Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Religious Discrimination At Its Worst: ACLJ Lawsuit Must Fail

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

You
must REALLY like the Burlington Coat Factory.

That’s
the only logical explanation I can come up with for why the American Center for
Law and Justice, which claims it’s all about preserving Americans’ religious
freedom, would file a lawsuit today to preserve a building in lower Manhattan
that once housed the retailer.  I mean, I never really thought of the
Burlington Coat Factory as a historic landmark, but to each his own.

Unless,
this isn’t at all about the Burlington Coat Factory, but rather a desperate
attempt to make a legal argument (and a very weak one at that) to stop the
building of an Islamic Community Center — a center that would be built with
private funds on private land in Manhattan.

But
that would be religious discrimination, don’t you think? It would especially be
unbelievable for a group such as yours, which claims its mission is to preserve
religious liberty for all, to get in the way of Americans who want to practice
their faith.

Yet
this morning, you sent an e-mail to your members headlined,  “Not on Our
Watch: No to Islamic Mosque at Ground Zero.” Then I thought, what if the ACLJ
isn’t for religious liberty for all, but rather only for the religious liberty of
the religious groups it approves of?

You
know that’s not how our Constitution works, Jay. In the United States, religious
groups are free to erect meeting spaces on private land as long as they comply
with land-use laws.  Yesterday, New York City’s Landmarks Preservation
Commission voted unanimously to allow construction of an Islamic center in
lower Manhattan. If the owners of this building are complying with the law, why
can’t you? 

As
Mayor Bloomberg said in a speech yesterday, 

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never
choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site
will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be
untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and
Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“For
that reason,” he continued, “I believe that this is an important test of the
separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a
test. And it is critically important that we get it right.”

Jay,
I believe our country will get it right. Your opposition to the private
construction of this house of worship is shameful. It goes against our
country’s spirit of tolerance, respect and acceptance, and I’m convinced
without out a doubt, that your frivolous lawsuit will fail.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(196)
post a comment
Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 4:09 pm


The construction of a mosque in the immediate vicinity of such barbarism by those who said they adhere to the very teachings of such mosques is a direct slap in the face to the nearly 3000 victims of WTC. It directly insults the survivors and families of those who died at the hands of the students of the kind of teaching of the kind of mosque proposed for that site.
This particular mosque, at this particular site, so nearby the site of that horrendous act still fresh in the hearts and minds of Americans is not a mere matter of “religious freedom.” It will be a stab in the eye, seen as a victory by all who hate America, added to what they think was a victory on 9/11. To allow the mosque would be tantamount to aiding and abetting them, giving them fresh motivation to carry out their hateful acts against us.



report abuse
 

rnrstar

posted August 4, 2010 at 4:19 pm


It would be a slap in the face of every patriot that shed their blood the protect religious freedom to not allow American citizens to erect their own place of worship on their own property.
Maybe they should follow the lead of Christians and just appropriate government property for their exclusive use.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 4:21 pm


It’s not mere “religious freedom.” It’s more than that.
Can we go and erect a church in Mecca?



report abuse
 

Abe

posted August 4, 2010 at 4:21 pm


Jay, pretty good appearance on msnbc today–for the Rabbi.
The case of the hallowed retail site didn’t affect the decision, so commence operations to distort and smear.



report abuse
 

oddball

posted August 4, 2010 at 4:28 pm


rnrstar, it’s good to see you posting on this site. How’s Vegas?
Thinkaboutit changed his name to Mr. Incredible.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted August 4, 2010 at 4:55 pm


Suddenly, Mr. Incredibly Hypocritical no longer approves of religious freedom. In fact, he seems to have become an advocate of excessively big and intrusive government, only allowing construction of religious facilities once they have met the approval of a “Religion Czar” and a “Church Siting Panel”.
That is great Mr. Incredibly Inconsistent! Your every word gives us great clarity into your real motivations.



report abuse
 

mike

posted August 4, 2010 at 5:26 pm


>”Can we go and erect a church in Mecca?”
No, because _there is no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia_. In fact, that’s what theocracy looks like.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted August 4, 2010 at 5:32 pm


I am very glad to see that Mr. Incredible is saying we should look to the laws in other countries as guides for ours. Perhaps this means that the next time our Supreme Court cites foreign laws in their decisions we will not have to endure the endless drivel about how we should not look to foreign countries to set our laws.
Maybe it’s time to debate universal healthcare. After all, numerous other countries have it, so I am sure that Mr. Incredible will be all in favor of it.



report abuse
 

Craig

posted August 4, 2010 at 6:10 pm


Thank you mike for saying what I was going to.
While I would be perfectly happy if nobody followed these ridiculous superstitions known as religion, at least in this country we have a government founded on the principle that whatever superstition you choose to follow the government cannot interfere. To reject this “Islamic Center” because it is near a spot where other followers of this religion performed a heinous act would be to violate the principles that those who attacked us on 9/11 were trying to attack. We would be helping them achieve their goals by stooping to their level.
Those who are up in arms about this claim that somehow this is different. That this situation requires an exception. Yet it is exactly cases like this that provide a test for who strongly we are going to support the principles on which this country was founded. It is easy to support religious freedom when it is your particular delusions that are under attack, but it is only when those beliefs with which you disagree are under attack that the real strength of commitment is tested.
I would prefer that nobody followed any religion, although christians and muslims seem to be the most violent. However, I strongly support the rights of those who follow the nonsense associated with any of those religions to do so because to do otherwise would be to invalidate the basic values of this country, in which I do believe. I believe in the constitution not out of any blind faith or because it has anything to do with religion, but because it creates a rational framework for government that seems to provide for the most good for the most people, even if most republicans seem to want to make sure that it only benefits the wealthiest among us.
For anyone to claim to support religious freedom and yet to oppose this center is the height of hypocrisy.



report abuse
 

Benevolus

posted August 4, 2010 at 6:43 pm


I might have known, the “Reverend” Barry Lynn. Does he even believe in any god, much less the God of the Bible? Frankly, I wish he were dead or otherwise off the public stage, although it is certainly not my place to remedy his wretched existence.
But in a way, Lynn is right. As long as we say we believe in universal religious liberty, mosques at Ground Zero and Wicca clubs in public high schools are what we are going to get.
We need a constitutional amendment to reflect the views of the founders. America is a CHRISTIAN nation, but government shall not favor any denomination or sect, and freedom of Jewish religious practice must be protected almost unconditionally. Beyond that, adherence to other religions or atheism/agnosticism should not be a fundamental right and the government should only need a rational basis to regulate or even suppress them.



report abuse
 

andrew wang

posted August 4, 2010 at 7:37 pm


Jay Sekulow will win Ground Zero Mosque lawsuit.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted August 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm


I truly hope that Mr. Sekulow DOES NOT win the lawsuit.
For the record, there were 14 Muslims who also died in the Trade Center attack. Regardless of being a small number, the fact remains that they died because of the attack, too.
As far as building the Mosque, I have mixed feelings on this matter.
However, if we are going to honestly support religious freedom, than they should be allowed to build the Mosque.
Someone mentioned that Christians can not build a church in Saudia Arabia and that’s because they are a theocracy. The U.S. is not, Thanks the Gods though there are some who truly want the U.S. to be one and I’m not talking about Muslims.
If we truly want to preach our Freedom of religion, then we must follow through or it means nothing.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm


I’m glad those of Benevolus’ point of view didn’t prevail either historically or current day. It strikes me as odd that people would strive to suppress and remove currently protected liberty by re-writing the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers while claiming to do so in their honor and chanting “death to the Reverend”.



report abuse
 

Louis

posted August 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm


PC has made the idea of discrimination in any form anathema, and so it is denounced wherever it is even suspected, as if discrimination is equivalent to hate. But we simply must recover the ability to discriminate between that which is beneficial or benign and that which is fatal. Islam is fatal to western values of freedom and individual expression. It is fatal to the freedom of religeon proclaimed in the first amendment. The values that lie at the foundation of our freedom are under attack from Islam, which recognizes no freedom. There are times in which free people are called to fight for their freedoms. That fight involves offending some people who believe differently from us. So be it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm


Mr. Sekulow’s organization should really rename itself Americans for Christian Law and Justice, because that is what he and his boss, Pat Robertson, really want. ACLJ wants not just law and justice, but to impose a pervasively sectarian, fundamentalist Protestant Christian form of law and justice.



report abuse
 

tyrebitre

posted August 4, 2010 at 8:09 pm


“We need a constitutional amendment to reflect the views of the founders. America is a CHRISTIAN nation, but government shall not favor any denomination or sect, and freedom of Jewish religious practice must be protected almost unconditionally. Beyond that, adherence to other religions or atheism/agnosticism should not be a fundamental right and the government should only need a rational basis to regulate or even suppress them.”
I’m not going to point out the fundamental flaws in your logic simply because there isn’t any : any logic, that is. When you amend the Constitution, you aren’t “reflecting the views of the founders”, you are CHANGING them (this is why it’s called an “amendment” – this is also a clue you missed). Your views and wishes are antithetical to those of the Constitution. I also really like your extremely fundamental grasp of Christian morals as you wish for the death of someone whose views differ from yours: see you in Hell.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 10:30 pm


ds0490 says:
I am very glad to see that Mr. Incredible is saying we should look to the laws in other countries as guides for ours.
Mr. Incredible notes:
You’re glad, but it’s not what I wrote.
ds0490 says:
Perhaps this means that the next time our Supreme Court cites foreign laws in their decisions we will not have to endure the endless drivel about how we should not look to foreign countries to set our laws.
Mr. Incredible says:
Perhaps, but not so.
ds0490 says:
Maybe it’s time to debate universal healthcare. After all, numerous other countries have it, so I am sure that Mr. Incredible will be all in favor of it.
Mr. Incredible says:
I would, if I also favored splicing foreign law into ours. But, of course, I don’t, and I never wrote that I do.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 10:38 pm


Rich says:
Suddenly, Mr. Incredibly Hypocritical no longer approves of religious freedom.
Mr. Incredible says:
Sure I do. They can have “religious freedom” somewhere else, not where those who teach what nineteen barbarians learned in mosques like this will cast their devilish shadow on hallowed ground.
Rich says:
In fact, he seems to have become an advocate of excessively big and intrusive government, only allowing construction of religious facilities once they have met the approval of a “Religion Czar” and a “Church Siting Panel”.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, only by the approval of common sense, honorary discretion and courtesy.



report abuse
 

Benevolus

posted August 4, 2010 at 10:43 pm


Tyrebite: You are an idiot. The Framers NEVER, EVER thought that the First Amendment was protecting Islam, Buddhism, Witchcraft or Atheism. The thought would have been so foreign to them that they would have laughed it off. Their background was the European (and English) wars of religion between Catholicism and Protestantism. One side would take power and brutally oppress the other, then politics would change and the exact opposite would happen. They wanted to make sure that CONGRESS never established or favored one CHRISTIAN denomination over another, period.
As for my Christian morals, I would much rather the “Reverend” get saved. But if not, he is better dead than ruining our culture and leading multitudes to hell.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 10:48 pm


How many Muslims were on the Mayflower? How many Buddhists? How many atheists?
How many Muslims and atheists signed the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?



report abuse
 

mike

posted August 4, 2010 at 10:56 pm


Benevolus WOW you are the most dangerous person on this post. You are very dangerous to a free country like ours. I tell you what when you come to try and take my religous freedoms I will stop you and all like you. You want to come take my freedoms away I will send you to meet you God early.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 11:00 pm


Benevolus says:
The Framers NEVER, EVER thought that the First Amendment was protecting Islam, Buddhism, Witchcraft or Atheism.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, given their deeply rich, Christian orientation.
Benevolus says:
The thought would have been so foreign to them that they would have laughed it off.
Mr. Incredible says:
Everything that was written from the settlers forward supports this.
Benevolus says:
They wanted to make sure that CONGRESS never established or favored one CHRISTIAN denomination over another, period.
Mr. Incredible says:
As you know, the Church of England, the king being the high priest thereof, required worshipers to access God through the Church, not through the cap word. That’s why the settlers left, bringing with them no Muslims, no Buddhists, no atheists, nor Confucians, to come here, as they said in The Mayflower Compact, to “advance Christianity.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 11:08 pm


mike says:
Benevolus WOW you are the most dangerous person on this post.
Mr. Incredible objects:
Hey, I thought I am!
mike says:
You are very dangerous to a free country like ours.
Mr. Incredible says:
According to whom?
mike says:
I tell you what…
Mr. Incredible says:
What?
mike says:
…when you come to try and take my religous freedoms I will stop you and all like you.
Mr. Incredible translates:

” I have-ta talk big to feel big.”

Sounds like Boris a couple-a months ago.
mike says:
You want to come take my freedoms away…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who told you that?
mike says:
… I will send you to meet you God early.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I can’t get over how good it feels to talk big and, thereby, feel big.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm


CORRECTION
not through the cap word — – > not through the Word



report abuse
 

NorsKenR

posted August 4, 2010 at 11:14 pm


A lot of people, Mayor Bloomberg included, should consider whether “freedom of religion” should be extended to those who deny it themselves to others. Islam in general has a huge nerve claiming “religious freedom” in America when Muslims in their home countries frequently slay Muslims who convert to Christianity. Muslims in India frequently riot against Hindus. If anyone deserves to be an exception to our principles, they do. But we allow them to build mosques in New York, and in America. We just think they should have the decency to recognize that Ground Zero is an embarrassment to their religion and back off.



report abuse
 

Ray

posted August 4, 2010 at 11:18 pm


There is no tolerance for Christians. Christians are required to be tolerant of everybody else. Once the Muslims take over these Divided States of America freedom as we know it will be over. It will be centuries before there will ever be another country like ours.
A society like we are creating now can never last. Killing babies and calling it a mothers’ right; same sex sodomy and call it a marriage.
Outlawing prayer in any public place because of just one complaint and calling it tolerant of others. The silent majority speaking up after decades of silence and getting called radicals when true radicals are starting riots and tearing up property with complete disregard of others.
This is not freedom. This is taking away the rights of the majority.
I hope our children are a lot wiser than we have been because they are the ones who will do the suffering.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted August 4, 2010 at 11:35 pm


The Muslim who would head the mosque in New York City has already called for sharia law in the United States.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted August 4, 2010 at 11:38 pm


Thank you, Ray!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:21 am


Mr. Incoherent,
re: “The Muslim who would head the mosque in New York City has already called for sharia law in the United States.”
And I should find this scarier than you nutty Christian cultists who want to return us to some “Biblical foundation” for America because why?
The only difference is that while Islamic cultists on a jihad cut your head off with what is likely a dull knife you Christian cultists on a crusade seem to enjoy burning folks alive at the stake. Personally, if I have to look forward to be being killed by some primitive and demon haunted morons, I would prefer the quickest method that affords the least pain.
I do recognize that both groups are still fond of stoning people to death, you just haven’t been allowed you fun in the US for quite awhile. I am not sure where that fits in on the pain spectrum. Any advice?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted August 5, 2010 at 1:18 am


Ray,
re: “There is no tolerance for Christians.”
Yeah, right! Why it was just today that I saw armed military forces razing churches and rounding up Christians and toting them off to concentration camps.
re: “Christians are required to be tolerant of everybody else.”
Oh yeah, that too. Again, just today I saw a “Toleration and Forced Diversity” squad whacking Christians with billy clubs.
re: “Outlawing prayer in any public place…”
Good grief! Are you even conscious? Prayer is not outlawed in a public place. You know this and I know this. Go out to any street corner, don’t block foot or car traffic and pray all you want, no one will arrest you. As well, you can build some hideous mega-church, just like the stupid ones I see all over town that don’t appear to threatened in any way. Your statement is stupid and paranoid to a ridiculous degree. I suppose it empowers your pathetic sense of persecution and makes you feel all holy and that you are sacrificing for Mr. Magic Jesus but get a grip there. There is thing called reality.
Perhaps you were whining about high school valedictorians not being able to use a public microphone and preach to a captive audience about how wonderful Jesus is. Well, the public is paying for that microphone and a high school graduation audience has to be there so too bad for you. That is not persecution, that is just common sense. You want to use a microphone, you pay for it completely by yourself and allow the audience to leave whenever it wants.
Generally, I am a bit weary of Christians whining about how they are so mistreated especially given that Christians thrive in this country, have excessive access to our legislatures and even get to run their scams on a tax-free basis. Geez dude, a little less paranoia and a bit more reality.



report abuse
 

ezra

posted August 5, 2010 at 1:18 am


I am not a Muslim and I reject the Quran as a sacred text, but that’s me, because I am a Christian. I also reject Judaism’s religious literature for the same reason: I am a Christian. Does that mean that I should oppose the building of synagogues in American sil? Of course not! Muslims have the same religious rights as anybody else in this country, and the acceptance of these principles is what makes our nation a GREAT nation.



report abuse
 

Liz

posted August 5, 2010 at 1:39 am


If there is so much fuss about it then out of respect for the victims families they should not build so close. As they say, they are a peaceful religion & I do beleive they are.
I currently have 2 Muslim roommates & have had 2 in the past. I am a very tolerant & open minded Christian. I have learned most Muslims are like most Christians, sound minded & decent people.
Yet out of the respect they should build further up the street.. how bout Hells Kitchen or Harlem?
& on another note it’s really freakin sad the memorial isn’t even finished yet. Weve become a lazy nation it seems.



report abuse
 

john

posted August 5, 2010 at 1:43 am


Just in case some of you have lost sight of the facts, this country was founded on the principles of the living God. The freedom of religion stated in our constitution was never intended to embrace anything but christianity. The oppressing influence of the church of England was the compelling reason for this statement of constitutional right. This nation is in a free fall into destruction. Our leaders and a large cross section of our society have left the principles of God and have set their own in place of them. History tells us of how when Israel would have been blessed above all nations she abandoned Gods principles and fell again and again into captivity. The greatest offence to God was their allowing false religions. Gods choice for government will have its day as soon as he brings this present world system to its end. The troubles we see today are only the rumbling of the beginning of the end of mans days and the sign of the coming of that great day of the Lord.



report abuse
 

Joe T

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:56 am


What’s the big deal. Let them build the mosque, and then send in a suicide terrorist to blow it up. Isn’t that how they play the game? That appears to be how the Sunni and Shiite play. Shoot, if they make it a very big mosque, maybe we can catch the whole thing film, and we can all watch it collapse in slow motion on the news, while our own crazy people dance in the streets chanting “Death to Islam”. Turn around is fair play, no? A better tribute to 9-11, hatred, and intolerance, than any replacement tower could ever be.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 5, 2010 at 3:43 am


I think the Framers knew they were protecting the religious liberty of all people within the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was demanded of them by the population and representatives before they could hope for ratification. People were very concerned with securing and ensuring a religion neutral government.
It’s absurd to suggest they didn’t know what they were doing when they declared there shall be no religious test from a governmental perspective. They wrote to the effect that government business does not reach, and is separate from, religious belief. Government exerts power only over some actions of its citzenry, and none at all over their religious beliefs. Citizens support religious institutions voluntarily, or not at all, according to their own mind.



report abuse
 

Believe4100

posted August 5, 2010 at 5:11 am


If this Islamic group are such great American’s, why are they insisting on building on the cite they know will cause the greatest animosity. They don’t want to be associated with extremists, yet they stick the knife in and twist it ever so forcefully. It would be akin to the Japanese Navy erecting a monument honoring Adm. Yamamoto, in the midst of Pearl Harbor, or the American Nazi Party building a giant oven next to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. If these Muslims are sympathetic to the plight of the family members and the city which endured this act of hatred, why not find another cite to build. I’ll tell you why, because their mock reasoning and funding don’t pass the sniff test.



report abuse
 

FPembroke

posted August 5, 2010 at 8:08 am


Can’t you see that this is a symbol of conquest, like planting a flag? This is a spit in the face, a f*(k-you to this country, and a dance on the graves of the unarmed, non-combative citizens that were murdered in the name of this religion. Sometimes, you have to take a stand against evil, and it has to start somewhere.
What do you think would happen if the situation were turned around, and some US citizen wanted to build a cathedral in the capital of Islam? They don’t see this kind of capitulation as healing, or forgiveness, or a place to hold hands and sing KumBahYah. They see it as contemptible weakness.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 5, 2010 at 8:53 am


Dear Rev. Lynn,
thank you for this most insightful article. It restores my belief in the goodness of the American people, Christian, Muslim or otherwise.
To all the hate spewed in the comments about “flag-planting”, “taking a stand against evil” and whining about why there are no cathedrals “in the capital of Islam”: Do you really want to let America sink down to the level of the extremists? It would be a shame. Please, rather lead by example.
This is what America once stood for, and I still believe in it.
Greetings from Norway,
Daniel



report abuse
 

Littleolme

posted August 5, 2010 at 9:19 am


Thank you for this article. I sometimes feel like I take crazy pills because I don’t buy into the mass’ view from Christian right. America and “Real” Americans (inserted to show the bias we show to the world) appreciate our right to worship our AWESOME GOD. Mike (above) said it right. We are lucky that we can have so many religions in America without the government cracking it down. If we would like to lose our freedom to do so, then this law suit is a great way to start down the theocracy road. Think. Open your eyes and see beyond the crap that “religion” throws at you. You do not belong to a political party, an economic theory, a particular government style, etc…YOU BELONG TO CHRIST. Act like him.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 11:19 am


Littleolme says:
We are lucky that we can have so many religions in America…
Mr. Incredible asks:
How many ways are there to Heaven? Christ says there is only One.
What does “luck” have to do with anything? If, of course, those of us who are born again are of Christ. Is “luck” above Christ, or is Christ above “luck”? Give us some wisdom.
Littleolme says:
… without the government cracking it down.
Mr. Incredible says:
There’s no indication that the government is “cracking it down.”
Littleolme says:
If we would like to lose our freedom to do so, then this law suit is a great way to start down the theocracy road.
Mr. Incredible says:
Stopping this mosque from being built at THAT location does not stop Islam, nor Muslims. Stopping them from building a mosque overlooking the site of their “victory” does something to hinder their insensitivity.
Littleolme says:
Think.
Mr. Incredible says:
We do.
Littleolme says:
Open your eyes and see…
Mr. Incredible says:
Christ has opened our eyes and we see.
Littleolme says:
… beyond the crap that “religion” throws at you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Christ is against “religion,” too. Revelation 2:6, 15.
Littleolme says:
You do not belong to a political party, an economic theory, a particular government style, etc…YOU BELONG TO CHRIST. Act like him.
Mr. Incredible says:
What, biblically, does it mean to “act” like Christ? What, biblically, did He do that you say we must emulate?



report abuse
 

L

posted August 5, 2010 at 11:51 am


Dear Reverend,
I encourage you to be courageous and to stand firm for what you choose to represent. By Reverend, I am assuming that you work to instruct and edify believers as a leader to God’s truth as given to all of us in his word, the bible, in its entirety.
What about the areas of instruction repeated in the old testement and reaffirmed by Christ himself and reported in the new testement where God opposes constuctions for worship of other Gods (such as the high places that the Lord pointed out as being a problem for remaining and not being torn down – see the old testement) and other false Gods including objects and opportunistic money making (sales at the Lord’s house, Jesus turning the tables).
If we do not work to keep these idol worship places out of our land are we not disobeying God? Where does he ever say to tolerate evil? Where does he ever say to get along with the world? He says that to be friends of the world is to be an enemy of God. Do you fear God or do you fear man? God says that we are to LOVE our neighbor and to FEAR God and to do God’s will and to NOT be lovers of the world. So, in love and in fear and obedience to God, take a stand that says, I love you and I love the Lord and the Lord’s truth is ALWAYS the right path, so NO to you place of worship to other gods. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!!!!! Do you not know that even in Ashville, NC the UNDER GOD is being erased. Stop the tolerance of evil in the name of love, hiding God’s will is not loving your neighbor, how can you lead someone to truth by massaging evil?



report abuse
 

RedeemedSinner

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm


Good day everyone. I have read most of your comments. I am follower of Jesus Christ. I have no problem with a Mosque being built in NY, just not near the site where so many have died because of an extremist group. It is not about the Burlington Coat Factory. I am sure there has been many historic events conducted in this building. Way before BCF was a thought in the manufactures mind. I have a few questions and statements for you who think its “peace” and “religious freedom” that the Islamic group is touting.
1. Why not let the KKK build a monument near the 16th Street Baptist Church in Alabama.
2. Why not let the Islamic Extremist build Mosques near the other two sites as well.
3. We must let McVeys family build a monument to him across the street from the OK City Bombing site.
4. Why does Sharif el-Gamal want the building completed on the 10th anniversary? NOT A COINCIDENCE.
5. THe Americans raised a flag on the moon, when we conqured it. Now the Islamic group want to raise a 13 story building, shouting CONQUERED. Our previous attempts failed. We finally brought you down!
6. If el-Gamal wants peace; establish the building as Musuem, since it was struck by debris from one of the airplanes. That is why BCF closed its doors (roof damage). What did el-Gamal do with the evidence? Then everyone can use it. Also, it will bring revenue for the city such as was done in OK City of a building damaged by the blast. I have been there.
7. Why didn’t the NY officals think of a Musuem?
8. How much QUICK MONEY did someone receive and what was the money used for?
Stop fighting among ourselves.
The TROJAN HORSE IS BEING ADMITTED INTO OUR CAMP! UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:36 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
The Muslim who would head the mosque in New York City has already called for sharia law in the United States.
Rich says:
And I should find this scarier than you nutty Christian cultists…
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re a big boy and you’re scared of ghosts you’ve danced up in your own head. Unbelievable.
Rich says:
…who want to return us to some “Biblical foundation” for America…
Mr. Incredible says:
Provide the Christian link that says that.
Rich says:
… because why?
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re less afraid of sharia law than you are of Christianity which says nothing even remotely similar. Ooooooo-kaaaayyy.
Sooooo, you got no problem with sharia Muslims roaming the streets of America, telling women to wear burqas. Oooooo-kaaay.
Rich says:
The only difference is that while Islamic cultists on a jihad cut your head off with what is likely a dull knife you Christian cultists on a crusade seem to enjoy burning folks alive at the stake.
Mr. Incredible says:
Muslims beheading prisoners continues today. Burning at the stake is ancient history.
Rich says:
Personally, if I have to look forward to be being killed by some primitive and demon haunted morons, I would prefer the quickest method that affords the least pain.
Mr. Incredible says:
You appear, in all these pages, to be in quite a bit of pain.
Rich says:
I do recognize that both groups are still fond of stoning people to death…
Mr. Incredible says:
Who told you that Christians are “fond” of stoning people to death, another atheist?
Rich says:
… you just haven’t been allowed you fun [sic] in the US for quite awhile.
Mr. Incredible asks:
You think that that’s the only thing stopping Christians from stoning anybody? You virtually stone Christians every time you post in these pages. So, who are YOU to talk?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:42 pm


Ray says:
There is no tolerance for Christians.
Rich says:
Yeah, right!
Mr. Incredible says:
Why the surprise? You show such intolerance here all the time.
Rich says:
Why it was just today that I saw armed military forces razing churches and rounding up Christians and toting them off to concentration camps.
Mr. Incredible says:
You can display the legitimately authoritative link any time.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:43 pm


Ray says:
Christians are required to be tolerant of everybody else.
Rich says:
Oh yeah, that too.
Mr. Incredible says:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.search&keywords=Arab+fest



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm


Ray says:
Outlawing prayer in any public place…
Rich says:
Prayer is not outlawed in a public place.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, as just this one example shows, it is: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=179585
Rich says:
Go out to any street corner, don’t block foot or car traffic and pray all you want, no one will arrest you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, in front of the Supreme Court recently, events prove you wrong.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm


Rich says:
As well, you can build some hideous mega-church, just like the stupid ones I see all over town that don’t appear to threatened in any way.
Mr. Incredible says:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.search&keywords=%22Church%22+%22land-use%22&search_WND.x=11&search_WND.y=11
Rich says:
Your statement is stupid and paranoid to a ridiculous degree.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“You have-ta surrender yourself to my way of thinking in order not to be stupid and paranoid to a ridiculous degree.”

rich says:
I suppose it empowers your pathetic sense of persecution and makes you feel all holy and that you are sacrificing for Mr. Magic Jesus but get a grip there. There is thing called reality.
Mr. Incredible says:
The only ones who are in denial of the persecution of Christians is you, Belial Boris and HG.
However, if there is no persecution of Christians, there must also be no discrimination based on race, nor sex.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm


Rich says:
Perhaps you were whining about high school valedictorians not being able to use a public microphone and preach to a captive audience about how wonderful Jesus is. Well, the public is paying for that microphone and a high school graduation audience has to be there so too bad for you. That is not persecution, that is just common sense. You want to use a microphone, you pay for it completely by yourself and allow the audience to leave whenever it wants.
Mr. Incredible says:
Sorta like, you, yourself, can leave whenever you want. You’re not a captive audience.
Rich says:
Generally, I am a bit weary of Christians whining about how they are so mistreated especially given that Christians thrive in this country…
Mr. Incredible says:
I am also a bit weary of members of certified minorities whining about how they’re so mistreated, especially given that they thrive in this country.
Rich says:
… have excessive access to our legislatures…
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Excessive”?? Who legitimately and authoritatively says Christians’access to state legislatures is “excessive”??
Rich says:
… and even get to run their scams on a tax-free basis.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Of what “scams” by, as you allege, Christians have YOU been the victim?
Church operations our tax-free cuz of the so-called “separation of Church and State.” Now, if you wanna renounce the so-called “separation of Church and State,” maybe you can persuade the majority in this country that the tax-free operation of churches is a bad idea.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm


ezra says:
I am not a Muslim…
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m pasting a gold star on your chart right now.
ezra says:
… and I reject the Quran as a sacred text…
Mr. Incredible says:
There’s another gold star!
ezra says:
… but that’s me…
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, that’s Christ, too.
ezra says:
… because I am a Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, ANOTHER gold star!
ezra says:
I also reject Judaism’s religious literature for the same reason: I am a Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m runnin’ outta gold stars.
ezra says:
Does that mean that I should oppose the building of synagogues in American sil [sic]? Of course not!
Mr. Incredible says:
People who go to synagogues didn’t kill almost 3000 Americans in one shot.
ezra says:
Muslims have the same religious rights as anybody else in this country…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is denying their “religious Rights.” Nobody is stopping them from building a mosque. We are merely imposing on them the sensitivity and courtesy they have yet to display.
ezra says:
… and the acceptance of these principles is what makes our nation a GREAT nation.
Mr. Incredible says:
And 911 is what they think makes THEM great. Building the mosque there, knowing the significance of that spot, within sniffing distance of what they consider “victory,” reinforces that sense of “victory.” We shouldn’t be part of that cheerleading.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm


HG says:
I think the Framers knew they were protecting the religious liberty of all people within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, they were, in the broad sense, part of the “settling” team that came here, as The Mayflower Compact says, to “advance Christianity.”
HG says:
It was demanded of them by the population and representatives before they could hope for ratification.
Mr. Incredible says:
Produce the paperwork from that time that shows that the people then lobbied the Founders to include Muslims, Buddhists and atheists in “religious liberty.”
By the way, are you, all of a sudden, saying that atheists oughta enjoy “religious liberty”?
HG says:
People were very concerned with securing and ensuring a religion neutral government.
Mr. Incredible says:
That was not the sense until 1947 when the Supreme Court edited outta Jefferson’s letter his phrasing, “wall of separation,” and amended the Constitution to say that the Constitution says there is a “separation of Church and State” where there was no such statement before.
HG says:
It’s absurd to suggest they didn’t know what they were doing when they declared there shall be no religious test from a governmental perspective.
Mr. Incredible asks:
A “religious test” under what circumstance?
Am I forbidden from using a “religious test” at the polling place?
What happens, if, in my own mind and heart, I use a “religious test” when, while on jury duty, assessing the guilt, or innocence, of a defendant?
HG says:
They wrote to the effect that government business does not reach, and is separate from, religious belief.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“I project the effect of my mind on what they did and POOF! that’s what they did!”

HG says:
Government exerts power only over some actions of its citzenry, and none all over their religious beliefs.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody says, nor wants, the State to exert “religious” power over citizens. Exerting power comes in the form of the Legislative enacting a law. There’s been no such law. There isn’t even a hint of such a law.
HG says:
Citizens support religious institutions voluntarily, or not at all, according to their own mind.
Mr. Incredible says:
No one has said any different.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted August 5, 2010 at 1:15 pm


Mr. Incredible Cult Member,
re: “Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, in front of the Supreme Court recently, events prove you wrong.”
Again you lose. The students were stopped praying due to a special statute that prevents parades, demonstrations, etc. on Supreme Court grounds. This is well within the province of providing the general public access to public facilities by insuring that the area is not clogged up with protests, etc. There is no generalized prohibition on public prayer and you know this but that doesn’t stop you from spreading falsehoods.
Tell you what, cult members like you thrive on perpetuating your sense of persecution. Why don’t you head over to the nearest international airport you can find and hold a prayer circle out on the runway. Gosh, do you think that prayer can be prohibited there for legitimate public concerns or is this another example of the feeding Christians to the lions?
Also re:
“Mr. Incredible says:
Sorta like, you, yourself, can leave whenever you want. You’re not a captive audience.”
Wow, you are either really dense or a liar. Perhaps both, you are a Christian after all.
You know as well as I do that students attending their graduation are not free to get up and exit once some pathetic brainwashed child starts yammering on about Jesus. I know that when both my son and daughter graduated from high school (my daughter just this June) there were severe and extreme penalties for any disruptive act. Leaving your seat was one of the prohibited acts, unless for valid medical reasons. The penalty for any infraction was denial of diploma.
So, by your pathetic reasoning, my child would have to sit still and endure a religious speech of proselytization in order to receive her diploma. Of course again you know that no citizen should ever be subjected to a mandatory observance of any religious activity but instead you choose to be a liar. Typical of you.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 5, 2010 at 1:59 pm


Love one another….cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:08 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, in front of the Supreme Court recently, events prove you wrong.
Rich says:
Again you lose.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I don’t lose.
YOU say that no one is stopped from praying on public property. They were. That means that you don’t know what you’re talking about, except that you twist the reporting of events so that they sound favorable to you.
Rich says:
The students were stopped praying due to a special statute that prevents parades, demonstrations, etc. on Supreme Court grounds.
Mr. Incredible says:
They were not parading. They were not demonstrating. They were performing a perfectly acceptable, First Amendment exercise, blocking nobody, hindering nobody, impeding nobody.
Rich says:
This is well within the province of providing the general public access to public facilities by insuring that the area is not clogged up with protests, etc.
Mr. Incredible says:
They blocked nobody. They hindered nobody. They impeded nobody.
Rich says:
There is no generalized prohibition on public prayer and you know this but that doesn’t stop you from spreading falsehoods.
Mr. Incredible says:
First of all, if you’re so clever, you don’t need a copy my methods. I don’t copy YOUR methods cuz, well, you’re not clever, though you try to be.
You didn’t say, at first, that “there is no generalized” prohibition. All you said is that nobody, on public property, is stopped from praying. They were stopped from praying.
There is no generalized prohibition that can be applicable in specific situations. There is no law that says they cannot pray on the steps of the Supreme Court. The law cannot be expanded to include prayer as a form of parading, or demonstration, or protest, in order merely to stop praying, an activity perfectly allowed by the First Amendment.
Rich says:
Tell you what…
Mr. Incredible says:
You haven’t told us anything yet.
Rich says:
…cult members like you…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, I’m not a member of a cult, but that won’t stop you from saying that I am. Typically disingenuous. You come through every time.
Rich says:
… thrive on perpetuating your sense of persecution.
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t perpetuate a sense of persecution. Persecution is what people like you do. We merely report it. Of course, your persecution doesn’t impact us cuz, after all, we are protected by the Blood of Christ.
Rich says:
Why don’t you head over to the nearest international airport you can find and hold a prayer circle out on the runway. [Sic]
Mr. Incredible says:
Don’t need to. We’re doing fine right here.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:20 pm


Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “Nobody says, nor wants, the State to exert “religious” power over citizens.”
John: “The freedom of religion stated in our constitution was never intended to embrace anything but christianity. …The greatest offence to God was their allowing false religions.”
It sounds to me as if SOMEBODY wants the State to exert “religious” power over citizens.
Mr. I Don’t Believe People Should Have Religious Freedom: “By the way, are you, all of a sudden, saying that atheists oughta enjoy “religious liberty”?
I’m saying all Americans DO enjoy religious liberty as granted by our Constitution.
Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “That was not the sense until 1947 when the Supreme Court edited outta Jefferson’s letter his phrasing, “wall of separation,” and amended the Constitution to say that the Constitution says there is a “separation of Church and State” where there was no such statement before.
James Madison: “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history”
Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, thought he wrote a “separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution”, and yet Mr. I Believe in Spooks says no such thing existed prior to 1947. Hmm.
Here are a couple of direct quotes from Mr. I Believe in Spooks:
Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “…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…”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:22 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Sorta like, you, yourself, can leave whenever you want. You’re not a captive audience.”
Rich says:
Wow, you are either really dense or a liar. Perhaps both, you are a Christian after all.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, you ARE a captive audience? You can’t leave this place? Who strapped you down? Tell them I told you to tell them to let you loose so that you can leave.
Rich says:
You know as well as I do that students attending their graduation are not free to get up and exit once some pathetic brainwashed child starts yammering on about Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
Who, or what, stop them?
Rich says:
I know that when both my son and daughter graduated from high school (my daughter just this June) there were severe and extreme penalties for any disruptive act.
Mr. Incredible says:
That does not include avoiding something you determine, even through ignorance, is offensive. You cannot be compelled to sit there and listen to what you consider to be, through ignorance, offensive. That’s First Amendment.
Rich says:
Leaving your seat was one of the prohibited acts, unless for valid medical reasons.
Mr. Incredible says:
Garbage.
Rich says:
The penalty for any infraction was denial of diploma.
Mr. Incredible says:
They cannot deny a diploma which is based on at least a satisfactory work in school just cuz you get up and leave because, according to you, even through ignorance, you’re offended by what is being said.
Rich says:
So, by your pathetic reasoning, my child would have to sit still and endure a religious speech of proselytization in order to receive her diploma.
Mr. Incredible says:
No. She would’ve been free to leave at any time for purposes of avoiding anything, through her ignorance, that she would deem “offensive.” She’s not required to sit through “religious ceremonial service.” The diploma is not based on listening to whatever is said. It is based on schoolwork.
No one was trapped on the steps of the Supreme Court. Everyone made his own choice to stay, or leave. There was no disruption. No one was hindered. No one was impeded. Everyone had free access to the building.
Rich says:
Of course again you know that no citizen should ever be subjected to a mandatory observance of any religious activity
Mr. Incredible says:
I never said they should.
No one on the steps of the Supreme Court forced anyone to listen to the prayers.
Rich says:
… but instead you choose to be a liar.
Mr. Incredible says:
I chose not to lie.
Rich says:
Typical of you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Typical of me not to lie. Thank you.
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/08/religious-discrimination-at-it.html#ixzz0vkt10HKN



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody says, nor wants, the State to exert “religious” power over citizens.
John says:
The freedom of religion stated in our constitution was never intended to embrace anything but christianity. …The greatest offence to God was their allowing false religions.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s true.
HG says:
It sounds to me as if SOMEBODY wants the State to exert “religious” power over citizens.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, to YOU.
HG says:
Mr. I Don’t Believe People Should Have Religious Freedom…
Mr. Incredible says:
We know you don’t.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm


Mr. Incredible asks:
By the way, are you, all of a sudden, saying that atheists oughta enjoy “religious liberty”?
HG says:
I’m saying all Americans DO enjoy religious liberty as granted by our Constitution.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Even atheists?? What “religious” liberty??



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:32 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
That was not the sense until 1947 when the Supreme Court edited outta Jefferson’s letter his phrasing, “wall of separation,” and amended the Constitution to say that the Constitution says there is a “separation of Church and State” where there was no such statement before.
James Madison says:

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”

HG says:Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, thought he wrote a “separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution”, and yet [you say] no such thing existed prior to 1947. Hmm.
Mr. Incredible says:
RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. He said nothing about Christian thought entering into government. Nothing in there that says “separation of Church and State.” However, the Founders mixed “religion” and State all the time.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:37 pm


Cara Floyd says:
Love one another.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How, biblically?
If I love someone, biblically, I will do what Jesus did. What, biblically, did He do to love others that I should do?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 2:54 pm


Rich says:
So, by your pathetic reasoning…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“If you thought like me, your reasoning wouldn’t be pathetic.”



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm


Mr. I Do Believe in Spooks: “Even atheists?? What “religious” liberty??”
The liberty to hold whatever religious beliefs they choose, from zero to infinity and beyond.
Mr. I Do Believe: “HG says: It sounds to me as if SOMEBODY wants the State to exert “religious” power over citizens.
Mr. Incredible says: Of course, to YOU.”
So, somebody says the Constitution should countenance ONLY Christianity as a religion and all else is an affront to God, and you DON’T understand why it looks to me that he thinks the State should exert religious power upon the citizenry? Anybody else?
Mr. I Do Believe: “HG says:Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, thought he wrote a “separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution”, and yet [you say] no such thing existed prior to 1947. Hmm.
Mr. Incredible says: RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. He said nothing about Christian thought entering into government. Nothing in there that says ‘separation of Church and State.’”
The Church and State line paraphrased, and somewhat poorly, Madison’s sentiment, thank you for pointing that out. The correct phrase was the earlier of the two, the one by Madison himself: RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. Religion, the broad term, encompasses everything to do with religion, including churches. So we agree that Madison incorporated within the Constitution (which he largely penned) a separation between religion and government? Excellent.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted August 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm


“The Framers NEVER, EVER thought that the First Amendment was protecting Islam, Buddhism, Witchcraft or Atheism.”
What utter nonsense. The deliberations of Article 6 and the Bill of Rights are right in the Library of Congress for anyone to read. During the debate about the wording the question was asked, “Would that also apply to mohametons?” The replay was a resounding “Yes!”.
And I love the way the Mayflower is always brought up as if the Puritan Christian religious cult had anything whatever to do with the Founding Fathers, who were mostly Enlightenment Deists, Unitarians, and Universalists more than a century and a half later.
And since when is a multi-cultural financial center “sacred ground” to Christians? Maybe we could import some of those wonderful Christians from Serbia and West Africa to show us how Christian genocide against Muslims and “witches” is done…
What happened to forgiveness (it’s been 10 years), to turning the other cheek, to blessed are the peacemakers? Apparently modern Christianity is just another Jewish cult demanding an eye for an eye…



report abuse
 

Christopher Hernandez

posted August 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm


Mr Lynn won’t be as encouraging of “freedom of religion” when the religion of Islam forces him to convert, along with his entire family, to Islam, or be put to death. Where will your desire for freedom be when you are murdered for rejecting Islam, unless your yourself are already a member of the Islamic community. What do you believe in Mr. Lynn, and why? Are you so naive to stand up only for others, albeit even when they are in the wrong, just to make yourself seem like you are so generous toward certain ideals? Nobody cares about how universal you are in your thinking, any fish can swim with the current. It takes courage to follow the One true God, and not a group of people with fattened pockets, who know how to line the pockets of most of Ameroca’s ‘leaders.’ wake up Mr. lynnbefore it is too late and you have no life left to live. May God have mercy on us all.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Even atheists?? What “religious” liberty??
HG says:
The liberty to hold whatever religious beliefs they choose, from zero to infinity and beyond.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Then, you’re saying that atheists hold religious beliefs. That’s what I’ve said.
HG says:
It sounds to me as if SOMEBODY wants the State to exert “religious” power over citizens.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, to YOU.
HG says:
So, somebody says the Constitution should countenance ONLY Christianity as a religion…
Mr. Incredible says:
H2356 and 57 say that “religion” is “ceremonial observance.” That is not Christianity.
HG says:
… and all else is an affront to God…
Mr. Incredible says:
I’ll go with God.
HG says:
…and you DON’T understand why it looks to me…
Mr. Incredible says:
Our understanding is finite. God understanding is infinite. So, when you say, “it looks to me,” you’re admitting that you don’t have all the information.
HG says:
… that he thinks the State should exert religious power upon the citizenry?
Mr. Incredible says:
No chance you’re wrong, huh?
HG says:
Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, thought he wrote a “separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution”, and yet [you say] no such thing existed prior to 1947. Hmm.
Mr. Incredible says:
RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. He said nothing about Christian thought entering into government. Nothing in there that says “separation of Church and State.”
HG says:
The Church and State line paraphrased, and somewhat poorly, Madison’s sentiment, thank you for pointing that out. The correct phrase was the earlier of the two, the one by Madison himself: RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. Religion, the broad term, encompasses everything to do with religion, including churches. So we agree that Madison incorporated within the Constitution (which he largely penned) a separation between religion and government?
Mr. Incredible says:
The so-called “separation of Church and State” is about not letting the State be the high priest of the Church. It’s not about Christians not having a say in the run of the country. The Founders didn’t contemplate Muslims, Buddhists, nor Confucians. Atheists aren’t included cuz atheists say that atheism is not a religion. The First Amendment concerns so-called “religion.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 6:08 pm


Of course, the Founders were, in the vast majority, Christians.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 5, 2010 at 7:11 pm


The so-called separation of church and state is actually the separation between religion and government, as we have discovered from the writings of Madison, and is embedded in the Constitution.
Religious liberty allows people who have it to examine and accept or reject religious beliefs as they see fit. Therefore we in America have the religious liberty to reject all religious beliefs encountered.
Despite the claim that Christianity does not fall under some (narrow) definition of being a religion, it is generally thus regarded. And, how else could one claim that the vast majority of Founders were Christian than by examining their declared religious affiliation?
I Believe in Spooks: “The Founders didn’t contemplate Muslims, Buddhists, nor Confucians.”
DSJulian: “The deliberations of Article 6 and the Bill of Rights are right in the Library of Congress for anyone to read. During the debate about the wording the question was asked, “Would that also apply to mohametons?” The replay was a resounding “Yes!”.”
I guess you dismissed that comment for some reason.
I Believe in Spooks: “HG says:…and you DON’T understand why it looks to me…
Mr. Incredible says: Our understanding is finite. God understanding is infinite. So, when you say, “it looks to me,” you’re admitting that you don’t have all the information.”
Our understanding is finite. God doesn’t exist. I’m saying based on the information provided and quoted it looked that way to me. Of course I could be wrong…the fellow may not know how to use the English language at all or contradict his own writing. But if you couldn’t tell why I drew the conclusion I did from what I quoted, then you exhibit poor reading comprehension imho. I’m not surprised, given your interpretation of the meaning of the religion clauses and the Roe decision.



report abuse
 

Mr.. Incredible

posted August 5, 2010 at 10:16 pm


HG says:
The so-called separation of church and state is actually the separation between religion and government, as we have discovered from the writings of Madison, and is embedded in the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Madison’s interpretation is not the modern interpretation. You people need to get your stories straight.
HG says:
Religious liberty allows people who have it to examine and accept or reject religious beliefs as they see fit.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you people say that atheism is not a religion. If it isn’t a religion, how does the First Amendment apply to YOU people?
HG says:
Therefore we in America have the religious liberty to reject all religious beliefs encountered.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, the First Amendment apply to so-called “religious belief.” Atheists say they have no such belief.
HG says:
Despite the claim that Christianity does not fall under some (narrow) definition of being a religion, it is generally thus regarded.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, Christianity, loosely thought by the Founders to be a “religion,” falls under the First Amendment umbrella.
However, as atheists are fond of telling us, atheism cannot even loosely be called a “religion.” So, then, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to atheists.
HG says:
And, how else could one claim that the vast majority of Founders were Christian than by examining their declared religious affiliation?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz they followed Jesus.
HG says:
I Believe in Spooks…
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t doubt that.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Founders didn’t contemplate Muslims, Buddhists, nor Confucians.
DSJulian says:
The deliberations of Article 6 and the Bill of Rights are right in the Library of Congress for anyone to read. During the debate about the wording the question was asked, “Would that also apply to mohametons?” The replay was a resounding “Yes!”. [sic]
HG says:
I guess you dismissed that comment for some reason.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, you mean the statement about Article 6? Of course, we are discussing Article 1.
HG says:
I Believe in Spooks…
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m having no doubt believing that you do.
HG says:
… and you DON’T understand why it looks to me…
Mr. Incredible says:
Our understanding is finite. God understanding is infinite. So, when you say, “it looks to me,” you’re admitting that you don’t have all the information.
HG says:
God doesn’t exist.
Mr. Incredible says:
If your understanding is finite — and it is; REAL finite — you can’t know that He doesn’t exist.
HG says:
I’m saying based on the information provided and quoted it looked that way to me.
Mr. Incredible says:
You didn’t say, “based on the information provided and quoted.” Of course, you say it NOW.
HG says:
Of course I could be wrong…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Could” be???
HG says:
… the fellow may not know how to use the English language at all or contradict his own writing.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m glad that doesn’t describe me.
HG says:
But if you couldn’t tell why I drew the conclusion I did from what I quoted, then you exhibit poor reading comprehension imho.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s up to the sender to be clear in his communications. It’s not up to the reader/listener to figure it all out.
HG says:
I’m not surprised, given your interpretation of the meaning of the religion clauses and the Roe decision.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Your interpretation of the ‘religion’ clauses and the Roe decision should be more like what I think.”



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 6, 2010 at 12:31 am


Mr. IBiS: “HG says: The so-called separation of church and state is actually the separation between religion and government, as we have discovered from the writings of Madison, and is embedded in the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says: However, Madison’s interpretation is not the modern interpretation.
I don’t see that much deviation. I mean, even Madison allowed deviation from his own vision when he resisted the idea of House Chaplains but yielded to colleagues who insisted it was inconsequential. It reminds me of Justice Jackson’s dissent in a NJ bussing case where the Supreme Court affirmed separation between religion and government, but allowed public money to be used for bussing students to religious schools. Jackson compared the ruling (which was later overturned by the NJ Court) to Byron’s Julia who, while whispering “I will n’er consent”, consented. Attempted ecclesiastical encroachments of that type, of which Madison noted, vetoed, and warned have taken many forms since then, …all attempts to get the camel’s proverbial nose in the tent. They exploit any bad ruling regarding separation between religion and government (Marsh) in a misguided attempt to revise precedent and effectively change the meaning of the religion clauses.
Mr. IBiS: “HG says: Religious liberty allows people who have it to examine and accept or reject religious beliefs as they see fit.
Mr. Incredible says: However, you people say that atheism is not a religion. If it isn’t a religion, how does the First Amendment apply to YOU people?”
I am not an atheist, I am agnostic, so the “YOU people” doesn’t apply to me personally.
Set an assortment of sandwiches in front of someone and give them liberty to eat any of them any time they want. They might choose to examine the sandwiches but not eat any, and still retain the liberty to eat. Exercising personal liberty, their selection of “things to eat” can be “nothing to eat”. He might even eat a sandwich and regurgitate it if it disagreed with him. Same with religion. Atheists don’t give up the liberty to choose any or none at any time.
Mr.IBiS: “HG says: And, how else could one claim that the vast majority of Founders were Christian than by examining their declared religious affiliation?
Mr. Incredible says: Cuz they followed Jesus.”
Where do you get your numbers? I’ve seen published reports that as few as 17% of colonial Americans declared belief in any deity.
Mr.IBiS: “However, as atheists are fond of telling us, atheism cannot even loosely be called a “religion.” So, then, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to atheists.
As I hope you’ve already learned, the First Amendment gives religious liberty to ALL Americans, and religious liberty involves choosing from the entire belief continuum; anywhere from zero to infinity and beyond.
Mr. IBiS: “HG says: I Believe in Spooks…”
Yep, HG says YOU believe in spooks, heh, heh, probably demon possession and all that crap too. I don’t believe in any of that nonsense.
“Mr. Incredible says: The Founders didn’t contemplate Muslims, Buddhists, nor Confucians.
DSJulian says: The deliberations of Article 6 and the Bill of Rights are right in the Library of Congress for anyone to read. During the debate about the wording the question was asked, “Would that also apply to mohametons?” The replay was a resounding “Yes!”. [sic]
HG says: I guess you dismissed that comment for some reason.
Mr. Incredible says:Oh, you mean the statement about Article 6? Of course, we are discussing Article 1.”
Ah, so Article 6 applies and they were specifically mentioned, but Article 1 doesn’t apply and their rights weren’t contemplated? And that’s what you were talking about about. I feel a laughing fit coming on.
Mr. IBiS: “HG says: I Believe in Spooks…”
Yes, to repeat, I do say you believe in spooks, and that you claim to have personal conversations with at least one of them.
Mr. I Do Believe in Spooks: “HG says: God doesn’t exist.
Mr. Incredible says: If your understanding is finite — and it is; REAL finite — you can’t know that He doesn’t exist.”
That is correct, I was stating my belief, my opinion. This is an opinion blog. By the same token, your understanding is easily as finite as my own, and you can’t know that He does exist. This is something you continually, comically, deny.
Mr. IBiS: “Mr. Incredible says: You didn’t say, “based on the information provided and quoted.” Of course, you say it NOW.
I provided the quote. In quotes. Right there. You said it looked that way to YOU (meaning me). Yes, it did, and it does; as it would to any rational human being who can read and comprehend, but maybe not to an irrational, manic, contrarian such as yourself.
Here again, my favorite Mr. I Believe in Spooks quotes:
Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
Mr. I Believe in Spooks: “…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…”



report abuse
 

Charles Thomas

posted August 6, 2010 at 1:29 am


This country was founded on the Bible?
No it wasn’t.
This country was founded on the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence,a document penned by a Diest,not a Christian.
Indeed,if Thomas Jefferson were alive today,he would be denounced by the Christian right as an anti-christ because he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
“The freedom of religion stated in our Constitution was never intended to embrace anything but Christianity.”
Really?
“The Preamble declares,that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion,an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ’,so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ,the holy autor of our religion;” the assertion was rejected by the great majority,in proof that they meant to comprehend,within the mantle of its protection,the Jew and the Gentile,the Christian and the Mohammedan,the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”
-Thomas Jefferson,in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
Perhaps you should try reading something other than the revisionist clap-trap espoused by theocrats like David Barton.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 6, 2010 at 4:52 pm


As for religious clauses:
Well, your free to choose, that is the point.
And another thing there is to be no new laws…
And for the Roe vs. Wade decision:
Well that was not based on the fact of personhood..
The child growing can have a different blood type then the mother, as well as the child having different DNA.
So, there you have it personhood, right from the start of the egg mother’s egg meeting the dad’s sperm. A person other then themselves……cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm


That is the thing…
The mother has an egg….
and the dad has the sperm…
…….
When the two join, they are something different…, personhood, yes they are small and developing, and who on God’s great planet decided that they could call them anything less then people growing in the womb…
Who decided to break down the development of the child into to catagories dehumanizing their existance…?
That person was a bit arrogant, indeed…eh?
Thinking of himself so highly as to try and make another person something other then a he or a she?
Because, yes they are he’s and she’s. that is the point..
Different DNA, the child has their own bloodtype, and not to mention their own sex…
So, I don’t want to hear this line of garbage anymore, about people standing up in a court room or any other room, phone, computer, stating that those are not people…and if you do… your an arrogant slime of a human being, something that needs to be reckoned with, hopefully you can get some counseling for that type of biased, hitlerish mental view, something like a brain detox of arrogant thinking….yes that would be good.
There is your choice, try to walk away from the room instead of having sex, with somebody your not married to…that would be a start, eh?
cc



report abuse
 

Hakuna Matata

posted August 6, 2010 at 6:25 pm


Sex is a basic human drive. Penalizing people who do it by forcing them into unwilling parenthood is not a proper legal or social mandate. Government doesn’t have that power.
There isn’t a guaranteed method of protection against inception, and those who give rights to embryos over people wouldn’t allow Morning after pills.
The Court gave rights to people instead, stating unequivocally that the unborn aren’t protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Perhaps immigration is a smoke screen, and the real reason behind the republicans wanting to re-write the Fourteenth Amendment is to subvert Court rulings related to it. Not likely to work, if that’s the case.
Nothing to keep a Hitleristic arrogant slime of a human being from trying to stick their opponents with harsh labels, it’s been done before.



report abuse
 

Lon Clay Hill, Jr.

posted August 6, 2010 at 8:31 pm


Instead of saying that this is a “Christian nation,” my Christian brothers should show a little more PUBLIC respect for their non-Christian brothers and sisters, and do a little more private praying “in their CLOSET.” (See Mathew 6.6) I would think that those who would like to be known and respected as “Christians” might consider the words attributed to Jesus more relevant than the words of Newt Gingrich & Pat Robertson & other merchants of smug hatred and fear.
Lon Clay Hill (“Deep Autumn Flowers”)



report abuse
 

MJ Mosier

posted August 7, 2010 at 12:53 pm


14 Muslims also died? Are you including the ones who flew the planes? This is the most ridiculous statement. The terrorists don’t care about other muslims. They recruit them to kill us. This argument is not about freedom of religion, it’s about a radical group of terrorists who won’t stop until we are defeated. Make no mistake, they have said they want to wipe us out! Unfortunately, it’s impossible to tell the “good” muslims from the “bad” muslims so anyone of them could be the enemy. This is why we have to protect ourselves until the radicals are defeated!
Jesus told us to love our enemies, but we have to protect ourselves or our enemies will be our rulers.GET IT?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:18 pm


HG says:
The so-called separation of church and state is actually the separation between religion and government, as we have discovered from the writings of Madison, and is embedded in the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Madison’s interpretation is not the modern interpretation.
HG says:
I don’t see that much deviation.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who worship the so-called “separation of Church and State” as something that says that the State may not say anything even remotely considered “religious” don’t.
HG says:
I mean, even Madison allowed deviation from his own vision when he resisted the idea of House Chaplains but yielded to colleagues who insisted it was inconsequential.
Mr. Incredible says:
Meaning that he wasn’t quite sure, nor committed, himself, and that the so-called “separation of Church and State” is not as solid as you would have us believe Madison thought it is.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm


HG says:
Religious liberty allows people who have it to examine and accept or reject religious beliefs as they see fit.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you people say that atheism is not a religion. If it isn’t a religion, how does the First Amendment apply to YOU people?”
HG says:
I am not an atheist, I am agnostic, so the “YOU people” doesn’t apply to me personally.
Mr. Incredible says:
Half a dozen of one, six of another. You’re moron “their” side than you are on ours.
HG says:
Set an assortment of sandwiches in front of someone and give them liberty to eat any of them any time they want. They might choose to examine the sandwiches but not eat any, and still retain the liberty to eat. Exercising personal liberty, their selection of “things to eat” can be “nothing to eat”.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who said otherwise?
HG says:
He might even eat a sandwich and regurgitate it if it disagreed with him.
Mr. Incredible says:
Or, if he disagreed with it.
HG says:
Same with religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, atheism is a sandwich. Baloney.
HG says:
Atheists don’t give up the liberty to choose any or none at any time.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, the First Amendment applies to “religious” worship. Atheists say they are not “religious.” They say atheism is not a “religion.” Therefore, what they believe, as far as the First Amendment goes, is not applicable to the First Amendment. Atheists, and even agnostics — birds of a feather — have taken themselves out of the First Amendment. Unless, of course, they say that atheism and agnosticism are “religions,” and require the protections of the First Amendment in order to worship their beliefs which they say they don’t have.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm


HG says:
And, how else could one claim that the vast majority of Founders were Christian than by examining their declared religious affiliation?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz they followed Jesus.”
HG says:
Where do you get your numbers?
Mr. Incredible says:
According to the writings.
HG says:
I’ve seen published reports that as few as 17% of colonial Americans declared belief in any deity.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Published reports,” such as Atheists and Agnostics Monthly?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:21 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
However, as atheists are fond of telling us, atheism cannot even loosely be called a “religion.” So, then, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to atheists.
HG says:
… the First Amendment gives religious liberty to ALL Americans, and religious liberty involves choosing from the entire belief continuum; anywhere from zero to infinity and beyond.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, as you note, it is “RELIGIOUS” liberty. Atheists and agnostics claim that there alleged belief systems are not “religious.” The First Amendment “religious” clause has to do with “religious” belief, worship and practice free from an official Church with the State as its high priest.
Mr. Incredible points out that HG says:
I Believe in Spooks…
HG says:
Yep, HG says YOU believe in spooks…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that that’s not what you wrote. You wrote that YOU believe in spooks. I commend you for having the guts to do so in front of everybody.
Of course, I would never write that I believe in spooks cuz, after all, I don’t believe in spooks.
HG says:
… heh, heh, probably demon possession and all that crap too. I don’t believe in any of that nonsense.
Mr. Incredible says:
And the Devil is pleased that you don’t. He works best that way, no resistance, when people deny that he exists.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
The Founders didn’t contemplate Muslims, Buddhists, nor Confucians.
DSJulian says:
The deliberations of Article 6 and the Bill of Rights are right in the Library of Congress for anyone to read. During the debate about the wording the question was asked, “Would that also apply to mohametons?” The replay was a resounding “Yes!”. [sic]
HG says:
I guess you dismissed that comment for some reason.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, you mean the statement about Article 6? Of course, we are discussing Article 1.
HG says:
Ah, so Article 6 applies and they were specifically mentioned, but Article 1 doesn’t apply and their rights weren’t contemplated?
Mr. Incredible says:
Given the history of Christians and the Church of England, as just one example, the focus was on Christianity as the faith being hounded. There were no Muslims being harassed. Nobody was growling at Buddhists, nor Confucians, nor atheists.
The concern was of an official Church, headed by the-State-as-high-priest.
HG says:
I feel a laughing fit coming on.
Mr. Incredible advises:
Well, quit lookin’ at yourself in the mirror, then.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm


Mr. Incredible points out what HG says:
I Believe in Spooks…
HG says:
Yes, to repeat, I do say you believe in spooks…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except, to repeat, that that’s not what you wrote. You wrote that YOU believe in spooks. I commend you for having the guts to do so in front of everybody.
HG says:
… and that you claim to have personal conversations with at least one of them.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that they aren’t “spooks.” Of course, in your condition, you couldn’t possibly understand it. In a way, you’re a victim. A willing victim, but a victim, nevertheless.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm


HG says:
Mr. I Do Believe in Spooks…
Mr. Incredible says:
Is refreshing to see that you admit it in front of everybody.
HG says:
God doesn’t exist.
Mr. Incredible says:
If your understanding is finite — and it is; REAL finite — you can’t know that He doesn’t exist.
HG says:
That is correct…
Mr. Incredible says:
SOMEBODY NOTE THE DAY AND THE TIME!
HG says:
…I was stating my belief…
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, which is it? Do you people have beliefs, or do you have no beliefs?
You didn’t qualify what you SAY is your “belief.” You wrote, “God doesn’t exist,” not, “I believe God doesn’t exist.” You wanna make it appear as though your statement is of fact, not of mere belief. That’s disingenuous, of course.
HG says:
…my opinion.
Mr. Incredible says:
You didn’t qualify what you SAY is your “opinion.” You wrote, “God doesn’t exist,” not, “I believe God doesn’t exist.” You wanna make it appear as though your statement is of fact, not mere opinion. That’s disingenuous, of course.
HG says:
This is an opinion blog.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, you question our statements while generously giving yourself wide latitude.
HG says:
By the same token, your understanding is easily as finite as my own, and you can’t know that He does exist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I CAN no. I DO know. That’s cuz it’s not a matter of scientific proofs, rather of experience of life, like “love” and “beauty.” Those of us who are born again have this experience. We didn’t make up the experience any more than we make of the experience when we love, or, when we recognize “beauty”; rather, the experience came to us.
HG says:
This is something you continually, comically, deny.
Mr. Incredible says:
We deny it cuz experience of the facts compels us to deny it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:24 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
You didn’t say, “based on the information provided and quoted.” Of course, you say it NOW.
HG says:
I provided the quote. In quotes. Right there.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, originally, you didn’t qualify what you wrote. You qualified only after I brought your attention, knowing that I caught you being bogus… again.
HG says:
You said it looked that way to YOU (meaning me).
Mr. Incredible says:
“YOU,” in block letters, to signify your attempt to impose your subjectivity on the objective world.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm


HG, being disingenuous yet again, says I wrote:
“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
“…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 says:
Of course, in order to deceive, you must be disingenuous, misquoting me.
In those statements, I was translating YOUR posts. It is part of my translation of what YOU wrote.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:26 pm


Charles Thomas says:
This country was founded on the Bible? No it wasn’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
It was Founded on the Principles Therein.
Charles Thomas says:
This country was founded on the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence,a document penned by a Diest,not a Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
Penned by a follower of Christ — therefore, a Christian — who says that God has His Hand in the world. A deist believe that God is not involved in the world.
Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, refers to God, as the Creator Who endows us with Rights. In other words, he admits that Rights come from God, not from men.
Charles Thomas says:
Indeed,if Thomas Jefferson were alive today,he would be denounced by the Christian right as an anti-christ…
Mr. Incredible says:
That your intuition, your speculation, not fact. You can’t possibly know what he would do, nor what others would do.
Charles Thomas says:
… because he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, he said he is Christian. A Christian follows Jesus. Jesus said said things, including that He came from the Father.
If Jefferson didn’t believe that Jesus came from the Father, he lied.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm


Somebody wrote:
The freedom of religion stated in our Constitution was never intended to embrace anything but Christianity.
Charles Thomas says:
Really?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, really.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm


Hakuna Matata says:
Sex is a basic human drive.
Mr. Incredible notes:
It is also the basic German Shepherd drive, the basic squirrel drive, the basic bird drive, the basic be drive, the basic flower drive.
Hakuna Matata says:
Penalizing people who do it by forcing them into unwilling parenthood is not a proper…
Mr. Incredible says:

VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT!

Hakuna Matata says:
…legal or social mandate.
Mr. Incredible says:
Under normal circumstances, reproduction ALWAYS produces offspring. Everybody with two cells of brain knows this ahead of time. They know the risk going in. If they do it anyway, they accept the consequences. If they did wanna be parents, they should not have taken the risk. That they took the risk indicates certain immaturity. If they want not to be parents, they can give the child up for adoption. Of course, they want not to do that cuz they feel guilty. And they should.
Hakuna Matata says:
Government doesn’t have that power.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Constitution tells the State what to do, and not to do.
The State must protect persons.
Hakuna Matata says:
There isn’t a guaranteed method of protection against inception…
Mr. Incredible says:
HUH!!!??? “Inception”??????
Hakuna Matata says:
… and those who give rights to embryos over people wouldn’t allow Morning after pills.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, those embryos have been separated from the mother. Even the pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice fanatics say that separation is “birth,” and that they are persons at birth. So, embryos in clinics are persons. The Constitution protects persons. Get used to it.
Hakuna Matata says:
The Court gave rights to people instead, stating unequivocally that the unborn aren’t protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizenship.” It defines what it means to be a “citizen,” not what it means to be a “person.” So, for purposes of citizenship, the unborn who must be born in order to be a citizen, is not a citizen.
Hakuna Matata says:
Perhaps immigration is a smoke screen…
Mr. Incredible says:
What is it about “illegal” that you don’t understand??
The issue is not immigration, LEGAL immigration. It’s about law enforcement, I don’t care what you people say, we in Arizona are sick of illegal immigration. The rest of you people can do what you want; we’re gonna do what we feel, for our life, we must. If illegal immigrants wanna leave Arizona, they can leave, as they are doing. I’m breathing much easier already.
Hakuna Matata says:
… and the real reason behind the republicans wanting to re-write the Fourteenth Amendment is to subvert Court rulings related to it.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Subvert”?? Nah.
Hakuna Matata says:
Not likely to work, if that’s the case.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1983, ruled that immigration law does not preclude states from enforcing immigration law. [Gonzales v City of Peoria]
SCOTUS, in 2005, ruled that law enforcement officers do not need “reasonable suspicion” to question suspects about their immigration status. [Muehler v Mena]
So, already, appeals courts rulings are on the side of Arizona.
Hakuna Matata says:
Nothing to keep a Hitleristic arrogant slime of a human being from trying to stick their opponents with harsh labels, it’s been done before.
Mr. Incredible says:
And you’re doin’ it now.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:29 pm


Lon Clay Hill, Jr. says:
Instead of saying that this is a “Christian nation,” my Christian brothers should show a little more PUBLIC respect for their non-Christian brothers and sisters…
Mr. Incredible translates:

“That is, tone down their respect for Christ in order to tone up their respect for those who reject Christ.”

Lon Clay Hill, Jr. says:
…and do a little more private praying “in their CLOSET.” (See Mathew 6.6)
Mr. Incredible says:
Why don’t you include the verses that say that one does not hide his light under a bushel, but, rather, goes up top a hill so that all can see? Are you saying that the Word of God contradicts Himself??
Lon Clay Hill, Jr. says:
I would think that those who would like to be known and respected as “Christians” might consider the words attributed to Jesus more relevant than the words of Newt Gingrich & Pat Robertson & other merchants of smug hatred and fear.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“If the words of Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson and others don’t agree with me, they are merchants of smug hatred and fear.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm


MJ Mosier says:
Jesus told us to love our enemies…
Mr. Incredible asks:
How? What did Jesus do that we should do? What is the focus of His Message?
Lon Clay Hill, Jr. says:
… but we have to protect ourselves or our enemies will be our rulers.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s correct.
Biblical “forgiveness” means eliminating the resentment that causes us not to meditate on God and His Word, focusing on, instead, and giving authority to, the world, as Adam and Eve did. Resentment is a hindrance to the Blessing of God.
Biblical “forgiveness” does not mean we forget. The wrongdoer may take it and twist it so, but it is not meant to enable him; it is intended to enable the one who forgives.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 5:00 pm


CORRECTION
If they did wanna be parents —–> If they didn’t wanna be parents



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm


Ecclesiastes 11:5
Bones in the womb grow.
If the unborn child is not alive, how does he grow? Things that are not alive don’t grow. From the moment of conception, everything moves in the direction of growth. Conception is the beginning of the birth process.
Things that are not alive don’t need nourishment and don’t respirate. Things that are not alive don’t move and kick of their own power.
Luke 2:21
HE — that is, He Who was to become the man, Jesus; not “it” — was conceived in the womb.
In other words, he, or she, is conceived. “He,” or, “she,” is a person. They are personal pronouns. They refer to persons. The mother-to-be has a personal relationship with the unborn. The mother never refers to the unborn child as, “The blob is kicking.” She refers, at least, to “my baby.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 5:51 pm


Lon Clay Hill, Jr. says:
Instead of saying that this is a “Christian nation,” my Christian brothers should show a little more PUBLIC respect for their non-Christian brothers and sisters…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Why? Who says?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible asks

posted August 7, 2010 at 5:56 pm


When does a woman become pregnant?
At conception?
When she says so?
At birth?
When the doctor tells her she is?
When Obammy, or Pelosi, or Reid, tell her she is?
When Planned Parenthood tells her she is?
When Belial Boris, or HG, or Rich, tell her she is?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 7, 2010 at 6:11 pm


HG, being disingenuous yet again, says I wrote, as my own statement:
“…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…”
HOWEVER, I went to the page, referenced at the bottom, and got for you the exact post from which he lifted my words, presented as a translation of his words, in order to try to deceive everybody:
Mr. Incredible
July 21, 2010 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.”

Reference: http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/06/a-big-win-at-the-supreme-court_comments.html#ixzz0vxanPrv1
So, there you have it — absolute proof positive that HG is dishonest and disingenuous.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 7, 2010 at 6:15 pm


Just to be clear:
HG, being disingenuous yet again, says I wrote, as my own statement:
“…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…”
HOWEVER, I went to the page, referenced at the bottom, and got for you the exact post from which he lifted my words, presented as a translation of his words, in order to try to deceive everybody:
Mr. Incredible
July 21, 2010 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.”
Reference: http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/06/a-big-win-at-the-supreme-court_comments.html#ixzz0vxanPrv1
So, there you have it — absolute proof positive that HG is dishonest and disingenuous.
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/08/religious-discrimination-at-it.html#ixzz0vxdP5IoR



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 7, 2010 at 6:26 pm


Notice that HG left out certain, critical references so that you would believe that I wrote what he says I wrote, when I didn’t. He wants to make it appear that I wrote what he says I wrote. He can’t answer, so he tries to deceive. He cannot let the Truth go unwarped, and he is glad to do the warping.
That’s the way the Devil worked in the Garden of Eden. That’s the way the Devil works today. It’s sad to see that HG has decided to adopt such malicious ways.
Had I not gone back for the actual post from which HG lifted only certain words, in order to make it appear that I wrote what I didn’t write, you wouldn’t have noticed cuz you would not wanna take the trouble to go and research it for yourself, to find what was written by me and with what clear intention I wrote it in the context in which I wrote it. You would be left with saying that they’re just engaged in a squabble. But no. HG DELIBERATELY edited out the parts that explain the words and the intention and the context, then tried to say that those words are other than what I posted them to be.
This goes to show what those people are willing to do and how far they’re willing to go to do it, and it ain’t pretty, folks.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 7, 2010 at 6:33 pm


Thomas Jefferson says in the Declaration of Independence that “we are created.”
When is that? Are we created — that is, when did our creation begin?
At conception? That is, at the moment the woman is pregnant? [Or is the moment of pregnancy different from that of conception?]
At birth?
When HG says so?
When the woman says so?
When the doctor says so?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 6:36 pm


CORRECTION
When is that? Are we created — – — > When is that? When are we created



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 7, 2010 at 6:44 pm


I’ve never heard of anyone worshipping separation of church and state, which, as we have learned, is more correctly referred to as separation between religion and government. It is the concept which Madison codified into the Constitution making it plain that government has nothing to do with governing peoples beliefs, only their actions. That Madison tried to reject house chaplains and failed, means to me that he recognized the infraction, denounced it, but finally aquiesced to a majority who claimed it inconsequential. It was a mistake. If you give a monkey a cookie, he’s gonna want a glass of milk. So it goes with “ecclesiastical encroachments”, of which Madison warned.
Mr. Incredible: Somebody wrote: The freedom of religion stated in our Constitution was never intended to embrace anything but Christianity.
Charles Thomas says: Really?
Mr. Incredible says: Yes, really.
Oh, well, if Mr. IBiS believes it, then it doesn’t matter what Madison, The Supreme Court, or the Constitution has had to say.
Hakuna Matata says: The Court gave rights to people instead, stating unequivocally that the unborn aren’t protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mr. Incredible says: …So, embryos in clinics are persons. The Constitution protects persons. Get used to it… The Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizenship.” It defines what it means to be a “citizen,” not what it means to be a “person.”
Supreme Court says: “All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
The winners, …Hakuna Matata and the Supreme Court (and The People).
Mr. Incredible says: And, yet, you question our statements while generously giving yourself wide latitude.
I don’t question your right to an opinion or belief, as long as you acknowledge that’s what it is. You claim your opinion as fact with insufficient, or no, evidence.
HG says: By the same token, your understanding is easily as finite as my own, and you can’t know that He does exist.
Mr. Incredible says: Except that I CAN no. I DO know.
No, you don’t. Your CLAIM to know is based on your personal, subjective, interpretation of life experience with flimsy, or no, accountability to fact. You pass opinion off as fact, and though I admit my own conclusions are not absolute, you deny it. Comical.
Mr. IBiS:
“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
“…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…”
“Of course, in order to deceive, you must be disingenuous, misquoting me.”
I didn’t misquote you. Those are your words and no one else’s. Since they bear no resemblance to what you were supposedly “translating”, they must be manifestations of your own inner thoughts. This conclusion is born out whenever I read your posts.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:45 pm


HG says:
I’ve never heard of anyone worshipping separation of church and state…
Mr. Incredible says:
You people do.
HG says:
…which, as we have learned, is more correctly referred to as separation between religion and government.
Mr. Incredible says:
A rose by any other name…
HG says:
It is the concept which Madison codified into the Constitution…
Mr. Incredible says:
But didn’t actually name.
HG says:
… making it plain that government has nothing to do with governing peoples [sic] beliefs…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is said that the State SHOULD govern belief.
HG says:
… only their actions.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, “intent” shouldn’t have anything to do with criminal conduct?
HG says:
That Madison tried to reject house chaplains and failed, means to me…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, to YOU.
HG says:
…that he recognized the infraction, denounced it, but finally aquiesced to a majority who claimed it inconsequential.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s YOUR inference. Not necessarily THE inference.
HG says:
It was a mistake.
Mr. Incredible says:
Don’t tell me. Tell HIM.
HG says:
If you give a monkey a cookie, he’s gonna want a glass of milk.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s the conclusion YOU manufactured.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:46 pm


Somebody wrote:
The freedom of religion stated in our Constitution was never intended to embrace anything but Christianity.
Charles Thomas says:
Really?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, really.
HG says:
Oh, well, if Mr. [Incredible] believes it, then it doesn’t matter what Madison, The Supreme Court, or the Constitution has had to say.
Mr. Incredible says:
As you have pointed out a few times, they can be wrong.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm


Hakuna Matata says:
The Court gave rights to people instead, stating unequivocally that the unborn aren’t protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, embryos in clinics are persons. The Constitution protects persons. Get used to it… The Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizenship.” It defines what it means to be a “citizen,” not what it means to be a “person.”
Supreme Court says:
“All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
Mr. Incredible says:
“As used in the Fourteenth Amendment” is the relevant phrasing. The Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizen.” It says that a citizen is a person who has been born. In other words, an unborn person cannot be a citizen. It’s no wonder, then, that SCOTUS cannot use the Fourteenth Amendment to define “person.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:48 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, you question our statements while generously giving yourself wide latitude.
HG says:
I don’t question your right to an opinion or belief, as long as you acknowledge that’s what it is.
Mr. Incredible says:
But you don’t have to?? After all, you didn’t. Then, after I pointed it out, you did. After you were caught.
HG says:
You claim your opinion as fact with insufficient, or no, evidence.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it’s not opinion. If the fact of experience. Just as “love” and “beauty” are facts of experience.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:48 pm


HG says:
By the same token, your understanding is easily as finite as my own, and you can’t know that He does exist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I CAN no. I DO know.
HG says:
No, you don’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
Experience tells me I do. That’s all I need, plus the experiences of others who have done the same experiment throughout the ages. You haven’t done the experiment and, so, you can’t know.
HG says:
Your CLAIM…
Mr. Incredible says:
My REPORT…
HG says:
… to know is based on your personal…
Mr. Incredible says:
Backed by others.
HG says:
…subjective…
Mr. Incredible says:
Objective.
HG says:
…interpretation…
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t “interpret” what actually, objectively happened. The objective, factual experiences happened independent of any of my interpretation.
HG says:
… of life experience with flimsy, or no, accountability to fact.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“There is no way I will except in the proof of yours.”

HG says:
You pass opinion off as fact…
Mr. Incredible says:
I pass the facts of experience off as fact.
HG says:
… and though I admit my own conclusions are not absolute, you deny it.
Mr. Incredible says:
The conclusions to which I come align with God’s conclusions. I admit those conclusions don’t line up with yours. But so what?
HG says:
Comical.
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?
HG misquotes Mr. Incredible as writing:
“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
“…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 says:
Of course, in order to deceive, you must be disingenuous, misquoting me.
HG says:
I didn’t misquote you.
Mr. Incredible says:
You absolutely did. You were misrepresented what I wrote by manipulating it in such a way as to make it appear that I said what I did not intend to say and what I didn’t say, and I provided the entire post to show everybody what you did and didn’t do.
HG says:
Those are your words and no one else’s.
Mr. Incredible says:
My words twisted out of shape by YOU in all disingenuousness and dishonesty, doing precisely what the Devil did in the Garden.
HG says:
Since they bear no resemblance to what you were supposedly “translating”…
Mr. Incredible says:
The intent is clear, and you intentionally and dishonestly twisted what I wrote, as a translation of what you wrote, to make it appear that what I wrote is what I was saying, when, in reality, I was interpreting what YOU wrote. It’s typical of YOU people to make it appear that we say something that we didn’t.
HG says:
… they must be manifestations of your own inner thoughts.
Mr. Incredible says:
About what YOU wrote. They are manifestations of interpretation I put on what YOU wrote. They are not manifestations of what I think. Those who actually read the original post will be able to see what you did to it in order to twist and warp what I wrote. You can’t squirm, stop on the floor, hold your breath ’til you turn blue and thrash around all you want about it. Anyone reading the original post can’t see it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:51 pm


CORRECTION
“There is no way I will except in the proof of yours.” — – > “There is no way I will accept any proof of yours.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 7, 2010 at 11:57 pm


Ecclesiastes 11:5
Bones in the womb grow.
If the unborn child is not alive, how can he grow??
Luke 2:21
HE was conceived in the womb.
Not “it.” The word, “He,” is a personal pronoun. It refers to a person.
God thinks that life begins at conception. God knows us — that is, persons — in the womb. That’s all I need to know, and any thoughts that contest what God thinks about it bounce off me like Superman.



report abuse
 

Charles Thomas

posted August 8, 2010 at 2:37 am


“The American Center for Law and Justice is…a tax-exempt,not-for-profit,religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code,specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable,God-given rights.The center’s purpose is to educate,promulgate,conciliate,and where necessary,litigate,to ensure that those rights are protected under the law.”
Jay Sekulow clearly deserves the Hypocrite of the Year award.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 8, 2010 at 3:20 am


Charles Thomas says:
Jay Sekulow clearly deserves the Hypocrite of the Year award.
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t see any proof, only assertion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted August 8, 2010 at 3:30 am


Maybe it’s even more accurate to say that HG willfully, willingly and maliciously misrepresented what I wrote, for the purpose of deception, by lifting words that I wrote outta context, not that my saying that he misquoted me is not inaccurate. In purposely and purposefully taking my words, as presented, outta context, he wished them to give the impression that I was saying those things about meself, not him. I was, as the actual post shows, saying those things about his posting, not mine.
We’ve grown accustomed to HG’s miserable malice which is typical of those who reject Christ, who consult and side with the pit of Hell.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 8, 2010 at 12:44 pm


Mr. IBiS: “you intentionally and dishonestly twisted what I wrote,
I didn’t twist anything you wrote. You wrote it, I quoted it exactly, no words omitted or juxtaposed. It’s much more honest than “translating” into a completely different meaning.
And you have the nerve to tell me I misrepresent what YOU write–HA!
What a maroon.
HG precisely quotes Mr. I Need a Douche:
“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
“…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…”



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 8, 2010 at 3:45 pm


So, what are you saying, no matter what your going to believe what you want to believe, despite the evidence to the contrary…?
That would be lieing to yourself….
So, here we go again…
If your taking what the Bible says and trying to misquote or take things out of context, then you would only be hurting yourself..
As for children developing inside and outside of the womb:
We have already covered that over and over again..
There not you, that is the point. They are somebody entirely different then yourself…., different blood, their own sex, different DNA, you get my point..
So there you have it..
Now, your are entitled to deciding what you believe in context to your religion…
And as for same sex marriages..
California thinks that they can redefine what marriage is…
Meaning, originally it was a man and a women and then two of the same sex got together and decided they wanted what the man and the women had, a marriage and then they redefined marriage from what it used to be….
That is the point…
Of course it is a union of some sort…
Now, if it is for government tax situations and what not…., then?
Or, about seeing somebody in the hospital…when they have been partners for years, they should have the right like any other person to see their loved one….
I think that is where the differences lies…
Although, they see when you give others the right of marriage and not them as being discriminating because they want it to…
A redefinition as it will…..so they did, they redefined it…
Now is that constitutional….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 8, 2010 at 3:45 pm

HG

posted August 8, 2010 at 4:38 pm


cc: “So, what are you saying, no matter what your going to believe what you want to believe, despite the evidence to the contrary…?”
No. I’m going to believe what the evidence leads me to believe. Once upon a time I deeply felt belief in God and that whole story. Not because I had applied any analytic power, which, once I had done, caused me to adopt (what I think is) a more rational view.
cc: “That would be lieing to yourself….”
No, that would have been the case had I not reckoned with all the evidence and honestly admitted that I don’t believe the story.
cc: “There not you, that is the point. They are somebody entirely different then yourself….,”
The word “person” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply, that is the point. Undergoing pregnancy, labor, and parenthood aren’t things the government is empowered to force on people due to a sex act; not when there is a legitimate medical alternative, and there is (according to law).
cc: “Now, your are entitled to deciding what you believe in context to your religion…
Yes, as are we all here in America. It’s no skin off anybody’s beak what anybody else believes, but it is interesting to talk about sometimes.



report abuse
 

Charles Thomas

posted August 8, 2010 at 8:12 pm


“We don’t see any proof,only assertion.”
You do see the proof,but you won’t admit it.Perhaps like many of your fellow ideologues on the right,you think the mere fact that you’re Christian makes you right on every issue.
Anyone who disagrees with you on any matter is of the Devil,of course.
When the Constitution declares that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion, it means just that.
When an organization that purports to protect religious entities from the unfair use of zoning laws to discriminate against churches,synagogues,and mosques sues to stop the construction of a house of worship simple because it preaches Islam,then they are being OBJECTIVELY hypocritical.
This is not merely an opinion, but a moral fact of reality.
I assert the truth.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted August 8, 2010 at 10:17 pm


Charles Thomas,
You are absolutely right. The ACLJ is clearly only interested in religious freedom for conservative Christians, I would find them a little more reputable if they would simply acknowledge that fact. I figure Jay Sekulow to be a charlatan and opportunist, I doubt he really is overly religious, he just was able to recognize a crowd of suckers he could fleece by uttering the standard platitudes.
Don’t bother responding to Mr. Incredible with anything reasonable. It is fun to poke at him from time to time to make him jump but that is about it. Mostly, he prances about on the keyboard boasting of his superior powers, never anything new.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 9, 2010 at 2:04 pm


Here is the deal:
Unfortunetely Ground Zero represents an Islamic Jihad attack, which by it’s very nature, takes away religious liberty, because the attack is based on the fact that The American’s are the enemies. Thus violating liberty and justice for all. If the Islamic religion was a peaceful religion, which did not kill based on the fact that they are not Islamic, then we might not have had that attack in the first place…
So, from my view Islamic Jihads violate religious liberty, and cause in effect cold blooded pre-meditated murder, which is an assault in the world today, which we have sent soldiers to enforce our liberty around the world to prevent such a cause….end of story..
So if the Islamic’s could prove that Jihads are not biased and violating religious liberty, which they can’t because their very own doctrines establish that in clauses and kill people..
So, I have heard the term radical fundamentalist, wouldn’t that mean just taking their religion to heart and establishing it in their everyday life, be it as they were…
That is why we are at war against them, remember. So, to put any type of establishment representing such a cause would be a violation of religious liberty in my eyes..
It would be like making a Hitler monument at a jewish consentration camp. A complete disregard for human life and dignity personified…
cc
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

star

posted August 9, 2010 at 2:55 pm


rnrstar:
“It would be a slap in the face of every patriot that shed their blood the protect religious freedom to not allow American citizens to erect their own place of worship on their own property.
Maybe they should follow the lead of Christians and just appropriate government property for their exclusive use.”



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 9, 2010 at 3:13 pm


What?
That is just it, they shed innocent blood as religious activities…
Thus Jihads are biased and completely unconstitutinal. Taking away life…
Those children in that daycare facility were not even of adult age to make any adult decision, so to factor them in one of their Jihads was against their own religion. cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm


Maybe some more flowers there would be nice. To make the place more beautiful….



report abuse
 

CRG

posted August 9, 2010 at 3:48 pm


Craig: “Those who are up in arms about this claim that somehow this is different. … Yet it is exactly cases like this that provide a test for who strongly we are going to support the principles on which this country was founded…For anyone to claim to support religious freedom and yet to oppose this center is the height of hypocrisy.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 10, 2010 at 3:14 pm


Re : CRG
The problem with this paticular religions freedom is that they kill people through Jihad, which made on the decision of rejecting their religion..
So your statement of the above entitle blog is hypocrasy in itself, to the fact that they kill people taking away religious freedom based on not excepting their religion..
So the very fact that their religious followers took action with a Jihad of this magnitude which killed thousands of people, innocent…, would in fact be garbage and taking our country down a road of making a monument supporting this activity would indeed be constitutional hypocrisy.. Now if their religion stated that they would not have Jihads which embodies these activities, then I would write, go ahead and build.. Since that is not the case, then the very subject of this activity taking place is an insult to the victims which their religion killed….
It is just like abortion is constitutional hypocrisy, as well! Same concept…
Loves,
Cara



report abuse
 

Stephanie C

posted August 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm


Well, it might be within their constitutional right to build this mosque but I must say it is very distasteful and quite frankly shows how tacky these people can be. Very brazen and rash. It shows a TOTAL disregard for the families of the victims of 911. They love to make a mockery out of this nation and they do a very good job of it because we allow, no, TOLERATE it.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 10, 2010 at 3:39 pm


Cara: “It is just like abortion is constitutional hypocrisy, as well! Same concept…”
Except that abortion and religious freedom are both protected by the Constitution. Sorry, no points this round.



report abuse
 

Vivian Beals

posted August 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm


Dear Rev Lynn
I am glad we have fellow Americans like you and Mayor Bloomberg. Mr Sekulow is hypocrite and doesn’t the law on his side. The 9/11 terrorist and Mr Sekulow have something in common. They are both fanatics that doesn’t represent the silent majority of Americans and Muslims.



report abuse
 

Jill

posted August 10, 2010 at 9:57 pm


Rev. Lynn,
NO WONDER Jay always looks so well-dressed !!! How very enlightening of you to mention the Burlington Coat Factory !!! Wow!!! I doubt that I ever would have put that one together..
Ok, now it’s time to be serious. Actually, the LOCATION for the mosque IS the issue.. as they say in real estate, location, location, location. I just want to further express my true feelings by sharing this quote from a certain young Jewish girl.. perhaps some of you still remember her..
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.”
-Anne Frank
I don’t believe that Anne’s definition of improving the world involved the countless innocent, her own people, dying under the wishes of a deranged madman who didn’t like certain individuals so he decided to do away with all of those individuals. Different circumstances, you might be saying. To which I say, very likely, very possibly, ultimately the same conclusion. This is the holy war we are witnessing in progress, have witnessed in our own past in New York City.. not a popularity contest. The ACLJ is based on THE LAW AS WE KNOW IT IN AMERICA.
I wonder how many who routinely post here have themselves studied law in any shape or form whatsoever.. ???
I do not believe that Jay Sekulow is a fanatic. I do believe that he is not suffering from amnesia, and perhaps~ just perhaps~ he is trying to prevent history repeating itself through yet another future holocaust.. does the politically correct name really matter. I think many are more concerned with the final outcome for America.
Jill



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted August 11, 2010 at 2:21 am


Mr. Incredible says:
you intentionally and dishonestly twisted what I wrote
HG says:
I didn’t twist anything you wrote.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, you did. You are so dishonest and disingenuous that you won’t admit it, even though I showed proof.
HG says:
You wrote it…
Mr. Incredible says:
I wrote it about you, not me.
HG says:
I quoted it exactly…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, you didn’t. You are dishonest and disingenuous in cutting and pasting what I wrote to make it sound as though I wrote about myself, not you, when, in fact, as I proved, I wrote about YOU.
HG says:
… no words omitted…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, plenty of words omitted, the words that show that I wrote about YOU, not me.
HG says:
… or juxtaposed.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re a liar, as I proved. You cut and pasted what I wrote in order to make it appear as though I wrote about me, not you. That’s dishonest, disingenuous and makes you out to be a liar.
HG says:
It’s much more honest than “translating” into a completely different meaning.
Mr. Incredible says:
My translation is the meaning I get outta what you write. I make it clear it’s my translation.
You, on the other hand, maliciously attribute the words to me, to make it appear that I was talking about myself. You didn’t say you were translating. You published it as though I said it, and let the words I said about you leave the impression that I was saying them about me. That’s maliciously dishonest and disingenuous. But we’re not surprised.
HG says:
And you have the nerve to tell me I misrepresent what YOU write…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, I pointed out the context in which I said those things. You didn’t. THAT’S the difference. TOO bad you’re so stupid you can’t see it.
HG precisely quotes Mr. I Need a Douche:
“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
Mr. Incredible says:
The only problem with that is I said that about YOU, not me. Too bad you’re so stupid that you can’t admit when you’re wrong and a liar. Shame on you!
HG precisely quotes Mr. I Need a Douche:
“…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 says:
The only problem with that is I said that about YOU, not me. Too bad you’re so stupid that you can’t admit when you’re wrong and a liar. Shame on you!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says:

posted August 11, 2010 at 2:35 am


Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t see any proof,only assertion.
Charles Thomas says:
You do see the proof…
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t see any proof that Jay is a hypocrite cuz there ain’t any.
Charles Thomas says:
… but you won’t admit it.
Mr. Incredible says:
I can’t admit what isn’t there.
Charles Thomas says:
Perhaps like many of your fellow ideologues on the right,you think the mere fact that you’re Christian makes you right on every issue.
Mr. Incredible says:
God is right on every issue.
Charles Thomas says:
Anyone who disagrees with you on any matter is of the Devil,of course.
Mr. Incredible says:
Anyone who disagrees with God on any matter is of the Devil, of course.
Charles Thomas says:
When the Constitution declares that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion, it means just that.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is denying anybody the free exercise of “religion.” “Free exercise” is not a permit to build anything anywhere. Denying a building permit for that spot is not a denial of free exercise.
Charles Thomas says:
When an organization that purports to protect religious entities from the unfair use of zoning laws to discriminate against churches,synagogues,and mosques sues to stop the construction of a house of worship simple [sic] because it preaches Islam,then they are being OBJECTIVELY hypocritical.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is stopping anybody from building a house of worship.
Charles Thomas says:
This is not merely an opinion, but a moral fact of reality.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “moral fact of reality”?
Charles Thomas says:
I assert the truth.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “truth”?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 11, 2010 at 2:37 am


HG says:
The word “person” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply…
Mr. Incredible says:
The reason the word “person” doesn’t apply is that the Fourteenth Amendment defines what it means to be a “citizen.” A person who is unborn is not a citizen. Only a person who is born is a citizen.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 11, 2010 at 6:38 am


HG precisely quotes Mr. I Need a Douche:
“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
Mr. Incredible says:
Here is the ACTUAL post that proves that you misrepresented what I wrote:
Mr. Incredible
July 23, 2010 3:35 AM

Rich says:
HG,
Yep, blathering, blithering or just plain nutty…

Mr. Incredible translates:

” I wouldn’t be saying those things, if he agreed with me.”

Rich says:
…Mr. I Am Incredible, Really I Am…

Mr. Incredible says:
No, I am.

Rich says:
… doesn’t seem much interested in anything other than masturbating his own ego.

Mr. Incredible breaks that code:

“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”

Reference: http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/07/what-happened-to-the-kagan-sta_comments.html#ixzz0wI3A5eYw



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 11, 2010 at 6:42 am


HG precisely quotes Mr. I Need a Douche:
“…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…”
Here is the ACTUAL post that proves you to be a liar:
Mr. Incredible
July 21, 2010 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.”

Reference: http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2010/06/a-big-win-at-the-supreme-court_comments.html#ixzz0wI3eAoB2
I will keep on posting the ACTUAL posts, and let’s see how long it takes you to stop making yourself look stupid…er…more stupid…and quit lying about them, and, believe me, it’s easier for me to recall and post these than you think.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 11, 2010 at 6:49 am


HG says:
HG precisely quotes Mr. I Need a Douche
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG is telling us that HG precisely quotes “Mr.” HG goes on to say that HG needs a douche. Ooooooo-kay.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 11, 2010 at 6:52 am


CORRECTION
Here is the ACTUAL post that proves you to be a liar: — – > Mr. Incredible says:
Here is the ACTUAL post that proves you to be a liar:



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm


Yep, I figured he’d tack on a couple of pages to try and claim that he didn’t write what he wrote. The quotes I made were his words, and his words alone. “Decoding”, and “tranlating”, apparently, are not Mr. I need a Douche’s forte. He reminds me of Lisa Kudrow’s song–
“Smelly Cat”, but not a cat.
Here again, my two favorite quotes, displaying rare honesty, from Mr. I need a Douche:
“I gotta say somethin’, even if it’s sheer idiocy.”
“…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.”
His words, not chopped up and examined two words at time the way he does. Not “decoded”, not “translated”, but exact quotes from the inner workings of his own feeble mind.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted August 12, 2010 at 2:59 pm


HG,
You are spot on about Mr. I Don’t Have A Clue’s modus operandi of selectively chopping out a few words here and there, ignoring context and sense of a statement and then responding with some piece of unrelated nonsense. It is generally fairly entertaining to watch.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2010 at 5:00 pm


Ow Jill, what if somebody has not studied law in the formal sense but court room proceedings and litigating material such as these..
So your point being?
I do love the Anne Frank quote by the way, she was one of my favorites growing up.
The point of studying law is not the question, the point being made here is by putting a building of the very religion which wiped the people out, would that be lawful?
At the very least it is a mere propaganda of confusing misleading religious conceptions to benefit their religion excluding the sensitivity of the victims involved… Thus giving way to a complete misconception of behavior modification, which enables the abusive behavior into a physical presence of building in question..
So, let us have some decency for other people…, instead stop trying to get involved, to try and one up for purposes of I suppose of a competative nature, for only an insecure benefit of what?
God knows who I am and for what I was born to do…, it certainly was not supposed to be to go behind ones back to try and take something away from another, even if it is a blood relative…I find the whole thing repulsive, and quite frankly enough is enough. So go back to your home town and try and work things out with your higher power, wrather then to try and prove what? Especially don’t show up in court or where ever to try and take away a job I have been trying to get for your own financial gain, especially given the nature of what I have been going through… You wouldn’t understand losing your family, your home, your money and the ability to have your children in the same house, let alone the nature of a back and neck injury and headaches beyond belief.. , of course you may not be my blood relative, in the instance I apologize, but if you are, you have some nerve showing up the way you did, and it certainly was not to talk to me and make sure I was ok… For if you did you would have contacted me directly…., instead I see the very same thing I saw in high school, people trying to prove that they are better then me…so…, whatever….
The whole matter is a matter, os wanting the best for somebody else, instead of trying to take the best from another as if your more qualified…..
Yuck!
RESPECT>……..
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2010 at 5:06 pm


Why would you have shown up that way?
For what, especially when I was going through so much, to try and get my job?
Disgusting, certainly was not for benefiting my location and for what I was going through, when I had court……….C
It is all about the almighty dollar, isn’t it…?
For the love of it, is the root of all evil?
And if there are any other relatives out there, which find that they want to involve themselves in my life, try calling me up, instead of saying that I am this or that, when you don’t know me at all, or for that matter act like I haven’t got a clue of what to do in my life, I needed support through my life, not relatives which turn away jobs for myself and not include me on the decisions and try and get the jobs for their children or their benefit…how sad, pathetic…C
Love one another, instead of trying to back stab and take …, remember….CARA



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2010 at 5:12 pm


And that is what my so called past friends did, tried to talk to the people that I knew excluding me, trying to get my job, and then talk to me in a sweet voice, like they were doing me a favor…?
Sad, not my friends, and then to work out all day and show up with my boyfriend or fiance, haven’t figured it out, and smoozied all up to them, for what…?
Taking something away, sad………………C
And you wondere why I push people away, for that is what I experienced when I brought them in close….backstabbers in the making…Manipulating dress atire, you know conservative dressing and papers all perfect to show what, how you can manipulate individuals into thinking your something that you are not….
That is why I leave my mistakes in, I like to show them the real deal, that I am not perfect and neither is anybody else…
I am done with snowjobbing people and what they represent, pretentiousness….selfish and wanting second best for people to show that they have the best, which is an illusion of sorts..C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2010 at 5:33 pm


Re: Daniel
Sometime it take extreme something to make a difference in the world as we know it…
I am not talking or writing about extreme hatred facilitators…
but, wrather, reversing extreme hatred, takes extreme goodness, or at least in small steps of sort in completely the opposite direction..
Loves…C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2010 at 9:59 pm


And don’t tell me what is too much for me…
What is too much is when others took advantage of me and left me the way they did, in the condition I was and then acted like they didn’t have a part in it…
And another thing to save your own skin and then and leave me with nothing after what you did.
What is too much is when people think that they can treat me like that…What were you thinking coming behind my back with others you have been with and bringing them in from of my face for what….?
Maybe, just maybe I would have liked a dinner and movie and to go shopping for the kids and pulled up to a house that I could have been decorating for my family for Christmas…
And baked the kids cookies at Christmas, and took them out school clothes shopping while you left my brain in so much trauma because I couldn’t believe the things that you did too me, that is the point I didn’t want to believe…
And then you pulled up to your home for the holidays with all the trimmings and the stuffed turkey with the Christmas tree all trimmed to the brim, and left me for dead..
and no, that is not what I am used to…
But I suppose I expected something different from the people that professed to have said that they love me and do…
What a bunch of bull to have gone through, it never used to be like this, I used to have people that actually showed up and were kind and didn’t want to hurt me. And when I am a two or a three, they didn’t make it out like I had to be a size one to be exceptable for a relationship when all I wanted was a taco, a cup of coffee and a movie with a few laughs to boot…
Isn’t that the just of it, to spend time with the people you love, even when it is the most simple activity you can do..
Instead of who is prettier then who, and that person has a prettier dress, and hey I wonder who is sleeping with who? And he is not faithful to her, he sleeps with every girl in town? And you wonder why I keep my guard, I suppose I was brought up to think that somebody could love me like a fairy tale and a make believe castle… Maybe it was Mr. Rodger’s and the castle with the king and the queen, or maybe it was Cinderella when the prince came to save her, or maybe it was Princess Diana and Charles, altough that didn’t turn out the way I expected it either, did it?
So I suppose that fairy tales are only fairy tales,and people who actually love people are out there, too bad most of the good one’s are married and have families of thier own to go home to.. Not that, that is a bad thing, but I didn’t want to get all back into a relationship with the same problems of the past, too bad you can’t always choose who you are going to love and who will love you back..
The End
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2010 at 10:05 pm


I suppose it is because you wanted to jugle all those relationships of the girls so one would not know about the other and then they would all think that you were wonderful and that you wanted to marry them and that the other wasn’t worth it to marry, or I don’t think that I am going to marry her, right…jugle….That is a cheater for you , a lieing cheating son of a gun…cc
And no Markus welby…, you didn’t show up long enough to stay to show that I meant something of value to you. In fact you brought the girls you cheated on me with right to my back during the most painful time in my life, don’t worry, I ahve a few others who did the same. I don’t know what you guys thought you were doing for me… It certainly was not the deal that I was used to.. or at least when they were with me…Loves…C
and you girl who lifted your hands while trying to hurt me, well you will get what you dish out… I don’t want your husband remember…?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 13, 2010 at 4:50 pm


Re: HG
Well as for the story as you so state regarding the Bible and its context that you decline because you say that you have evaluated it and looked at all the evidence and thus indicating you don’t believe it based on that…
How about all the people in it going back as long as time can remember and finding out they all existed?
What about that?
And then you can go back in history, and find out that Jesus did exist, and He was crusified and..
So, you can believe in what you want the story is not false, it is a fact…
So, I didn’t write the book, so you can’t blame me for the evidence of the Bible…
There you have it….
CC



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 13, 2010 at 8:29 pm


CC, I know you didn’t write the book. Do you know who did? Has it been edited? What text, how many times, and by whom? Is this story of talking snakes and immaculate birth more likely than the truth behind our observation that we and our universe are the result of an explosion almost 14 billion years ago? Or is it more likely a work of fiction similar to other god stories found throughout human history?
Having said that, you (personally) are probably better off believing the story since it gives you comfort. Some people, myself included, take as much comfort in reality without dressing it up. What is, is.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 4:55 pm


HG says:
CC, I know you didn’t write the book.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “book”? The “Bible”? Which one?
HG says:
Do you know who did?
Mr. Incredible says:
Depends on which one.
HG says:
Has it been edited?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Has “what” been edited?
HG says:
What text…
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what I’ve been asking.
HG says:
… how many times…
Mr. Incredible says:
Depends on the publication. You haven’t been clear which one.
HG says:
… and by whom?
Mr. Incredible says:
Again, it depends on the publication.
HG says:
Is this story of talking snakes and immaculate birth more likely than the truth behind our observation…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose observation? Whose truth? “More likely” by whose standard?
HG says:
… that we and our universe are the result of an explosion almost 14 billion years ago?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who observed it?
HG says:
Or is it more likely a work of fiction similar to other god stories found throughout human history?
Mr. Incredible says:
It depends on whether you ask an atheist who doesn’t have the experience, or ask a Christian who does. Is experience more valuable than no-experience?
YOU people say that you have seen the Big Bang when, in fact, you couldn’t have. After all, you weren’t there.
We say that we’ve experienced God. You can’t possibly say that isn’t true that you haven’t been “there.”
HG says:
Having said that, you (personally) are probably better off believing the story since it gives you comfort.
Mr. Incredible says:
We believe in God and His Word cuz They work in experience. We wouldn’t believe in something that doesn’t work.
YOU people, on the other hand, don’t have the experience and, in fact, preclude yourself from having the experience. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
HG says:
Some people, myself included, take as much comfort in reality…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “reality”?
HG says:
… without dressing it up.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’ve dressed it up to the point that you preclude yourself from seeing the rest of reality. You people see only what you people have dressed up “reality” to be.
HG says:
What is, is.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, it depends, to HG, on what the meaning, to HG, of the word ‘is’ is, to HG.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 14, 2010 at 5:49 pm


Who says reality is based on anything you can see visually?
Reality can be based on a thought, from heaven above..
For those who do not believe in God, well you have some explaining to do….LOVES…………..>



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 6:27 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

Your Name, whoever THAT is, says:
Who says reality is based on anything you can see visually?
Mr. Incredible says:
Atheists, for one. By their very own standard, given that no one can see “love,” nor “beauty,” nor “time,” they would have-ta say that they don’t exist.
However, “love,” “beauty” and “time” are matters of experience. So is God. They say they have the experience of the first 350 of the experience. They deny the experience of God, and, so, they don’t have that experience. However, just cuz they don’t have that experience doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. Just cuz they don’t have the experience doesn’t mean that we don’t have the experience.
They argue from negation, and negation solves nothing. It adds nothing. It produces nothing. It does nothing. It’s subtraction, not addition. Read, “The Mission of Infidels,” by Benjamin Franklin.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 6:30 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

CORRECTION
of the first 350 of the experience — – > of the first three.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 14, 2010 at 6:57 pm


Mr. INaD: “HG says: CC, I know you didn’t write the book.
Mr. Incredible asks: Which “book”? The “Bible”? Which one?…Depends on which one…Depends on the publication. You haven’t been clear which one…Again, it depends on the publication.”
Yes, there are, interestingly, many differences in the various word of god books. But, since I was having a discussion with CC, and she wrote only “So, I didn’t write the book, so you can’t blame me for the evidence of the Bible…”; I guess you’ll have to ask her to what, exactly, she was referring when she wrote: “the story is not false, it is a fact…” For the purposes of my own comment, it was not important for me to know, because I’m of the opinion that they’ve all been written and edited by men.
Mr. INaD: “HG says: Or is it more likely a work of fiction similar to other god stories found throughout human history?
Mr. Incredible says: It depends on whether you ask an atheist who doesn’t have the experience, or ask a Christian who does. Is experience more valuable than no-experience?”
Of course the answer one gets will depend on who is answering the question. My point exactly. If one chooses to think with one’s heart, then one may find purchase in god belief; but if one uses the brain to do the thinking, then one has a very difficult time not recognizing the evolution of god stories during mankind’s history. They don’t hold up well to prolonged scrutiny.
Mr. INaD: “YOU people say that you have seen the Big Bang when, in fact, you couldn’t have. After all, you weren’t there.”
That is your reasoning? We haven’t seen the Big Bang so it didn’t happen? Strange bit of logic for one who believes in spooks.
We don’t say we have seen the Big Bang, current estimates of it’s occurence range from 13.3 to 13.9 billion years, we say we see massive amounts of evidence to support it. If you want to dispute the evidence of cosmological theory, cosmic microwave background radiation, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, etc. then you’ll need a better book than the Bible no matter what version it is.
Mr. INaD: “We say that we’ve experienced God. You can’t possibly say that isn’t true that you haven’t been “there.”
Oh yes, I’ve been “there”. “Experienced”. Oh yes. Came to recognize that it was a personal choice. You haven’t been here, and I’m convinced you don’t want to come. Fine with me, America being a place where all forms of religious belief are tolerated, zero to infinity and beyond.
HG wrote: “Some people, myself included, take as much comfort in reality without dressing it up.
Mr. INaD asked: “Whose “reality”?
We all exist in the same reality, within the space-time continuum of this universe. Big Bang doesn’t attempt to explain the conditions prior to the occurence any more than the Bible explains the existence of God, but it does a much better job of explaining the reality of what is. Better than the emperor’s clothing you try to dress things up in and pass off as real.
Mr. INaD: “In other words, it depends, to HG, on what the meaning, to HG, of the word ‘is’ is, to HG.”
No, being cognizant of the reality in which I exist and the use of language to communicate within it, I prefer to use accepted dictionary definition.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 7:10 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

Your Name, whoever THAT is, says:
Reality can be based on a thought, from heaven above..
Mr. Incredible says:
Reality can be based on a thought from the pit of Hell, too, as we have seen from the atheists.
Those who are born again are the sheep of Christ. Those who are not born again stray from the flock of Christ.
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, even inner conversations. Those thoughts of the abundance of the heart are either sheep thoughts, or goat thoughts. Sheep thoughts follow God, through Christ. Goat thoughts stray from God.
Your Name, whoever THAT is, says:
For those who do not believe in God, well you have some explaining to do…
Mr. Incredible says:
They have some ‘splainin’ t’do, but they won’t. They can’t. They don’t have the experience of, nor from, God, through Christ, on which to base anything they say about God.
Their arguments are of negation. They are void.
Negation never solves anything. It never produces anything. It never does anything. Negation is intended to destroy, not build. It is subtraction, not addition.
They speak from a void. They speak from a place where there is no Light. Having no Light, they cannot see, cannot perceive. Blind, they cannot know. Not knowing, they are ignorant. We are not ignorant of their devices, thank the Lord for His Word.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:04 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
CC, I know you didn’t write the book.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “book”? The “Bible”? Which one?…Depends on which one…Depends on the publication. You haven’t been clear which one…Again, it depends on the publication.
HG says:
Yes, there are, interestingly, many differences in the various word of god books.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “word of ‘god’”? We consult the Word of God. We’re unfamiliar with your “word of ‘god.’”
HG says:
But, since I was having a discussion with CC…
Mr. Incredible says:
When you write here, you write to all, though you address her. E-mail is the way to have a private conversation, if you wanted no response from anyone else.
HG says:
…and she wrote only

“So, I didn’t write the book, so you can’t blame me for the evidence of the Bible…”

…I guess you’ll have to ask her to what, exactly, she was referring when she wrote

“the story is not false, it is a fact…”

Mr. Incredible says:
In asking her who wrote the “book,” you referred to some “book.” Which “book” is that?
Of course, you must know to which “story” she refers. Tell us.
HG says:
For the purposes of my own comment, it was not important for me to know, because I’m of the opinion that they’ve all been written and edited by men.
Mr. Incredible says:
As inspired by God.
HG says:
Or is it more likely a work of fiction similar to other god stories found throughout human history?
Mr. Incredible says:
It depends on whether you ask an atheist who doesn’t have the experience, or ask a Christian who does. Is experience more valuable than no-experience?”
HG says:
Of course the answer one gets will depend on who is answering the question.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of coarse, the answer one gets will depend on who is answering the question, whether the one answering the question has the experience, or not. The knowledgeable answer will come from the one who has the experience from and of God, through Christ. The one who doesn’t have the experience from and of God, through Christ, is speaking from a void and cannot possibly know. Thanks for agreeing with me.
HG says:
If one chooses to think with one’s heart, then one may find purchase in god belief; but if one uses the brain to do the thinking, then one has a very difficult time not recognizing the evolution of god stories during mankind’s history. They don’t hold up well to prolonged scrutiny.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG pollutes HG’s mind with HG’s own thinking, persuading HG’s own self that what HG does not see cannot possibly be.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:06 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

CORRECTION
Of coarse — – >Of course

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:08 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

Mr. Incredible says:
YOU people say that you have seen the Big Bang when, in fact, you couldn’t have. After all, you weren’t there.
HG says:
That is your reasoning?
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you WERE there?? You witness to personal observation of the Big Bang??
HG says:
We haven’t seen the Big Bang so it didn’t happen?
Mr. Incredible says:
No, YOU’RE the one who says that, if we can’t see it, it isn’t there.
HG says:
Strange bit of logic for one who believes in spooks.
Mr. Incredible says:
Good thing I don’t believe in spooks.
HG says:
We don’t say we have seen the Big Bang, current estimates of it’s [sic]…
Mr. Incredible says:
You still don’t know the difference between the contraction and the personal pronoun possessive.
HG says:
… occurence range from 13.3 to 13.9 billion years, we say we see massive amounts of evidence to support it.
Mr. Incredible says:
You mean to say, “massive amounts of speculation.”
HG says:
If you want to dispute the evidence…
Mr. Incredible says:
You mean, “speculation.”
HG says:
… of cosmological theory…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, finally correct — “THEORY.”
HG says:
… cosmic microwave background radiation…
Mr. Incredible says:
That doesn’t necessarily PROVE the Big Bang.
HG says:
… Big Bang nucleosynthesis…
Mr. Incredible says:
That just adds to the speculation.
HG says:
…, etc. then you’ll need a better book than the Bible no matter what version it is.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s entirely possible to think of the Big Bang as being what happened in Genesis. It’s entirely acceptable to use the scientific theory of the Big Bang as an explanation of the physical Creation. Scientific theory is still theory.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:09 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

Mr. Incredible says:
We say that we’ve experienced God. You can’t possibly say that isn’t true that you haven’t been “there.”
HG says:
Oh yes, I’ve been “there”.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, no, you haven’t. Nothing you say indicates that you have
HG says:
“Experienced”. Oh yes.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, no, you haven’t. Nothing you say indicates that you have.
HG says:
Came to recognize that it was a personal choice.
Mr. Incredible says:
God gave you that choice. He told you to take hold of Blessing, or curse. You chose not to choose the Blessing, and, so, by default, you choose the curse.
HG says:
You haven’t been here…
Mr. Incredible says:
Before 7 1/2 years ago, I was.
Since being born again, I’m in the world, not of it. I walk with God, through Christ. I don’t walk with the world.
HG says:
…and I’m convinced you don’t want to come.
Mr. Incredible says:
I haven’t tried to persuade you otherwise. I don’t belong to the world. I belong to God, through Christ.
HG says:
Fine with me…
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t need your permission.
HG says:
… America being a place where all forms of religious belief are tolerated, zero to infinity and beyond.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, atheism and agnosticism, we are told, are not beliefs, religious, or otherwise.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:11 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
Some people, myself included, take as much comfort in reality without dressing it up.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “reality”?
HG says:
We all exist in the same reality…
Mr. Incredible says:
Not quite. I don’t exist in your reality. I exist in God’s reality, through Christ.
HG says:
… within the space-time continuum of this universe.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “space-time continuum”? Prove there is such a thing. Where is “Time”? In which direction is it going? Whence “Time”? Of what is it made?
HG says:
Big Bang doesn’t attempt to explain the conditions prior to the occurence any more than the Bible explains the existence of God…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “Bible”?
HG says:
… but it does a much better job of explaining the reality of what is.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Is,” according to whom?
How does the Big Bang “theory” explain how nothing can become something?
HG says:
Better than the emperor’s clothing you try to dress things up in and pass off as real.
Mr. Incredible says:
Just cuz you can’t see the reality of our experience doesn’t mean that we haven’t experienced reality. It’s just that you preclude yourself from seeing, from perceiving it.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:13 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
We all exist in the same reality…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which one?

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:14 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, it depends, to HG, on what the meaning, to HG, of the word ‘is’ is, to HG.
HG says:
No…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
…being cognizant of the reality…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “reality”? Which one? The fact of my experience is a reality which you reject. So, you reject reality. You reject it cuz you can’t see it, can’t perceive it. You can’t see it, can’t perceive it cuz you choose not to. My experience, on the other hand, includes the experience of the world IN which I live. I accept and receive more reality than you do.
HG says:
… in which I exist…
Mr. Incredible says:
What YOU have conjured up as your “reality.”
HG says:
… and the use of language to communicate within it…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG uses language — a figment of the imagination — to communicate HG’s “reality” HG has conjured up for HG’s own purposes. Flip City inmates do the same thing. At least there, they get help.
HG says:
… I prefer to use accepted dictionary definition.
Mr. Incredible says:
The dictionary is not a lawgiver. It is a usage-history book.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 14, 2010 at 8:35 pm


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
…, etc. then you’ll need a better book than the Bible no matter what version it is.
Mr. Incredible says:
The so-called “Big Bang” could give us a picture of the very beginning of Creation. It COULD. God does things big. Only God coulda done it.
Science still cannot say with neither certainty, nor probability, how it happened. Science still cannot explain with neither certainty, nor probability, why it happened. Science cannot deny that God made it all happen. Science simply has no certain, nor probable, explanation for the Big Bang. All it can say is that it makes sense, based on some sort of reasoning from the traces of information it thinks it has. Possibility, not certainty and not probable.
As far as the Word of God goes, the details are not important. It’s not important to know precisely and in detail, what, He did and why, precisely and in detail, He did it. His explanations are in the Word of God, and there are more important things to know. Surprise, surprise, scoffers are focused on the wrong things.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm


Mr. INaD: “When you write here, you write to all,…”
However, when I specifically address a reply to CC based upon information contained in one of her posts, it is inappropriate for you to ask me, rather than her, to what she, not I, was referring.
Mr. INaD: “Of course, you must know to which “story” she refers.”
No, wrong again. I didn’t need to know to which “story” she referred in order to inquire of her knowledge about it’s origins… although her answer could indicate both.
Mr. INaD: “HG says: For the purposes of my own comment, it was not important for me to know, because I’m of the opinion that they’ve all been written and edited by men.
Mr. Incredible says: As inspired by God.”
Ah yes, inspired by God, what does that even mean? It means, for one thing, that you are relying on a questionable information stream. According to your belief, it only applies to the version to which you ascribe (and, I don’t recall you or CC declaring which version(s) that is), isn’t that right? Many who claim to know God’s Word insist their version is the one truly inspired by God, and attack your version as spurious. You know better than them, …how? You’re attached to the certified network?
Then, there are those of us who’ve come to realize that NONE of your, or their, claims of deity-to-human dictation are worth a happy dump!
Mr. INaD: “HG says:… Big Bang nucleosynthesis…”
Mr. Incredible says: That just adds to the speculation.”
It also adds to a closer representation of what actually happened than anything you could ever hope to claim was being deliberately represented in any version of a “God did it” book.
Mr. INaD or three: “HG says: Fine with me…
Mr. Incredible says: I don’t need your permission.”
I didn’t say, or indicate, that you, poor petulant Mr. I Need a Douche, or anyone in this country, needed my permission. I was merely indicating my own happiness at the separation between us.
Mr. INaD: “HG says:… America being a place where all forms of religious belief are tolerated, zero to infinity and beyond.
Mr. Incredible says: However, atheism and agnosticism, we are told, are not beliefs, religious, or otherwise.”
I don’t know who is telling you that, but even those who espouse an atheistic or agnostic viewpoint have a lawful right to select from the entire continuum of religious belief, that is, from zero to infinity and beyond at any time–as has been explained to you many times. You’re about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. Perhaps if you were to use your brain, instead of your heart, or rectum, for thought. At the very least, your breath would improve.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 15, 2010 at 1:36 am


From Wikipedia, Big Bang: “The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications.
Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.”
The origins of reality (interesting choice of words, heh-heh), an explosive inflation about 14 billion years ago followed by the creation of Earth billions of years later and millions of years of evolution. That’s what the Bible was explaining, …but not very accurately. (Pardon me while I laugh myself into, and out of, a coma) Time to give it another good editing, morph it into something with relevance again.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 3:40 am


JESUS IS LORD !

Mr. Incredible says:
When you write here, you write to all…
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
However, when I specifically address a reply to CC based upon information contained in one of her posts, it is inappropriate for you to ask me, rather than her, to what she, not I, was referring.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Inappropriate,” according to whom?? I’m not beholden to YOUR lowly lowly standards.
If you post an open forum, you open yourself up to challenge. If you don’t like it, that’s too bad. Things are tough all over. If you wanna private conversation with her, use e-mail.
I asked you about things YOU said. If you don’t know what you write, you need to work that out with yourself.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 3:49 am


JESUS IS LORD !

Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you must know to which “story” she refers.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
No, wrong again.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, I’m correct again.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
I didn’t need to know to which “story” she referred in order to inquire of her knowledge about it’s origins…
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you know to ask her if you didn’t know??? Of course, we’re used to you’re not making sense.
HG says:
For the purposes of my own comment, it was not important for me to know, because I’m of the opinion that they’ve all been written and edited by men.
Mr. Incredible says:
As inspired by God.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
Ah yes, inspired by God…
Mr. Incredible says:
Glad you agree.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
…what does that even mean?
Mr. Incredible says:
You wouldn’t understand it.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
It means, for one thing, that you are relying on a questionable information stream.
Mr. Incredible says:
YOU question it. We don’t question the facts of our experience cuz they match the promises of God.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
According to your belief, it only applies to the version to which you ascribe…
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to what “belief”?
What’s “it,” as in, “it only applies”?
“To which” I “ascribe” what??
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
… (and, I don’t recall you or CC declaring which version(s) that is), isn’t that right?
Mr. Incredible says:
No, that isn’t right.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
Many who claim to know God’s Word insist their version is the one truly inspired by God, and attack your version as spurious.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, well.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
You know better than them [sic]…
Mr. Incredible says:
God knows better than they.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
…how?
Mr. Incredible says:
You wouldn’t understand it. You don’t wanna know anyway.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
You’re attached to the certified network?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Yes, I’m in the God loop.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
Then, there are those of us who’ve come to realize that NONE of your, or their, claims of deity-to-human dictation are worth a happy dump!
Mr. Incredible says:
So what? Not my problem. No impact on me.
HG says:
… Big Bang nucleosynthesis…
Mr. Incredible says:
That just adds to the speculation.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
It also adds to a closer representation of what actually happened…
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you, or they, know, if neither you, nor they, were there?? You can’t compare the knowledge…er… speculation to any actual, observed event.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
… than anything you could ever hope to claim was being deliberately represented in any version of a “God did it” book.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG, masquerading as Your Name, precludes himself from information that challenges HG-masquerading-as-Your-Name’s warped way of thinking. We get it already.
As we have said, such details aren’t important, as far as the information that God has for us in His Word. There are more important things to note. Of course, scoffers don’t get. They focus on the wrong things, hoping to throw us off track. Where I am concerned, that doesn’t happen.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 3:53 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
Fine with me…
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t need your permission.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
I didn’t say, or indicate, that you…or anyone in this country, needed my permission.
Mr. Incredible says:
Your “fine with me” is what follows a request for permission. “Fine with me” is approval. I didn’t ask for that either. I don’t need your approval, and I still don’t need your permission.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
I was merely indicating my own happiness the separation between us.
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 3:58 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
… America being a place where all forms of religious belief are tolerated, zero to infinity and beyond.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, atheism and agnosticism, we are told, are not beliefs, religious, or otherwise.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
I don’t know who is telling you that…
Mr. Incredible says:
Atheists, in this very blog, awhile back. Belial Boris is one-a the girly boys who argued with me about it, saying that atheists don’t have a “religious” belief. If you disagree with candy-a$$ Boris, take it up with him.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
… but even those who espouse an atheistic or agnostic viewpoint have a lawful right to select from the entire continuum of religious belief, that is, from zero to infinity and beyond any time–as has been explained to you many times.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, atheists and agnostics say they don’t have a “religious” belief. So, the First Amendment does not apply to them, since the First Amendment is about the free practice of “religion” and worship. Which “religion” do YOU practice? Which “religion” do YOU practice for which you need First Amendment protection?? Which “religion” do atheists practice for which they need First Amendment protection??
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
You’re about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG, masquerading as Your Name, thinks that everybody should think like HG, masquerading as Your Name, or else, according to HG, masquerading as Your Name, they are as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
Perhaps if you were to use your brain, instead of your heart, or rectum, for thought.
Mr. Incredible reveals:
HG, masquerading as Your Name, is goin’ through a girly-man emotional episode cuz some dude just turned down HG-masquerading-as-Your-Name’s request for a prison pounding.
HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
At the very least, your breath would improve.
Mr. Incredible asks:
You’re on “paper,” aren’t you? You’ve taken the “ride” many times, huh.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 4:29 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
From Wikipedia…
Mr. Incredible says:
Now THHERRRRE’S a reputable source! [wink, wink]
HG says:

Big Bang: “The Big Bang is a scientific theory…”

Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, a “theory.” In other words, what somebody “thinks” happened.
HG says:

“… and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations.”

Mr. Incredible says:
So far, it agrees with me that nobody was there.
HG says:

“But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality…”

Mr. Incredible asks:
“Origins of” which “reality”?
HG says:

“…it has always carried theological and philosophical implications.”

Mr. Incredible says:
So has everything else.
HG says:

“Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm…”

Mr. Incredible says:
But not proof.
HG says:

“…there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The “theory” describes the very moment of Creation by God. Neither the Word of God, nor Science, tell us how He did it, nor why. There are more important things to know in the Word of God. Scoffers wanna distract everybody from those things. They can’t distract me.
HG says:

“Some accept the scientific evidence at face value…”

Mr. Incredible says:
There are pieces of information put together to sound like evidence but is really speculation.
HG says:

“… while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets…”

Mr. Incredible says:
No need to reconcile anything. The Big Bang could believably be the very moment of Creation by God. It easily aligns with the Word of God. It’s nice to see that Science comes up with something that agrees with the Word of God. However, Science isn’t so powerful that it can explain how God did it, or why. Science cannot explain how something came from nothing.
HG says:

“…and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.”

Mr. Incredible asks:
The “evidence” comes from snippets of information here and there, formed by wishful thinkers into something THEY say happened. Nobody knows whether it happened that way, or not. However, it may explain the very moment of Creation by God.
HG says:
The origins of reality…
Mr. Incredible asks:
“The origins of” what “reality”? Which one?
HG says:
…(interesting choice of words, heh-heh), an explosive inflation about 14 billion years ago followed by the creation of Earth billions of years later…
Mr. Incredible says:
We know that everything came into being — that is, was created — but we don’t know how, nor why. It may have been a Big Bang. Maybe it wasn’t. We don’t know for certain. We don’t know the probability. All we know is the possibility. Possibilities are for philosophers and poets, not scientists.
HG says:
… and millions of years of evolution.
Mr. Incredible asks:
From what to what? What started it all?
HG says:
That’s what the Bible…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
HG says:
… was explaining, …but not very accurately.
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to whom?
The purpose of the Word of God is not as a Science text. It’s not necessary to explain the scientific details of Creation. It’s important to know only THAT things happen to explain, as example, the spiritual journey, not a scientific one.
HG says:
(Pardon me while I laugh myself into, and out of, a coma)
Mr. Incredible says:
A coma WOULD explain your not knowing what you’re writing.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 15, 2010 at 5:26 am


Such evasion. Multiple evasions. No answers. Never any answers. Jesus is Lord is his answer to everything. It is best for those with simple minds to simplify their understanding of existence, as Mr. INaD does. Neither he nor CC seem able to identify the specific text they claim was inspired by God, or what that even means.
Mr. INaD: “Science cannot explain how something came from nothing.”
Neither can the Bible. God has always been? Really? That’s it? TA-DA!
Perhaps the material comprising our universe has always been. It makes the same explanation.
Perhaps, since you are no longer of this world, and exist in a separate reality with God…you wouldn’t mind explaining the physics of the Planck epoch. No? Oh well, it was just a shot.
Oh, and since I made it plain who I was in my comment, there was hardly any “masquerading”. An accidental omission of the HG. You have in the past claimed comments to be mine which weren’t, but none of the other unclaimed no name posts here were mine despite any suspicions you may have had (indicated by the comments, I wonder who THAT was). What a strange individual you are. Maybe you should try to be born one more time, third time’s a charm, whaddaya say?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 5:27 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG, masquerading as Your Name, says:
Many who claim to know God’s Word insist their version is the one truly inspired by God, and attack your version as spurious.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, we’ll find out on Judgment Day, won’t we?
BTW, “your version” is what version?

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 5:46 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
Such evasion.
Mr. Incredible says:
I evaded nothing. I confronted everything.
HG says:
Multiple evasions.
Mr. Incredible says:
I evaded nothing. I confronted everything.
HG says:
No answers.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s just that you don’t like my answers, that’s all.
HG says:
Never any answers.
Mr. Incredible says:
Never any answers you like.
HG says:
Jesus is Lord is his answer to everything.
Mr. Incredible says:
God, through Christ, answers everything.
HG says:
It is best for those with simple minds to simplify their understanding of existence…
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil is the father of confusion. You people are playing right along.
HG says:
Neither he nor CC seem able to identify the specific text they claim was inspired by God…
Mr. Incredible says:
2 Timothy 3:16
HG says:
… or what that even means.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s just that you won’t understand. You have precluded yourself from understanding.

JESUS IS LORD !

JESUS IS LORD !

Mr. Incredible says:
Science cannot explain how something came from nothing.
HG says:
Neither can the Bible.
Mr. Incredible says:
As a matter of fact, He does. It’s just that you can’t understand it. You preclude yourself from understanding it.
HG says:
God has always been?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
Really?
Mr. Incredible says:
Really.
HG says:
That’s it?
Mr. Incredible says:
Nothing more is needed.
HG says:
TA-DA!
Mr. Incredible says:
HG is reduced to baby babbling.
HG says:
Perhaps the material comprising our universe has always been.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, there was the Big Bang before the Big Bang?? There was no Big Bang?? Make up your mind, if you can find it.
HG says:
It makes…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What “makes”?
HG says:
…the same explanation.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Explanation of what is the same?
HG says:
Perhaps, since you are no longer of this world, and exist in a separate reality with God…you wouldn’t mind explaining the physics of the Planck epoch.
Mr. Incredible says:
No need. It’s not necessary to the spiritual journey.
HG says:
No?
Mr. Incredible says:
No need.
HG says:
Oh well, it was just a shot.
Mr. Incredible says:
And an irrelevant one, at that.
HG says:
Oh, and since I made it plain who I was in my comment, there was hardly any “masquerading”.
Mr. Incredible says:
You posted under “Your Name.” So, you posted under two names at the same time. Or you were two persons posting. Or you have two heads on one body going by two different names. Whatever.
HG says:
An accidental omission of the HG.
Mr. Incredible says:
A lack of focus.
HG says:
You have in the past claimed comments to be mine which weren’t…
Mr. Incredible says:
By mistake and mix up, but just once, or twice. I made corrections both times, and I never made the same mistake again.
HG says:
…but none of the other unclaimed no name posts here were mine despite any suspicions you may have had (indicated by the comments, I wonder who THAT was).
Mr. Incredible says:
Other than they once, or twice, I made a mistake, I made no further such mistake.
HG says:
What a strange individual you are.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, to YOU. But so what?
HG says:
Maybe you should try to be born one more time…
Mr. Incredible says:
God, through Christ, says one rebirth is enough. We know that you don’t understand it. You preclude yourself from understanding.
HG says:
… third time’s a charm, whaddaya say?
Mr. Incredible says:
God, through Christ, says this one’s the charm.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 5:55 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
Maybe you should try to be born one more time…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG asks, “Hath God said…?”
HG says:
… third time’s a charm, whaddaya say?
Mr. Incredible says:
The Lord is my Shepherd, not you.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 5:59 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
No answers. Never any answers.
Mr. Incredible says:
You can’t comprehend the answers I posted. The problem is on your end, not mine. Maybe there are two wires in your head that shouldn’t be touching.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 6:01 am


JESUS IS LORD !

HG says:
What a strange individual you are.
Mr. Incredible says:
Exciting, isn’t it.

JESUS IS LORD !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 6:11 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!

HG says:
What a strange individual you are.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG admits that I’m not like HG.
In the words of Martha Stewart, “That’s a good thing.”

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 6:22 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!

HG says:
Maybe you should try to be born one more time, third time’s a charm, whaddaya say?
Mr. Incredible says:
Actually, those who have been born again have been born a third time.
First, there was the original creation of Man in the Image of God.
Then, Man made himself in his own image. [This is why we must be born again]
Then, we are given the chance to return to relationship with God, through Christ, by being born again. Those who are born again are re-made in His Image.
We know that you don’t understand that. That’s really too bad. Not for us, rather for you.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 6:28 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!

There is no religious discrimination in denying the building of a mosque in that particular spot overlooking the scene of nearly 3000 deaths at the hands of their Muslim brothers. Nobody says they cannot build a mosque. What should be more important to them is that they build a mosque in any place; it doesn’t have-ta be there. It is not religious discrimination to say that they cannot build a mosque there, on THAT spot. It would be religious discrimination to say that they cannot build a mosque at all.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 15, 2010 at 6:42 am


HG says:
What a strange individual you are.
Mr. Incredible asks:
I’m strange??? Say, isn’t this — http://thumbsnap.com/sobwORl6 — you?
And you say that I’m strange. Heh.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 15, 2010 at 8:58 am


It’s like Boris always said huh? Your overt homophobia is a cover for your latent homosexuality. Pictures of men in bunny costumes, is that what turns you on?
Yes, a strange individual you are. Not a good or bad thing, since what is, is. Just one of the stranger things that is. Were you in a car accident as an infant? Is that why your brain doesn’t function very well? All you can do is hold one or two thoughts? Jesus is Lord and you like men in bunny suits. Both require about the same level of mentation.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 15, 2010 at 9:44 am


Mr. I Need a Douche says those who follow his imaginary savior are sheep. I couldn’t agree more.



report abuse
 

J. Schmiesing

posted August 16, 2010 at 11:41 pm


The terrorist ties of Imam Rauf should disqualify him from being the leader of a legitimate religious organization. It is a historical fact that Muslims build mosques as monuments in those areas where they have won battles. Originally, it was to be called Cordoba House, which commemorates a previous Muslim Jihad battle victory. It sure looks like a propaganda statement for militant Muslims which demonstrates their success killing thousands of innocent people on 9/11. Do they want to tell the world that they were victorious in south Manhattan ? The imam’s statements since 9/11 have put him in the category of being a friend of our terrorist enemies. He is a criminal by aiding the enemies of the United States. He is a participant in the Islam Fattah against the United States. He refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization. He should be arrested as an enemy to the U.S. and he definitely should not be paid with U.S. tax dollars to be an emissary to the Middle East from the U.S. State Department. He is not a law-abiding Muslim. Freedom of religion does not allow citizens to break our laws. For example, although many people have founded “religious entities” within the United States, that are merely efforts to sidestep our laws. Bigamy used to be practiced by the Mormon church and other groups, but is not allowed because it is against our established laws. Groups that establish churches to allow the use of marijuana and other drugs, to avoid paying taxes, etc. are not recognized as legitamate and neither should a terrorist organizations fronting as a religion. No one disagrees that law abiding Muslims can practice their religion, as long as it does not break our laws and invade the rights of others. What about the “rights” of the victims and their families ? If “moderate muslims” truly want to establish “harmony” between the Muslim religion and the people of the United States, they will do a lot to promote harmony to refrain from offending the many victims of 9/11. Don’t you think there would be objections to Nazis building a center down the street from the Holocaust museum, or the Japanese building religious or cultural centers at Pearl Harbor ? The Pope did not allow a group of nuns to set up a nunnery outside of Auschwitz concentration camp, not because it was illegal, but because he was sensitive to the feeling of the many Jewish victims who were there. The people behind building this mosque in South Manhattan support our enemies and do not follow our laws. We need to oppose this Jihad battle victory mosque.



report abuse
 

HG

posted August 17, 2010 at 12:34 am


The implication is that if people shout you down, shout down your religion, then you should be sensitive to their view, and fold. It doesn’t work that way.
J. Schmiesing: “No one disagrees that law abiding Muslims can practice their religion, as long as it does not break our laws and invade the rights of others.”
What law is broken, what right invaded? What crimes committed by Imam Rauf, have, or have not been prosecuted? Our government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to monitor people and money, and to prosecute such crimes. Unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric are not convincing. Hate and fear are not reasons to break our own laws which prevent religious suppression. If places of religious worship couldn’t be built simply because a chorus of voices arose expressing that preference, then the term religious freedom becomes a hollow shell; and quite a few churches wouldn’t have been built!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 17, 2010 at 3:23 pm


HAHA You were all acting like a bunch of teanagers laughing away, only to stick someone in front of my face which you gave my job to..
What a guy, or gal for that matter…. C



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 18, 2010 at 3:52 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!

HG says:
Mr. I Need a Douche says those who follow his imaginary savior are sheep. I couldn’t agree more.
Mr. Incredible says:
Please show us precisely where I said that. Of course you won’t. You can’t.
Anyway, how’s life in the flask lane?

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 18, 2010 at 4:21 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!

HG says:
Your overt homophobia…
Mr. Incredible asks:
I’m not afraid of those who claim to be homosexual. They’re afraid of us. No reason to be, but they are. It is what it is.
HG says:
…is a cover for your latent homosexuality.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, you’ve been lying all along, so, why stop now?
In any case, no one can claim to be homosexual AND be a homophobe. That would be a house divided. A house divided cannot stand.
So, just some friendly advice: Don’t post comments before you thought them out.
Of course, there may be no thought going on in your two heads, and/or we must entertain the possibility that you’re just some goofy monkey, caged in a lab, hook’d up t’some electrodes, and playin’ with a keyboard some stupid, pimply-faced college-kid lab assistant gave you to keep you busy and, hopefully, not rollin’ around in your own vomit, urine and feces.
HG says:
Pictures of men in bunny costumes, is that what turns you on?
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, I posted that and ask you whether that is you. I posted it for no other reason. I was just going through pictures on that site, lookin’ for those that would fit your description. Indeed, I found that one. Good enough to go up on the Post Office board.
HG says:
Yes, a strange individual you are.
Mr. Incredible says:
Exciting, huh.
But who gets to say what is “strange”? YOU??? Heh.
HG says:
…what is, is.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who gets to say what “is”? You??? Heh.
Which reality is “is”?
HG says:
Just one of the stranger things that is.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who gets to say what “is”? YOU??? Heh.
Which reality is “is”?
HG says:
Were you in a car accident as an infant? Is that why your brain doesn’t function very well?
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s an awfully weenie attempt to be clever. You’re not match for me.
They let you use a computer while you’re out on bail?
HG says:
All you can do is hold one or two thoughts? Jesus is Lord…
Mr. Incredible says:
As Martha Stewart would say, “It’s a good thing.”
HG says:
… and you like men in bunny suits.
Mr. Incredible says:
I like the fact that it fits your description. That’s why I posted it.
I’m glad you clicked on it and saw it. Now, every time you look in a mirror, in the second, or two, before it breaks, you’ll see YOU in that picture.
Show that picture to your cellmate, and, maybe, he’ll “hammer” you extra hard tonight.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 18, 2010 at 5:05 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!

HG says:
Were you in a car accident as an infant? Is that why your brain doesn’t function very well?
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, HG says that, since I don’t agree with him, HG says, it must be, according to HG’s standards, cuz, according to HG, my brain, as HG would have it, doesn’t, HG would say, function, on the HG scale, well.
Somebody needs to check HG’s place for pods.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 18, 2010 at 5:14 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!

HG says:
Your overt homophobia is a cover for your latent homosexuality.
Mr. Incredible says:
And you couldn’t come up with anything more clever than that tired, ol’ cliché accusation which, apart from being false, really, is an attempt to intimidate. Weaker people would be intimidated and scared away by HG’s statement. I am not. I won’t be.
One cannot walk with Christ AND practice homosexuality. Mutually exclusive.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 18, 2010 at 6:34 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD !

HG says:
Your overt homophobia is a cover for your latent homosexuality.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, now the “gay in the closet” card. That’s one of them cliché talking points off the Homosexual Internet Militia websites HG visits.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD !



report abuse
 

David Q Public

posted August 22, 2010 at 5:44 pm


Mr incredulous is a perfect example of why we can’t have a civil discussion anymore in a open forum like this.



report abuse
 

observer AGM

posted August 26, 2010 at 4:20 am


Thursday, August 26, 2010
To Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
You talk of tolerence & religious freedom….can you ever attempt to build a church or chapel in Saudi Abrabia and or in any or many muslim countries. Can you preach the salvation plan of Jesus Christ to any muslims in any of predominately muslim countries without being arrested & jailed or killed in countries like for example Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistian , Iran, Egypt, Sudan ,Yemen & many muslim dominated & Oppressed countries….& Yet muslims are freely able to proselyte their religion freely USA,Australia ,New Zealand & Canada, UK etc without being harassed.
If ever some hapless illiterate irreligious white women get married to some deceiving smooth talking muslim men they have tales horror to tell you when they follow these men to their muslim home countries…when children is born …should these women want to part for any reason ..to take their children back to USA or any European countries from where these women originate then all hell breaks lose…there is no religious freedom or choice or any consideration or natural justice in these muslim countries.. these women loose their children for life!!!
observer AGM



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 28, 2010 at 8:04 am


David Q Public says:
Mr incredulous is a perfect example of why we can’t have a civil discussion anymore in a open forum like this.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Oh, you mean like you’re calling me “Mister Incredulous”? Or like where HG says, “Your overt homophobia is a cover for your latent homosexuality”? Or like when HG calls me a “moron,” or a “maroon”? hy do you ignore those???
You don’t see me complainin’, do you. That’s cuz his and your insults don’t land.
Anyway, you think what you wanna think, and I’ll think what I wanna think.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 28, 2010 at 8:12 am


David Q Public says:
Mr incredulous is a perfect example of why we can’t have a civil discussion anymore in a open forum like this.
Mr. Incredible says:
I respond civilly to civility.



report abuse
 

Lunarvoyager

posted August 29, 2010 at 8:51 am


To Observer AGM:
We are not Saudi Arabia, that’s why we’re better than them and we are right and they are wrong. Are you suggesting that we should be like them? Do you actually advocate that the USA should tell any religion in American that it cannot build a house of worship, simply because that religion is despised and not in the majority? Should someone be able to stop a Baptist church from being built in a black community because the KK was an extreme element of chrisitanity?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who says "Follow me"

posted August 30, 2010 at 5:41 am


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

Lunarvoyager says:
To Observer AGM:
We are not Saudi Arabia, that’s why we’re better than them [sic] and we are right and they are wrong.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Sooooo, it’s a matter of address?? Of geography??
Lunarvoyager says:
Are you suggesting that we should be like them?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Are you suggesting that we are suggesting we should be like them?
Lunarvoyager says:
Do you actually advocate that the USA should tell any religion in American that it cannot build a house of worship, simply because that religion is despised and not in the majority?
Mr. Incredible says:
Naturally, you misstate and misrepresent the issue.
Nobody says that they shouldn’t be allowed to build a house of worship. There are hundreds of them in New York City, after all.
Lunarvoyager says:
Should someone be able to stop a Baptist church from being built in a black community because the KK [sic] was an extreme element of chrisitanity?
Mr. Incredible says:
No one suggests that Muslims should not build. We would like them to come to the conclusion that building in that spot is insensitive, discourteous and disrespectful to the memory of the victims and to the surviving families whose 9/11 wounds are still fresh. Of course, they won’t come to that conclusion. That’s cuz Muslims all over the world would consider it just another victory to have a Hamasque within the 9/11 debris/body part field. They would dance in their streets, just as they did when those planes plowed into those buildings killing those who had nothing to do with anything affecting anybody but their own lives.



report abuse
 

uniteordie

posted September 2, 2010 at 8:10 am


@observer AGM
In your statement you are leaving out a crucial fact. Those Muslim countries are not America!



report abuse
 

uniteordie

posted September 2, 2010 at 8:32 am


@Mr. Incredible
What you are saying is that the people who want to build this mosque are representative of those countries. This is false. Remember Muslims were killed in the 9-11 attacks as well. You still seem to think that Islam attacked us. This is not the case. Extremists who happened to be Muslims attacked us. Since you seem to value logical fallacies, what do you think about this, the NRA should not of held there yearly convention near the town of Columbine the year of the shootings. What if the Native Americans stood up and protested the building of a church anywhere near there land? What if the Japanese kicked the U.S. out of Japan and demolished all American Embassies because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How about destroying all Mercedes,Volkswagen,Audi,Bmw dealerships because the Nazis came from Germany? Or what if the Iraqis refuse to allow a Christian church to be built? Oh wait there already has been. You probably think of the insurgents as terrorist instead of people defending their country from another country, don’t you. They are doing the same thing we would do if our country was invaded, no matter what the so called justification is. That is off topic but the truth is you will never see things the way they are because you are incapable of objectivity. You allow your beliefs to come in the way of truth. Truth should be valued above all else even when it hurts. So you can whine and cry all you want about the Mosque but there is no legal leg for you to stand on. Our principles as Americans protect the right of them to build that Mosque whether we like it or not. From your point of view, if they are some fundies that think this is a “victory mosque”, the greatest victory for them would come from us compromising our principles. It is already being used as propaganda to recruit more extremest if we stop them then we show the world that we are everything that the terrorists say we are. They have had enough victories since 9-11, we don’t need to give them another. Think about it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted September 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm


uniteordie says:
@Mr. Incredible
What you are saying is that the people who want to build this mosque are representative of those countries.
Mr. Incredible says:
I am?? Gee, I didn’t know that.
uniteordie says:
This is false.
Mr. Incredible says:
I already KNOW that your statement above is false. I’m glad you know it is, too.
uniteordie says:
Remember Muslims were killed in the 9-11 attacks as well.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, the ones who hijacked the aircraft.
uniteordie says:
You still seem to think that Islam attacked us.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m glad to see you qualify your statement with, “seem.” Thereby, you realize that you’re making it up.
uniteordie says:
This is not the case.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m glad to see that you understand that your “seeming” is incorrect.
Extremists who happened to be Muslims attacked us.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Ahead of time, how can you tell who’s what?
uniteordie says:
Since you seem to value logical fallacies…
Mr. Incredible says:
Again, it’s good that you realize that what you assign to me is actually going on your own head.
uniteordie says:
… what do you think about this, the NRA should not of [sic]…
Mr. Incredible corrects:
The phrase is “shouldn’t have,” a contraction for “should not have.” There is no English Language construction “should not of.”
uniteordie says:
… held there yearly convention near the town of Columbine the year of the shootings.
Mr. Incredible says:
The town of Columbine is not Ground Zero of the shootings. The school building is.
The site of the Hamasque is where the landing gear truck landed. It’s part of Ground Zero.
uniteordie says:
What if the Native Americans stood up and protested the building of a church anywhere near there [sic] land?
Mr. Incredible asks:
What’s “near”? What “land”?
In any case, they’re allowed to protest.
The site of the Hamasque is where the landing gear truck landed. It’s part of Ground Zero. We wouldn’t build a church on an exact site it is an Indian “holy” site.
uniteordie says:
What if the Japanese kicked the U.S. out of Japan and demolished all American Embassies because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Mr. Incredible says:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate war targets. Embassies are considered part of the territory of the countries they represent. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.
In any case, nobody is talking about attacking anything.
uniteordie says:
How about destroying all Mercedes,Volkswagen,Audi,Bmw dealerships because the Nazis came from Germany?
Mr. Incredible says:
People may destroy their Mercedes, Volkswagens, Audis and BMWs, but not their dealerships. Nobody is talking about destroying the Hamasque.
uniteordie says:
Or what if the Iraqis refuse to allow a Christian church to be built?
Mr. Incredible says:
What they do?
uniteordie says:
Oh wait there already has been.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, there are churches in Iraq. There are mosques in New York City. Your point?
uniteordie says:
You probably think of the insurgents as terrorist instead of people defending their country from another country, don’t you.
Mr. Incredible says:
You probably think that Hitler was just defending his country.
You probably think that the Japanese were just defending their country when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
You probably think that Saddam Hussein was protecting Iraq by invading Kuwait.
Again, you probably think that Hitler was protecting Germany by invading Poland and the Soviet Union.
uniteordie says:
They are doing the same thing we would do if our country was invaded, no matter what the so called justification is.
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand that you don’t know the difference. Gosh, I hope you don’t vote. VOTE!!!??? I hope you don’t drive!
uniteordie says:
That is off topic but the truth is you will never see things the way they are because you are incapable of objectivity.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, I don’t think like you. We get that.
uniteordie says:
You allow your beliefs to come in the way of truth.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “truth”?
uniteordie says:
Truth should be valued above all else even when it hurts.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “truth”?
uniteordie says:
So you can whine and cry all you want about the Mosque but there is no legal leg for you to stand on.
Mr. Incredible says:
We’re asking for more than what’s legal; we’re asking for a Moral sense to take hold. Apparently, Muslims don’t have a Moral sense.
uniteordie says:
Our principles as Americans protect the right of them to build that Mosque whether we like it or not.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Constitution says they may worship and practice. It says nothing about building. So, where, in the First Amendment, is this building permit?
uniteordie says:
From your point of view, if they are some fundies…
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus was fundamentalist. I’m glad I’m on His side and that you recognize it.
uniteordie says:
… that think this is a “victory mosque”, the greatest victory for them would come from us [sic] compromising our principles.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What “principles”?
uniteordie says:
It is already being used as propaganda to recruit more extremest…
Mr. Incredible says:
Anything anybody does in this touchy world sets somebody off. I’m not gonna live my life walking on egg shells. If you don’t like it, too bad.
uniteordie says:
… if we stop them then we show the world that we are everything that the terrorists say we are.
Mr. Incredible says:
They say it anyway.
uniteordie says:
They have had enough victories since 9-11, we don’t need to give them another.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, to YOU, we should treat them as something special, and let them do whatever they want, just so they don’t get mad at us. We understand that thinking. We reject it. Now what?
uniteordie says:
Think about it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Already have.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD !



report abuse
 

lovelystill

posted September 15, 2010 at 4:41 am


We like Burlington Coat Factory building, stupid? We love America. And we care about people who lost their lives. Ground Zero is a mass grave.
A.Fauf said it (the mosque) would be the best monument for the victims.
Is he out of his mined? No way. He just will not stop for nothing.
About tolerance and discrimination:
Mosque – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are 40000 to 50000 mosques in the United States. Mosques first appeared in the United States in the early twentieth century, the likely first being …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque – Cached – Similar



report abuse
 

Best

posted September 18, 2010 at 3:16 pm


It would be a monument to the freedom we will never relinquish in America, a testament to true religious liberty. He isn’t the only one to say it, many Christian leaders agree–REAL Christians that is.



report abuse
 

CncrndCtzns

posted October 6, 2010 at 9:13 pm


The bottom line is that our political leaders have no clue when it comes to understanding Moslems. That Mosque is more than a religious worship cneter, to the Moslem world it is a statement that says we have conquered the United States. This is how they think, this is their goal and this is what they will continue to strive for. No amount of wishing and hoping and kind words and reaching out will change fundamental Moslem philosophy and theology that is dedicated to nothing less than world domination. It would be a moral and strategic defeat of the first order to allow that Mosque to be built at any of the sites destroyed on 9/11/2001. The difficulty we face is this; under the skin the average American really does not believe in or pay attention to any kind of God, so they are clueless when it come to understanding people who believe and who are dedicated to their beliefs.



report abuse
 

MetalGoddess

posted October 8, 2010 at 7:39 pm


There were Moslems killed on 9/11 who were not hijackers. Believe me not all the people who got killed were Christians. As a matter of fact not all the people killed were even Americans. They weren’t all white either. Now that we have that established, personally I think we have more than enough synagogues, churches, and mosques. I suggest we build a library and encourage Americans to learn to read.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Whose Blood paid for sins!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:32 pm


MetalGoddess says:
There were Moslems killed on 9/11 who were not hijackers.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Muslims who hijacked those aircraft most likely didn’t know there were Muslims in those buildings and on those planes, even though they could’ve figured that there were.
In any case, though, they probably thought that it was the least the innocent Muslims could do to support the hijackers’ Cause – not that they had one – in the name of Islam.
So, your point is, well, pointless.

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



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.