.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 7:47 pm


HG, had you not help me, “is” would’ve blown right past me. Thanks for helping me read focus on the word of Justice Blackmun, and focus on the one word that rejects your argument that Justice Blackmun refers to the past, leaving, instead, the future open.
By challenging me, saying that Justice Blackmun “was” referring to lack in the case — that is, the past — you caused me to look at the wording again, and, when I did, the word “is” jumped out at me, and, now, it jumps out at you.
In other words, he is referring to the general principle that, if the law establishes “personhood,” that person is protected by the Constitution. That isn’t limited to Roe. It is a suggestion for future action.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 9, 2010 at 7:49 pm


CORRECTIONS
had you not help me — – > had you not helped me
helping me read focus > helping me refocus



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 10, 2010 at 12:47 am


Bwah-hah-hah. Nothing of substance. Abortion is legal, the findings in Roe are precedent. Abortion will continue to be legal, it’s done. Argue with yourself all you like, you’ve already been schooled on this blog and by the Supreme Court. If you had to wait until the case you describe is before the Supreme Court to lip off about it, you’d never be able to speak of it again. It’s history.
Keep telling yourself you know God is not an imaginary supernatural being, and keep telling yourself Roe didn’t settle the issue of abortion rights; …and I’ll keep laughing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 10, 2010 at 3:48 am


HG says:
Bwah-hah-hah.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’ve been reduced to a babbler.
HG says:
Nothing of substance.
Mr. Incredible breaks the code:

“There is nothing there with which I agree, and, therefore, if nothing of substance. There would be substance if I agreed with it.”

HG says:
Abortion is legal, the findings in Roe are precedent.
Mr. Incredible says:
And Justice Blackmun says, in that same ruling, that, if the suggestion of personhood IS established” before the Court, everything changes, and the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
HG says:
Abortion will continue to be legal…
Mr. Incredible says:
That is, until we use the gift Justice Blackmun gave us in Roe, itself, that all we have to do is present the Court a “suggestion” of the establishment of “personhood.”
HG says:
… it’s done.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that it isn’t. All we have-ta do is go with the gift Justice Blackmun gave us in Roe, itself — that is, present the Court with a “suggestion” of the establishment of “personhood,” and POOF!constitutional protection for the unborn cuz the Constitution protects ALL persons.
HG says:
Argue with yourself all you like…
Mr. Incredible says:
That argument is settled. Justice Blackmun says what I say he says.
HG says:
…you’ve already been schooled on this blog…
Mr. Incredible says:
You like to think so.
HG says:
… and by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Incredible says:
Which says, through Justice Blackmun, that, if we bring “suggestion” of the establishment of personhood before the Court, the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
HG says:
If you had to wait until the case you describe is before the Supreme Court to lip off about it, you’d never be able to speak of it again.
Mr. Incredible says:
At least ten states are moving toward defining “personhood,” based on my reading.
HG says:
It’s history.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s the future.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 10, 2010 at 3:49 am


HG says:
Keep telling yourself you know God is not an imaginary supernatural being…
Mr. Incredible says:
My experience tells me I know God, and it also tells me that He is not imaginary. It doesn’t matter what YOU think.
HG says:
… and keep telling yourself Roe didn’t settle the issue of abortion rights…
Mr. Incredible says:
As Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, all we must do is bring to the Court a mere establishment of a suggestion of personhood, and, Justice Blackmun says, the Court will rule the other way.
HG says:
…and I’ll keep laughing.
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 10, 2010 at 3:55 am


The nice thing is that Justice Blackmun uses the word “is” when he says, “If this suggestion of personhood IS established,” [my emphasis], not “was,” nor “were.” He doesn’t say, “If this suggestion of personhood had been established.” The word “is” is perpetual present. This means that the door is open to our using his suggestion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 10, 2010 at 4:05 am


Of course, the pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice fanatics don’t like the fact that we’ve discovered Justice Blackmun’s statement about two-thirds of the way down Roe. You know, the one that says, “If this suggestion of personhood IS [my emphasis] established,” the Court will have-ta rule the other way. They are doing anything and everything to try to make it seem as though Justice Blackmun is talking about a case that has already been tried. Except that he uses the word “is.” If he’s talking about the trial, he would have used some sorta past tense form, not the [perpetual] present tense.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 10, 2010 at 5:08 am


Rich says:
I continue to be amazed Alito’s dissent in which he worried greatly about the free expression rights of CLS but has no problem stomping all over non-theists rights and forcing them to fund CLS.
Mr. Incredible says:
No one has forced you to fund CLS.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm


Rich,
What would you like us to fund the selfish, agnostic, abortionist club, with free murder pills and legalized Embryonic Stem Cell forever funds?
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm


And neighbors and the like, don’t profess to be a Christian when your doing the exact things which lead people astray, like false representation of events and innacurate spreading of the events…, and another thing. When you take me or anybody else’s verbal expression out of context to spread your own agenda for whatever reason, I suppose to further your self-rightious holier then though agenda…. If you don’t have all the facts and you take things out of context and you go behind your back to slander, you are what you are to me… a wolf in sheeps clothing…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm


your-meaning others



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 10, 2010 at 5:33 pm


Frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn…………………
Great quote



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm


cc says:
Rich,
What would you like us to fund the selfish, agnostic, abortionist club, with free murder pills and legalized Embryonic Stem Cell forever funds?
Mr. Incredible says:
Y’see, cc, Rich doesn’t believe in freedom of conscience. Except the freedom of his own conscience. We should pay for HIS freedom of conscience. According to him, though, he should not pay for OUR freedom of conscience. Isn’t that nice?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 10, 2010 at 6:47 pm


Rich is probably one-a those who supported draft-dodging and Veet Nam protesters avoiding service by hightailin’ it to Canada on the basis of conscience.
And, yet, he probably doesn’t support a pharmacist who, on accounta conscience, won’t hand out birth control pills, nor RU-486 caps, just as he doesn’t support the collective CLS conscience to avoid the traps of letting in people whose agenda is only to disrupt.
The non-Christians who wanna join CLS and who wanna pull funding for the group are interested only in defeating the group. They are problems in subtraction, not addition. Division, not multiplication.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 12, 2010 at 6:01 pm


High tailing to Canada, does not sound like a bad idea. Of course, there economy is probably a bit more stable and their menues a bit more costly…
The only problem is a 10 and hr. job is not going to cut it, nor is a one time money offer, yes it could get me out of debt..
So, I will come up with something better…
of course, I did say yes, but of course, there were other sabotaugers out there just to get a little piece of the action..
And just going off to your merry little make believe world of acting ,or a job , or what not does not make you a consistant friend to be there for me…
One, the one that would have been consistant would have been the one sho stayed by my side, insted of coming and taking a job from me…cc
And who was that, my dog?
Of course there are peole far away who have come to support me and those in the neighborhood who asked to help…
I don’t know how you can help when obviously, without me getting a great paying job or I get married, or somebody picks up my tab…
Of course I have had small beginnings…,and made it up to the top of the moutain, only to plunge into the everlasting pit of despair…
And yes, I can get up and hope in God and know that he is with me in this world, whether or not the people are inclined to take a ride with me…
Miss my kids and living with them…and being able to go to sleep in my own place… And miss a husband that I expect never really manifested completely in my life…….the end…cc



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 2:36 pm


HG says:
Go on claiming that you “know” God exists…
Satan asks:

“Doth Mr. Incredible fear God for nought?” [Job 1:9]



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 19, 2010 at 3:02 pm


HG, you would have to be incredibly stupid to think that you were not entirely designed…cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 19, 2010 at 5:12 pm


“HG, you would have to be incredibly stupid to think that you were not entirely designed…cc”
I see it completely the opposite; believing that a supernatural being created all life, poof, borders insanity. The evolution of bio-diversity didn’t follow the Biblical path, as Boris has explained in detail. The fact that you must deny vast amounts of scientific evidence in order to stick to your (ridiculous) belief shows great conviction, but no intelligence. Stubborn adherence to religious dogma, although it is a load of dog crap, is probably best for intellectually challenged people. Pretense, in the absence, of knowledge is your strong suit, often with comical result. Thanks for the many laughs…(–He never gives us more than we can bare–was a good one!)



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 6:05 am


cc says:
HG, you would have to be incredibly stupid to think that you were not entirely designed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well…
HG says:
I see it completely the opposite…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course.
HG says:
… believing that a supernatural being created all life, poof, borders insanity.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I precluded myself from any proof, and, so, anybody who says that God created all life, poof, is insane!”

HG says:
The evolution of bio-diversity didn’t follow the Biblical path…
Mr. Incredible says:
Who says?
HG says:
… as Boris…
Mr. Incredible says:
The missing link.
HG says:
… has explained in detail.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“He explained it, but offered no proof.”

HG says:
The fact that you must deny vast amounts of scientific evidence…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“…scientific speculation… “

HG says:
… in order to stick to your (ridiculous)…
Mr. Incredible says:
VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT!
HG says:
… belief shows great conviction, but no intelligence.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“‘Intelligence’ is that which agrees with me.”

HG says:
Stubborn adherence to religious dogma, although it is a load of dog crap, is probably best for intellectually challenged people.
Mr. Incredible says:
A good thing, then, that Christianity isn’t a “religion.”
G 2356 , from G 2357, defines “religion” as “ceremonial observance.” “Christianity” doesn’t fit that definition.
HG says:
Pretense…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“In order to distract from the fact that I’m making things up, I must accuse Christians of making things up so that I look good.”

HG says:
…in the absence, [sic] of knowledge…
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who are born again have the Knowledge of God.
HG says:
…is your strong suit…
Mr. Incredible says:
Having the Knowledge of God is our strong suit.
HG says:
… often with comical result.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant.
HG says:
Thanks for the many laughs.
Mr. Incredible says:
No impact on us.



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 21, 2010 at 4:15 pm


I haven’t precluded myself from any “proof” that God created anything, it’s simply that there is none.
I don’t laugh at what you say to impact you, I laugh because it’s funny. Funny like Glenn Beck, who says the funniest stuff in such serious tones.
And now poor Glenn may be growing more blind than ever. He should have quit when his palms got hairier than Ann Coulter’s ball sac, but maybe he had “knowledge” that God will work a miracle for him.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:02 pm


HG says:
I haven’t precluded myself from any “proof” that God created anything…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course you have.
HG says:
…it’s simply that there is none.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I don’t see any proof, and, so, that must mean that there is none.”

HG says:
I don’t laugh at what you say to impact you…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course you do. And, again, no impact.
HG says:
I laugh because it’s funny. Funny like Glenn Beck, who says the funniest stuff in such serious tones.
Mr. Incredible says:
Again, it doesn’t matter why you laugh, nor that you laugh. We’re gonna do what we’re supposed to do.
HG says:
And now poor Glenn may be growing more blind than ever. He should have quit when his palms got hairier than Ann Coulter’s ball sac…
Mr. Incredible says:
And this is one reason nobody can take you seriously.
HG says:
… but maybe he had “knowledge” that God will work a miracle for him.
Mr. Incredible says:
The “miracle” would be that, even if he is struck blind, he realizes his new mission in life, not letting his blindness get in the way of his faith in God, nor hinder his progress in his life with God, through Christ. Of course, scoffers don’t understand that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm


Has anybody reported that spammer of commercial messages? Do Lynn and Sekulow care about it? Does Beliefnet care?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:47 pm


HG says:
I haven’t precluded myself from any “proof” that God created anything, it’s simply that there is none.
Mr. Incredible decodes that:

“I have programmed myself not to believe that God created anything, and, so, my eyes see only what I want them to see, and my ears hear only what I want them to hear. So, there can be no proof where I want no proof. Such proof would interfere with my projection on the world of what I want the world to be like. Mr. Incredible doesn’t agree with me, and, so, he must be wrong.”



report abuse
 

payday loans toronto

posted July 26, 2010 at 9:59 pm


blog.beliefnet.com is great! With payday loans for bad credit getting immediate freedom from financial discrepancies has become quite simpler Payday loans for bad credit are free from all sorts of hectic formalities and long paperwork which increase the speed of the application process



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted August 11, 2010 at 5:47 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
 

Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

posted September 8, 2010 at 4:10 am


I’m doing some thing of the same interest and will be taking note on this .Thanks. gdlrtdpzwddmtgezijxclirqbfrflbqwlsj
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.



report abuse
 

online payday loans

posted September 21, 2010 at 6:08 am


I must say that overall I am very taken with this site. It is apparent that you know you subject matter and you are passionate about it. I wish I had got your ability to write. I have bookmarked your site and look forward to more updates.



report abuse
 

payday loans canada

posted September 21, 2010 at 5:54 pm


Good post. Thank for sharing.



report abuse
 

no faxing loans

posted September 22, 2010 at 4:56 pm


Thanks for decent news! Your online site is rather useful for me. I bookmarked your web site! mrkrkorggat



report abuse
 

Serial

posted September 25, 2010 at 10:32 am


Respect to the author of original work. I am want to say thanks for interesting post, and thanks to google for perfect blog search.



report abuse
 

loans no fax

posted September 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm


I will post a link to this blog on my website. I’m sure my readers will find this info really great.



report abuse
 

loan canada bad credit

posted September 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm


Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?



report abuse
 

loan in british columbia

posted September 27, 2010 at 4:27 pm


Thanks for making such a killer blog. I arrive on here all the time and am floored with the fresh information here.



report abuse
 

payday loans ontario

posted September 28, 2010 at 6:15 am


Finally, an issue that I am passionate about. I have looked for information of this caliber for the last several hours. Your web site is greatly appreciated.



report abuse
 

loans for bad credit

posted September 28, 2010 at 5:09 pm


Hi webmaster, commencers and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely great! Lots of superb information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Maintain them coming… You all do such a fantastic job at such Concepts… can’t tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!



report abuse
 

bc loan canada

posted September 29, 2010 at 5:30 pm


Fine publish. Thank for sharing.



report abuse
 

serialcrack

posted September 30, 2010 at 1:36 am


Respect to the author of original work. I am want to say thanks for funny post, and thanks to google and yahoo for perfect blog search.



report abuse
 

canadian loans

posted September 30, 2010 at 7:47 pm


Effectively, the submit is actually the sweetest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the wonderful clarity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. High quality work and much success in your business endeavors!



report abuse
 

lose weight

posted October 2, 2010 at 4:59 am


Thanks for high quality news! Your webpage is exceptionally useful for me. I bookmarked your site!



report abuse
 

loans in canada with bad credit

posted October 3, 2010 at 8:08 pm


Hi buddy, fairly informative post. Please keep them coming.



report abuse
 

bad credit canada

posted October 5, 2010 at 6:53 pm


This web site is amazing. I constantly come across some thing new & different right here. Thank you for that data.



report abuse
 

faxless payday loan

posted October 12, 2010 at 3:08 pm


Superior publish. Thank for sharing.



report abuse
 

Payday Loan

posted October 21, 2010 at 12:52 pm


Great blog it has a nice content. Keep up the good work.



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.