Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Back in Court on National Day of Prayer

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

 

While we don’t agree on the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in the case of  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez – there’s one thing that I suspect we see eye-to-eye on.  And that’s the fact that this decision, like many church/state decisions, was decided by one vote continuing to reflect a sharply divided court on these issues.  Even if Elena Kagan is confirmed to replace retired Justice Stephens – that fact is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

Let’s focus on a case now that is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.  It’s a case we discussed earlier out of Wisconsin where a federal judge ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional – a violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and we have just filed an amicus brief on behalf of 67 members of Congress in support of the federal government’s defense of this tradition.

Barry, this is a case where the law and history are very clear in recognizing the fact the a day set aside to pray for our country is not only a time-honored tradition, but one that is consistent with the First Amendment.

 

Many members of Congress understand that the National Day of Prayer is a constitutional reflection of our history – our heritage.  This tradition is supported by Supreme Court precedent and numerous acts of Congress. 

 

In our amicus brief, we argue that the Freedom From Religion Foundation lacked standing to bring the suit in the first place.  And we argue that there are key Supreme Court decisions that point to the constitutionality of this day of prayer.  Specifically, we cite the 1983 decision in Marsh v. Chambers by the Supreme Court as one important example.

 

According to the brief:  “The historical record establishes that the National Day of Prayer ‘is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.’ 463 U.S. at 786.  If calls for national prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause during the founding era, Marsh requires the conclusion that the National Day of Prayer is constitutional today.”

 

“A proper understanding of the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence supports the conclusion that because of the historic pedigree of the National Day of Prayer, the federal statute in which it is codified is constitutional,” the brief contends.

 

The brief concludes:  “The First Amendment Religion Clauses, which themselves single out religion for favorable treatment, simply do not require such a ‘relentless extirpation’ of all religious expression and reference from public life.”  Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 657 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

 

Since the founding era, nearly every president has issued proclamations calling the nation to pray for various purposes.  The brief outlines the robust history of prayer proclamations, including presidential proclamations dating back to George Washington.  It’s also significant to note that James Madison, who authored the First Amendment that is at the center of this challenge, himself issued four similar proclamations of prayer.

 

We represent 67 members of Congress – both Democrats and Republicans – who understand that the National Day of Prayer is not a violation of the First Amendment.

 

Barry, the 7th Circuit has an important opportunity to correct this badly flawed lower court decision.  We’re hopeful the appeals court will reverse the federal district court and protect a tradition that’s been part of our nation for centuries.

 

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(88)
post a comment
jestrfyl

posted July 13, 2010 at 11:55 am


It is not Congressional business to declare anything religious. They ought to simply stay out of religion as an entity. If individual members of Congress want to join in a Day of Prayer as declared by some religious group, that is fine. But prayer is not the nation’s busines. This is simply pandering to an interest group that is easily satisfied by shallow positions and idolatrous posturing.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted July 13, 2010 at 12:04 pm


I agree with jestrfyl.
Jay, explain WHY Congress should COMPEL the President to do ANYTHING of a ‘religious’ nature?
You and yours are free and welcome to pray all you want. But to demand this religious action of the President is going W-A-A-A-Y over the line.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm


Mr. Sekulow,
Your disingenuousness is quite revealing. Yes, it is true that Madison did issue proclamations for prayer. What you fail to mention is that upon further reflection he later decided that they were inappropriate and he regretted ever having done so. You will of course find evidence of this in his ‘Detached Memoranda’ of 1817.
Of course, you are certainly educated enough to know of this yet have chosen to misrepresent Madison. Is it so important to you to push Christianity and Jesus that you are willing to lie to gain your end of a Christian theocracy? I suspect so.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm


To me, the whole issue is not a ‘National Day of Prayer’ rather, it has become a ‘Conservative Christian Day of Prayer’. It is very obvious that non Christians are not wanted to this ‘day of prayer’.
That’s the real issue here, not what Mr.Sekulow is presenting.
All one has to do is go and read the requirements of the national day of prayer. Non conservative Christians are not wanted either.
That’s why it should be abolished!



report abuse
 

Ethan Q

posted July 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm


Shameful. The history and tradition of religion and politics is written in the red ink of blood. It accomplishes NOTHING for the public good except hatred, separation, and bigotry.
When religion accepts ALL OTHERS AS EQUALS on earth and in heaven, THEN and ONLY then does religion deserve to be a part of any true secular society.
Our founders knew well the bloody history of religion and politics on the European continent. It is what they fled from. FIE on the religious maniacs who want to bring that disease into this country!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 1:15 pm


Ethan Q says:
When religion accepts ALL OTHERS AS EQUALS on earth and in heaven, THEN and ONLY then does religion deserve to be a part of any true secular society.
Mr. Incredible says:
That the world’s way of looking at it, and not what Christ says.
Christ says that He is the ONLY way to the Father.
Are you calling Him “liar”?
Ethan Q says:
Our founders knew well the bloody history of religion and politics on the European continent. It is what they fled from.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not true.
The settlers came here to, as they say, “advance Christianity.” They came here to get away from a system which required them to access God through the Church of England whose high priest was the King. The Word of God was not available to them, except through the Church. They knew that God is accessed through His Word, and they came here to set up a system of freedom to do that.
Therefore, so-called “separation of Church and State” is the answer to the system they left for the King ruled over the Church in order to enforce the notion that God can be accessed only through the Church, not through His Word.



report abuse
 

James

posted July 13, 2010 at 1:18 pm


“What you fail to mention is that upon further reflection he later decided that they were inappropriate and he regretted ever having done so. You will of course find evidence of this in his ‘Detached Memoranda’ of 1817.”
“willing to lie to gain your end of a Christian theocracy”
There’s no mention of a ‘day of prayer’ in the Detached Memoranda of 1817. Jay Seculow is not lying. James Madison actually praises the The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in his letter; stating that “religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude”.
This act, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1786 (and made into law) basically stated that: “That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html
An official day of prayer is not forcing anyone to do anything. A day of prayer is exercising religious freedom in the U.S. and a time-honored tradition in the history of the U.S. Are you forced to pray on the National Day of Prayer?
What’s next? Should the U.S. not recognize any religious holidays?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 1:21 pm


Gwyddion9 says:
To me, the whole issue is not a ‘National Day of Prayer’ rather, it has become a ‘Conservative Christian Day of Prayer’.
Mr. Incredible says:
Okay. To YOU.
Gwyddion9 says:
It is very obvious…
Mr. Incredible says:
To YOU.
Gwyddion9 says:
… that non Christians are not wanted to this ‘day of prayer’.
Mr. Incredible asks:
And how do you suppose we can enforce that?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 1:27 pm


James says:
What’s next? Should the U.S. not recognize any religious holidays?
Mr. Incredible says:
Next, somebody will wanna delete Martin Luther King, Junior, Day cuz, after all, he frequently mentioned God in his speeches.
Priddy soon, somebody else will wanna delete Juneteenth cuz, after all, that’s religiously celebrated and in everybody’s faces, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm


God and I are glad James is here.



report abuse
 

Drumpy Old Person

posted July 13, 2010 at 3:20 pm


Gwyddion9,
“It is very obvious that non Christians are not wanted to this ‘day of prayer’.”
Heck, it’s very obvious that only certain kinds of “Christians” are “wanted” – namely, the Focus on Some Folks’ Families kind, since the wife of its founder heads the NDoP.
Could someone get the Dobsons the he11 out of government ‘business’ (not that prayer IS government business).



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted July 13, 2010 at 3:34 pm


Mr. Sekulow- The National Day of Prayer is now a law that binds the President legally to making a declaration encouraging the citizens to pray. While the suggestion made by the President may be voluntary on the part of citizens to participate or not, it certainly is not voluntary for the President himself. What if we elect a President who is an atheist? Or from a religious tradition that does not agree with using prayer or proscribing that activity to others?
Mr. Sekulow- it becomes clearer and clearer as time passes that you and those you represent have absolutely no concept of the meaning of the Establishment Clause.



report abuse
 

Rozella Grahek

posted July 13, 2010 at 4:54 pm


I agree that we should continue to have a national day of prayer in the United States.



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 13, 2010 at 5:25 pm


Why would government beaurocrats be given the lead role in a religious matter? If it be desirable (and, I don’t think it is), as our religious leaders, the churches should proclaim a national day of prayer.
Good point LindaJoy, lawfully directing the President to endorse any religious practice is wrong.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 7:05 pm


LindaJoy says:
Mr. Sekulow- The National Day of Prayer is now a law that binds the President legally to making a declaration encouraging the citizens to pray.
Mr. Incredible says:
1. Not forcing. Not requiring. Encouraging.
2. Pray what? To whom?
LindaJoy says:
While the suggestion made by the President may be voluntary on the part of citizens to participate or not, it certainly is not voluntary for the President himself.
Mr. Incredible says:
The president is not required to pray.
LindaJoy says:
What if we elect a President who is an atheist?
Mr. Incredible says:
Obammy is a Muslim. Islam says that the son of a Muslim is a Muslim. Obammy’s father is/was a Muslim.
LindaJoy says:
Or from a religious tradition that does not agree with using prayer or proscribing that activity to others?
Mr. Incredible says:
The president acts as president, not a man. Congress cannot require the man. Congress requires the president.
LindaJoy says:
Mr. Sekulow- it becomes clearer and clearer as time passes that you and those you represent have absolutely no concept of the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
Mr. Incredible says:
You need to tell me — tell US — that, five minutes ago, it wasn’t as clear to you as it is now, and that, five minutes from now, it will be clearer to you than it is now???
When will you be able to claim that, to you, it will be as clear as is gonna be?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 7:06 pm


HG says:
Why would government beaurocrats [sic] be given the lead in a religious matter?
Mr. Incredible says:
They don’t have the lead role.
HG says:
If it be desirable (and, I don’t think it is), as our religious leaders, the churches should proclaim a national day of prayer.
Mr. Incredible says:
If ALL churches were represented in one body, they could.
HG says:
… lawfully directing the President to endorse any religious practice is wrong.
Mr. Incredible says:
Even though, to YOU, it’s wrong, you claim it’s “lawful.” We wish that you would make up your mind.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 13, 2010 at 8:44 pm


LindaJoy,
You make an excellent point about forcing an atheist president to declare a NDOP. Declaring such a day is clearly a religious act and no law should ever force any citizen to engage in a religious act.
Of course, it will be hundreds of years before we have an atheist president.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 13, 2010 at 9:06 pm


“Mr. Incredible says:
Okay. To YOU.
Gwyddion9 says:
It is very obvious…
Mr. Incredible says:
To YOU.
Gwyddion9 says:
… that non Christians are not wanted to this ‘day of prayer’.
Mr. Incredible asks:
And how do you suppose we can enforce that?”
Actually, Mr.I, per the agreement set up by Dobson. It pretty much says that you must agree to participate and lead. I have friends who were asked to leave as they were not Christian.
How is it inforced? By rude and abrupt people creating issues asking other to leave because they don’t worship “their” god. Yes, I know. I purposefully didn’t capitalize it. It doesn’t deserve it..to me!
How to enforce it? Simple, eliminate it completely!
Conservative Christians don’t want to play fair so end it, period. Why should the self-righteous deserve a day of prayer, at everyone else’s expense…they don’t. Conservative Christians appear to want exceptions given to them so I say, knock them down a few notches. They’re no better than anyone else and their religion is no better than any other religion, with the exception of it’s in their mind.
I will give you this, you express your opinion and I don’t have issues with that, however, wrong is wrong. NO religious group or denomination in the United States should be given preferential
treatment over any other religious group or denomination.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:18 pm


Rich says:
LindaJoy,
You make an excellent point about forcing an atheist president to declare a NDOP.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that there is no Catholic president, nor Muslim president, nor atheist president. The president is just president. The president is a figure. The man who is president is supposed to separate is being a man from his being president. The king, in “Camelot,” prayed that he think like a king, not like a man.
Rich says:
Declaring such a day is clearly a religious act…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it isn’t. The declaration is NOT a religious act. The praying is a religious act.
Rich says:
… and no law should ever force any citizen to engage in a religious act.
Mr. Incredible says:
And no law is. No one is forced to engage in any religious act.
Rich says:
Of course, it will be hundreds of years before we have an atheist president.
Mr. Incredible says:
If then.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:41 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Okay. To YOU.
Gwyddion9 says:
It is very obvious…
Mr. Incredible says:
To YOU.
Gwyddion9 says:
… that non Christians are not wanted to this ‘day of prayer’.
Mr. Incredible asks:
And how do you suppose we can enforce that?”
Gwyddion9 says:
Actually, Mr.I, per the agreement set up by Dobson.
Mr. Incredible says:
No one is excluded.
Gwyddion9 says:
It pretty much says that you must agree to participate and lead.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, if you decide not to participate, that YOUR choice. Don’t blame him.
Gwyddion9 says:
I have friends who were asked to leave as they were not Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what they say, anyway.
Gwyddion9 says:
How is it inforced [sic]? By rude and abrupt people creating issues asking other to leave because they don’t worship “their” god.
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t have god.
There may be rude and abrupt people among us. That doesn’t mean they speak for us.
In any case, it’s entirely probable that people like you who wish not to participate overstate your objection to the point of assigning blame to those who don’t deserve it. Just as those who claim to be homosexual assign hate to those who follow God, through Christ, and oppose homosexuality.
Gwyddion9 says:
Yes, I know. I purposefully didn’t capitalize it. It doesn’t deserve it..to me!
Mr. Incredible says:
To YOU. That’s why you can’t be taken seriously.
Gwyddion9 says:
How to enforce it? Simple, eliminate it completely!
Mr. Incredible says:
Won’t happen. You don’t get to impose your views on the rest of us.
Gwyddion9 says:
Conservative Christians don’t want to play fair…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“It’s fair if they agree with me!”

Gwyddion9 says:
…so end it, period.
Mr. Incredible says:
No. Now what?
Gwyddion9 says:
Why should the self-righteous…
Mr. Incredible says:
Define “self-righteous”? You don’t know the difference between Christ Righteous and self-righteous.
Gwyddion9 says:
…deserve a day of prayer…
Mr. Incredible says:
You don’t get to decide what we deserve. God has already decided it.
Gwyddion9 says:
… at everyone else’s expense…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s at nobody else’s expense.
Gwyddion9 says:
Conservative Christians…
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus Christ was/is conservative.
Gwyddion9 says:
…appear to want exceptions given to them…
Mr. Incredible says:
No need for exceptions. All the exception we need is the Word of God and the First Amendment.
Gwyddion9 says:
… so I say, knock them down a few notches.
Mr. Incredible says:
You haven’t had much luck so far. Bring it!
Gwyddion9 says:
They’re no better than anyone else…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody said we are. We’re just saved by Grace and separated from the “goats.”
Gwyddion9 says:
… and their religion is no better than any other religion…
Mr. Incredible says:
We have no “religion.” “Religion” is a “ceremonial observance.” Christianity is relationship with God, through Christ. No ceremony necessary.
Gwyddion9 says:
… with the exception of it’s in their mind.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what describes atheists.
Gwyddion9 says:
I will give you this, you express your opinion…
Mr. Incredible says:
And it aligns with the Word of God.
Gwyddion9 says:
… and I don’t have issues with that, however, wrong is wrong.
Mr. Incredible says:
WHEW! I’m glad I’m not wrong!
Gwyddion9 says:
NO religious group or denomination in the United States should…
Mr. Incredible says:
VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT!
Gwyddion9 says:
… be given preferential treatment over any other religious group or denomination.
Gwyddion9 says:
Nobody is giving any “religious” group, or denomination, in the United States any preferential treatment over any other “religious” group, or denomination. There is no particular group singled out for the National Day of Prayer. Prayer can be to anyone, or any thing, even yourself.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:44 pm


CORRECTION
Gwyddion9 says:
Nobody is giving any “religious” group, or denomination, in the United States any preferential treatment over any other “religious” group, or denomination. There is no particular group singled out for the National Day of Prayer. Prayer can be to anyone, or any thing, even yourself. — — >
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is giving any “religious” group, or denomination, in the United States any preferential treatment over any other “religious” group, or denomination. There is no particular group singled out for the National Day of Prayer. Prayer can be to anyone, or any thing, even yourself.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:46 pm


The preferential treatment is to everyone. Every person gets to decide, for himself, whether to participate in the National Day of Prayer. If you want not to participate, that’s YOUR choice.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:52 pm


Even if it’s true that some and our crowd told those who reject God and Christ to leave, that doesn’t mean anything to the issue of a National Day of Prayer. Being “wanted” has nothing to do it. A day to us is a day to you. How do we exclude you from a day??



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:54 pm


Actually, those who refuse to participate exclude themselves.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:57 pm


Those who refuse to participate may exclude themselves, but they have Right to exclude the rest of us.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted July 13, 2010 at 10:59 pm


CORRECTION
but they have Right — > but they have no Right



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted July 13, 2010 at 11:05 pm


The atheists don’t intend it, but they are drawing more attention to prayer than they say it deserves. They are helping to do the opposite of what they say they want. In that case, I say, “Thanks!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted July 13, 2010 at 11:13 pm


How does the National Day of Prayer impact anyone who wants not to participate??? Just go about your day as though nothing has happened, except that you “boldly” chose not to participate.
No one has taken anything away from you. You choose not to receive something that has been given to you. Just make believe there’s nothing special about that day. After all, you have no trouble making believe that there is no God; you can make believe that the National Day of Prayer is just another day.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 14, 2010 at 12:06 am


Mr. I,
re: “How does the National Day of Prayer impact anyone who wants not to participate??? ”
Geez, let’s see, we all pay the salary of these morons so they can waste our money and engage in superstitious voodoo. They should do what we pay them for, not uttering bizarre incantations to invisible and non-existent spirits.
As well, if they use a government computer in arranging such a farce, they are misappropriating government resources. If these clowns want to engage in such nonsense, they can do it from their homes and free up government resources for actual government business.



report abuse
 

HG

posted July 14, 2010 at 12:31 am


Government endorsement of religious practice has long been recognized as coersive and unconstitutional. Religious practices and beliefs are not mandated or promoted by government, rather, they flourish or perish at the whim of a voluntary constituency. As Rich noted, it is simply not part of government business.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 14, 2010 at 12:51 am


Mr. I.
I’ll put it, very bluntly what I think of Christianity, though I will say that I do recognize that there is a huge difference from those Christians versus conservative Christians. It has been my personal experience that Conservative Christians are the ones who are always looking down their noses at anyone different from them or their beliefs.
So, to get on with my point,
If, you choose to worship a DEAD Hebrew on a stick, that’s your business. Don’t presume that the rest of us need to or want to!
My patience for Conservative Christians is at an end! If they push, I push back!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 14, 2010 at 6:42 am


Mr. Incredible says:
How does the National Day of Prayer impact anyone who wants not to participate???
Rich says:
… we all pay the salary of these morons so they can waste our money and engage in superstitious voodoo.
Mr. Incredible says:
Every two years, there’s an election. If people have a problem with the people who are in office, they can vote those people out. This November, be sure to vote against the people you don’t like.
Rich says:
They should do what we pay them for…
Mr. Incredible asks:
They should do what which “we” pay them for? Regarding the National Day of Prayer, I like what they do.
Rich says:
… not uttering bizarre incantations to invisible and non-existent spirits.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, so, they’re not.
Rich says:
As well, if they use a government computer in arranging such a farce, they are misappropriating government resources.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which court has so ruled?
Rich says:
If these clowns want to engage in such nonsense, they can do it from their homes and free up government resources for actual government business.
Mr. Incredible says:
They did, and they determined that the National Day of Prayer is appropriate. You don’t think so. So what? This coming November, you’ll have the chance to vote your sentiments.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 14, 2010 at 6:43 am


HG says:
Government endorsement of religious practice has long been recognized as coersive and unconstitutional.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Government hostility toward religious practice is also coercive and unconstitutional.
In any case, the Constitution endorses religious practice. Is the Constitution unconstitutional?
HG says:
Religious practices and beliefs are not mandated or promoted by government, rather, they flourish or perish at the whim of a voluntary constituency.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Religious” practice is promoted by the Constitution. The National Day of Prayer is an invitation to do with the Constitution promotes. You may refuse the invitation.
HG says:
As Rich noted, it is simply not part of government business.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s part of the business of government to say what the Constitution says.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 14, 2010 at 6:44 am


Gwyddion9 says:
Mr. I.
I’ll put it, very bluntly what I think of Christianity, though I will say that I do recognize that there is a huge difference from those Christians versus conservative Christians.
Mr. Incredible says:
Who says? Jesus was conservative. He was fundamentalist.
Gwyddion9 says:
It has been my personal experience that Conservative Christians are the ones who are always looking down their noses at anyone different from them or their beliefs.
Mr. Incredible says:
YOUR perception.
Gwyddion9 says:
If, you choose to worship a DEAD Hebrew on a stick, that’s your business. Don’t presume that the rest of us need to or want to!
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is forcing you.
Gwyddion9 says:
My patience for Conservative Christians is at an end!
Mr. Incredible says:
Tuff.
Gwyddion9 says:
If they push, I push back!
Mr. Incredible says:
Big talk.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 14, 2010 at 7:08 am


Gwyddion9 says:
Mr. I.
I’ll put it, very bluntly what I think of Christianity…
Mr. Incredible says:
We already know, and we feel sorry for you. We will pray for you, and we already know you will resist the power of the prayers cuz you’re afraid.



report abuse
 

Bea

posted July 14, 2010 at 10:36 am


You’d think a constitutional scholar like Mr. Sekulow would know it’s Justice Stevens, not Stephens.



report abuse
 

JJ

posted July 14, 2010 at 1:35 pm


Government being indifferent to religion is not the same as being hostile to it. The fact that we’re a secular nation is what made us great and allowed us to survive all these years.
I fear that these theists won’t be happy until they turn the U.S. into the Christian version of Iran and there’s blood flowing in the streets from religious civil war. And for what? Mythology!



report abuse
 

momintum

posted July 14, 2010 at 1:51 pm


Religious proselytizing by this or that group has bullied and intimidated society for ages. Everyone has seen what politics and religion combined creates whether on a local or global scale. Some politicians will stop at nothing including the manipulation of the ignorant and uneducated to gain votes and promote their own agendas. Many of these sycophants privately carry on completely unrelated and more than distant relationships with religions while publicly endorsing whatever sky-fairy roosts above their heads at the time, (watch th’ finger).



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm


Mr. I,
I don’t need your pity. My Gods got it right the first time and didn’t have to send themselves to fix the mess they created.
And as far as who says, conservative Christians. They don’t acknowledge other Christians because in their minds, everyone’s wrong with the exception of themselves. conservative Christianity is America’s Taliban.



report abuse
 

Ruth Walker

posted July 14, 2010 at 5:44 pm


What could be clearer than the Constitution’s “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?”
Surely the Christians know that Jesus instructed to pray in private and not to make a fuss! Matthew 6



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 15, 2010 at 9:42 am


I am wondering about the admonition in Matthew 6:5 to only pray in private. Is praying in public an ‘abomination’. Clearly it is. Bummer too because if certain folks stop praying in public how will they ever ingratiate themselves with the pious voters? However, since is obviously listed as an abomination I think we should deny the right to marry to those who continue to pray in public. I do understand that there will be those who will feel the urge to pray in public, as long as they don’t act on it that will be okay.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 19, 2010 at 2:34 pm


You can pray any time you want, try it silent to yourself…
That would be good…, and or course there is always the prayer of agreement, you can do it on your lunch break with a couple of buddies..
And of course if your going to quote the Bible, try to use scripture and verse and don’t take it out of context.
Remember the Lord’s prayer, it is an OUR………….cc
Our Father ….



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 5:08 am


Gwyddion9 says:
Mr. I,
I don’t need your pity.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not pity.
Nevertheless, I’ll pray for you, anyway.
Wutsamatter, afraid it’s gonna work?
Gwyddion9 says:
My Gods…
Mr. Incredible asks:
How many “Gods” do you have?
Gwyddion9 says:
…got it right the first time…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What’s “right”?
When was “the first time”?
Gwyddion9 says:
… and didn’t have to send themselves to fix the mess they created.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Good, cuz God didn’t create the mess He sent Jesus to try to fix, anyway.
Gwyddion9 says:
And as far as who says, conservative Christians.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, they don’t. Naturally, you’re making it up as you go along.
Gwyddion9 says:
They don’t acknowledge other Christians…
Mr. Incredible asks:
They don’t?? WHICH Christians don’t they acknowledge??
Gwyddion9 says:
… because in their minds, everyone’s wrong with the exception of themselves.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, everyone who doesn’t line himself up with God, through Christ, is wrong.
Gwyddion9 says:
conservative Christianity is America’s Taliban.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Conservative Christians should agree with me, and, if they don’t, they must be Taliban!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 5:35 am


Rich says:
I am wondering…
Mr. Incredible asks:
You are, are you?
Rich says:
… about the admonition in Matthew 6:5 to only pray in private.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, as is the case with all scoffers, you got that wrong, too, cuz you fail to read the other verses that explain but He says in Matthew 6:5. Not only that, you fail to get understanding through Matthew 5.
The only “admonition” not to pray in public is against those who pray in public ONLY to appear to be holy, pious. It goes along with His rebuke of those who honor Him with their lips, not with her hearts.
Rich says:
Is praying in public an ‘abomination’. [sic]
Mr. Incredible says:
Uh, no, it isn’t.
Rich says:
Clearly it is.
Mr. Incredible says:
Clearly, it isn’t. A Scripture upon Scripture reading shows that praying in public is not discouraged UNLESS the one praying in public is praying in public ONLY to be seen as holy, pious. Praying in public to be seen as holy and/or pious is self-righteous, not Christ-Righteous. Praying in public, not caring what anybody else thinks about it, is Christ-Righteous.
Rich says:
Bummer too because if certain folks stop praying in public how will they ever ingratiate themselves with the pious voters?
Mr. Incredible says:
The purpose of prayer, in public, or anywhere, for that matter, if not to ingratiate the pray-er with/to others. The purpose is not to please others, except God, through Christ, and, through Them, the pray-er. It doesn’t matter what others think.
Rich says:
However, since is obviously listed as an abomination…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Obviously, the word ‘abomination’ isn’t associated with public prayer, but that doesn’t stop me from saying that it is. Y’see, as a scoffer, I got this problem…”

Rich says:
I think we should deny the right to marry to those who continue to pray in public.
Mr. Incredible says:
VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT!
Rich says:
I do understand that there will be those who will feel the urge to pray in public, as long as they don’t act on it that will be okay.
Mr. Incredible says:
Who’s gonna stop me from actin’ on it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 6:28 am


Ruth Walker says:
What could be clearer than the Constitution’s “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?”
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t know that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is a question.
Ruth Walker says:
Surely the Christians know that Jesus instructed to pray in private and not to make a fuss! Matthew 6
Mr. Incredible asks:
Around what point did He say this?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 6:39 am


CORRECTION
that explain but He says — > that explains what He says



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm


CORRECTION
that explain but He says — — > that explain what He says



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 12:10 pm


Gwyddion9 says:
My Gods got it right the first time…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Got what “right” the first time?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 21, 2010 at 2:10 pm


This is funny, from a post of Mr. I Hear Voices In My Head:
Ruth Walker says:
What could be clearer than the Constitution’s “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?”
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t know that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is a question.
Mr. I is now suddenly a critic of punctuation, as if this sad tool has never made a mistake. I point this out because Mr. I never legitimately responds to a raised issue or serious question, he just keeps regurgitating the same old statements that he thinks he is clever. Not only is he a deluded cult member, he is also substantially out to lunch about his own intelligence.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:24 pm


Ruth Walker says:
What could be clearer than the Constitution’s “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?”
Mr. Incredible says:
I didn’t know that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is a question.
Rich says:
Mr. I is now suddenly a critic of punctuation…
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m not criticizing it. I am saying only that I didn’t know that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a question, as SHE poses it. I haven’t looked at the First Amendment lately, and, so, there may be a question mark in there that I missed. Why couldn’t you just say, “There is no question mark in there?”
Rich says:
…as if this sad tool has never made a mistake.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not a requirement never to have made a mistake in order to point out something. As a matter of fact, I post CORRECTIONS to my own posts all the time.
Rich says:
I point this out because Mr. I never legitimately responds to a raised issue or serious question…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course I do. However, that won’t stop you from saying that I don’t. You’re too busy being mean-spirited to be serious.
Rich says:
… he just keeps regurgitating the same old statements that he thinks he is clever.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“And I, of course, do the same thing, but I wanna distract everybody from that fact.”

Rich says:
Not only is he a deluded…
Mr. Incredible breaks that code:

“If he weren’t deluded, he’d agree with me. He doesn’t, and, so, he’s deluded.”

As a matter of fact, God, through Christ, cleared up my thinking, made me see and hear. You and the world could never have done that.
Rich says:
…cult member…
Mr. Incredible says:
You have to persuade yourself to think that in order to justify your own intolerance, anger and hate.
Rich says:
…he is also substantially out to lunch about his own intelligence.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Mr. Incredible doesn’t agree with me, and, so, it must mean that he isn’t intelligent.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm


CORRECTION
Why couldn’t you just say, “There is no question mark in there?” — — > Why couldn’t you just say, “There is no question mark in there”?
Y’see, I did it again!
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/07/back-in-court-on-national-day.html#ixzz0uMXUfmXJ



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:39 pm


Rich says:
I point this out because Mr. I never legitimately responds to a raised issue or serious question…
Mr. Incredible says:
I “legitimately” respond to raise issues and serious questions all the time. When I do, all you people do is come back with ridicule. It is then that you people become my chew toys.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:51 pm


CORRECTION
respond to raise issues — — > respond to raised issues



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 7:54 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I is now suddenly a critic of punctuation as if this sad tool has never made a mistake.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, are you now criticizing me, as though YOU never made a mistake??



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 8:04 pm


Rich says:
…Mr. I never legitimately responds to a raised issue or serious question…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“‘Never legitimately,’ meaning that I never agree with Mr. Incredible cuz a ‘legitimate response’ would be one that aligns with what I think.”



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm


Mr. I Am Still Hearing Voices In My Head,
re: “Mr. Incredible says:
I “legitimately” respond to raise issues…”
Wow, I don’t know what this ‘raise’ issue is that you are whining about. Are they no paying you enough on your job?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 21, 2010 at 9:55 pm


Mr. I Am Still Hearing Voices In My Head,
re: “Mr. Incredible says:
I “legitimately” respond to raise issues…”
Wow, I don’t know what this ‘raise’ issue is that you are whining about. Are they no paying you enough on your job?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 10:11 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I Am Still Hearing Voices In My Head…
Mr. Incredible says:
Too bad the voices you’re hearing in your head aren’t aligned with the Word of God.
Mr. Incredible says:
I “legitimately” respond to raise issues…
Rich says:
Wow, I don’t know what this ‘raise’ issue is that you are whining about.
Mr. Incredible says:
You would know, if you read the CORRECTION.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 21, 2010 at 10:16 pm


Rich says:
Wow, I don’t know what this ‘raise’ issue is that you are whining about.
Mr. Incredible says:
Given the CORRECTION I posted — the one you didn’t read before you posted that, thereby making yourself look silly, or should I say sillier — it’s no surprise around here that you have no idea what you wrote.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 22, 2010 at 1:19 am


Mr. I Hear Voices In My Head, They Plague My Every Waking Moment And Drive Me To Such Madness That I Seek Comfort In A Cult,
Sorry there chump, but compared to your inane postings about your special relationship with your imaginary friend, no one looks silly but you.
The truth is, I only read about 5% of the nonsense you spew, it is just all the same. You never respond to a question, you only yammer on about how clever you are and you mainly regurgitate the crap you hear on FOX. That is the reason I always advise you to think more and write less. No problem though, you can continue on writing the same foolishness which no one other than the other resident insane person appreciates or perhaps someday try and get your act together.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 22, 2010 at 9:44 am


Rich says:
Mr. I Hear Voices In My Head…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
Too bad the voices you hear don’t align with the Word of God.
Rich says:
They Plague My Every Waking Moment And Drive Me To Such Madness That I Seek Comfort In A Cult…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
You oughta see an exorcist about that.
Rich says:
… compared to your inane postings…
Mr. Incredibletranslates:

“My problem with comprehension causes me to ‘think’ that your postings are inane.”

Rich says:
…about your special relationship…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
It IS a special relationship.
Rich says:
… with your imaginary friend…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
I have no imaginary friend. My friendship with God, through Christ, is very real, something you scoffers can’t understand.
Rich says:
…no one looks silly but you.
Mr. Incrediblesays:
To scoffers. So what?
Rich says:
The truth is, I only read about 5% of the nonsense you spew…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
So what?
Rich says:
You never respond to a question…
Mr. Incredibletranslates:

“You never respond to a question in a way that satisfies me.”

Rich says:
… you only yammer on about how clever you are…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
Of course, I never have. But thanks for the compliment!
Rich says:
… and you mainly regurgitate the crap you hear on FOX.
Mr. Incrediblesays:
I don’t have cable. I don’t have satellite. So, I don’t get FOX. Therefore, I don’t hear what’s on FOX.
Rich says:
That is the reason I always advise you to think more and write less.
Mr. Incrediblesays:
I can think AND write.
Rich says:
No problem though…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
I don’t care whether you have a problem with it, or not.
Rich says:
… you can continue on writing the same foolishness…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
1 Corinthians 2:14
Rich says:
… which no one other than the other resident insane person appreciates…
Mr. Incrediblesays:
Irrelevant.
Rich says:
or perhaps someday try and get your act together.
Mr. Incrediblesays:
God, through Christ, got my act together already! YOU oughta try it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 22, 2010 at 10:47 am


Rich says:
… you only yammer on about how clever you are…
Mr. Incredible says:
I testify not of myself, rather of Him Who sent me.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 22, 2010 at 6:28 pm


Mr. I,
re: “Mr. Incredible says:
I testify not of myself, rather of Him Who sent me.”
Well, that is precious and all that but a few questions for you:
1) I assume that you are thinking Jesus or God sent you. Would not have Jesus or God sent me?
2) Wouldn’t an omniscient god know that I wouldn’t ever believe in him?
3) Wouldn’t an omniscient god know that a person can’t just conjure up a belief in God? I mean, I could say I did but it wouldn’t be true. It has nothing to do with being hard-hearted or closed minded, I just don’t see any evidence that a god could exist. In fact, I see evidence to the contrary. You see the thing is, for whatever reason, I am just wired to require evidence of some compelling nature before I go off half-cocked about invisible creatures. Can’t help it, it is just the way I am. BTW, I am the same way with Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and Area 51.
4) Would your god want me to disregard my perceptions, toss them to the wind and believe in things I don’t understand? Didn’t Stevie Wonder caution against this exact sort of thing?
I know cultists like yourself like to ascribe a lack of belief in gods and goddesses to a great moral fault but you would be deluding yourself. A person can’t believe what they don’t believe.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:15 am


Mr. Incredible says:
I testify not of myself, rather of Him Who sent me.
Rich says:
I assume that you are thinking Jesus or God sent you.
Mr. Incredible says:
You don’t have to assume it. I told you.
Rich says:
Would not have Jesus or God sent me?
Mr. Incredible says:
No. He sends His messengers with His Word. Nothing you say aligns with His Word. Therefore, neither God, nor Jesus, could’ve sent you.
Rich says:
Wouldn’t an omniscient god know that I wouldn’t ever believe in him?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “god”?
Rich says:
Wouldn’t an omniscient god know…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “god”?
Rich says:
…that a person can’t just conjure up a belief in God?
Mr. Incredible says:
I dunno whether that “god” of which you write can know that, since I’m not familiar with “god.” On the other hand, God says that belief in Him is not merely conjured up, that belief and faith are not an operation of human strength.
Rich says:
It has nothing to do with being hard-hearted or closed minded,
Mr. Incredible says:
It does. It’s just that you don’t know it.
Rich says:
I just don’t see any evidence that a god could exist.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “god”?
Rich says:
In fact, I see evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’ve conjured up “evidence” to the contrary.
Rich says:
… for whatever reason…
Mr. Incredible says:
See, even before you make the statement, you admit that you don’t know the reason for the statement. Beautiful.
Rich says:
… I am just wired to require evidence of some compelling nature before I go off half-cocked about invisible creatures.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Then you don’t believe “love” exists cuz, after all, there’s no direct evidence for it; you can’t see it, and, so, it doesn’t exist.
You don’t believe “beauty” exists cuz, after all, there’s no direct evidence for it; you can’t see it, and, so, it doesn’t exist.
You don’t believe “Time” exists cuz, after all, there is no direct evidence for it; you can’t see it, and, so, it doesn’t exist.
Rich says:
Can’t help it…
Mr. Incredible quotes Thomas Paine:

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”

Rich says:
… it is just the way I am.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I am what I choose to imagine myself to be, based on what I want myself to be, depending on my agenda.”

We get it, you’re a robot.
Rich says:
Would your god…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “god” is that? I know of no “gods” that are part of my life. I know that God is part of my life, but you’re not referring me to Him.
Rich says:
… want me to disregard my perceptions…
Mr. Incredible says:
I AM tells us that our own perceptions are deceiving, that the Devil uses them to steal, kill and destroy.
Rich says:
…toss them to the wind and believe in things I don’t understand?
Mr. Incredible says:
God gives us His Knowledge so we can understand, comprehend and, thereby, have wisdom. You choose not to understand because you choose not to have His Knowledge.
Rich says:
Didn’t Stevie Wonder caution against this exact sort of thing?
Mr. Incredible, astonished, says:
So, Stevie Wonder is YOUR savior??
Rich says:
I know cultists like yourself…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I’m not part of a cult. However, that won’t stop you from saying that I am. So much for “intelligence.”
Rich says:
… like to ascribe a lack of belief in gods and goddesses to a great moral fault…
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who don’t believe in gods and goddesses are not Morally faulty. They are wise.
Rich says:
… but you would be deluding yourself.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you’re saying that, if I think that unbelief in gods and goddesses is a Moral fault, I delude myself???
I think you oughta check your statement.
Rich says:
A person can’t believe what they don’t believe.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“A person who chooses not to believe cannot believe what they choose not to believe.”

That’s stubbornness.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:38 am


Rich asks:
Wouldn’t an omniscient god know that a person can’t just conjure up a belief in God?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Why would a “god,” omniscient, or otherwise, wanna person to “conjure” of a belief in God?? A “god,” like the Devil, wants a person NOT to believe in, nor have faith in, God.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:42 am


A “god,” such as a statue before which you kneel in, say, a Catholic Church, wants ALL the attention, stealing it from God.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:04 am


Mr. I Have Lost All Credibility,
Think more, post less.



report abuse
 

Walter Wasson

posted July 23, 2010 at 6:43 pm


The building of a mosque at grond zero is adding insult to injury and pouring in salt for almost all the people of this United States of America. This is very similar to the one in Jerusalem at the temple site. Muslims believe these locations represent the centers of each nation, and this is why they want the control of these locations. Thus, in their minds they think we are defeated when their mosque is built.
The ACLU should all go to North Korea to live seeing as how theynrepresent that anti-God way of life. Then what would they have to say?
Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer declared or ruled in 1892 that the United States of America “Is A CHRISTIAN NATION”. This was published in a communication from The Presidential Prayer Team in 2002.
Also, Peter Marshall, Chaplain of the US Senate 1947 – 1949 made a very definite declaration concerning our nation at the end of World War II that really shows what the ACLU formed by communist card carrying party members is really all about.
America’s Christian Heritage
Peter Marshall believes that it is impossible to restore America to its traditional moral and spiritual foundations unless we recover our original founding vision, and the truth about America’s Christian Heritage. How can we restore America if we don’t know what it is that we are restoring?
Woodrow Wilson, President during World War I, put it succinctly when he stated: “A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do.”
And Karl Marx, the father of Communism, previewing the actions of Communist regimes in the 20th Century, said: “Take away the heritage of a people, and they are easily persuaded.”
That has happened to an increasing degree in America since the end of World War II, due to the omission from our history books of the Christian faith of our forefathers, and the miracles of God in our nation’s past.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 23, 2010 at 9:52 pm


Walter Wasson,
You refer to the “Christian faith of our forefathers, and the miracles of God in our nation’s past.”
Are you talking about the Christian faith that was used to justify slavery or the one that was used to justify denying women the right to vote or the one that was used to justify separate drinking fountains?
You also quote Karl Marx. I take it that you think he is a smart guy, otherwise you would not quote him.
Also, I am thinking that this Cordoba House Mosque thing is a bit overblown. Don’t get me wrong, I wish Islam would shrivel up and die, it is a pathetic religion but most of them are. Having said that, I think you have let yourself become a pawn of the FAUX News Network. What I see is that the Cordoba House would be built on Park Place between West Broadway and Church Street. Not being an expert on the geography there I went to Google maps. No matter how you cut it, it is two blocks away from Ground Zero. So, your are calling anything within 2 blocks as too close to Ground Zero. How about 3 blocks? 4? 5?
As well, can I rightly assume that you don’t believe in freedom of religion? Is that freedom of religion for Christians only? It also appears that you approve of micro-management by our government inzoning applications.
Timothy McVeigh stated he believed in God. So, I am right with you, I sure don’t want any building in which people profess a belief in God to be anywhere near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing. I suppose that will have to include Christian churches but hey, a rule is a rule.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 24, 2010 at 2:03 am


Walter Wasson,
One thing I had to address to you on your post:
Hopefully you do know that it is a myth that the Supreme Court declared America a Christian nation. Perhaps, before you repeat such nonsense, regurgitating the paranoid yammerings of your cult, perhaps you could take the time to educate yourself before you spread such untruths. The ruling, here I am assuming you are allowed to read other thing than the Bible, can be found at:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html
What Brewer noted was that the majority of Americans are in fact Christians. He did not in any sense attempt to state that there was any official supremacy of Christianity in terms of our laws. In order to clear up any confusion about the matter he later wrote a book on the specific topic in which he spelled out that Christianity is not our established religion and that no one is required to support Christianity. Quite importantly he pointed out that our government is to remain independent of all religions.
The fact that you would repeat such nonsense is quite telling to me, you are a brainwashed cultist. Even more disturbing is that you take it as true based upon the authority of some Presidential Prayer Team of 2002. Are you so naive that you believe anything a bunch of Christian cultists tell you? Does it not occur to you that cultists, no matter what station they hold, are still cultists and will knowingly lie to you to convince you that being in their cult is a grand thing?
You posted here so you obviously have access to GWB’s famous ‘internets’. Do some research before you post fables and myths.
You also refer to some moronic statement made by some Senate chaplain. First off, the father of our Constitution James Madison and author of the 1st Amendment made it clear in his ‘Detached Memoranda’ that it was unconstitutional to have such chaplains. Secondly, this supposed font of wisdom talks about returning to some supposed superior value system. I would like to know what that was. Given that we had either slavery or Jim Crow laws for the majority of our history, I am fairly dubious that there is actually any golden era to return to. Of course, it is so easy to say that we should return to a better age but any thinking person would know that there is no glorious period in the past. Of course, the key word is thinking. You are entitled to any opinion you want and that your cult stuffs down your throat but not your own made up facts.



report abuse
 

Minister

posted August 2, 2010 at 4:42 pm


That’s an Incredible number of comments.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 2, 2010 at 4:46 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I Have Lost All Credibility…
Mr. Incredible says:
We know you have.
Rich says:
Think more…
Mr. Incredible says:
I already do.
Rich says:
…post less.
Mr. Incredible says:
No.
Now what?



report abuse
 

Way Truth Life

posted August 20, 2010 at 2:39 pm


I follow with great admiration Mr. Sekulow’s efforts to prevent fundamentalists from building a mosque a few blocks away from Ground Zero. In my humble opinion, the Ground Zero Mosque is provocative for so many reason. the most notable one of them is that it is going to be built near the location where Muslim terrorists tried to break the American pride.
The point I want to focus on in this comment is about the name chosen by the guys who are behind the mosque which is Cordoba. Does anyone know why they are calling it that?
Cordoba was the city that Muslims chose as capital of Andalusia after they invaded Spain in the eighth century and forcibly converting its population to Islam. Islam prospered in Cordoba under the Umayyad Caliphate and from Cordoba Islam spread in the whole Iberian Peninsula and reached southern France, and since then Cordoba has become a symbol of flourished Islam.
There is no doubt that there is a meaning behind choosing Cordoba as name for the Islamic Center near Ground Zero where thousands of Americans died due to Islamic terrorism. It’s obvious that those who are behind the mosque believe that Ground Zero has become an Islamic symbol that is so dear to them , and from that very place they want Islam to spread and prosper as it happened in the City of Cordoba.
It’s absolutely disturbing to build a mosque on or near Ground Zero, and it’s outrageous provocative to choose such Cordoba for it. Not only do many Muslims around the world believe that 9/11 destroyed the twin towers, but also destroyed America’s symbol of success, prosperity, power, dignity and pride.
In the end, the place and name of the proposed mosque are not chosen accidently, but intentionally, and I find it insulting to build an Islamic symbol, especially with such a controversial name on the rubbles of an American symbol.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted August 20, 2010 at 4:07 pm


Why is the State Department paying the way for the Hamasque’s leader to go to the Near East??? What, no “separation of Church and State” now???
Why no secular howls about the Hamasque leader’s call for Sharia law in the United States??
If “religious” Freedom is the issue, why not help the Greek Orthodox church nearby the 9-11 gravesite, too? After all, it was destroyed; it didn’t get hit only with the landing gear truck from one-a the doomed flights. It was destroyed.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the ONLY Way to the Father

posted August 20, 2010 at 4:11 pm


Minister says:
That’s an Incredible number of comments.
Mr. Incredible says:
Exciting, isn’t it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted August 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm


The leader of the Hamasque is going on a religious mission to the Near East. The State Department is payin’ for it.
What happened to the on-again/off-again “separation of Chruch and State” we been hearin’ so danged much about?? Where is all the intellectualization about State promotion of things “religious”? Why must we now prod them to say something about this violation of the so-called “separation of Church and State”? Cuz Christianity works.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 20, 2010 at 5:03 pm


Christianity “works” as a belief system. In America, ANY belief system “works” for the individual who believes in it. Christianity in America, however, does not govern the actions of The People in any legal sense. When it comes to legal governing authority over the actions of people in America, the Constitution works.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the True Light Who came in Grace and Truth

posted August 20, 2010 at 5:34 pm


HG says:
Christianity “works” as a belief system.
Mr. Incredible says:
You, a scoffer, are in no position to say what Christianity is, or is not, whether and where it works. You don’t have enough information from the experience of Christ to know. As a matter of fact, you preclude yourself from information that would enlighten you. You prefer to “delighten” yourself, leaving you in darkness about the Light of Christianity.
HG says:
In America, ANY belief system “works” for the individual who believes in it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Even wife beating, as a belief; even child molestation, as a belief; even bank robbery, as a belief. Even atheism, as a belief, works. They all “work.” But do they work in Truth? No. Christ didn’t say that any ol’ belief works the way that men should want it to work for their Salvation. The issue is not what belief “works,” rather what belief leads directly to the Goodness of God and His Salvation.
HG says:
Christianity in America, however, does not govern the actions of The People in any legal sense.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not what the Founders say. The Founders say that religion, primarily Christianity, is the Foundation of their motivation.
HG says:
When it comes to legal governing authority over the actions of people in America, the Constitution works.
Mr. Incredible says:
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t, according to the whims of men. It’s people who are broken.
The Truth of God’s Word works all the time in those who receive Him. You don’t know that cuz you haven’t done the experiment that we have. Therefore, you cannot speak with any credibility on Christianity. You are vitually mute on the subject.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 20, 2010 at 6:22 pm


People may be broken, but we are left with only ourselves to deal with it, so we do the best we can. We implement the rule of law, and live with it. The rule of law in America bears little semblance to the laws of the Bible. A review of the TC’s shows many are nowhere to be found, and others are completely unconstitutional.
Wife beating, etc. etc. are ACTIONS, and subject to the law of the land. A person might BELIEVE in a religion which has a commmandment “Tomorrow shalt thou slay a Christian”. If they wake up everyday saying “Tomorrow I shall slay a Christian”, there is some question as to whether they’ve broken any law, because in their belief, they can continue doing this forever without ever DOING anything.
Those who claim to know the Word of a fictional character and insist it should apply to all people as it has been revealed (divinely inspired?) to them, aren’t given credence under the law. I happen to think that’s a huge improvement.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, and Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord

posted August 20, 2010 at 11:37 pm


HG says:
People may be broken, but we are left with only ourselves to deal with it, so we do the best we can.
Mr. Incredible says:
You are left with only yourselves cuz that’s what you’ve chosen to do. It’s not as though God has offered not to leave you alone. You have chosen to reject His help. You have turned your back on him. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that He will help you when you reject His help.
Those who are born again are not in the same position. We have experienced His help. Just cuz YOU haven’t experienced His help, having rejected it, doesn’t mean that he hasn’t helped us. It’s OUR experience, not yours. So, you’re not in the position to say anything authoritative, nor credible, on the subject of our experience in Christ.
HG says:
The rule of law in America bears little semblance to the laws of the Bible.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “Bible”?
HG says:
A review of the TC’s shows many are nowhere to be found, and others are completely unconstitutional.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Like “Thou shalt not murder”?? That’s unconstitutional???
HG says:
Wife beating, etc. etc. are ACTIONS, and subject to the law of the land.
Mr. Incredible says:
They are also beliefs. The actions come from beliefs. No action comes from non-belief.
HG says:
A person might BELIEVE in a religion which has a commmandment “Tomorrow shalt thou slay a Christian”. If they wake up everyday saying “Tomorrow I shall slay a Christian”, there is some question as to whether they’ve broken any law, because in their belief, they can continue doing this forever without ever DOING anything.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Any law”?? Including God’s??
HG says:
Those who claim to know the Word of a fictional character…
Mr. Incredible says:
WHEW!! Good thing the Word of God is not the Word of a fictional character.
HG says:
… and insist it [Word of God] should apply to all people as it has been revealed (divinely inspired?) to them, aren’t given credence under the law.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except in the First Amendment. We know how loosely you interpret that.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS !



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted September 1, 2010 at 11:10 am


Mr. Not Credible No Matter Who’s Name I Pretend To Speak In is just as selective in his blog reading as he is in his Bible reading.
Several dozen posts up, he sez, “I am saying only that I didn’t know that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a question, as SHE poses it.”
Which, of course (visibly, i.e. provably) “SHE” did no such thing. The ENTIRE sentence is:

July 14, 2010 5:44 PM
What could be clearer than the Constitution’s “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?”

Which, of course, IS a question.
Selective reading (of blogs OR of the Bible) is a tool of Satan.
You are demonstrably wrong, not to mention foolish, cruel, hateful – not at all what Christ taught you to be.
So sad.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus the TRUE Light

posted September 8, 2010 at 7:34 pm


Grumpy Old Person says:
Mr. Not Credible No Matter Who’s Name I Pretend To Speak In is just as selective in his blog reading as he is in his Bible reading.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, letsee.
Grumpy Old Person says:
Several dozen posts up, he sez,

“I am saying only that I didn’t know that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a question, as SHE poses it.”

Which, of course (visibly, i.e. provably) “SHE” did no such thing.
Mr. Incredible says:
We see that you don’t understand how to use quotation marks.
Grumpy Old Person says:
The ENTIRE sentence is:
“July 14, 2010 5:44 PM
What could be clearer than the Constitution’s “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?”
Which, of course, IS a question.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, to YOU, according to the way SHE wrote it, the statement in the First Amendment has a question mark?? The First Amendment is a question??
Of course, everybody who understands the use of quotation marks knows that, if you’re questioning a statement, the question mark goes outside the quotation mark. So, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” is not a question, and, therefore, since her statement is the question, the question mark goes outside the terminal quotation mark in order to signify that what SHE wrote, not what’s in the Constitution, is a question.
Grumpy Old Person says:
Selective reading (of blogs OR of the Bible) is a tool of Satan.
Mr. Incredible says:
WHEW! I’m glad I’m not guilty.
Grumpy Old Person says:
You are demonstrably wrong…
Mr. Incredible says:
‘Cept that I just demonstrated that YOU are wrong.
Grumpy Old Person says:
… not to mention foolish…
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to whom?
Grumpy Old Person says:
…cruel…
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to whom?
Grumpy Old Person says:
… hateful…
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to whom?
Grumpy Old Person says:
… – not at all what Christ taught you to be.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m EVERYTHING Christ taught me to be.
Grumpy Old Person says:
So sad
Mr. Incredible says:
Luke 24:17

“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.” — Jesus



report abuse
 

Excelcior

posted September 18, 2010 at 3:37 pm


There isn’t any national day of prayer any more, it has gone the way of the do-do. Now it’s just a memory; out of business.



report abuse
 

Deb Reeves

posted September 18, 2010 at 11:31 pm


Dear President Obama:
I have recently received information about and related to the building of a mosque right next to the 9/11 site where Muslims viciously attacked the United States of America. I quote: “President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near ground zero saying the country’s founding principles demanded no less. ‘As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.’ If that is so, Mr. President, then why did you cancel the National Day of Prayer for Christians, saying “the United States is no longer a Christian nation”, and then support a national day of prayer for the Muslim religion?! Equal religious rights? I think not.
I have news for you, Mr. President, this is not a Muslim nation! This country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles that have stood it well for many years. Religious freedom and tolerance are one of our founding principles; however, Islam’s goal is not religious freedom, it is to replace all other religions with Islam. Quote: “Saudi-funded mosques are not centers of worship. They are centers of hatred, preaching jihad against all those who do not subscribe to their radical Wahhabi version of Islam. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, trained and indoctrinated in their mosques to hate America, hate Israel, and hate everyone who does not submit to their vision of a world ruled by shariah law.”
Quote: “One of the main figures behind the Ground Zero Mosque is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is often described in news reports as a “moderate Muslim.” However, in an interview with 60 Minutes not long after the 9/11 attacks, Rauf said that America was, “an accessory to the crime that happened” because “we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” Rauf believes that Islamic sharia law should govern the United States instead of the Constitution. That is anything but moderate! He is actually being paid by our tax dollars as a State Department emissary to the Middle East.”
Quote: The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated missionis “Eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” So much for religious freedom and tolerance!
Allah is not Akbar. The one and only true God is on His throne and He is in control. One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Every Islam knee, every Christian knee, every Buddhist knee, every Mormon knee, and every other knee shall bow, regardless of whether they have accepted Jesus Christ, the Son of the One and Only True Living God or not. He will prevail, and He has all power in Heaven and earth. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
In the light of what Islam truly represents (a memorial to Islamic victory), it is a slap in the face to all Americans to build a mosque on the sight of where Islam attacked America. It is a slap in the face, furthermore, to all Americans who have served and/or died to keep our nation a free nation. It is further a slap in the face to Americans that you would support such an agenda as the leader of our nation, a country founded on freedom, not the kind of oppression that Islam represents.
Mr.President, I had no problem with America having a black president. I could care less if your skin color was pink with purple polka dots as long as your goal was to serve this country and its founding principles. Alas, that is obviously not the case. In my estimation, you are the enemy hidden in the Trojan horse. Many Americans were enamored of having a black president in office and by your many prosperity promises. Unfortunately, by your acts and your associations, it seems you had a hidden agenda.
Because I am a born-again Christian believer, I do not address issues with violence. Instead, I have a much more powerful weapon: prayer and trust in my Lord. And I am praying for you, Mr. President, that He will open your eyes. At the very least, as the leader of the United States of America, please step up and represent all Americans, not the Islam agenda.
And, oh yes, I can also vote!



report abuse
 

Deb Reeves

posted September 18, 2010 at 11:37 pm


Forgot to add: Pastor John Hagee has called Americans to pray for 40 days for our country starting September 20 and going through October 30, which is just prior to the elections. I call it “Forty Days for America.” I challenge all to participaate in this significant grass roots movement. Prayer to the Living God does change things!



report abuse
 

Pete

posted September 19, 2010 at 1:56 pm


Prayer has been demonstrated to yield zero results. Zero.
“Allah is not Akbar.”
Not only is God not great, He doesn’t exist at all.
This is not, has it ever been, a Christian nation. Religious “laws” are all subject to the Constitution here.



report abuse
 

Deb Reeves

posted September 19, 2010 at 7:32 pm


The majority of the original leaders of our country were Christians. Many of our colleges and universities began as Christian instutions. The constitution of our country guarantees freedom of religion. Islam wants to take over all other religions, and that is not freedom of religion. I have friends of many different religions, and I live in peace with them even though we don’t agree. The Consitution, not a presidential edict, should determine religious rights.
I and many others can testify that prayer to God does, indeed, yield results. Pete is speaking from his own experience; it sounds like he has prayed for something or several things in his life and was disappointed. For myself, I have received joy and several physical healings and healing of my soul and emotions through Jesus Christ. He pulled me up out of the ashes of my life and has shown His great love for me in many ways. And I have learned that if God does not answer my prayer as I wished it is because He has another answer, and that He is working out things for my good. And best of all, when I leave this earth I will get to live with Him forever!
I am sorry for you, Pete. You may not believe in God, but He believes in you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name, the Name above ALL names!

posted September 24, 2010 at 3:18 am


Pete says:
Prayer has been demonstrated to yield zero results. Zero.
Mr. Incredible asks:
To whom has this been demonstrated? YOU??? How can it be demonstrated to you when you turn your back on God???
Pete says:
Not only is God not great…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course He’s not great…to YOU. That doesn’t mean He’s not great.
Pete says:
…He doesn’t exist at all.
Mr. Incredible says:
In YOUR life. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist, only that YOU don’t see Him cuz you’ve turned your back on Him, and, so, He’s turned His back on you. That’s fair, ain’ it?
Pete says:
This is not, has it ever been, a Christian nation.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not only has it been, it is still.
Pete says:
Religious “laws” are all subject to the Constitution here.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What happened to the so-called “separation of Church and State”?



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.