Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Keep IRS Out of Churches & “under God” in the Pledge

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

 

For the past 56 years, the Internal Revenue Service has been a poorly qualified and often discriminatory watchdog of America’s houses of worship – selectively enforcing a law that censors the First Amendment free speech rights of religious institutions.

 

Let’s not forget that this IRS prohibition on endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit was not born out of some desire to bring constitutional clarity to the issue, or even to draw a bright line on church/state issues. No, this law was put in place for one simple reason:  political payback.

 

It all began in 1954, when then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson sought political retribution against an opponent who was assisted in his campaign by two non-profit organizations.  As a bill to revise the tax code was being debated on the floor of the Senate, LBJ pushed a little-noticed amendment that barred all tax-exempt groups – including churches – from participating in political activity.  The penalty:  loss of tax-exempt status.  A heavy price to pay for exercising their free speech rights.

 

Not much has changed about this issue since we debated it here two years ago.  And what I said then is still true today. This law needs to go. There needs to be a legislative remedy.  Congress needs to act and remove this government-mandated muzzle.

 

On another issue we follow closely, some important court decisions involving the words “under God” found in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

I’m glad to see that a federal appeals court rejected a Texas parent’s bid to have “under God” removed from the Texas Pledge of Allegiance.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly concluded that the Texas pledge can indeed reference God because several other state pledges and the national pledge reference God or divine grace. 

 

In writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge E. Grady Jolly said: “We conclude that the use of ‘under God’ acknowledges but does not endorse religious belief. . . .Despite the challenged ‘under God’ amendment, the pledge’s effect remains patriotic; its religious component is minimal and, when contextualized, clearly understandable as an acknowledgment of the state’s religious heritage.”

 

That decision comes just a few weeks after a federal court in Wisconsin tossed out a suit  by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) challenging the engravings of the words “under God” in the Pledge as well as the national motto at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC. 

 

The court reached the conclusion that we advocated in our amicus brief representing 50 members of Congress: that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and the suit should be dismissed. 

 

We’re also awaiting the outcome of another Pledge lawsuit filed by the FFRF. Oral arguments took place last month at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit where we’ve asked the appeals court to uphold a lower court decision that determined that the Pledge should not be removed from New Hampshire schools because it embraces patriotism, not religion. 

 

Barry, let’s keep the IRS out of churches and the words “under God” in the Pledge.

 

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

 

 

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(88)
post a comment
HG

posted October 15, 2010 at 11:28 am


Wrong on both issues Jay. The Pledge should be edited back into its original form so as to not coerce recognition of a fictional supernatural being. It represents a lie, and an attempts to force that lie upon the citzenry.
“…the Texas pledge can indeed reference God because several other state pledges and the national pledge reference God or divine grace.” That is about the silliest defense imaginable. Really. The argument seems to be that because SOME states broke the law, ALL should be allowed. Insanity.
I always finish the Pledge early, having omitted the nonsensical 1954 insertion.
We’ve already covered the IRS regulation here, …pay up or shut up. Actually the entire idea of tax exemption for religous groups should be voided. That would balance the budget, and allow for the politicalization of religion as Jay seems to think is desirable.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted October 15, 2010 at 11:37 am


The IRS isn’t in any church until the churches start to pay taxes. I spent my school years under the Original Pledge of Alligence, didn’t hurt a bit.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted October 15, 2010 at 11:37 am


Thank you HG…
Well put, well said, end of subject!



report abuse
 

Trisha

posted October 15, 2010 at 11:41 am


I teach elementary classes in Texas, and have been leading the Pledge every day for eight years without including the ‘under God’ phrase. No problems so far.
As for the IRS ruling, I think religious organizations should pay taxes like everybody else. I see no reason why they should get special treatment.



report abuse
 

Charles Wentling

posted October 15, 2010 at 12:32 pm


The IRS is only enforcing the First Amendment. Your wanting to change the First Amendment may be your goal, but it will hurt everyone in the long run.



report abuse
 

John

posted October 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm


HG,
Curious why you claim God is fictitious? Why do you think that? What are your arguments for that belief? I ask this because, as I (a former agnostic) researched the arguments for and against, I find that the philosophical arguments and historical evidences fall clearly on the side that theism is, in fact, true and that there is a God. The cosmological and teleological arguments alone are strongly supported by many scholars and I find that they stand strong. The historicity of the New Testament documents is strongly supported by many scholars as well. I point you to William Lane Craig’s works as one such example whose thorough examination and argumentation are very well researched and presented.
I understand this blog was not a “Does God Exist” one, however, it bothers me that so many people feel the need to comment on many blogs here saying “God is a myth and fictitious” and expect people to take them at face value without getting called on it. Many of us actually study religion and theology, so your hit-n-run “God is a fantasy” comment can’t go unchallenged. To those that read that comment and think, “Hmm.. yeah, why SHOULD I believe that God isn’t a fantasy”, I encourage you to read the many Christian apologists and hear their side of the story – you will find they tend to have much stronger and more reasonable arguments for theism than atheists have for their beliefs. If you don’t believe me – read William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler’s works – they are two very distinguished scholars whose argumentation for theism is very strong and reasonable (much more so than, say, Christopher Hitchens or others like that).



report abuse
 

Tony

posted October 15, 2010 at 3:39 pm


Reference John’s specious argument above: Your gratuitous assertion that the cosmological and teleological arguments somehow validate a belief in God and are supported by “many scholars” is simply your opinion and is unsupported by the evidence. William Lane Craig’s views are not taken seriously by any scholars outside of theological circles. Both the teleological and cosmological arguments are soundly refuted by science and I welcome you to point the readers to any peer-reviewed scientific literature that is, in fact, supported by “many scholars”. Good luck with that.
As to your unsubstantiated assertion that apologists have much stronger arguments for their beliefs than to atheists I can only ask you this: Why are 93% of the members of the National Academies of Science non-theists?
Nice ad hominem attack on Christopher Hitchens by the way. Amazing that the distinguished William Lane Craig, who you seem so fond of, can’t seem to defeat Hitchens in open debate even though Hitchens only addresses religion as an aside. It is not a full time job for him as it is for Craig.
VR,
Tony



report abuse
 

60srad

posted October 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm


It’s not just churches. My donation to MoveOn or other left-wing organizations is non-deductible. LBJ exercised great foresight in implementing this constraint. There are already too many threats from theocratic fascists who want to join forces with corporate fascists to destroy our democracy without giving them special tax-exemption privileges. A church is no more a “person” than a corporation is, and the more obstacles we place against the Obscene Court to overturn centuries of wisdom, the longer we can forestall that destruction. Treasonous people may be slick-tongued, but their deceit doesn’t get past those of us who were blessed with analytical minds.



report abuse
 

60srad

posted October 15, 2010 at 4:11 pm


John, the question isn’t whether God exists. It’s whether he wants his subjects to be mindless robots who listen unquestioningly to commands from modern-day scribes and pharisees.



report abuse
 

HG

posted October 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm


First, to at least reference the topic presented, I must point out that I am not the one forcing my religious belief upon everyone wishing to join in recitals of our National Pledge. If it were to be changed to state “under no gods or God whatsoever”, then you might reasonably ask “why should I have to declare something I don’t believe in order to be patriotic?” Please state your clear opinion on this issue.
Everyone draws their own conclusions as to whether God belief is based on fiction due to personal interpretation of life experience. This right of conscience is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution. My own conclusion stems mainly from observation, both social and scientific.
Socially, historically, human beings have had many god beliefs, but they no longer believe in Zeus etc. Why not? What of those people whose lives ended prior to any inkling of Christ? Are hundreds of millions of souls damned for eternity because they never heard the name of the person in Whom one MUST believe in order to achieve admittance to heaven? Simple recognition, and clarification, of the Bible story began my journey. The assertion that the Bible (certainly, it must be a specific Bible version) is the inerrant word of God struck me as unlikely. Humans are notorious liars, story tellers, and scam artists. Do not attempt to tell me this was less true a thousand years, and more, ago. The unliklihood of achieving perfection during the selection, translation, and editing process of these gospels is inescapeable. Then, there are problems with the story itself; including talking snakes, incorrect science (the creation sequence), monsters of destruction, resurrection of the embalmed dead, virgin birth, bad social policy (slavery and stonings), and inaccurate history (effectively demonstrated in posts made by Boris on this site). To believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God is ridiculous, and to stricly follow its precepts could easily require one to break our civil law and do bad things. The same can be said of following other religious dogma extant today, whose followers are equally convinced they follow the true supernatural Giver of rewards and punishments.
Scientifically, well, to conclude that the Earth is 6000+ odd years old, as Bible scholars have done, is ludicrous. Evolution is an observed fact of nature. Scientifically, there is no observation of God. Not anywhere. The response to this is that God is “intangible”, He doesn’t exist in a way that allows it to be said “There is God”. Ah. Well, that can hardly be taken that as proof of existence.
No, we can do better, and we will do better, than the God stories. It is inevitable. We are each advancing into the future as part of a body of humanity which cannot be said to have passed any threshold until the entire body is through. We’re moving that direction, and we’ll get through eventually; and, hopefully, we’ll close that door behind us.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 15, 2010 at 4:46 pm


As for God being in the pledge, well you know , they do not have to say it if they do not want to, and if they want to make some non descript pledge of something they can go in the bathroom and that lunch hour and honor their own selfishness with the whole bathroom experience to boot..
Kind of a kick off to their own agenda, so to speak…hahaha
cc



report abuse
 

Tony

posted October 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm


My apologies for not making this point in my first comment, and also apologies if someone else has pointed it out and I missed it, but does it not give pause to anyone that “under God” was added fairly recently to the pledge, and the possible reasons why it was added, or at least heavily influenced the decision, that have nothing at all to do with the truth value of theistic claims? In fact, someone did reference the pledge being just fine before “under God” was added…
VR,
Tony



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted October 15, 2010 at 9:17 pm


Like HG, I end the Pledge two words earlier than most people. I say it the way I learned it and the way it was recited by the “greatest generation”, the one that won WWII. “Under God” is wrong in the pledge because it’s wrong. A large number of Americans know there is no god and a lot more doubt it. So it’s divisive to ask people, especially students in school, to say it.
And since a lot of kids probably do take things like that seriously it has the effect of hampering atheist parents from teaching their children what they want to about religion. I suspect there are theistic parents also who don’t think the US is any more “under” their god than any other country. Then there are those who believe in multiple gods.
So “under god” is an unfortunate relic of the fear of “atheistic communism”. We make so many blunders when we’re afraid.
As for politics in churches, do you really want your church split by what party your preacher should belong to or what candidate he’s promoting? It doesn’t sound like something I’d enjoy if I were a believer. Not being a believer I might get a kick out of that part, but not the part where the government rewards preachers for promoting them, using my tax money. Nope, that would be a big step backward. I’d have hoped Jay would be smarter than that. Or does he maybe want some government pork?



report abuse
 

john

posted October 15, 2010 at 10:08 pm


It is sad that people can show no respect towards Religion and I say this as someone who is agnostic. A person’s faith or belief system is highly personal and rarely based on anything that can be proven, it is a system of values and opinions that are based on his/her views and we as a society are taught to respect those views regardless if how we feel. Just as millions have the right to reject god so should millions have the right to believe in God without reproach and abuse.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted October 15, 2010 at 10:20 pm


john just who here is in favor of obstructing anyone’s right to believe in their god? But if they try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us they should not expect to be above reproach. And if you are really agnostic I urge you to beware of those who would take away your right to doubt, at least in public, and especially to take it away from your children. Sometimes we have to put our feet down.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted October 15, 2010 at 10:55 pm


I agree with nnmns on his thought regarding god.
The reason I object to the language of “under god” is simply because
it is used to justify the whole idea being pushed by some that we are a ‘Christian Nation’ and the pledge, as it currently reads, supports such a claim, or at least in their minds.



report abuse
 

Big Gay Eric the Impaler

posted October 16, 2010 at 6:46 am


I never understand why Christians & Jews in discussions like this one never bring up the stories in the Bible where (Matthew, I think?) Jesus commanded His disciples, under a govt ordained by God (like all govt, right, St. Paul?), commanded His disciples to greet the Centurions saying, “Hail, Caesar under Zeus” (or Jupiter whatever) or where (Exodus 11:75-92) Moses ordered the Hebrew children (stuck in Egypt land after the Great Sky Pixie vanquished He Who Hath The Noodly Appendages) to greet the Egyptian monarch with “Blessed Pharaoh, son of Anubis!”
Nope. I’ll never understand that at all.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted October 16, 2010 at 11:06 am


Jay
If, as the court states, the words “under God” is only an acknowledgement and not an endorsement of religion, then why are you and the other conservative religious orgs so adament that the phrase be kept in the pledge?
Isn’t the point of religious belief that you do pay homage to your God and not just acknowledge that some people do and others don’t?
It seems to me that under the rules of blasphemy, the nation’s motto “In God We Trust” and the Knights of Columbus insistence on the addition of the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is exactly that, blasphemy. Since you are not speaking to the Creator, but about the Creator, then you are guilty of taking the Lords name in vain, i.e., committing Blasphemy. I believe there are Christian sects that make this point better than I am.
Jay Sekulo is a Blasphemer!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:08 pm


As far as referencing God in anything, for some God can be oneself, it does not signify that they believe in a higher power, for some believe that God is everything… and in everything, and they are their own God..
So end of story..
And you know what I think of that, obivously I believe in a higher power which control everything… to the point of giving others free will to let them decide, although he can take them out anytime he want to…. hence the big flood, Sodom and Gommorah.. and you know.. Although you Peter, whoever you are, may or not worship the same God as I and you might think the whole bible thing is a folktale… Loves..Cara….****



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm


wants….
Psalm 23: 1
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm


controls…
Proverbs 29: 11
a fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.
cc



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who says those were born again don't move for mountains, rather

posted October 17, 2010 at 7:11 am


What happened to the so-called “separation of Church and State”?? All of a sudden, what we were told is absolute is not so absolute??

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



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name -- the Name above ALL names, above every name that is named!!

posted October 17, 2010 at 7:15 am


Okay, so it didn’t take it all.
Here’s the whole thing:

“Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who says those who are born again don’t move for mountains, nor giants, rather they tell mountains and giants to move, and, well, they move!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus'Name, the ONLY Name by which we must be saved!

posted October 17, 2010 at 7:36 am


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

Peter says:
Jay
If, as the court states, the words “under God” is [sic] only an acknowledgement and not an endorsement of religion, then why are you and the other conservative religious orgs so adament that the phrase be kept in the pledge?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz it acknowledges God, not “religion.”
Peter says:
Isn’t the point of religious belief that you do pay homage to your God and not just acknowledge that some people do and others don’t?
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s enough, in this case, that the acknowledgment is there. We take it as paying homage, too.
Peter says:
It seems to me that under the rules of blasphemy…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where are these “rules”??
Peter says:
… the nation’s motto “In God We Trust” and the Knights of Columbus insistence on the addition of the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is exactly that, blasphemy.
Mr. Incredible asks:
You figure that how??
Peter says:
Since you are not speaking to the Creator, but about the Creator, then you are guilty of taking the Lords name in vain, i.e., committing Blasphemy.
Mr. Incredible says:
Actually, no we aren’t. The word, “vain,” refers to, “empty, worthless.” It isn’t worthless to acknowledge and – as we take it – to pay homage to Him. It is perfectly scriptural to talk positively ABOUT God.
Peter says:
God I believe there are Christian sects that make this point better than I am.
Mr. Incredible says:
There are perverse spirits mingled within those congregations.
Peter says:
Jay Sekulo Is a Blasphemer!
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who says??



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted October 17, 2010 at 7:40 am


Gwyddion9 says:
I agree with nnmns on his thought regarding god.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
Gwyddion9 says:
The reason I object to the language of “under god” is simply because
it is used to justify the whole idea being pushed by some that we are a ‘Christian Nation’ and the pledge, as it currently reads, supports such a claim, or at least in their minds.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Well, if it doesn’t do so in YOUR mind, wuddyoucare? There’s no impact on YOU.

AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the True Light!

posted October 17, 2010 at 8:00 am


nnmns says:
“Under God” is wrong in the pledge because it’s wrong.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who says?
nnmns says:
A large number of Americans know there is no god…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What’s “large”? How do they “know”?
The very vast majority believe THAT there is God and trust in Him. Atheists are in the mid-single digits. Off the radar.
nnmns says:
And a lot more doubt it.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What’s “a lot”?
nnmns says:
So it’s divisive to ask people, especially students in school, to say it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Maybe they ARE asked. So what? They can say what they want.
nnmns says:
And since a lot of kids probably do take things like that seriously it has the effect of hampering atheist parents from teaching their children what they want to about religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
Their parents just have-ta get better arguments.
Anyways, am I hampering those parents by talking about God and His Word?? It’s ludicrous.
nnmns says:
I suspect there are theistic parents also who don’t think the US is any more “under” their god…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
nnmns says:
…than any other country.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So what?
nnmns says:
Then there are those who believe in multiple gods.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Again, so what?
nnmns says:
So “under god”…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which does not appear in the pledge.
nnmns says:
… is an unfortunate relic of the fear of “atheistic communism”.
Mr. Incredible asks:
According to whom is it “unfortunate”?
nnmns says:
We make so many blunders when we’re afraid.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, God didn’t give those who are born again the spirit of fear. So, what’s your point?
nnmns says:
As for politics in churches…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which, in general, is not against the law.
nnmns says:
… do you really want your church split by what party your preacher should belong to or what candidate he’s promoting?
Mr. Incredible says:
It depends on whether he relies on the Word of God, or his own understanding.
nnmns says:
It doesn’t sound like something I’d enjoy if I were a believer.
Mr. Incredible asks:
If you don’t have the experience of being a Believer, how do you know?
nnmns says:
Not being a believer I might get a kick out of that part, but not the part where the government rewards preachers for promoting them, using my tax money.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Promoting who? The law prohibits “campaign activity.” It’s not clear that naming a candidate makes the preacher a member of the campaign.

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted October 17, 2010 at 5:35 pm


Mr. I, in my experience people use fancy formatting and ostentatious use of space and such when they are lacking in substance. Your space-devouring diatribes reinforce that opinion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:13 pm


nnmns says:
Mr. I, in my experience people use fancy formatting and ostentatious…
Mr. Incredible translates that:

“Hey, everybody! Lookit me! I gotta thesaurus!”

nnmns says:
…use of space and such when they are lacking in substance.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, so, you offer no substance of your own. We understand.
nnmns says:
Your space-devouring diatribes reinforce that opinion.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Gee. Does that mean the trip to Disneyland is off?

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



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who will cast out none who come to Him!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:20 pm


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

nnmns says:
Your space-devouring diatribes…
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, you believe that there are a limited amount of electrons for us to use here, and that I am over-quota? Is that YOUR quota, or somebody else’s?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the Light of the world!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:25 pm


nnmns says:
October 17, 2010 5:35 PM
Mr. I, in my experience people use fancy formatting…
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re just jealous, not to mention overwhelmed, that I’m so good at it and that I can do it so fast. Naturally, you’ll deny it.

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:33 pm


Not jealous, but underwhelmed. Your posts speak for themselves, and for you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Light That shines on all who believe on Him!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:40 pm


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

nnmns says:
Your space-devouring diatribes…
Mr. Incredible says:
Some people post a lot. Some people don’t post a lot. Everybody has the Right to choose whether to post and whether to post a lot. The choice is theirs to make. They must be mature enough to accept that responsibility.

THANK THE LORD

that I have the resources to help me post quickly and easily. For me, it’s not a chore, rather a joy.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who does not take His eye off the Righteous!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:43 pm


nnmns says:
Not jealous, but underwhelmed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, well.
nnmns says:
Your posts speak for themselves, and for you.
Mr. Incredible says:
A badge of honor! A bouquet of flowers! Thanks!

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



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who has overcome the world and, through Him, we, too!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:48 pm


nnmns says:
Your posts speak for themselves, and for you.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, you fail, naturally, to specify where YOU believe I went off the tracks. You’re scared that I will formidably answer your assertions and accusations.

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus'Name, the ONLY Name by which we must be saved!

posted October 17, 2010 at 6:54 pm


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

nnmns says:
October 17, 2010 5:35 PM
Mr. I, in my experience people use fancy formatting…
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re just jealous, not to mention overwhelmed, that I’m so good at it and that I can do it so fast. Naturally, you’ll deny it.
nnmns says:
Not jealous…
Mr. Incredible says:
See?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who says that we don't move for mountains and giants, they move

posted October 17, 2010 at 7:18 pm


Given what is alleged to be the so-called “separation of Church and State,” what’s the IRS doin’ messin’ with churches??

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



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Son of God!

posted October 17, 2010 at 7:33 pm


JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !

60srad says:
A church is no more a “person” than a corporation is…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that the law says otherwise, that corporations are what the law calls “jural persons” – that is, the law treats them as persons.



report abuse
 

Debunker

posted October 18, 2010 at 9:56 am


“Under God” – yes, but also under the law and in accordance with IRS rules.



report abuse
 

Irate blogger

posted October 18, 2010 at 10:06 am


Please do something about this ‘incredible’ @zzhole – he ruins every thread he infests.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted October 18, 2010 at 10:23 am


Agreed. That’s bad posting.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted October 18, 2010 at 10:26 pm


Seems there’s not a blog on B’net that dares to shut the not-credible one up. That may be its own silver lining – he’s turning more people off Jesus and Christianity (and religion in general) than Satan ever could: he’s BORING people to death with unreadably-formatted drivel.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted October 18, 2010 at 10:35 pm


Grumpy Old Person,
Indeed you are right about Mr. Incredibly Boring. I have had my fun poking him in the eye upon occasion but that was about it. He never actually responds to any point and just continues on waving his pom-poms for Jesus. I have generally quit coming here to post, I still read the posts by Lynn and Sekulow but there is not much use posting, Mr. Incredibly Childish just abuses his keyboard and produces the same stuff as ever and effectively drowns out any real comments. Generally the whole thing is odd, I think it is really as you pointed out, anyone who comes here and reads his stuff probably leaves with a fairly dim view of conservative Christians.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted October 18, 2010 at 10:45 pm


Gwyddion9 says:
The reason I object to the language of “under god” is simply because
it is used to justify the whole idea being pushed by some that we are a ‘Christian Nation’ and the pledge, as it currently reads, supports such a claim, or at least in their minds.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Well, if it doesn’t do so in YOUR mind, wuddyoucare? There’s no impact on YOU.
Because those of my religious beliefs aren’t interested in creating a country based solely on any religious beliefs where ONE particular religion has preference or sway over others. I see this same thing in Islamic countries and have no doubt that conservative Christians would do the same thing here in the U.S. if given even a chance to do so. PROTECT THE WALL!!!



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted October 18, 2010 at 10:48 pm


I think that a separation of Church and State should be added to the constitution so … NO RELIGION … will ever have the opportunity to seize control over the People and Government of the United States.



report abuse
 

HG

posted October 19, 2010 at 3:54 am


Yes, it seems like the debate is often between mostly intelligent, reasonable people, and one or two who poorly discern reality and fail to distinguish government from religion. Since reason has no effect on those parties, responding becomes pointless. Yet, a common desire to set straight that which offends intelligence and reason seems to compel me, and several others here I see, to express our displeasure at it being espoused. Mustn’t let the loonies run the asylum.



report abuse
 

tekgiz

posted October 19, 2010 at 9:45 pm


It seems to me that those who are seeking to remove ‘under God’ are missing a key point, that that particular phrase can reasonably be identified as a Christian citation, and more specifically a Protestant Christian citation.
Were such a phrase uttered by a Muslin, it would be Allah, not God, referred to. An observant Jew wouldn’t even attempt to write the name, a Buddhist would invoke Buddha, a Catholic would invoke either the Trinity, or God, the Father. For other, less observed religions I have been unable to find a single one that would use ‘God’ as a designator, either a specific name would be invoked, or the invocation of a deity’s name is prohibited in an essentially secular frame of reference.



report abuse
 

HG

posted October 19, 2010 at 10:47 pm


Good point tekgiz, it showcases the fact that this is an overt, and highly divisive, religious phrase. I can’t imagine how our judicial system could ignore public outcry, and fail to recognize the obvious; that the phrase “under God” is inherently religious. Of course it’s religious, it was inserted with intended religious zeal by the endorsing President, Ike Eisenhower. This should be an easy slam-dunk!



report abuse
 

Pat Parker

posted October 19, 2010 at 11:11 pm


Why can’t we say, “under The Great Spirit”? After all, weren’t the Native Americans the original believers in this nation?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted October 20, 2010 at 12:27 am


Tekgiz,
You are of course right. I think everyone knows that the pledge refers to the Christian god. I always find it interesting that a bunch of so-called moral religious people deny this fact and say “Oh no, it is really just an acknowledgment of the historical role of religion in America”. Yeah, right. I think we call that lying.
I am atheist, so my objection will likely be obvious. However, I also know religious folks who object because they think it simply has no place. Some object, because they think it taking the name of God in vain. I also know some folks who believe in multiple Gods. Any reasonable person can see that this is advertising for monotheism.



report abuse
 

HG

posted October 20, 2010 at 2:04 am


Rich, glad to see you haven’t entirely given up checking in here. I’d be interested in any continuing comments you have re: the sentient singularity. We both allow that it’s a good trick, but so is the expansion. If sentient life exists within the expansion, hasn’t it always? Or, is it possible to say that the random occurence of life, and sentience, was predestined by the expansion of that which did not contain it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the name of Jesus who is treating me as a puppet

posted October 20, 2010 at 11:58 am


Bow down to me, for I am right! I have the hand of Jesus up my a$$ and speak none other than his words, for I am but an ignorant puppet and unworthy of any real thought.
Yeah warily I preach the gospel that puts money in my pockets and places me in dominion over those who do not agree with every jot and tittle that passes my lips. Thus sayeth the Lord’s puppet!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the name of Jesus, the only name by which men are saved

posted October 20, 2010 at 12:00 pm


Satan sends his willing fools to imitate and mock, but only Jesus can save. Praise His Holy Name!



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted October 20, 2010 at 5:47 pm


“Satan sends his willing fools to imitate and mock, but only Jesus can save. Praise His Holy Name!”
YAWN…



report abuse
 

Mrs. Incredibly worried about our marriage despite Jesus's love

posted October 21, 2010 at 4:57 pm


Could some blogger here on Beliefnet please stop allowing my husband to post his idiotic, inane blatherings? It’s ruining our marriage, what with all the time he spends here.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 21, 2010 at 5:28 pm


and who are you…… ?
Just wondering….?
Blathering…?
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 21, 2010 at 5:29 pm


Praise what, I like music…
And that’s all folks…cc



report abuse
 

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

posted October 24, 2010 at 8:19 am


Mrs. Incredibly worried about our marriage despite Jesus’s love:
Could some blogger here on Beliefnet please stop allowing my husband to post his idiotic, inane blatherings? It’s ruining our marriage, what with all the time he spends here.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, looks like you’ll just have-ta get over it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:02 am


Debunker says:
“Under God” – yes, but also under the law and in accordance with IRS rules.
Mr. Incredible says:
No law has been broken. No IRS rule has been broken.

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



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name -- the Name above ALL names, above every name that is named!!

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:04 am


Irate blogger says:
Please do something about this ‘incredible’ @zzhole – he ruins every thread he infests.
Mr. Incredible translates that:

“He stands in the way of my propaganda!”

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



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who will cast out none who come to Him!

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:05 am


Grumpy Old Person says:
October 18, 2010 10:26 PM
Seems there’s not a blog on B’net that dares to shut the not-credible one up.
Mr. Incredible says:
Why should they? Just cuz YOU say so??
Grumpy Old Person says:
… he’s turning more people off Jesus and Christianity (and religion in general) than Satan ever could…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that people are responsible for their own decisions. I can’t turn anyone against Jesus and Christianity. I don’t have that power. You’re not giving me that power, are you?
Grumpy Old Person says:
…: he’s BORING people to with unreadably-formatted drivel.
Mr. Incredible asks:
You have a mouse, don’t you? You have fingers, no? Can’t you scroll past my posts? I don’t mind.

AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.



report abuse
 

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

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:06 am


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

Rich says:
Grumpy Old Person,
I have had my fun poking him in the eye upon occasion…
Mr. Incredible says:
Never landed.
Rich says:
… but that was about it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, that was about it.
Rich says:
He never actually responds to any point…
Mr. Incredible says:
You never read the posts to find out that I actually do.
Rich says:
… and just continues on waving his pom-poms for Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
Exciting, isn’t it. Your eyes burn, huh.
Rich says:
I have generally quit coming here to post…
Mr. Incredible says:
Awwwww.
Rich says:
…I still read the posts by Lynn and Sekulow but there is not much use posting…
Mr. Incredible translates that:

“I just can’t make Mr. Incredible come over to the dark side.”

Rich says:
…Mr. Incredibly Childish just abuses his keyboard…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, I just don’t use it to tap out messages pleasing to you.
Rich says:
… and produces the same stuff as ever and effectively drowns out any real comments.
Mr. Incredible says:
How can I drown anybody out??? I can’t stop anybody from posting. There are enough electrons for everybody.
Rich says:
… anyone who comes here and reads his stuff probably leaves with a fairly dim view of conservative Christians.
Mr. Incredible says:
You mean to say that everybody who agrees with YOU does. But so what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Light That shines on all who believe on Him!

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:07 am


Gwyddion9 says:
The reason I object to the language of “under god” is simply because
it is used to justify the whole idea being pushed by some that we are a ‘Christian Nation’ and the pledge, as it currently reads, supports such a claim, or at least in their minds.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Well, if it doesn’t do so in YOUR mind, wuddyoucare? There’s no impact on YOU.
Gwyddion9 says:
Because those of my religious beliefs aren’t interested in creating a country based solely on any religious beliefs…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody wants to create a country based solely on any “religious” beliefs. You believe your own propaganda.
Gwyddion9 says:
… where ONE particular religion has preference or sway over others.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Preference,” or “sway,” is on another level than what YOUR propagandizing.
Gwyddion9 says:
I see this same thing in Islamic countries…
Mr. Incredible says:
Islam is a “religion.” It is a set of rules. Christianity is not. Christianity is a relationship with God through Christ. Muslims believe that they must adhere to rules in order to please Allah.
Gwyddion9 says:
… and have no doubt that conservative Christians would do the same thing here in the U.S. if given even a chance to do so.
Mr. Incredible says:
Too bad you’re so taken by your own propaganda.
Gwyddion9 says:
PROTECT THE WALL!!!
Mr. Incredible asks:
What “wall”?

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



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who does not take His eye off the Righteous!

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:08 am


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

Gwyddion9 says:
I think that a separation of Church and State should be added to the constitution so … NO RELIGION … will ever have the opportunity to seize control over the People and Government of the United States.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, all you need to do is get Congress to go along with you, then three-fourths of the state legislatures. How d’you think that’ll go?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who has overcome the world and, through Him, we, too!

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:09 am


HG says:
Yes, it seems like the debate is often between mostly intelligent, reasonable people, and one or two who poorly discern reality…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “reality”?
HG says:
…and fail to distinguish government from religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, according to YOU, YOU have, or so YOU say, all the answers, according to YOU.
HG says:
Since reason has no effect on those parties…
Mr. Incredible says:
You mean, YOUR reason.
HG says:
… responding becomes pointless.
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, with all the power you claim to have, you don’t have the power to persuade us. Heh.
HG says:
Yet, a common desire…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Common,” according to whom?
HG says:
… to set straight…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, to impose your views on others.
HG says:
… that which offends intelligence and reason…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, YOUR “intelligence and reason.”
HG says:
…seems to compel me…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, you are compelled by your imagination to try to get us to come around to YOUR ways of imagination.
HG says:
… and several others here I see, to express our displeasure at it being espoused.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody says Free Speech is easy.
HG says:
Mustn’t let the loonies run the asylum.
Mr. Incredible says:
Good thing we aren’t in an asylum. We’ll leave that to those of you who are in the asylum.

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who says, "Keep My saying!"

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:47 am


= = what with all the time he spends here. = =
Mr. Incredible says:
You’ll notice, if you check the times of my posts, I spend very little time here. My resources allow me to post a lot, quickly. I must post a lot cuz there are things to say in response to the many things that have been posted during the time I have disappeared for one, two, or three, weeks. After all, that’s what we’re called to do, post, no?
I disappear cuz nobody can keep up with me, thanks to my resources. So, there’s no use sticking around waiting for you people to catch up. Your posts will be there when I get back.

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Son of God!

posted October 24, 2010 at 10:02 am


AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.

==Could some blogger here on Beliefnet please stop allowing my husband to post his idiotic, inane blatherings? It’s ruining our marriage, what with all the time he spends here.==
Mr. Incredible asks:
Don’t you need to go out and meet the fleet?



report abuse
 

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

posted October 24, 2010 at 10:50 am


Grumpy Old Person says:
… he’s turning more people off Jesus and Christianity (and religion in general) than Satan ever could…
Mr. Incredible says:
You mean to tell me – tell US – that my power to turn people off is more than Jesus’ power to turn them on??? And they, themselves, admit to giving me more power than Jesus has???
Well, I gotta news bulletin for them –
They are responsible for diminishing the power of Christ and holding me responsible for wielding, they say, more power than Christ. Of course, I don’t have that power, but YOU say that I do.
So, which is it?

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



report abuse
 

Troy

posted November 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm


After looking at the comments on this subject, I see how logic, reason, and law are used by those who endorse removing “under God” from the Pledge. On the other side I see people content to ignore logic, reason, and law in a divisive attempt to force religious belief into our National Pledge.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted November 2, 2010 at 3:10 am


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

Troy says:
After looking at the comments on this subject, I see how logic, reason, and law are used by those who endorse removing “under God” from the Pledge.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, you never see them quote the law, specifically, the provisions of the law which is clear.
Troy says:
On the other side I see people content to ignore logic, reason, and law in a divisive attempt to force religious belief into our National Pledge.
Mr. Incredible says:
I prefer to the law, in specific terms, several times. What the law says those NOT match what the secularists say.
In any case, the term, “under God,” in the Pledge, comes from the previously-written fourth stanza of the Star-Spangled Banner, the National Anthem.



report abuse
 

Texas Girl

posted November 3, 2010 at 9:38 am


If people would stop arguing and answer the question this would be much better to read, but you two have to continue to argue. What a drag. I am a Christian woman and a devout believer and I was a teacher. We said the pledge every morning and no one was upset by saying UNDER GOD, so just leave it and dont drag kids into an Adult issue. As far as churches, they donates a lot of their money to missionaries and to other non-profit organizations why should they be taxed when they are taking the money and donating it to other organizations. At least that is what MY church does.And it is a non-donominational church. So just shut up about God and religious beliefs. People are going to believe what they want and neither of you are going to change anyones mind.



report abuse
 

Troy

posted November 3, 2010 at 1:50 pm


“We said the pledge every morning and no one was upset by saying UNDER GOD, so just leave it…”
Well, now people ARE upset by it, so just take it out.



report abuse
 

HG

posted November 3, 2010 at 3:00 pm


“So just shut up about God and religious beliefs.”
Great advice there Texas Girl, but your recommendations to leave Under God in the Pledge and alter IRS regulations are not such good ideas.



report abuse
 

David Fryer

posted November 7, 2010 at 4:39 pm


Please read the writings of the founding fathers. The first ammendment was entirely intended to protect religions from government, not the other way around. Hence the reason they called it Freedom of Religion and not Freedom From Religion.



report abuse
 

HG

posted November 7, 2010 at 5:06 pm


I have read the writings of the Founding Fathers. Here’s a great example by James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and fourth President:
“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.”
Does this not suggest to you that he thought there exists in the Constitution a “separation between Religion and Government”? Does it not suggest he was aware of ecclesiastical encroachments, and that he thought them a danger? It does to me.
To accept the Constitution, one must recognize that the The Supreme Court has been appointed the final arbiter on matters of constitutionality, and its decisions leave even less doubt than Madison. When you state: “The first ammendment was entirely intended to protect religions from government, not the other way around”, you are contradicting the Supreme Court. Basically, you’re saying they got it wrong where you get it right. I don’t see evidence of that so I’ll stick with the Supreme Court Justices and established American jurisprudence. I get a much different meaning than you do when I read the First Amendment, and so does the Supreme Court.



report abuse
 

Karen Mulhern

posted November 9, 2010 at 11:02 am


What I would like to know is that Why we need to swear on the Bible when they will not acknowledge the Ten Commandments on the Court Walls. These are our Creator’s Laws, Not mans’ laws, Right? Okay now.
Let’s get on with it. I think that each religion should have the expressed right to be able to say their own religious prayers of their belief and not be forced to say otherwise. Now, I am a christian non- denominatioal and of a jewish faith that believes on such but will or would not press my my prayers onto others of other faiths. I do have respect. Not like the A-Qaida’s and other extremists beliefs tat all oters who are not of them should be elimainated. They need not to be living in the old testiment. Thankyou.



report abuse
 

Rick Story

posted November 9, 2010 at 11:33 am


The words Separation between church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist church in 1786. Jefferson’s concern of the day was that the Government would come in and establish their own religion. Thus needing a wall of separation between the church and state to protect the individuals right for religious freedom. This letter clearly shows the intent of our founding fathers and it was not intended to be twisted around to remove God from the frame work of the United States. I have posted a link below if you want to get more information and read that letter yourself. It never ceases to amaze me that the ones speaking out against God never show their true identity. So if you want to fight God and his people step out onto the light and fight. Also If you can’t explain something in simple terms then you truly don’t understand what it is your trying to explain in the first place. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html



report abuse
 

Rick Story

posted November 9, 2010 at 11:39 am


HG you continue to hang yourself on that one sentence read the Jefferson letter that I have posted. It clearly defines what our founding fathers intent was.



report abuse
 

Rick Story

posted November 9, 2010 at 11:55 am


HG the term you are so tied up on from Madison’s quote is Ecclesiastical Bodies. This is a body of elected officials. So what Madison is trying to avoid is a State run church that would clearly go against and individuals right for religious freedoms.



report abuse
 

HG

posted November 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm


Rick, “ecclestiastical”: 1. of the church, the organization of the church, or the clergy 2. used chiefly in early writing relating
to christianity.
Perhaps you were confusing it with eclecticism?
Madison wrote, warned, of ecclesiastic encroachments because he had seen first-hand evidence of such attempted encroachments; and vetoed them.
So, you see, the idea of the “separation between religion and government” was firmly established in the Constitution by the man who, largely, wrote the document. The phrase “separation between church and state” was a Jeffersonian bastardization of Madison’s phrase. Always go to the fountainhead for the purest issuance.
You also must certainly acknowledge that the Supreme Court, the Constitutionally appointed final interpreter of all things Constitutional, has ruled repeatedly that there is a Constitutionally intended separation between religion and government.
re: “So if you want to fight God and his people step out onto the light and fight. Also If you can’t explain something in simple terms then you truly don’t understand what it is your trying to explain in the first place.”
If you want to fight against the U.S. Constitution, but don’t have sufficient brain-power to properly look up a word, you’re probably better off staying in the dark. Otherwise, you get burned like an ant under a magnifying glass.



report abuse
 

Geeyah

posted November 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm


In the modern times, we are seeing churches becoming organizations instead of houses of worship. They have proven that the IRS should monitor the income of the churches. Jim & Tammy Baker swindled their members and others out of millions. The mega churches makes millions and most, if not all are filthy rich while their members are struggling. If they are forced to pay taxes, they would be more apt to share or support their members. The tithes are converted into investments, none of which are shared with their followers. If I contribute to a cause, one would think I should share in the profit. I heard that there is a IRS regulation that specifics that if a church is operated as an “organization” (which most are) they are required under the 301(c)regulation to pay taxes. What happens when the churches become so – greedy that they forget the purpose in which they were chosen to serve. They lose sight of the real reason for their existence. Wake up people and notice, “my people perish for the lack of knowledge”.



report abuse
 

HG

posted November 9, 2010 at 6:16 pm


Yes, Geeyah, Madison expressed the same concern when he noted:
“The danger of silent accumulations [of property and money] and encroachments [actions exceeding proper limits] by ecclesiastical bodies [churches] have not sufficiently engaged attention in the United States.”



report abuse
 

William Gartrell

posted November 10, 2010 at 11:26 am


I think That our Gov’mnt Should take into consideration of a One God and His Son Jesus as Saviour, And all other so called Religions should be banned ! As they are all Excerpts of Satanism ! In one way or another ! Our Gov’mnt Should operate under the Laws of God ! Not by a Supreme Court to swerve away from Godly conduct in all affairs ! Separation of Church and State Should be deleted , also Teaching of God and his words in Schools should be permitted ! All other omitted ! This is a Country founded on Christian Principles, and it should remain so ! As ” In God We Trust ” ! The Churches that have a huge surplus of funds should be made to contribute to the struggling churches , Remember Greed ! Or to the needs of the poor and needy , and sick and maimed ! Pat Robertson Organization is one of those ! May God Bless These United States and All Godly Members of this Nation ! In Jesus Name Amen ! And may the ungodly seek out other evil counries to do their Devilish deeds !



report abuse
 

USA, USA, USA

posted November 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm


No, this country is not founded on xtian principles, and the original motto was E Pluribus Unum. Churches were filled with greed and corruption, that’s why we took away their governing powers to begin with. Now, the trend is toward recognition that the whole Bible story is as fictional as Zeus. But that should still works for people like William G., because we still allow everyone their own belief even if it is mind numbingly dumb.



report abuse
 

Phillip Smith

posted November 14, 2010 at 2:06 am


Dear oh dear, oh dear! I guess, to be fair to the respondents here, thereIt seems by the look of the sentiments expressed here, that it confirms my belief for quite a while, and that is that, despite the election of Barack Obama, fundamentalism is alive and well in the U.S, awesome country that it is(recently been to California, by the way, our 7th trip to the U.S!!). As “Geeyah” just wrote, to paraphrase, it just demonstates, the hypocrisy of some(not all), of these megachurches can escape having to pay taxes to the IRS. I don’t live in the U.S, so and don’t know all the facts, so obviously can’t say much. Suffice to say, that it seems a bit of a rort, that they(quite rightly), pledge millions to help the poor, but yet spend millions on cars, and what not. Having said that, though, it’s not all bad, as I also see an upside to these churches, particularly in Africa, and in Third World countries, where are literally a Godsend to the poor in these countries. Interesting article. Thanks.



report abuse
 

Denise Rogers

posted November 24, 2010 at 11:16 am


I totally agree with William Gartell, this is just the anti-christ getting ready to come on the scene. why cant the mega churches help the smaller one, the small churches are the ones that go out into the community doing the great commission. God help this country. IRS go bother the big corporations that get the easy tax breaks..



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm


Oooh,look out, here comes the anti-christ. Whoops, false alarm, it was only a judge or IRS agent some dolt disagreed with.



report abuse
 

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

posted December 1, 2010 at 8:48 am


It happens while men sleep [Matthew 13:25], just as when Nazi orchestras played nice music as the Jews walked willingly to the tunes into the showers.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Son of God!

posted December 1, 2010 at 8:50 am


Jesus was fundamentalist. I can be no less.



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.