Federal Judge Rules North Carolina Commissioners Can’t Present Prayers Only in Jesus’ Name

Washington Prayer pdROWAN COUNTY, Md. — A federal judge in North Carolina has ruled that commissioners in one local county can’t present prayers only in Jesus’ name even if they all are Christians because doing so isn’t “nondiscriminatory” toward other religions and elevates Christianity in government.

As previously reported, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) had filed suit against the Rowan County commissioners in March 2013, complaining that their invocations have asserted that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” and thank the Lord for the “virgin birth,” the “cross at Calvary” and “the resurrection.”

“I want my local government to be open and welcoming to people of all beliefs,” Nan Lund, a local resident who is among three plaintiffs named in the suit, stated in a news release announcing the legal challenge. “But when officials begin a public meeting with prayers that are specific to only one religious viewpoint, I feel unwelcome and excluded.”

In July 2013, federal Judge James A. Beaty Jr., nominated to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton, sided with the ACLU and the three complainants, ordering the commissioners to end their Christian prayer practice while the case moves forward in court.

“Defendant Rowan County, North Carolina is hereby enjoined from knowingly and/or intentionally delivering or allowing to be delivered sectarian prayers at meetings of the Rowan County Board of Commissioners during the pendency of this suit,” he wrote in his order.

On Monday, Beaty issued his final decision, declaring the prayers predominantly in Jesus’ name to be unconstitutional.

“The practice fails to be nondiscriminatory, entangles government with religion, and over time, establishes a pattern of prayers that tends to advance the Christian faith of the elected commissioners at the expense of any religious affiliation unrepresented by the majority,” he wrote.

  • Connect with Christian News

Beaty pointed to the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in Greece v. Galloway, which approved city council prayers in Greece, New York that were predominantly–but not solely–Christian. Beaty asserted that Rowan County’s practice was different because the prayers were only Christian since its commissioners all identify as Christians.

“While an all-comers policy is not necessarily required, a nondiscriminatory one is,” he said. “When all faiths but those of the five elected commissioners are excluded, the policy inherently discriminates and disfavors religious minorities.”

However, some are now calling upon the county to appeal the ruling, which they believe runs afoul to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Dean Hunter, a pastor at Central Baptist Church in Kannapolis, told Time Warner Cable News that he would like officials to continue the fight.

“Personal religious affiliation, their relationship with Christ, is being attacked,” he said. “Whatever that religion may be, I believe they have the fundamental basic, constitutional right to pray their religious affiliation.”

In September 2013, following the filing of the legal challenge, hundreds rallied in support of the commissioner’s right to pray in Jesus name—even if no other types of prayers are presented because the commissioners all espouse the same faith.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Frank

    This is a ruling to fully ignore. Keep praying.

    • Kyle Edwards

      Get out your checkbook then..big talk talk from small minds.

      • GibbyD

        You cannot restrict the 1st amendment rights of an American citizen. Elected officials have freedom of speech. If you do not like the person,then vote for someone else next time.

        • bill2

          their first amendment rights are still intact. they jsut cannot exulude other rlegions

          • Mr. Avatar

            No their not!

          • amostpolitedebate

            Yes they’re are!

          • Mr. Avatar

            And by what logic is this? If you have eroded one right, then your not in compliance with freedom of speech or religion.

          • uzza

            LOL!

          • GibbyD

            And no other religion is excluded when any country commissioner is allowed to pray in any name they wish to .

          • bill2

            it is if they refuse to allow others to pray

          • GibbyD

            If the courts have allowed prayer in the first place at those venues , and they have , then they can’t restrict , define or prohibit the free exercise of that right . The people ,if offended , can try and force a person to resign and if that does not work , they can vote him out. Some places even allow for a recall vote before a term in finished. A appointed politically bent judge though , should not be making that decision .

          • bill2

            but they do as per the Constitution.

          • GibbyD

            any temporary unconstitutional ruling by city ordinance or lower court, will be overturned by higher courts. What in the constitution do you believe gives someone the right to prohibit the free exercise of religion ? Maybe I misunderstand you comment

          • bill2

            this ruling is supported by previous ones made by the high courts

          • GibbyD

            The courts have already decided that prayer is not a violation. This one judge is trying to do an end run around that and create criteria as to how someone should pray. The rights of other as not violated because there is opportunity for them to speak and or pray too , even at those meetings .

          • bill2

            it is if they excludes others which they did

          • GibbyD

            Go to your local county commissioner meeting and ask to be given and opportunity to speak . You will be afforded that opportunity and when you do , you can address any issue of concern to you and in doing so you can also pray how ever you wish .

          • bill2

            but not in north Carolina

          • GibbyD

            One county in North Carolina and they can easily adjust the procedures to allow others to pray in whatever name they want.

          • bill2

            which is what this rules achieved

          • GibbyD

            Most commissioner meetings that I am aware of have opportunity for open forums where the constituents can also give voice to their ideas. They can use that time to pray when given the mic , if they want to.

          • Nathan Marcy

            The Commisioners represent the government whenever they are working, just as any person represents their employer. My employer can restrict my behavior during work hours, and can punish me for not complying. Similarly, there are restrictions placed upon those that work for the government.

          • GibbyD

            And in this case the employers are the voters ( we the people ) that can fire him or her by recall vote , if applicable , or in the next election. The county commissioners represent THE PEOPLE that voted for he or she and freely chose that person by democratic procedure. If the people do not like the performance of an elected official , they can vote them out.

          • Nathan Marcy

            Because of their position, what they said broke the law. They will likely be re-elected, but they’ll pay a hefty fine for what they did.

          • GibbyD

            There will be no fines for protected free speech. The courts have already decided that praying at a county commissioner meeting is protected free speech. What this judge is trying to do now is go around the existing law and find a loophole by attempting to censor that speech and or prayer. The higher courts have always defended the right of the one doing the speaking. Even the liberal ones on the Supreme court have sided with free speech and prayer.

          • bill2

            that would be a wast of everyone’s time

          • GibbyD

            Nevertheless , that is the custom at some county commissioner meetings

          • bill2

            and it needs to stop.

          • GibbyD

            Would be tyrants need to stop trying to attack and destroy the United States Constitution and the rights that are given to every U.S. citizen.

          • bill2

            that’s what we are trying to do. stop religious tyrant from destroying our secular Constitution

          • GibbyD

            The constitution, signed by and agreed to by our founders, protects all . Those founders were all religious men , even the Deists

        • amostpolitedebate

          We put all kinds of restrictions on free speech. “Yelling fire in a crowed theater” and all that. One of the long agreed upon restrictions is for public officials doing public business since their actions in many ways ARE the actions of the state. If a Judge reads from the book of Mormon before a trial that is a de-facto endorsement of Mormonism by the state, which is supposed to be a neutral third party. They can still publicly state whatever belief they want, but they need to do so outside of the official capacity of their jobs.

          This works in Christian’s favor too by the way since it’s the main reason “Sharia Law” can never be a thing.

          • GibbyD

            An elected official can speak the name of Jesus and pray in His name anytime they want to. A judge is in a capacity where he needs to keep the scales of justice in balance. He would even need to not take a case before him if he has a vested interest in the outcome of a decision that would have to be made. This is the reason why there are two liberal judges on the United States Supreme court that should take themselves off the the case now before them that will decide if homosexual marriage is a constitutionally protected right. They spoke for and work for the promotion of homosexual marriage before they were appointed to the court by Obama. A local county commissioner is not in that position so his 1st amendment rights expressing his faith in The LORD Jesus or any other faith, would not be a violation of anything. He or she is free to pray and in any name their belief and free will leads them to pray in. Your yelling fire in a crowded theater example does not apply because there is no danger of anyone being tramped or having a heart attack if someone prays in the name of Whoever.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Dude. You can just say “Jesus”. We’re on a Christian news site everybody knows who he is. You don’t need to add LORD in all caps every time you say his name. It’s weird, man.

            That aside I suppose I can respect this point of view (while respectfully disagreeing) as long as you acknowledge that public officials should not be making actual decisions on solely religious grounds. Which is the bigger issue I think.

          • GibbyD

            What would be an example of making a decision based solely on religious grounds? You mean like helping and caring for others on occasion by strengthening the hand of the poor? Do you mean like giving tax breaks to those that help widows and orphans ? This is simply a question of someone praying in the name of Jesus and asking God to guide in a meeting and grant wisdom. The United States House of Representatives and Senate open up each day with prayer.

          • amostpolitedebate

            I’m talking more about stuff like banning sardines because the technical bylaws of your personal faith prohibit it. That sort of thing. If you can’t make a pragmatic, evidence-based case for what you’re doing then you should probably not be doing it through the government.

          • GibbyD

            And if so , one way or the other, “we the people” will see that and vote accordingly .

          • amostpolitedebate

            Except… they don’t really. Especially if the harmed party is a minority that’s unpopular with limited political power. Political change is incredibly hard and not everyone has the resources to unseat a sitting US Senator.

            That’s why we have a constitution and the courts. The rules of the constitution are considered higher than simple majority rule and CAN’T be changed without 2/3rds of the electorate being on board. That’s why regardless of the public mood you aren’t allowed to make a law banning black people from buses. By adding “equal protection” to the constitution we decided that minority rights were beyond the scope of normal legislative actions. Which is a good idea both legally and morally.

          • GibbyD

            Except in many cases when the will of the vast majority is overturned by one person , a judge , who because of his or her political slant and appointment , does not care to strictly interpret and apply the US Constitution , but rather decides that an activity ( homosexual sex) , is on the same par constitutionally as race, gender and religious belief.

            In reference to the subject matter at hand, I believe that restricting a county commissioner from being able to pray in public in the name of The LORD Jesus Christ , is an infringement and prohibits his free exercise of his religion. The constituents and his fellow citizens , if offended , are afforded a remedy at the ballot box.

          • amostpolitedebate

            (Why do you keep tossing “The LORD” in front of Jesus’s name like that?)

            I find it odd that you used gay marriage as an example and not something like Dredd Scott or Citizens United. Do you really think that being forced to share your institution (which is actually a public institution used by people of all faiths) with girls that kiss each other is worse than the courts letting large monied interests give unlimited legal bribes to our public officials?

            But yes. It can be a real problem since the supreme court is basically making law whether they intend to or not and if they want to they can make very ugly decisions that people have very little ability to change. It’s one of the oldest head-scratchers in the American legal system and there are no easy solutions to it.

            But that IS the legal system as intended by the founders, love it or hate it. If they decide that a public official’s religious liberty ends where another person’s begins then that’s well within the normal function of law. It’s just a decision you dislike.

          • GibbyD

            Why do you not address Him as LORD ?

            There is a big difference between your race , gender and religious belief , vs. what your particular sexual practice is.

            They have already decided that prayer is allowed. Nobody is restricting anybody’s religious views because they also are able to be expressed if and when they want to. Have you been to a County commissioner’s meeting lately ? There is opportunity for everyone to speak and address those in attendance . NOBODY is infringed upon. This NC ruling will be overturned.

          • Nathan Marcy

            I don’t address him as lord mostly because he’s a fictional character whose historicity can’t be well established, much less proven.

          • GibbyD

            And i was not asking you Nathan . I was asking someone who professes and no doubt probably is a Christian. Sorry to hear Nathan Marcy , that you do not believe . I hope and pray you change your mind so He can change your heart. Here is how.—> ( Acts 20:21; 1st John 5:13; 1st Peter 1:23; Romans 10:9.10)KJB

          • Nathan Marcy

            I encourage people to read the bible too. I read it and it made me an atheist. *shrug*

          • GibbyD

            I have read The Bible over 35 times and I am convinced all the more that it is the Word of God , that Jesus is God and that He died for your sins by bearing them all in His body while on the cross of Calvary , that He arose from the dead and that He will save you and whosoever from Hell , if you have , ‘..repentance toward God and faith toward the LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21; Acts 16:31)KJB

          • Kyle Edwards

            Dude you are arguing with the civics illiterate.

        • Kyle Edwards

          The constitution states otherwise skippy. You are no being repressed in your expression of religion or speech . If you do not like the constitution, than change it.

          • GibbyD

            where does it say that an elected official does not possess 1st amendment rights ?

      • Mr. Avatar

        It is easy to see, by simply reading the founding fathers’ own words and our founding documents, that religion was meant to be an integral part of our government, education and public lives. They overwhelmingly advocate the joining of religious principles to public affairs.

        • Croco Dile

          American Christians often claim that America is a Christian nation as a way of justifying overt government support of Christianity. This claim is in opposition to the separation of church and state which is clearly laid out in the United States Constitution.

          Creator is not a uniquely Christian term. Many religions believe in a single creator including Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. If America were specifically a Christian nation, one would expect to see a mention of Jesus Christ among the founding documents.

          The Constitution makes no reference to god, except for the date, which is indicated by use of the convention, “In the year of our Lord.” “We the People,” not god, are the authority for our government. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for national office. The Constitution’s first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any laws even “respecting an establishment of religion.” During many Constitution ratification sessions in the states, Christians attempted to insert references to God and Jesus into the Preamble and sought to remove the “no religious test for office” provision. The fact that these religiously-motivated efforts failed demonstrates that even though the Constitution was a heated public issue and subject to controversy as a result of its secular nature, it was ratified as written. The founders and the public knowingly chose a godless Constitution.

        • Nathan Marcy

          “The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an

          associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and

          performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number,

          the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the

          devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the

          total separation of the church from the State” – James Madison (Letter to

          Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

          “Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and &

          Gov’t 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” – James Madison (Detached

          Memoranda, circa 1820).

          “Every new and successful example,

          therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and

          civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every

          new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing

          that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity

          the less they are mixed together” – James Madison (Letter to Edward Livingston,

          July 10, 1822).

          “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” — John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

          “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”– John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

          “The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity…. Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.” — The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831.

          “Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State”. — Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802

          “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

          “The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.” — Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

          “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity”. — Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

        • Kyle Edwards

          Treaty of Tripoli.
          In Article 11, it states:

          “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
          sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character
          of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and
          as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against
          any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
          from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
          existing between the two countries.”- John Adams

    • bill2

      because who cares about the rule of law?

      • Mr. Avatar

        It seems that the original intent of the First Amendment has been set aside in favor of the separation phrase taken out of context from Jefferson’s personal letter written eleven years after the First Amendment was ratified. Because Jefferson is the author of the phrase, and the phrase is often represented as coming from the Constitution or to represent the meaning of the First Amendment, Jefferson is considered to be an authority on the Constitution, and the First Amendment. But actually, Jefferson was not even in the United States when the Constitution was framed. He was an ambassador in France, and was not part of the Constitutional Convention.

        • bill2

          that doesn’t change the fact the he no doubt intended there to be a wall between the church and the sate and with good reason,. nothing good has ever come from those two mixing

          • Mr. Avatar

            George Washington, who was the president of the Constitutional Convention, in his Farewell Address said:
            “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…. Let it simply be asked ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?… And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

          • bill2

            an opinion that has nothing to do with the law.

          • Mr. Avatar

            Where do you think the supreme court came up with their ruling – from a letter – an opinion!

          • bill2

            and your point?

          • amostpolitedebate

            Mr Avatar you are very clearly comfortable with the government and it’s agents making decisions on purely religious grounds. Would that comfort extend to people of other faiths making similar decisions based on religions you don’t agree with? For example, would you be comfortable with a teacher starting a class with a reading from the Satanic bible or a judge beginning the day with a prayer from the Koran?

          • Mr. Avatar

            The first supreme court – When earlier Supreme Courts used Jefferson’s letter, they referenced the entire letter in its context, and not just the separation phrase taken out of context as is done by today’s courts. By doing so, they arrived at very different conclusions. In the 1878 case of Renolds vs. United States, the Supreme Court concluded: “The rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this … is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.” The Court also identified those actions which, if perpetrated in the name of religion, the government had legitimate reason to interfere. Those actions included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, injury to children, and the advocation and promotion of immorality.

          • amostpolitedebate

            That’s interesting but didn’t really answer my question. Are you OK with Muslim judges starting hearings with prayers read from the Koran?

          • Nathan Marcy

            Reynolds was a Free Excercise Clause issue, not an Establishment Clause issue.

          • Nathan Marcy

            Washington wasn’t, however, saying that one needed to be intolerant of other people’s beliefs in order to be religious. He also said

            “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” — George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

            He thought religion was a good thing, so long as you weren’t using it to persecute others. What the Rowan County Commissioners are doing is telling people they don’t have a right to be heard if they aren’t Christian. That’s wrong.

          • Kyle Edwards

            I suggest you join ISIL Mr Avatar as they think along the same lines with the strict interpretation of Sharia law as you do.

        • psycher7

          Unfortunately for your little theory, the First Amendment was written by Jefferson’s protege Madison and based on Jefferson’s own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. So yes, he did indeed know what he was talking about.

          • Mr. Avatar

            “On receiving it [the Constitution while in France] I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union…. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution.” While Jefferson is a great Founding Father and a true patriot and American, by his own admission, he should not be considered a primary authority on the First Amendment. Instead, refer to the writings of the men who were part of the Constitutional process. For example, Fisher Ames, who provided the wording for the First Amendment said: “Why … should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble.”

          • Mr. Avatar

            And Gouverner Morris, the most active speaker of the Constitutional Convention, and the penman who actually wrote the Constitution said:
            “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”

          • Nathan Marcy

            James Madison used the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” on several occasions. It was not only attributed to Jefferson.

          • GibbyD

            But the words that are written in the Constitution / bill of rights are very specific. In reference to “establishment of religion” , it is just that . The US federal government will not have a specific denomination or religion as their official one for the whole country. It also forbids stopping or forbidding anyone from denying another their freedom of religious expression. There is no vested state or fed interest in denying a local county commissioner of their free speech and or religious rights.

          • psycher7

            Of course there’s a vested interest in keeping degenerate theocrats from abusing the public trust.

          • GibbyD

            And that is settled in the voting booth .

          • psycher7

            Wrong. Constitutional rights are not up for voting.

          • GibbyD

            It has to meet a violation of the constitution first. Free speech is NOT a violation of the constitution. The hearers of speech that include preaching and or public prayer , are not infringed upon. The constitution protects the right to say what you say , not the right not to hear what you don’t want to hear.

            Since it was the voter that placed a person in office , they can vote them out . You can petition and or peacefully protest but you cannot tell someone what they can and cannot say or pray. The courts have already decided that commissioners can pray at meetings . They cannot then restrict what would be otherwise protected free speech .

          • Kyle Edwards

            You are wrong. It is settled LAW period. Don’t like it? Move to Iran.

          • GibbyD

            IT is settled law that an American citizen has a 1st amendment right of free speech even county commissioners .

          • Kyle Edwards

            Then sue and see where it gets you. No one is taking your 1st amendment rights dumbass.

          • GibbyD

            That county commissioners do not have to sue and they do not have to obey an unconstitutional ruling by a politically motivated Clinton appointed judge . Nobody has to obey an unjust unconstitutional ,edict , command or judges ruling .

          • Kyle Edwards

            Like I said try it tough guy and see where it gets you.The commissioners are elected government officials. Don’t run for the position and take taxpayer money if you cannot serve everyone equally. Your partisan colors are showing. I would suggest to take your tin foil hat and shove it where the sun don’t shine. You can believe what you want it doesn’t mean it hold up to public scrutiny or legal challenge. If you don’t want to obey rule of law then you can either leave the county or go to jail.

          • GibbyD

            And like I said , you don’t have to obey a mandate, rule, ordinance , edict , or law that is unconstitutional . Just as my sister Rosa Parks did not give up her seat on the bus to a white person , and just as my brothers sat at the counters of restaurants and drank from the water fountains that were only to be reserved for whites , SO TOO WILL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST NOT ABIDE BY WHAT ONE JUDGE HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RULED CONCERNING HOW HE WANTS PEOPLE TO PRAY !!!!!

          • Kyle Edwards

            Go for it tough guy. You will find it will be a long arduous fight you will lose.. Bet on it. Guys like me will be there to help you on your way. I have no problem imprisoning people that don’t abide by our legal system.

          • GibbyD

            The Supreme Court has already settled the matter when they said that prayers are allowed so you are a little too late. This one judge will see his ruling quickly dismissed as unconstitutional .

          • Kyle Edwards

            That is true (5-4), but the issue here is that the people usually performing such an act usually limit the time to xtian only prayers. The problem you mistake is that you think you are a constitutional law professor and nothing more than an obsessed nutcase on a xtian webpage that thinks they already know judicial decisions before they are made. There are circumstances behind this ruling that don’t pass muster. Let me know Mr Constitutional law professor ( aka Obama’s pupil) where you obtained your education?

          • GibbyD

            Anyone that can read can see the precedent cases that have ruled time and time again in favor of free speech. Obama should have been impeached and voted out of office by the Senate .

          • Kyle Edwards

            and you can’t just rule in favor of one religion. period.. That is what the ruling is about Mr 1st amendment. So blow it out your ass Mr Radical posting under a pseudonym to protect his “Radical” identity

          • GibbyD

            The ruling is wrong because people of other religions are not restricted at County Commissioner Meetings .

          • Kyle Edwards

            If you want to see an obsessed nutcase look no further than GibbyD 271 comments on this topic alone. I say get a hobby Gibby or at least watch a television show of some variety.

          • GibbyD

            I have not had TV in 16 years. What a waste for those that are glued to it all their lifetime. When it comes to freedom and the liberties that we enjoy and are so blessed to possess in this country , I am an avowed radical and will never back down for that which cost the lives of so many Americans .

          • Kyle Edwards

            Nutcase

          • GibbyD

            ad hominem

            [ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
            Spell Syllables
            Word Origin
            adjective
            1.
            appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
            2.
            attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

    • Bry

      I agree with you Frank, this cant be enforced.

  • Reason2012

    // A federal judge in North Carolina has ruled that commissioners in one local county can’t present prayers only in Jesus’ name even if they all are Christians because doing so isn’t “nondiscriminatory” toward other religions and elevates Christianity in government.

    This judge does not understand the First Amendment. He cannot PROHIBIT the freedom to exercise religious expression.

    Secondly, where is this other part he makes up about “doing act xyz would elevate Christianity in government and that is a violation of our laws”?? He’s making up things that do not exist then “enforcing” them. Contact your representatives.

    • Kyle Edwards

      You don’t understand the law of the land. You cannot suppress the option for others to present their particular religious prayer from their religion just because you don’t like it. There is also a thing called separation of church and state as to not imply there is a deference to one religion over another. The amount of dumb by North Carolina residents is astounding. Review your 10th grade Civics class and get back to the adults.

      • Mr. Avatar

        According to Jefferson and the Supreme Court, the government could interfere with religion only when its actions were “subversive of good order” or “broke out into overt acts against peace and good order”. The Court also identified those actions which, if perpetrated in the name of religion, the government had legitimate reason to interfere. Those actions included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, injury to children, and the advocation and promotion of immorality.

      • Reason2012

        Expressing Christianity is not suppressing other beliefs. You are the one condoning that Christianity be censored except where you give permission. I say if the majority instead wish to express a different belief, have at it. So while I support freedom for all, you support freedom for none.

        • Nathan Marcy

          Expressing Christianity and only Christianity is indeed supressing other beliefs. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that prayer before government meetings must be nondiscriminatory. Anyone who wishes to provide a prayer must be allowed to. The Rowan County Commissioners, in denying requests from minority faith leaders, has broken the law.

          • Reason2012

            No, they were expressing Christianity – they didn’t say “no” to anyone else here. They were all Christian – no one there said “I want a prayer to xyz” and told no, so yours (and this judge’s) claims are outright false.

        • Kyle Edwards

          It is when you explicitly state no other religion can present a prayer unless it is Christian like in Lincolnton,NC. I support no deference to one religion or belief system over another.. period. NO one is saying you cannot worship your invisible sky fairy in your home, church, or other places just not in a place where everyone should be represented equally and fairly with no deference to one religion over another. Don’t like that opinion than too bad, change the constitution.

          • Reason2012

            please cite in this case where they said “no one can present any other prayer” b/c in this case it was 100% Christians.

    • SFBruce

      This judge made nothing up; he was following binding precedent established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which holds, among other things, that the government must neither advance nor inhibit religious expression. The practice they were following had the effect of advancing Christianity. As an individual, you have every right to advance Christianity if that’s where you conscience leads, but the state must remain neutral, thereby remaining true to the concept of religious freedom for everyone, not just Christians.

      • Mr. Avatar

        When earlier Supreme Courts used Jefferson’s letter, they referenced the entire letter in its context, and not just the separation phrase taken out of context as is done by today’s courts. By doing so, they arrived at very different conclusions. In the 1878 case of Renolds vs. United States, the Supreme Court concluded:

        “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”

        That same Court went on to summarize Jefferson’s meaning of separation of church and state:

        “[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this … is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.”

        • SFBruce

          Lemon was decided unanimously in 1971 and is binding precedent. If you want to refute what I’ve said, going back to an 1878 case doesn’t really advance that effort. Even so, it’s good to understand the context of Reynolds: a bigamist sued in federal court because he thought prohibition of bigamy infringed on his religious liberty. He lost; the thrust of the decision was that the exercise of religion can’t be used to justify breaking the law.

          It appears that you’ve copied, word for word, your comment from the Teach Our History website. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you really should acknowledge the source, since it’s their research and not your own.

      • Reason2012

        There’s no “precedent” for violating the First Amendment and censoring Christianity except where he gives permission.

        • SFBruce

          I’m not sure, but I think you’re suggesting the judge violated the First Amendment with this decision, but he didn’t. In fact, he actually upheld the First Amendment by ensuring that Rowan County doesn’t favor Christianity over other faith traditions.

        • Nathan Marcy

          No, but then the court isn’t saying that. Any person who wishes to deliver a prayer cannot be denied, however the government need not seek out “every religion in the world” in order to be in compliance. They just can’t say no to anyone who wants to do it, even if it’s a Satanist prayer or a prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          • Reason2012

            And no one was said “no” to here. Thanks for proving the judge is in the wrong by censoring Christianity anyway.

          • Nathan Marcy

            The other half of the problem is that the Commissioners were delivering the prayers themselves, personally. The judge is still very much correct this is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    • bill2

      he can if it excludes other religions. it’s all or nothing

      • Mr. Avatar

        That’s not constitutional

        • bill2

          look up the court rulings, it is

          • Mr. Avatar

            The Danbury Baptists were concerned that Constitutional protection provided by the First Amendment suggested that the “free exercise of religion” was a government-given privilege rather than a God-given right, and as such, the government might someday choose to revoke that privilege.

            Jefferson understood their concerns, and also felt strongly that the government should not be permitted to regulate, restrict or interfere with the free exercise of religious expression. In response to the Danbury Baptists’ letter, he wrote back, assuring them that they did not need to worry; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the government:

          • bill2

            blah blah blah, the courts have ruled that there is separation between church and state and few quotes wont change that

          • Mr. Avatar

            These quotes are where they came up with their ruling, directly from Jefferson’s letters. As you can see the supreme court changed their ruling and they can change it again. [The Danbury Baptists were concerned that Constitutional protection provided by the First Amendment suggested that the “free exercise of religion” was a government-given privilege rather than a God-given right, and as such, the government might someday choose to revoke that privilege.] and as you can see, what the Danbury Baptist wrote Jefferson about and what Jefferson said would not happen, has happened!

          • bill2

            it is government granted or at least constitutionally granted

          • amostpolitedebate

            Why are you typing in bold like that?

      • Reason2012

        “Thou shalt make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious expression”
        First Amendment. It’s that simple. He’s violating it.

        • bill2

          no he not. the supremacy clause means that the government cannot exclude other religions, look it up

        • Nathan Marcy

          Did you seriously just reward the Free Excercise Clause to sound like a Biblical commandment? SMH.

          You also left out the rest of the First Amendment. You know, the part about the government not being able to respect an establishment of religion.

          • Reason2012

            You left out part of that phrase, the critical part, which only proves how disingenuous you are:

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

            And no law was passed here forcing them to have a Christian prayer.

            Thank you for proving how disingenuous you are being.
            Take care

          • Nathan Marcy

            Yes, but you’re leaving out the Incorporation Clause in the 14th Amendment which applied the Establishment Clause (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) to all governmental bodies, Federal, State, and Local.

            If you don’t believe me, then by law it’s perfectly okay for your local or state government to restrict your free speech, arrest you without charge or trial, and take your guns. This is basic civics. You know that was a weak argument.

        • Nathan Marcy

          Not to mention the Constitution applies freedoms to people and restrictions on government. The commissioners are government. They have no freedoms under the US constitution while acting as the government, only restrictions.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not “applying freedom” to violate the First Amendment and claim it’s illegal for 100% Christian meeting to not choose to have a Christian prayer.

          • Nathan Marcy

            It wasn’t a 100% Christian meeting. I assure you there were people there that weren’t Christians, and even hypothetically if there weren’t, the imprimatur of government support for one religion, Christianity, is still a breach of the Establishment Clause.

    • Bobby Mae

      Weren’t Christians freaking out about the Wiccan prayer not too long ago? So it’s okay as long as it’s your religion right? Lol

      • Reason2012

        When they censor Christian prayers but allow others, who wouldn’t point out the duplicity?

        • Bobby Mae

          Christians protested the wiccan prayer. Now no specific religious references. Problem solved. Besides the Bible says not to pray in public anyway.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, ONE person went in to cause trouble and mock Christianity – it wasn’t the case that the majority present wanted such a “prayer”.

            The Bible says to not start gatherings with a prayer? Where’s that at? No, you’re referring to an individual praying just for themselves, but doing so publicly for the reason of being seen of others.

            Using your logic there should be no more prayers at church services.

          • Bobby Mae

            Maybe they shouldn’t. Matthew 6:5 is pretty clear, or do you only take bible verses that condemn homosexuals literally?

          • Reason2012

            Read it in context: it was about an individual praying alone to God, but doing so publicly. Context, friend, context.

          • Bobby Mae

            Ah yes, context. How convenient it is to use or not use when proving things with scripture.

          • Reason2012

            In your case, how convenient it was for you to ignore context.

        • Nathan Marcy

          So far, no others are being allowed. The court has only said that Rowan county’s practice of 1) Only allowing Christian prayers 2) having the prayers delivered by the commissioners themselves and not by an invited guest is unconstitutional.

          Rowan County will most likely be fined and allowed to modify their prayer policy to be in line with the US Constitution. They would need to create a nondiscriminatory policy.

          • Reason2012

            Sure are – we had wiccan prayers.

  • Bobby Mae

    I agree with this ruling.

  • Mr. Avatar

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  • GibbyD

    Pray in The Name of The LORD Jesus Christ , anyway.

    • weasel1886

      No sense letting Jews, or other faiths have any power or voice?

      • GibbyD

        Any individual elected official should be allowed to pray any way they want to. In the name of their God or no God.

        • weasel1886

          In private yes, but not to open a public meeting. Government is meant for all people not just one faith.

          • GibbyD

            Those ” all people ” include those individual elected officials. ALL PEOPLE that are American citizens have the same 1st amendment rights . In the public class room State teachers cannot because of their role as teachers and job description. They are instructing under age children in their class room. Those elected officials that are placed there by the people , are chosen by the majority knowing full well what that individual person believes and what he or she will do once elected. If a community does not like what and how someone they elected prays, then they can chose to vote for someone else. Nobody is forcing those officials to pray and nobody should be restricting them. Free speech is Free speech or it is not Free Speech.

          • amostpolitedebate

            You don’t see how a judge reading a particularly insane passage from the new testament might make a Jewish person feel uncomfortable or unwelcome? Furthermore if Jews are a minority in that particular area how are they supposed to get a particularly bigoted official unelected?

            There’s a reason the US doesn’t put minority rights to a majority vote.

            (Hell, with jerrymandering and the increasing influence of money in politics how do you get ANYONE booted out of politics anymore?)

          • GibbyD

            I answered that in another post. An elected official can speak the name of Jesus and pray in His name anytime they want to. A judge is in a capacity where he needs to keep the scales of justice in balance. He would even need to not take a case before him if he has a vested interest in the outcome of a decision that would have to be made. This is the reason why there are two liberal judges on the United States Supreme court that should take themselves off the the case now before them that will decide if homosexual marriage is a constitutionally protected right. They spoke for and work for the promotion of homosexual marriage before they were appointed to the court by Obama. A local county commissioner is not in that position so his 1st amendment rights expressing his faith in The LORD Jesus or any other faith, would not be a violation of anything. He or she is free to pray and in any name their belief and free will leads them to pray in. Your yelling fire in a crowded theater example does not apply because there is no danger of anyone being tramped or having a heart attack if someone prays in the name of Whoever.

          • weasel1886

            Any judge that has ever prayed should not hear in cases involving prayer. What isiot logic you have bssides being a hateful bigot

          • GibbyD

            You lose the argument so you start sending insults without any bases or justification. Calling someone what you did only reveals that you have no idea. I am neither hateful or a bigot. YOU are the one that thought of a scenario that would never happen in order to try and prove a point that had no point. The discussion is praying specifically in the name of Jesus . I will have to ask you that you apologize for your false railing accusation against me.

          • weasel1886

            It would never happen?? Ask black people in the 1800s or the native Americans. Or how about Hitler proclaiming he was doing Gods work.
            Let’s go back to Martin Luther and see what he believed the government should do to Jews.
            Was my prayer story outrageous? Yes. Have out outrageous things been done in Gods name? Yes
            You rail about free speech and then would deny me mine.
            Perhaps one should remember the Golden Rule

          • GibbyD

            I support and believe in The United States Constitution and the 1st amendment right of free speech. I do not agree with everyone’s ideas and content of that speech !!! YOU KNEW THAT AND SLANDERED ME ANYWAY !!!!! Yes , I will rail when you make slanderous statements that are not based in fact about what I believe. If some racist hateful person would threats on the life of someone , that person can be prosecuted . If some elected official would pray a prayer as your example gave , they would be hounded out by his constituents and fellow citizens and not by a judge or court. In many counties and states they can recall vote someone out of office .

          • weasel1886

            Agreed, but why even make it possible. Why have prayers at a public meeting at all ? What purpose do they serve but to divide groups and people

          • GibbyD

            The decisions some elected officials make at commissioner meetings , also divide people and some groups. Should those that want higher taxes be censored just because that might offend and or divide? I have seen more division and hostility at meetings where they did not begin with a prayer than those meetings where they did offer a prayer to seek wisdom and guidance and protection . That is most often the content of the prayers that I have heard at meetings. It is usually just one person being given a moment to express his or herself as he or she sees fit to begin a meeting .They can pray , recite a poem , read someone from the writings of our founders or whatever. When one person prays , who is an elected office holder , he is she is not establishing a particular specific brand of religion or denomination that would then be the official exclusive one from then on for all the county , state and nation . He or she is simply expressing his own .

          • weasel1886

            The problem is when an elexted official excludes or shows favor to someone because of their religious beliefs

          • GibbyD

            as I said before, there is nobody being infringed upon because anyone can speak at a county commissioner meeting and voice whatever opinion they have.

            It is not in our ability to judge what another person is thinking and or the motivation as to why someone does things. ” Showing favor” covers a large area. Would it be showing favor based on ” religious beliefs” if someone was given a job by a county commissioner because they are honest or was it because they obeyed the ninth commandment of the Old Testament ? Most often you cannot know . And would that matter anyway? If a person was hired though ,because someone was a relative or belonged to the same religious denomination or church , that might be considered but not illegal either. That would depend on the rules of that county. Nepotism may or may not be illegal but hiring because of similar religious identity is probably not illegal .

          • weasel1886

            Not all meetings are as open as you think

          • GibbyD

            Then they need to change the protocol and or procedures of those meetings , but not who is entitled to free speech . I have not seen any County commissioner meetings where there was not opportunity for constituents to speak .

          • weasel1886

            To speak yes to say a prayer no

          • GibbyD

            How can you pray without “speaking” ? And prayer is part of protected free speech . The courts have already decided that.

          • weasel1886

            Yes they have and the courts ruled in this case also. You can’t have it both ways

          • GibbyD

            One judge has mistakenly made a ruling that will be overturned in a higher court. Those in that county should not even obey it because they know it is unconstitutional .

          • weasel1886

            Religious discrimmination in hiring is illegal and no one should be asked about it in the employment process

          • GibbyD

            Nobody is asked but choosing someone over another qualified person because of their shared belief system or ideology , happens allot. A cause for a charge of discrimination can still be brought forth if it is shown that for instance nobody was hired of 100 Jewish applicants but the same number of applicants that were Muslim were hired.

          • weasel1886

            What if the majority of people agreed with him? Does the minority have any rights?

          • GibbyD

            In regards to county commissioner meetings , there is no infringement of minority rights because they too have opportunity to speak and voice their opinion at those meetings. Have you been to a county commissioner meeting lately ?
            If the majority of people believe in being free to pray in the name of Jesus , then that simply means that the majority of the people believe in being free to pray in the name of Jesus.

          • weasel1886

            Not everyone is allowed to speak here

          • Kyle Edwards

            How can you slander an anonymous troll on an internet board?

          • GibbyD

            The information including the identity of users ,is kept by Disqus and this forum’s moderators.

          • Kyle Edwards

            You really aren’t a bright bulb are you?

          • GibbyD

            In other words, the moderators of this room and Disqus know who you are and the creators of this room are able to identify who is making threats and using their page with evil intent.

          • Kyle Edwards

            Yeah right..like I said not really bright bulb. My guess you are on the < of 100 IQ.

          • GibbyD

            It is always the case when people cannot win the argument , they resort to either name calling or trying to belittle those that disagree with them .

          • weasel1886

            So how about this prayer.
            Dear Jesus smite all those that oppose what we will do hear tonight. Destroy all those that do not believe in you. May all those that voted against us be driven from the land or have their voices removed. Remove from our community all gays, Jews, Catholics, and atheists. Protect us from courts granting the minority any rights.
            Amen
            Free speech by an elected official. Nothing wrong with that correct?

          • The Last Trump

            Amen.

          • weasel1886

            Do you agree that blacks , Jews , and Catholics should be banned from a community? That people that disagree should be silenced.
            ?

          • MisterPine

            /www dot fstdt dot com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=108480

          • GibbyD

            He can pray they but i doubt he will get re-elected the next time

          • weasel1886

            No if he did that he should be removed from office the next day

          • GibbyD

            You can no more do that legally than you could remove a democrat for being for and speaking favorably about abortion. You have to vote people out. Speaking for and in The Name of The LORD Jesus Christ , does not qualify as a high crime worthy of any kind of reprimand or punishment. This is still The United States of America and not China or North Korea. If you want that kind of suppression, then move there but leave all of us to BREATHE FREE !!!!!!!

          • weasel1886

            So you think non Christians should be destoyed and you hate Jews and Catholics.
            Your faith is a POS

          • GibbyD

            Why are you saying things I never said. Weasel , you propose an insane example of something that would never happen. Your crazy possibility of what one might do if given the chance to pray it , is totally off the wall. What we are talking about her is someone being at liberty to pray in the name of Jesus or any name they wish. Stay within the bounds of civil discussion if you want to be taken seriously .

          • weasel1886

            You were the one that thinks my prayer possibility would be acceptable in the name of free speech

          • GibbyD

            That did not mean , as you so disgustingly falsely accused , that I agreed with the sentiments of that prayer. You truly own and identify with your name when you do such a thing as that by setting up an example of some prayer that has and NEVER will happen and then accuse me of agreeing with the ideas in that prayer. If someone would threaten someone , they can be arrested and prosecuted for making terroristic threats just as someone as yourself if you make slanderous accusations.

          • weasel1886

            When do you start throwing people in ovens Mrs Adolph

          • GibbyD

            You are in violation of the rules in this forum . Apologize now !

          • weasel1886

            No! you agreed with those statements. Show me where you didn’t.
            You believe any free speech is OK and that denying someone rights and acess to government trumps in the name of God is acceptable. You make my point 100%.

          • GibbyD

            I DID NOT agree with the sentiments of the “prayer” in your insane example , I ONLY agree that it is a person’s right as an elected official to pray in the name of Jesus. If someone would actually pray a prayer in public that called for the murder of others , then there are other laws against making terrorist threats of harm against someone and that person would be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. There are means to remove someone from office including being forced out by the populace as they petition that county and if that is not effective they simply vote them out of office. Since the courts have already decided that prayer is allowed , it is not their right to decide , prohibit, infringe or prohibit what that prayer is and in particular if the prayer is said in the Name of The LORD Jesus Christ .

          • weasel1886

            You yell about oppression then would support someone that hopes people are killed for their beliefs. Pure evil

          • amostpolitedebate

            To be fair most Christians wouldn’t do this. The bigger issue is that if large swathes of the government make public endorsements of one kind of faith it sends the message, intentionally or not, that everyone else isn’t welcome. At worst it can even encourage a particularly nasty form of groupthink where members these majority groups start picking on minority groups simply because they are in a position to do so. It’s just sort of how human nature works. It’s why the constitution keeps the government from endorsing any one religion. That way Catholics can’t get into positions of power and start legislating against protestants.

          • weasel1886

            Most here seem not to grasp the concept that evil things can occur in the name of religion. They tend to see that their faith is correct and everyone elses is evil.

          • weasel1886

            “Nasty from of group think” can and has turned into violence

          • amostpolitedebate

            (Shhhh! I’m trying to put it in a context Christians can relate to.)

          • TheSootyOne

            At least that would be an honest Christian prayer.

          • Tim

            I don’t think that people who believe in Jesus wish anyone harm. Maybe I’m speaking of myself and the people I know. But I’ve never seen anything from Jesus that wants harm. Jesus put minorities first. He was a bit of a rebel. Just a thought.

          • weasel1886

            He didn’t want to hurt anyone but many of his follows do

          • Tim

            If that is true, that is sad. Jesus would not want it that way. Maybe those that you’re talking about should look at how Jesus handled himself in troubling situations.

          • weasel1886

            It is too difficult for most people to live as Jesus taught so they bend the lifestyle

          • Tim

            I will admit it is difficult to live in accordance to Christ’s will. For me (again I can only speak about myself) when Jesus said take up your cross and follow me, he really means it. I do believe that Jesus was about mercy. It seems he showed his love in many ways (the ultimate way being that he had to suffer torture and die). Of course Christians believe he conquored death in order to keep his promise that anyone can be spiritually saved from separation, but that love is the ultimate reasoning. It only makes sense that the Christian should follow suit and forgive and to love all people. Easy to say, but hard to do.

          • Vickie

            He did conquer death, hell, and the grave, cause he was resurrected, and came again to his disciples before he ascended into heaven (Luke 24)!

        • amostpolitedebate

          So just so we’re clear you’d be fine with a Muslim beginning a meeting with a reading from the Koran?

          • GibbyD

            Yes, but i doubt if he gets re-elected

          • amostpolitedebate

            It’s America. If you have enough financial backing you can get reelected no matter what you do in office. Be careful what you wish for my friend!

          • GibbyD

            That seems to be a sad reality . I wish it were not so and I hope that that will not effect the coming presidential election. I think The Fair Tax is something that can save our economy and the only man so far that is pushing it the most , is Mike Huckabee . We will see if ideas are more powerful than Jeb’s money.

          • amostpolitedebate

            I had this whole response to your tax thing ready to go but instead I think I’ll just point out how amusing it is that Democrats are going through the exact same thing right now with Bernie Sanders.

            BERN IT ALL! SANDSTORM 2016 !

            (Spoiler: Money wins every time. Bernie and Huck are both going down in flames)

          • James Von Borcke

            “Yes, but i doubt if he gets re-elected”

            So in other words, prayer is used as a religious test even though the Constitution forbids a religious test for any public office…

          • GibbyD

            How is it a ” religious test” if he is already elected to the office? It only become a “religious test ” if praying and or religion becomes a requirement and or forbids someone from running for or holding office. Actually forbidding someone from praying is more of an unconstitutional religious test because that would exclude people that pray

          • James Von Borcke

            “How is it a ” religious test” if he is already elected to the office?”

            Because you stated that he [the hypothetical Muslim] probably wouldn’t get elected, so it’s a religious test and he failed.

            Of course, with many Christians (that is, the Religious Right variety), he probably didn’t get elected anyways unless he hid being a Muslim. Only a few districts where such discrimination isn’t clearly demonstrated by the rabid mob.

          • GibbyD

            James , the People are allowed to consider anything they want about someone when voting at election time. It is only a ” religious test” if the government has established mandatory criteria and official rules one way or another either banning participation of candidates because of their religion or making it a requirement for participation,. Can you see the difference ?

          • James Von Borcke

            I do see the difference, but I also see the similarities.

            Personally, I don’t care what faith a politician proclaims; rather, I know them by their works.

          • GibbyD

            That is a good rule of thumb in choosing who you want to represent you. Some people are all talk but what they actually do in life and in office says allot more. Even in the Christian faith we are instructed that we can know them by their “fruit”( Matthew 7:16)KJB. Fruit is a little bit different than “works” when it comes to recognizing those who are genuine believers. The Bible speaks about those who do all kinda of works but it was all for show to be seen of men so that they can brag about all that they do. They did it all with wrong motivation. The better test of genuineness is if they have real love , joy , peace , patience etc. The list I am speaking about is that which is found in Galatians 5:22.

            “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”

            If these things are evident in someone , and it is not faked , it is a good test for someone being a real believer. Works have value if done with the right motivation and in love for man and God but they are not as reliable a test as those found in Galatians 5:22

          • James Von Borcke

            Except the difference you speak of is ~usually~ fairly evident; that is, it’s easy to tell when someone is doing something for the sake of doing and someone else is doing it for the esteem. I’ve got one of those ‘ain’t I great?’ folks in one of my charity circles, and it’s tempting sometimes to hit him with a chair.

            But then I refrain… ~sigh~

          • GibbyD

            Well , that is possible but i do not want to speculate about what is really in someone’e heart because I might be wrong. I am only able to see the outside , God sees the heart. ( I Samuel 16:7)KJB. My example about “fruit’ only has to do with those that profess to be believers and are doing things for the sake of the Gospel and in order to please God and be a witness for Him. In Christian circles there are , I am sure, people who do things in order to be seen of and get the praise of man. There is an account in the Bible of one such couple in (Acts 5:1-11). Ananias and Sapphira sold some land and then kept back part of what they sold but when they gave it they said they sold all and that what they were giving was all that they had been given for the property They were trying to impress the others by lying about how much money they were giving. If you are familiar with the account or if you read it now , you will see that it did not turn out to well for them.
            Time usually reveals the realness of someone’s honesty and whether or not they have pure motives and love for God and man.

        • Croco Dile

          The act of prayer seems a little odd for people with belief in a god who is supposed to be impassible, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Clearly an omniscient god would already be aware of your problems and know what you want. Ultimately, your request may be regarded by God as either good or evil. If it is good, then why would God not have granted your wishes already? If it is evil, then why would God ever grant your request?

          “Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn’t in God’s Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn’t it seem a little arrogant? It’s a Divine Plan. What’s the use of being God if every run-down schmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and f*ck up Your Plan?”— George Carlin

          • GibbyD

            “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 14And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.”( 1st John 5:13-15)KJB

            “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. 3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” ( James 4:1-3)KJB

            —Outside the discussion of this article about the commissioner meetings , I would say that for Christians we are asked to pray because God and man, because of The LORD Jesus , have a relationship with our Creator. The LORD wants us to pray and seek and involve Him in everything. Prayer is not just about asking Him for things and or intercession . It is also about thanking Him for the things we already have and especially for the salvation that He provided and that we enjoy. It is about praising Him for all that He is and worshiping Him for all that He did and does .

          • Croco Dile

            The argument :
            I had a personal experience of God therefore God exists. Like : “Jesus appeared to me in a vision, thus I know the doctrine ofChristianity is true.”
            God or a representation of God that is interacted with as if it really is God. Humans have cognitive biases that make us perceive supposedly meaning patterns in random data; this effect is called apophenia. Expectation of certain outcomes makes use selective on the evidence we consider in an effect called confirmation bias. Existent or not, mundane events would then be interpreted as a sign from God. These phenomena can make believers experience real emotions because the simulation of God occurs subconsciously.

            “Was the voice of God that I’d heard my whole life simply my own voice?”

          • GibbyD

            Then consider the following that prove that it is mathematically statistically virtually impossible, based on probability, that the Bible is not divinely inspired . Some of these were written thousands of years before The LORD Jesus Christ was born .
            1. Genesis 3:15…..Seed of a woman (virgin birth)…..Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18-20
            2. Genesis 3:15…..He will bruise Satan’s head…..Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8
            3. Genesis 5:24….The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated….Mark 6:19
            4. Genesis 9:26-27…The God of Shem will be the Son of Shem…Luke 3:36
            5. Genesis 12:3…As Abraham’s seed, will bless all nations…Acts 3:25,26
            6. Genesis 12:7…The The Promise made made to Abraham’s Seed…Galatians 3:16
            7. Genesis 14:18…A priest after Melchizedek…Hebrews 6:20
            8. Genesis 14:18……..A King also……..Hebrews 7:2
            9. Genesis 14:18…The Last Supper foreshadowed…Matthew 26:26-29
            10. Genesis 17:19…….The Seed of Isaac…….Romans. 9:7
            11. Genesis 21:12 …Seed of Isaac…Romans 9:7, Hebrews 11:18
            12. Genesis 22:8…The Lamb of God promised…John 1:29
            13. Genesis 22:18…As Isaac’s seed, will bless all nations…Galatians 3:16
            14. Genesis26:2-5..The Seed of Isaac promised as the Redeemer..Hebrews11:18
            15. Genesis 49:10…The time of His coming…Luke 2:1-7; Galatians 4:4
            16. Genesis 49:10…….The Seed of Judah…….Luke 3:33
            17. Genesis 49:10……Called Shiloh or One Sent……John 17:3
            18. Genesis 49:10…To come before Judah lost identity…John 11:47-52
            19. Genesis 49:10…To Him shall the obedience of the people be…John 10:16
            20. Exodus 3:13,14……..The Great “I Am”…….John 4:26
            21. Exodus 12:5…A Lamb without blemish…1 Pet. 1:19
            22. Exodus 12:13…The blood of the Lamb saves Romans wrath…Romans. 5:8
            23. Exodus 12:21-27…Christ is our Passover…1 Corinthians 5;7
            24. Exodus 12:46…Not a bone of the Lamb to be broken…John 19:31-36
            25. Exodus 13:2…Blessing to first born son…Luke 2:23
            26. Exodus 15:2…His exaltation predicted as Yeshua…Acts 7:55,56
            27. Exodus 15:11…His Character-Holiness…Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27
            28. Exodus 17:6…The Spiritual Rock of Israel…1 Corinthians 10;4
            29. Exodus 33:19…His Character-Merciful…Luke 1:72
            30. Leviticus14:11…The leper cleansed-Sign to priesthood..Luke5:12-14; Acts 6:7
            31. Leviticus16:15-17…Prefigures Christ’s once-for-all death…Hebrews 9:7-14
            32. Leviticus16:27…Suffering outside the Camp…Matthew 27:33; Hebrews 13:11, 12
            33. Leviticus17:11…The Blood-the life of the flesh…Matthew 26;28; Mark 10:45
            34. Leviticus17:11…It is the blood that makes atonement…1 John 3:14-18
            35. Leviticus23:36-37…The Drink-offering: “If any man thirst.” ..John 19:31-36
            36. Numbers 9:12…Not a bone of Him broken…John 19:31-36
            37. Numbers 21:9…The serpent on a pole-Christ lifted up…John 3:14-18
            38. Numbers 24:8… Flight to Egypt…Matthew 2:14
            39. Numbers 24:17…Time: “I shall see him, but not now.”…Galatians 4:4
            40. Numbers 24:17-19…A star out of Jacob…Matthew 2:2, Luke 1:33,78, Revelation 22:16
            41. Deuteronomy 18:15…”This is of a truth that prophet.”…John 6:14
            42. Deuteronomy 18:15-16…”Had ye believed Moses, ye would believe me.”…John 5:45-47
            43. Deuteronomy 18:18…Sent by the Father to speak His word…John 8:28, 29
            44. Deuteronomy 18:19…Whoever will not hear must bear his sin…John 12:15
            45. Deuteronomy 21:13-23…As a prophet…John 6:14; 7:40, Acts 3:22,23
            46. Deuteronomy 21:23…Cursed is he that hangs on a tree…Galatians 3:10-13
            47. Ruth 4:4-9…Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed us…Ephesians 1:3-7
            48. 1 Samuel 2:10…Shall be an anointed King to the Lord…Matthew 28:18; John 12:15
            49. 2 Samuel 7:12…David’s Seed…Matthew 1:1
            50. 2 Samuel 7:14a…The Son of God… Luke 1:32
            51. 2 Samuel 7:16…David’s house established forever…Luke 3:31; Rev. 22:16
            52. 2 Samuel 23:2-4…would be the “Rock”…1 Corinthians 10:4
            53. 2 Samuel 23:2-4…would be as the “light of the morning”…Revelation 22:16
            54. 2 Kings 2:11…The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated…Luke 24:51
            55. 1 Chronicles 17:11…David’s Seed…Matthew 1:1; 9:27
            56. 1 Chronicles 17:12, 13a…To reign on David’s throne forever…Luke 1:32, 33
            57. 1 Chronicles 17:13a…”I will be His Father, He…my Son.”…Hebrews 1:5
            58. Job 19:23-27…The Resurrection predicted…John 5:24-29
            59. Psalms 2:1-3…The enmity of kings foreordained…Acts 4:25-28
            60. Psalms 2:2…To own the title, Anointed (Christ)…Acts 2:36
            61. Psalms 2:6…His Character-Holiness…John 8:46; Rev. 3:7
            62. Psalms 2:6…To own the title King…Matthew 2:2
            63. Psalms 2:7…Declared the Beloved Son…Matthew 3:17
            64. Psalms 2:7, 8…The Crucifixion and Resurrection intimated…Acts 13:29-33
            65. Psalms 2:12…Life comes through faith in Him…John 20:31
            66. Psalms 8:2…The mouths of babes perfect His praise…Matthew 21:16
            67. Psalms 8:5, 6…His humiliation and exaltation…Luke 24:50-53; 1 Corinthians 15:27
            68. Psalms 16:10…Was not to see corruption…Acts 2:31
            69. Psalms 16:9-11…Was to arise from the dead…John 20:9
            70. Psalms 17;15…The resurrection predicted…Luke 24:6
            71. Psalms 22:1…Forsaken because of sins of others…2 Corinthians 5:21
            72. Psalms 22:1…Words spoken from Calvary, “My God…” Mark 15:34
            73. Psalms 22:2…Darkness upon Calvary…Matthew 27:45
            74. Psalms 22:7…They shoot out the lip and shake the head…Matthew 27:39
            75. Psalms 22:8..” He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him “…Matthew 27:43
            76. Psalms 22:9……Born the Savior……Luke 2:7
            77. Psalms 22:14…Died of a broken (ruptured) heart…John 19:34
            78. Psalms 22:14,15…Suffered agony on Calvary…Mark 15:34-37
            79. Psalms 22:15……..He thirsted……..John 19:28
            80. Psalms 22:16…They pierced His hands and His feet….John 19:34,37;20:27
            81. Psalms 22:17,18…Stripped Him before the stares of men…Luke 23:34,35
            82. Psalms 22:18…..They parted His garments…..John 19:23,24
            83. Psalms 22:20,21…He committed Himself to God…Luke23:46
            84. Psalms 22:20,21..Satanic power bruising the Redeemer’s heel.. Hebrews 2:14
            85. Psalms 22:22…..His Resurrection declared…..John 20:17
            86. Psalms 22:27…He shall be the governor of the nations…Col 1:16
            87. Psalms 22:31……”It is finished”……John 19:30
            88. Psalms 23:1….”I am the Good Shepherd”….John 10:11
            89. Psalms 24:3……His exaltation predicted……Acts 1:11; Phil. 2:9
            90. Psalms 27:12…Accused by false witnesses…Matthew 26:60,61, Mark 14:57,58
            91. Psalms 30:3……His resurrection predicted……Acts 2:32
            92. Psalms 31:5…”Into thy hands I commit my spirit”…Luke 23:46
            93. Psalms 31:11…His acquaintances fled from Him…Mark 14:50
            94. Psalms 31:13…They took counsel to put Him to death…John 11:53
            95. Psalms 31:14,15…” He trusted in God, let Him deliver him”…Matthew 27:43
            96. Psalms 34:20…..Not a bone of Him broken…..John 19:31-36
            97. Psalms 35:11….False witnesses rose up against Him….Matthew 26:59
            98. Psalms 35:19…He was hated without a cause…John 15:25
            99. Psalms 38:11…..His friends stood afar off…..Luke 23:49
            100. Psalms 40:2-5…The joy of His resurrection predicted…John 20:20
            101. Psalms 40:6-8….His delight-the will of the Father….John 4:34
            102. Psalms 40:9….He was to preach the Righteousness in Israel….Matthew 4:17
            103. Psalms 40:14…Confronted by adversaries in the Garden…John
            104. Psalms 41:9…..Betrayed by a familiar friend…..John 13:18
            105. Psalms 45:2…Words of Grace come from His lips.. Luke 4:22
            106. Psalms 45:6…To own the title, God or Elohim…Hebrews 1:8
            107. Psalms 45:7…A special anointing by the Holy Spirit…Matthew3:16; Hebrews1:9
            108. Psalms 45:7,8…Called the Christ (Messiah or Anointed)…Luke 2:11
            109. Psalms 49-15…His Resurrection…Acts 2:27; 13:35, Mark 16:6
            110. Psalms 55:12-14…Betrayed by a friend, not an enemy…John 13:18
            111. Psalms 55:15…Unrepentant death of the Betrayer…Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-19
            112. Psalms 68:18…To give gifts to men…Ephesians 4:7-16
            113. Psalms 68:18…Ascended into Heaven…Luke 24:51
            114. Psalms 69:4…Hated without a cause…John 15:25
            115. Psalms 69:8…A stranger to own brethren…Luke 8;20,21
            116. Psalms 69:9…Zealous for the Lord’s House…John 2:17
            117. Psalms 69:14-20…Messiah’s anguish of soul before crucifixion…Matthew 26:36-45
            118. Psalms 69:20…”My soul is exceeding sorrowful.”…Matthew 26:38117. Psalms 69:14-20…Messiah’s anguish of soul before crucifixion…Matthew 26:36-45
            118. Psalms 69:20…”My soul is exceeding sorrowful.”…Matthew 26:38

            These are just one third of all the prophecies that The LORD Jesus fulfills .

          • Croco Dile

            Why should I pay attention to this nonsense !?

            It is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR Jesus is a fictitious character invented by corrupt priests for the benefit of the Roman Empire.

            Christianity is basically a mind control device produced by the oligarchy for the mental enslavement of their subjects. – Joseph Atwill

          • GibbyD

            “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.’ ( John 8:36)KJB

          • Croco Dile

            This sentence does not make sense. You should explain it.

          • GibbyD

            Without The LORD Jesus Christ and the Salvation He only can provide, you are a slave to sin and the horrible everlasting consequences of it . Read the context of John 8 if you do not understand.

          • Croco Dile

            As I already wrote to you, a god who threatens heaven or hell based on acceptance of dogma basically does not have a healthy relationship with humans. The threats and incentives would just gather humans that lived in fear or wanted to gain a reward from god – rather like the calculated self interest of Pascal’s wager. A superior relationship would be one based on respect, not force.
            “A perfect god would understand that a meaningful relationship is impossible with the constant threat of a dire ultimatum. An ancient barbaric culture, however, would have no such qualms.”
            I’m not a slave to sin…. this is nonsense.Are you a kind of a slave ? A slave to this doctrine ?

          • James Von Borcke

            “Then consider the following that prove that it is mathematically
            statistically virtually impossible, based on probability, that the Bible
            is not divinely inspired”

            First, don’t accuse me of plagiarism and then do your own copy/paste…

            Second, validate that ~every~ one of these is true (and, no, ~your~ Bible doesn’t count as proof unless ~my~ Bible counts as disproof).

            Third, if you’re going to claim mathematical statistics and probability, then you are ~obligated~ to post the math to back it up ~after~ you have independently validated all of these supposed coincidences.

          • GibbyD

            The difference is that I use quotation marks and cite my sources.

            The copies of the ancient manuscripts are available to anybody to see. The references to these verses from the English translations are shown and are not disputed by anybody..All you have to do is google both the Old Testament prophecy with the corresponding New Testament fulfillment.

            What would you guess the odds would be for all those prophecies to be able to be fulfilled by one person? These are just the prophecies in the Bible that deal with The LORD Jesus Christ . There are hundreds more about other things and they are being fulfilled one by one as we see in the news and history records it .

          • James Von Borcke

            “What would you guess the odds would be for all those prophecies to be able to be fulfilled by one person?”

            0%, because it never happened. It is not necessary to accept Jewish mythology to follow the teachings of Jesus, therefore my sect has ~never~ had the need to falsely claim that Jesus fulfilled such prophecies. It’s only those who believe in the magic of resurrection, and the false belief of salvation through faith, that demanded the fulfillment of prophecy, resulting in a bastardized narrative.

          • GibbyD

            Jesus believed in the prophecies and quoted often from the Old Testament.

          • James Von Borcke

            Of course he did; he was a 1st Century Jew and saw the world as 1st Century Jews did. And even if he had a greater knowledge of the world, he would still be limited by the knowledge of those he ministered to. As such, his teachings and parables would have used cultural archetypes known in the region as needed, and that would have been the same source material as the OT: Jewish mythology.

            Disregarding this mythology, and the false claims of prophecy fulfillment, does not in any way detract from his ministry teachings and the concepts which he introduced independent of (and often contradictory to) those of the OT.

          • GibbyD

            Jesus believed He was God. You better too if you want to make it to Heaven and not be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Christ is the end of the law to all those who believe. Jesus did not do away with the law but rather He fulfilled it . You could not , Israel could not , nobody could but the One that gave the law, the 613 Old Testament laws that showed men were sinners and that they needed a Saviour. The sacrificial system was a type and in anticipation of that One ultimate sacrifice when God would provide Himself as The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the World. God became a man in the person of The LORD Jesus Christ. The LORD Jesus Christ suffered and died bearing in His own body the sins of the World. The LORD Jesus arose from the dead. He promises to save whosoever will admit that they are sinners and turn to and believe on Him for salvation. There is no other way to gain everlasting and abundant life and love. NOBODY is going to love you more than Jesus. He is alive and is coming back. Those that are skeptical of this fact only fulfill another prophecy by doing so. This one a New Testament prophecy of these last day we are living in .

            “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue asthey were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” ( 2 Peter 3:3-7)KJB

            “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” ( 2 Peter 3:8,9)KJB

          • James Von Borcke

            “Jesus believed He was God. You better too if you want to make it to Heaven and not be thrown into the Lake of Fire.”

            First, that’s post-Crucifixion mythology.

            Second, attempts to terrorize me with the proverbial ‘Lake of Fire’ only reveal your desperation to lull me into complacency in the absence of a noble argument.

            “There is no other way to gain everlasting and abundant life and love.”

            Luke 10:25-37.

            “Those that are skeptical of this fact only fulfill another prophecy by doing so.”

            Statement: I am a decorated military vet.

            Prediction: Some people will believe me, some people will not.

            Conclusion: I’m a prophet.

            See the problem?

          • GibbyD

            You should be afraid. You are in danger of the judgement of hell . Luke 10:25-37 was before the cross and before The Church was started as is recorded in Acts 2. The LORD Jesus heaped allot of law and work requirements on those in order that they would see that they COULD NOT KEEP the law or do enough good works or show enough kindness in order to gain everlasting life. Jesus said , ” Ye MUST be born again . You must obey from the heart this form of doctrine( The Gospel ) delivered unto you. ( Romans 6:17)KJB. Even our tears of repentance need to be washed in The BLOOD OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST !!! All your so called good works , even whatever service you did for the country , will not merit you anything to save you . ALL YOUR righteousness is as filthy rags in the eyes of God . ( Isaiah 64:6)KJB. The problem is that you are lost and need saved. The solution is , ” repentance toward God ( Holy Love)and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ( God incarnate) ” ( John 4:24; 1st John 4:7,8; Acts 20:21)KJB.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You should be afraid.”

            Spoken like a jihadist.

            “Luke 10:25-37 was before the cross and before The Church was started as is recorded in Acts 2.”

            The cross didn’t change anything because my church has ~never~ acknowledge Saul as a sectarian authority, but rather as a fraud and a charlatan.

            “The LORD Jesus heaped [a lot] of law and work requirements on those in order that they would see that they COULD NOT KEEP the law or do enough good works or show enough kindness in order to gain everlasting life.”

            I find following the teachings of his ministry to be no problem at all. Do you find following them hard? Do you even try?

          • GibbyD

            “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)KJB
            — The book of James was also not written by Paul.

            “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” ( Matthew 5:20)KJB.
            –These are the words of Jesus .

            –There is only one way that anyone’s righteousness could exceed the pharisees and that is by being granted the imputed righteousness of The LORD Jesus Christ reckoned to our account by grace through faith.

            James , Paul did not write or rather record the book of Acts. Luke recorded the book of Acts as well he did the Gospel of Luke . Everything Changed because of and after The Cross.

            “And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.”( Jude 1:22,23)KJB

            —James , Paul did not record the book of Jude , Jude the brother of James did .

            You are lost and in need of Salvation. There is nothing more that I can say to you . You have heard the Gospel. I pray you will see your need and call upon The Name of The LORD Jesus to save you before it is too late.

          • James Von Borcke

            James 2:10 isn’t Jesus talking, and so is not part of his ministry.

            Matthew 5:20 doesn’t validate your position, but certainly validates mine. (That is, who is it that constantly tries to lawyer through Jesus’ teachings to claim they mean the opposite of what it says? Hint: It’s not me.)

            Nor does Jude 1:22-23 validate your position, being once again ~not~ the ministry of Jesus, though it affirms the use of psychological torture in this post-resurrection mythos you propagate.

            Having made my peace with God, I find no cause to yield to your presumptions regarding what constitutes the ‘real’ faith.

          • GibbyD

            The bottom line is that you are still in your sins , nothing you do can save yourself from sin’s consequences, death and Hell . Your incorrect view of The Holy Scriptures hinders you from understanding The Will of God and or how you can know the truth that could set you free from your sentence of everlasting wrath from God. You refuse and so you will be refused. In fact , you are condemned already because you have not believed The Truth.

          • James Von Borcke

            Yep… It’s always easy to tell when I’ve hit close to the mark; all pretext of intellectual discourse degenerates into “You’re going to burn for this!”

            You serve your Pharisee Priests well.

          • GibbyD

            The presupposition of The Truth of God’s Word is the Standard. The Word of God says that men will not be convinced by “intellectual arguments” but rather by The Power of God’s Word, The Sword of The Spirit. The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

            “Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”( 1st Corinthians 1:20-24)KJB.

            You will not be convinced by wisdom from God or reason .

            What I have declared to you is that for which you would hear any born again saved street preacher proclaim. Why mince words when it is your soul that is in jeopardy.

            :”He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” ( John 3:18)KJB

          • James Von Borcke

            “The presupposition of The Truth of God’s Word is the Standard. ”

            Remember…
            Jesus said many would praise his name but only a few would truly follow
            him. What, then, should I care regarding the presuppositions of the
            majority? My faith doesn’t require the validation of the mob.

            As for quoting Saul, again, it does you no good with me; the man was a false prophet, a charlatan and a politician. My Christianity is based ~only~ on Christ’s teachings, and has stood apart of Saulinism since the very beginning.

            One of the things you said before (I can’t find the original post, so I’m summarizing here) was that Jesus, through his ministry, made it ~impossible~ to follow his teachings by heaping the rules on. But I ask this: If it were impossible to follow Jesus’ teachings, then what did the Jewish priests have to fear? That is, if those who followed Jesus were failing to achieve these supposedly impossible demands, then of what threat were Jesus’ teachings?

            No, the only ~reasonable~ explanation isn’t that Jesus’ followers were failing (as you insist they must), but that they were ~succeeding~, and that success threatened to power of the priests who, if surrounded by a population tending to their own spiritual needs without them (as Jesus taught), would no longer be able to justify their sectarian authority. In effect, the priests found themselves facing what we refer to today as Empty Pew Syndrome.

            Additionally, the ministry of Jesus can be summed up into just two simple rules, as Jesus himself had done so:

            (Mark 12:29-31): And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”

            If you follow ~both~ of these ~two simple rules~, everything else just falls into place, without fail. It isn’t hard at all as you suggest; in fact, it’s quite easy.

            Of course, the second rule presumes that you do love yourself. If your belief system starts with the assumption that you’re filth and deserving of eternal punishment, it makes it hard to love yourself; and if you don’t love yourself, but rather hate yourself, then what will you visit upon your neighbor other than this same hate?

            And that’s the problem with the Religious Right; focusing ~exclusively~ on a philosophy which not only promotes but ~demands~ self loathing, the end result is ~always~ the loathing of one’s neighbors (as the ~documented and undeniable~ history of the Religious Right in the US clearly demonstrates).

            This is the same loathing you have shown me in numerous posts you’ve made in this discussion; the last few, in fact, have been especially illustrative of this, as you presume yourself knowledgeable of God’s judgment of me, pronouncing said judgment with your own voice, in order to avoid addressing the majority of the points I’ve made.

            Which, consequently, is exactly the result Saulinism was intended to produce.

          • GibbyD

            God’s Word is the Standard irregardless of man’s understanding or acceptance of it . That you do not believe The Bible to be true , does not negate the fact that it is. You will still be held just as accountable. If your faith is in a Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible , then your faith is in vain and will not profit you. The Jesus of The Bible is God. The Jesus of The Bible demanded that you be perfect as He is perfect. Since you nor anyone is able to accomplish this , they and you and me need Jesus as our Saviour from the consequences of our imperfection and sin.

            What Jesus said concerning the Law ,the 613 laws, is that they are fulfilled in Him . Christ is the end of the law to them that believe. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” ( Romans 10:4)KJB

            “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” ( Romans 8:2-4)KJB

            “(Mark 12:29-31): And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.””

            —- James , you are not obeying even these. You know that you are not and if you think you are then you’re deceived. You need a Saviour because you cannot even obey those two commands of Jesus.

            James , no born again Christian is self-loathing , they are Christ loving and thankful for His perfect life and sacrifice on the cross that takes away our sin. There is therefore NO condemnation to that that are in Christ Jesus. * Romans 8:1.

            I am not the “religious right” . I am a born again Bible believing saved child of God through repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ. It was by grace that I have been saved and that not of myself, it was the gift of God NOT OF WORKS, lest any man boast. If you or anyone thought that you court merit or earn your salvation by your own ability to keep any rules, teachings or laws, then you and they and everyone that tried , WOULD FAIL !!!

            Telling you the truth is not “loathing:” you or anyone . Presenting the Gospel to you grants you opportunity to believe in it and be saved.

          • James Von Borcke

            “God’s Word is the Standard irregardless of man’s understanding or acceptance of it .”

            And I’ve already explained why the opinion of the majority is irrelevant. Notice, too, how you ignore what Jesus said ~every time~ it’s inconvenient for you.

            “…from the consequences of our imperfection and sin.”

            Self loathing.

            “James , you are not obeying even these”

            And how do you know this? Did an angel whisper it into your ear? Tea leaves, perhaps? Or how about goat entrails? Nothing quite like splitting open a goat’s stomach to find out what you cannot possibly know otherwise. Though I guess tarot cards and rune stones are always an option when in a pinch…

            The fact is that I ~do~ love God and I ~do~ love my neighbors. I love them regardless of skin color. I love them regardless of gender. I love them regardless of orientation. I love them regardless of their religion.

            And through this love, I wish for ~all~ of my neighbors to enjoy the same rights and freedoms that I enjoy, under the same protections that make that enjoyment possible.

            Can you say the same?

            “…that takes away our sin.”

            Self loathing.

            I fail to see the merit of the Saulinite claim that Jesus alleviated me the burden of my faults and errors. If I receive this ‘grace’ from my sins yet fail to correct the behavior, then what better have I made the world by being ‘saved’? If I were a bigot and obtained this ‘salvation’, but were still a bigot, would I ~not~ then feel my bigotry has been vindicated since I’m still a bigot despite ~believing~ that my soul is full-up on Jesus? And can I not, if I choose, flip through the Old Testament and the Saulinite writings to find justifications for that bigotry? Can I not justify beating my wife and children? Can I not justify owning a slave? Can I not justify killing those who believe differently then myself? Can I not justify praying in public so that I may be seen and praised for my righteousness?

            And has the Religious Right ~not~ done these things? Yes, yes they have.

            It is not the teachings of Jesus that make these things permissible, but rather all the other stuff that you ~insist~ must be true despite the rotten fruit it has continuously yield up throughout that last 2000 years of history.

            “Telling you the truth is not “loathing:” you or anyone.”

            Your truth presupposes the worthlessness of humanity. You believe you’re worthless except by grace, so if you were to lose this grace, you would once more be worthless. What a delightful bit of circular logic to keep you adhering to such silly nonsense. “If this isn’t true, then I am not saved… And if I’m not saved, then I will go to the bad place… And the bad place is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad… So it must be true so that I can be saved.”

            After all, is it not true that you believe that? That is, do you not believe ~right now~ that if you stop believing ~exactly what you believe without ANY alteration~, that you will receive the punishment due? How can you reasonably discuss ~any~ issue in which you may be confronted with factual information that ~might~ just make you reconsider what you believe if the price of that reconsideration (in your mind) is eternal punishment? Would you not do ~exactly~ what you’ve done here, which is to ~stop~ discussing the issues and pronounce judgment upon me as you see it in order to avoid the punishment you imagine falling upon yourself?

            I am so glad my faith in Christ does not come with the truck load of fear that your faith comes with. I’d probably be just as hateful, spiteful and paranoid as y’all are, and I’m quite thankful that is not the case.

          • James Von Borcke

            “The Jesus of The Bible demanded that you be perfect as He is perfect.
            Since you nor anyone is able to accomplish this , they and you and me
            need Jesus as our Saviour from the consequences of our imperfection and
            sin.”

            Actually, now that this has had a bit of time to sink in…

            No, Jesus did ~not~ demand that we be perfect. He ~taught~ us to be good neighbors. He ~taught~ us to be forgiving. He ~taught~ us to make amends. He ~taught~ us to accept those who sin. He ~taught~ us to pursue peace.

            See, I don’t believe the issue is that you can’t live up to what Jesus ~demanded~, it’s simply that you do not ~want~ to do as he taught. And thanks to Saul and the Resurrection Narrative, you don’t have to. In fact, not only can you disregard everything Jesus taught, but you can justify ~anything~ your righteous little heart desires.

            And what’s the big justification you present for this proposition? “Being nice is extremely difficult.” Yeah, good one. I can see why you went for the option that didn’t require anything of you.

          • GibbyD

            “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”( 1st Peter 1:16)KJB

            ‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God.”( Lev. 20:7)KJB

            James , you are not living up to the Standard of The LORD Jesus Christ. You are not even close no matter what your own estimation might be of yourself. The LORD Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law. He lived a perfect life . You cannot and until you are willing to admit that you are lost because of your sin. That sin separates you from God, He cannot save you from the consequences. (I John 1:9)KJB. If you will confess your sin , then He will be faithful and just to forgive you of your sins and even cleanse you of all unrighteousness.

            James , I believe “the least” of the saints that is born again that you would consider yourself to be better than, is actually living more of a Godly life than you could ever do in your present unregenerate self. God sees your attempt at holiness as filthy rags righteousness. In other words you are self-righteous since you are going about to establish your own . You can fool others but you cannot fool God Who sees your heart. ( I Samuel 16:7)KJB.

            Born Again believers that have repented toward God and have placed their faith and trust alone toward The LORD Jesus Christ , are living a much more Godly and obedient loving life than you ever have dreamed of being able to do. You know this to be true.

          • James Von Borcke

            “James , you are not living up to the Standard of The LORD Jesus Christ.”

            Oh… NOW you want to take him literally. Except, wait..? Where do you get the impression that we cannot achieve what he bids us to do? See, there’s that self-loathing creeping in again. It’s as I said, you found a justification to ignore Christ’s teachings.

            And, again, your judgment of me is irrelevant. Why would you imagine otherwise? As I’ve pointed out, judgment of sin is for the Lord to dispense, and your presumption to speak ~for~ God to foretell his verdict is nothing more than a vain attempt to shield yourself from what I’m saying. (“How ~dare~ you disagree with me, James! But just you wait! You’re going to get what’s coming unless you change your mind and agree with ME right NOW!” How adorably pretentious you have shown yourself to be.)

            It’s a predictable Pavlovian response that you continue to repeat again and again. Most of you Right Wing types usually have it, and you’ll never question it.

          • GibbyD

            Without an appreciation of Who Jesus is , GOD INCARNATE, you will never be able to attain to anything The LORD Jesus asks. Without understanding and believing that The LORD Jesus Christ died for our sins and arose from the dead , you will still be a slave of the sins that own you Jesus said , ‘Ye MUST be born again” ( John 3:3; 1st Peter 1:23)KJB. To make it to Heaven you need perfection. Only Jesus is perfect. You can try and fail to keep the commandments or you can trust THE ONE WHO did fulfill The Law and then allow Him to grant unto you His Spirit so that you will be able to walk in The Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh. If you trust in yourself and your religion you will die and be separated from God forever. If you If you trust in Christ alone to save you, you will live and be granted everlasting life.

          • James Von Borcke

            “…of Who Jesus is , GOD INCARNATE…”

            Now, if you told me that Jesus was just a man who through, let’s say, force of
            personal will overcame death, well, ~that~ would be something of a feat.

            However, we are talking about God here, yes? The Do-All-Be-All-A-Number-One-Head-Honcho-of-All-Existence? Sure… But then what, I ask, would such a being sacrifice on the cross? And how difficult would it be for God to ‘resurrect’ himself? Even if I were to buy the Resurrection Narrative, the idea that Jesus was God reduces ~everything~ to a cheap parlor trick littered with sadomasochistic props.

            And you folks think ~I~ disrespect God… Wow. Just… Wow.

          • GibbyD

            Jesus was fully God and fully man .He is called The Son of Man as well as The Son of God. The LORD Jesus existed before His incarnation as God , The Word of God. ( John 1:1-14; I John 5:7)KJB. John 4:24 reveals that, ” God is a Spirit”. First John 4:7,8 reveals that , ” God is Love”. When Jesus proclaimed that He was the great I Am , He was saying that He was the eternally existing One . He said that He thought it not robbery to be equal with God ( Philippians 2:6)KJB. Jesus said , ” If you have seen me , you have seen The Father. Jesus said, I and The Father are one. The Bible says that in Christ dwells the fullness of The Godhead bodily ( Col. 2:9)KJB. Thomas proclaimed concerning Jesus , ” MY LORD and MY GOD” ( John 20:28)KJB.

            God in the person of The LORD Jesus Christ suffered what would be equal to what it would be like to burn on fire forever. That is how wonderful and amazing God is and that is How much Holy LOVE’s importance far exceeds anyone or anything else. Holy Love is not just a feeling or emotion. Holy LOVE is that Spirit that is God and He has intellect , sensibility and free will . He(LOVE) is the reason for all existence and the only worthwhile reason for living . Jesus Christ is God incarnate. In His humanity and The Son of God , He is our ensample . He bore our sins in His own body while on the cross and tasted death for every man. He did indeed suffer all that for us and He arose from the dead and He is coming again as KING OF KING AND LORD OF LORDS , THE LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH. Beside Him there is no other God . He alone reign on the earth in Jerusalem for a literal 1000 years and we who are born again , will reign with Him as Kings and Priests .

          • James Von Borcke

            And again I ask the question you didn’t answer: If Jesus was God, then how can the Resurrection Narrative be viewed as anything more than a cheap parlor trick?

            Proclaiming at length how super-great and all-powerful and uber-magnificent God is only strengthens my argument.

          • GibbyD

            You are focusing on the wrong thing. The fact that God could lay down His life and take it up again is not the amazing thing, at least for God. Jesus said as much. Remember also that He had already raised Lazareth from the dead.

            “..I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” ( John 10:17,18)KJB.

            —The amazing thing to consider is the fact that God in the person of Christ , and in love for us , paid the full penalty of our sins when He bore our sins in His own body while on the cross. The wrath of God was poured out on Him. That wrath and judgement that we deserved was paid by The LORD Jesus. In those hours and days , He suffered what would be equal to what it would be like to burn on fire forever. That is what happened and that is what is amazing and so awesome. This is why He is worthy of all honor , glory and praise . This is why He is worthy to take the book and open the seals .

            “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” ( Revelation 5:9)KJB

            “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; 12Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. 13And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 14And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.” ( Revelation 5:11-14)KJB

          • James Von Borcke

            Focusing on absurdity is not focusing on the wrong thing; it’s just not something you wish to consider.

            Now answer the question; all you’ve done is try to bury a non-answer under a bunch of unintelligible dogma.

          • GibbyD

            Can you raise the dead? Will you able to raise yourself from the dead after you die? There is Someone that can and did . I do not even know what your question was . Whatever it is , the answer is The Jesus of The Bible . Jesus is God , He died for your sins and arose from the dead. Mohammed is still dead and cannot save you. A Romans “pope” cannot save you. Only The LORD Jesus can save you.

          • James Von Borcke

            You seem to not grasp a very simple fact: Though we are both Christians, our sects are very different. That is to say, you believe Jesus is magic and need to bury his ministry under a mountain of primitive mythology to justify this belief until you are left with a convoluted mess of irrational nonsense.

            And I don’t.

            Now, answer the question.

          • GibbyD

            I believe Jesus is Who He said He is and that He accomplished what He said He would and what the Scriptures record. I really do not remember what you question is .

          • James Von Borcke

            The question is: If Jesus is the God Almighty, then what was sacrificed and how is the resurrection narrative anything other than a parlor trick?

          • GibbyD

            He did not have to die. He could have left you and I to die and spend forever in Hell without any remedy. What was sacrificed was The LORD Jesus Christ by Him suffering Himself instead of man. If it were possible for you to end all suffering and save everybody that ever lived and bring them to a place of everlasting love and joy , would you do it ? Oh yes, the only thing that it would cost you is that you would have to feel the pain and suffering of what it would be to burn on fire forever . Would you be willing to sacrifice that expense in order to accomplish the result I mentioned ?

            —Now consider what Jesus was thinking and going through when He was in the garden of Gethsemane. He prayed while contemplating what He was about to willingly do . He sweated as it were great drops of blood. Put yourself in His position and try to identify .

            “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
            For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
            Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.” ( Hebrews 12:2,3,4)KJB.

          • James Von Borcke

            “What was sacrificed was The LORD Jesus Christ by Him suffering Himself instead of man.”

            And yet Man still suffers.

            But you still haven’t answered the question… Instead, you keep repeating how absolutely wonderful you think God-Jesus was for doing it, but really… You look at Jesus being beaten and then hanging from the cross (ala Gibson’s maso-erotic Passion of The Christ) and imagine what that would be like for ~you~, and think, “Wow, he took a beating.” But it wasn’t you, nor was it the ‘regular human being’ Jesus of my faith, but the God-Jesus of your faith. As God incarnated, ~nothing~ he could have possibly endured at the hands of Man would measure up to what God-Jesus ~could~ endure. What is a whip to a god that can spend an afternoon chilling in the heart of the sun? This makes the sacrifice meaningless.

            Following then with the Resurrection Narrative, we are all supposed to be amazed and bewildered… But I’d put forth that terms like ‘death’ and ‘resurrection’ were rendered mute when God-Jesus set upon this pre-meditated path, knowing ahead of time that the game was rigged in his favor and, like a stage magician, wanting for everyone to “oooh” and “ahhhh” like simpletons.

            As I said before, my sect disregarded this nonsense 1800+ years ago; it made no sense then, and it makes even less sense now.

          • James Von Borcke

            “The LORD wants us to pray and seek and involve Him in everything. Prayer is not just about asking Him for things and or intercession . It is also about thanking Him for the things we already have and especially for the salvation that He provided and that we enjoy”

            Matthew 6:
            (5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
            (6) But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

            So as we can see, public prayer is anti-Christ.

            Continuing…

            (7) But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (8) Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.(9) After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

            (10) Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
            (11) Give us this day our daily bread.
            (12) And forgive us our debts [or trespasses], as we forgive our debtors. [or trespasses]
            (13) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

            Now, as far as I can tell, ~every time~ a Christian prays in public, they are doing what Jesus said ~not~ to do.

            Every time a Christian goes on and on and on and on, they are doing what Jesus said ~not~ to do.

            Every time a Christian asks for whatever it is they want, they are doing what Jesus said ~not~ to do.

            And every time a Christian prays in a manner other than described in 9-13, they are ~not~ doing what Jesus said ~to~ do.

            Isn’t part of being a Christian about doing as Jesus taught? And if you won’t listen to your own ‘savior’, then it’s no wonder you’re all so willing to disregard our Constitution. Clearly, the only thing sacred here is your egos.

          • GibbyD

            “that they may be seen of men.” . If public prayer is just an effort to be seen of men then the Scripture says they have their reward. Not all public prayer is selfishly done to be seen of men. – So no, public prayers to sincerely seek the guidance of help of God , is not anything that Jesus forbids. He only asks that it be done with the right motivation and intent .
            Concerning long vain repetition in prayer, that can be seen with the chants and using the same words over and over again or reading the same written scripted prayers sent down by church hierarchy. The LORD seems to want our prayer to be spontaneous and real , not scripted but rather from the heart as any conversation with another person would be.
            The outline that is known as The LORD’s prayer , is not the only thing we should be praying . Read how King David prayed in the psalms . God said he was a man after His own heart. Read the examples of prayer in the New Testament . They did not just pray ‘ The Lord’s prayer” .

            You keep using the word “anti-Christ” to apply it to someone or something when you believe it disagrees with something you think is Spiritually wrong. The term refers to those that deny that Jesus is God , that Jesus died and arose from the dead. It is not referenced or applied in any other way. The spirit of anti-Christ applies to those that deny that Jesus Christ is The LORD , that He has come in the flesh.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You keep using the word “anti-Christ” to apply it to someone or
            something when you believe it disagrees with something you think is
            Spiritually wrong.”

            I, and others, use it to refer to anything that is contrary to Christ’s own teachings yet are presented as being Christian.

            For instance, nearly everything in your reply was anti-Christ because Jesus didn’t say any of that. Indeed, all of ‘that’ just looks like justification for not listening to Jesus.

            Have you ever considered that this might actually be the case and you’re just repeating other people’s justifications?

          • GibbyD

            The Gospels are not the only portion of the Scripture that is Inspired of God . The LORD Jesus Christ is The WORD of God. He is the Word incarnate. (John 1:1-14). When I quote or cite any passage from the 66 books of The Holy Bible , I am quoting the Words of Jesus,.

          • James Von Borcke

            “The Gospels are not the only portion of the Scripture that is Inspired of God .”

            I’ve yet to see evidence that any of it is. I mean, as much as my faith centers on Jesus, it’s clear that everything starting with the resurrection is fabrication (adding that Saul was a liar and a scoundrel, while “Saint” John was a raving loon), and there’s no telling how much from ~before~ the crucifixion is the result of adulteration (my own faith disregards any claims to the fulfillment of prophecy as such).

            Indeed, once you step into the idea that Jesus was a sacrifice for ~all~ of our sins, past-present-future, then there is ~no reason~ to follow ~any~ of his lessons. After all, every time I point to what Jesus said in his ministry, ~someone~ posts a 10 paragraph long essay on why, after this ‘sacrifice’, whatever Jesus said can be ignored.

            The end result (as history clearly shows) are self-righteous hypocrites who viciously attack, persecute and (when it’s their ~last~ option) discriminate against their neighbors, using this ‘blood sacrifice’ to grant themselves pre-meditated amnesty alleviating themselves of any responsibility for their behavior.

            The end-result alone is testament of the falsehood of this outrageous proposition.

            Or put simply, the ‘fruits’ of Saul’s influence are rotten and have been for a long time.

            After Engels and Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, Marx learned of how this exercise in economics (which was never intended for full-scale implementation but merely to add to the conversation regarding economics and class structure) was being used by French labor leader Jules Guesde. Upon this discovery, he accused Guesde of ‘revolutionary phrase-mongering’ and stated plainly, “If that’s Marxism, then I am not a Marxist.” Later, the Communist Party in Russia would fully realize Jules Guesde’s efforts, with the exact results Marx had predicted would happen in France if Guesde had succeeded there.

            One can easily imagine Jesus saying, “If this is Christianity, then I am not a Christian.”

          • GibbyD

            Do you understand what plagiarism is ?

            When you read material that is coming from a set point of view , you at least owe yourself the favor of reading information from the other .
            I will respond to your comments , not someone else’s .

            till then remember that Jesus said , ” Ye MUST be born again” ( 1st Peter 1:23; John 3:3)KJB. ” Repent toward God and place your faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21; John 3:16)KJB. While you have time and opportunity .

          • James Von Borcke

            Yes, I understand what plagiarism is, but what have I plagiarized? Or is that just your excuse for exiting the conversation?

    • James Von Borcke

      “Pray in The Name of The LORD Jesus Christ , anyway.”

      Jesus said to pray to God, not to him.

      • GibbyD

        Jesus is GOD. —— “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” ( Colossians 3:17)KJB’

        “Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;..” ( Ephesians 5:20)KJB

        • James Von Borcke

          Quoting Saul the False Prophet isn’t going to get you very far with me.

          And that’s without even getting into the reasons that many biblical scholars question both the dating and authorship of each, especially Ephesians.

          • GibbyD

            I can tell you have never really looked into this topic. I have studied it for more than 36 years.

          • James Von Borcke

            I have looked into it; my faith, after all, is 1800 years old, and we have ~always~ recognized Saul for what he was. It’s one of the reasons my sect was amongst the first to be declared heretical by those who follow Saul’s words over the teachings of Jesus.

          • GibbyD

            Jesus has the signs to verify who He was and is and Paul had the signs of an Apostle to authenticate his apostleship and authority. Paul also had the proofs of the ministry that revealed that he was a minister of God. That long list of proofs can be found in 2 Corinthians 6:4-10)KJB. There are not too many if any that have that many “proofs of the ministry” . God used Paul after confronting him when Paul was traveling to Damascus. Remember ?

          • James Von Borcke

            “That long list of proofs can be found in 2 Corinthians 6:4-10)That long list of proofs can be found in 2 Corinthians 6:4-10)”

            You don’t see the problem with using Saul to affirm Saul?

          • GibbyD

            I trust the epistles as i do the Gospels. I believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God . There are reasons why I do accept the 66 books as The God’s Word , The Bible.

  • Mr. Avatar

    “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] James Madison

    • FoJC_Forever

      Modern secularists tout knowledge as their weapon, but deny the reality of the principles of the Christian religion being infused into our laws and government institutions.

      • weasel1886

        Where ?

      • James Von Borcke

        As a Christian and a secularist, my mere existence proves you wrong.

        • FoJC_Forever

          You can’t be both. Your mere existence is simply to be someone claiming to be a Christian, but not one.

          • James Von Borcke

            When Jesus was brought before Pilate, did he not state that the Kingdom of Heaven was not of this world and that Rome, as the governing authority on Earth, had naught to worry from his ministry and teachings? And did Pilate not hear Jesus make this ~secular statement~ and declare “I find in him no fault at all”?

            But I’m sure you’ll find some Saulinite justification for ignoring Jesus… A most predictable pattern amongst the Christian Right.

          • FoJC_Forever

            No, Jesus didn’t say that. Jesus simply told him that he could have no power over Him, unless the Father had made it possible. Jesus also informed him that he was in sin, but that those who delivered Him up were in greater sin.

          • James Von Borcke

            (John 18:36) Jesus answered, “My
            kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then
            would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but
            now is my kingdom not from hence.”

            I don’t see any of that stuff you said. In fact, every time I point to the very words of Jesus, you somehow , as Jefferson said in the first quote in my last post, manage to “draw all [your] characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw” and thus have “compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man…”

            (Oh, how’d I miss that? He called the New Testament a ‘heathen mystery’… Surprised that didn’t jump out at me on the last post.)

            Now, to be honest, I doubt Jesus used the term Jews in that response (if such a sentence were actually uttered). I think he most likely said “…to the Priests” and it was shifted into Jews later in order to validate antisemitism after Gentiles became the Christian majority and had gained acceptance from Rome (which was generally strong with anti-Jewish sentiment).

          • FoJC_Forever

            Well, you’re wrong, but you don’t want to understand Truth. All you want to do is grab one Scripture and add meaning which doesn’t exist. If you wanted to learn about the account of Jesus with Pilate, you’d look at all the Scripture concerning it.

            John 19:11

          • James Von Borcke

            “All you want to do is grab one Scripture and add meaning which doesn’t exist.”

            I’m reading the statement ~of Jesus~ as it is presented; you’re the one lawyering through them as a Pharisee would to state that Jesus meant the ~opposite~ of his words.

      • Nathan Marcy

        Christians are certainly TRYING to infuse their religion into laws and government institutions. It’s why they keep getting sued and losing. I think the average Christian in Rowan County has given more money to the ACLU than I have!

        • FoJC_Forever

          Many precepts of Christianity were infused into these documents and institutions during their writing and founding. Over time, pagans and heretics have altered them, so that they are now twisted and broken. America is falling.

          • James Von Borcke

            “Many precepts of Christianity were infused into these documents…”

            What precepts? Which ones do you speak of? And more importantly, can you show us ones that are ~uniquely~ Christian and could not have ~possibly~ come from another source? Because I can most certainly illustrate how this nation is not an instrument of Christianity but rather a monument to the Enlightenment, dedicated to free thought and free inquiry, everything that the Christian Right opposes.

            On the other hand, there are a number of precepts that the Bible (that is, those which include the OT and post-Crucifixion mythos) espouses that have been a part of our nation’s history… Slavery, the subjugation of women, the genocide of other cultures, oppression of non-believers, the brutality brought upon those who would question sectarian authority (the Civil War, Women’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, gay rights). That is the legacy of sectarian influence, and we are better off rid of it.

            And before you say that Christians were instrumental in ending these things, I fully agree. Liberal Christians. United with Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. Without fail, Conservative Christians (your sort) have been on the wrong (and losing) side at every venture, and quite often they were standing alone.

            It’s not America that has fallen; it is you.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You are definitely not a Christian, nor do you know or understand God and His Word. You’re very literate and intelligent, but you lack Truth. This lack of Truth is why you are are so errant in what you believe and espouse.

            Christianity is not mythology. The Faith of Abraham, Isaac , and Jacob (Israel) is not mythology. The Mosaic Law and the books of the Prophets are not mythology. Your beliefs, however, are mythology.

            You rant about coming from other sources sounds good, if not for the fact that the majority (if not all) of the founding fathers claimed to be Christians. To even speculate that their religious beliefs didn’t play a crucial role in their founding the nation is ludicrous.

            The USA is not a Christian nation, this is Truth. The Christian Nation consists of all of us who truly know and love Jesus (the) Christ. However, the USA was founded by those who claimed to believe in God and revered, at the very least, Jesus (the) Christ.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You are definitely not a Christian, nor do you know or understand God and His Word.”

            Don’t confuse your opinion for what is definite. Reality is not obligated to yield to what amounts to wishful thinking no matter how convinced you are that it must.

            “Christianity is not mythology.”

            Christianity is a path to God with a lot of ‘fluff’ derived from Jewish myth, the same way Buddhism is a path with a lot of Indonesian fluff; that is, the fluff is secondary to the path it decorates.

            “The Faith of Abraham, Isaac , and Jacob (Israel) is not mythology. The Mosaic Law and the books of the Prophets are not mythology.”

            Prove it.

            “Your beliefs, however, are mythology.”

            Again, prove it.

            You should probably note that my ‘sect’ has a documented existence extending ~at least~ to 90ish CE, practicing their faith openly until going into the late 4th Century when orthodox Christianity gained political power and deemed us a heresy for the sake of political expediency (followed by the burning of the Library of Alexandria, nice going).

            After the Enlightenment, we were able to come out of hiding and practice our faith openly as Christian Deists (although some still prefer the old name, Gnostics).

            “You rant about coming from other sources sounds good, if not for the fact that the majority (if not all) of the founding fathers claimed to be Christians. To even speculate that their religious beliefs didn’t play a crucial role in their founding the nation is ludicrous.”

            First, you haven’t indicated which uniquely Christian precepts you are talking about.

            Second… Have you ever read the Jefferson Bible? By the standard of most Christians, then as well as now, he was a heretic who denied the divinity of ‘the Christ’ as you worship him. Of his tome, he wrote:

            “I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”

            Note how he not only believes the same things about Jesus as me, but also has the same criticisms about you that I do. And for the very same reasons. Additionally, note that the criticism of him (“…who call me infidel…”) mirrors your own treatment of me (as seen in the first sentence of your last post)?

            Now of the New Testament, he wrote:

            “It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions 1. of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended & reversed the laws of nature at will, & ascended bodily into heaven: and 2. of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, & was Punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, & the second by exile or death in furcâ.”

            Note that Jefferson suggests that Jesus was simply a man who bought into his own hype (“…who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them…”) and proclaimed himself God.

            Now, me, I don’t think either happened; rather, that the declarations that Jesus was God came ~after~ Jesus died and others saw fit to alter his story for their own purposes. I most certainly would never suggest, as Jefferson did, that Jesus suffered a delusional breakdown at the end of his career.

            So I ask… Do you count Jefferson (who compared the virgin birth to the springing of Minerva from the head of Jupiter) amongst these ‘majority (if not all)’ Christians you refer to?

            If so, then I ask why his views count as Christian while mine, which are ~almost~ identical, do not?

            And if not (for whatever reason), then you can already see the first major crack in your claim.

            “The USA is not a Christian nation, this is Truth. The Christian Nation consists of all of us who truly know and love Jesus (the) Christ.”

            No, this secular nation consists of Christians ~of many different sects~, plus Jews and Muslims (of their own variety of sects), Deists, Pantheists, Hindus, Pagans, Native American spiritualists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. etc. etc. Constantly trying to claim this nation in the name of your God would be arrogant if it wasn’t so very silly.

            If you consider Christians (or, more likely, ~some~ Christians) to be a separate nation, then I suggest building a Mayflower II and go settle Mars.

            “However, the USA was founded by those who claimed to believe in God and revered, at the very least, Jesus (the) Christ.”

            I’ve already shown how Founding Father #1 certainly didn’t revere Jesus as ‘the Christ’ but only as a teacher of morals and ethics… If I posted quotations from Washington, Adams, Franklin, Paine and Madison (the most accomplished, famous and celebrated of the Founding Fathers), you would see a wide swath of beliefs, from Christian Spiritualist (Adams) to strict Deist (Paine), and those who did include Jesus as part of their world view have already been disqualified by you as being Christians due to your insistence regarding what constitutes a ‘real Christian’.

            That you have never honestly investigated these matters yourself is evident by the fact that you have never noticed the contradiction in your thinking.

            That said, yes, there ~were~ Christians, of a ~myriad~ of sorts, from liberal to conservative, amongst the governing body of the Revolution and the original Congresses; but there were also scientists, free thinkers, Masons… Why do I keep having to repeat these lists? Are you really completely convinced that Christians, ~only~ Christians and only ~your sort~ of Christians were around in 18th Century America?

            You also overlook that the most conservative of these Christians (the precursors of today’s Religious Right) wouldn’t sign the Declaration of Independence until Jefferson removed his condemnation of slavery (thus allowing that scourge on society to haunt us for nearly another hundred years with consequences still felt to this day, such is the influence the Religious Right ~has~ had). It took a lot of work (compliments of them gosh darn no good northern liberals) to convince them to join the Revolution. Perhaps we shouldn’t have invited them to the party..?

            Anyway, despite all your ranting about ‘original intent’ and ‘Founding Christians’, the writings of these very same people indicated ~clearly~ that they knew that they were only planting the ~seeds~ of liberty and that it would be a long, hard, up-hill battle to bring those seeds to fruition, a struggle that would take generations against those who would seek to use government to empower themselves through the guise of righteousness and faith.

            If you can, look up the debates (both in the Senate and in printed editorials and pamphlets) regarding the First Amendment while it was being written, including all of the various forms it took on during that debate (some which tried to limit religious freedom to ~just~ forms of Christianity) until its final ratified form (without such limitation) known to each of us today.

            Or you can just listen to what your church leaders say. That’s clearly working out just great for you.

          • FoJC_Forever

            People like you seek to provoke others into the same emotional tirades you imbue through your words.

            Your words fall dead to the ground. The power of God is not present within you, and has not transformed your spirit. You use many words, but make no real points worth considering.

          • James Von Borcke

            Now see how you are trying to denounce me and belittle me? That has nothing to do with me; that’s your own Pavlovian fear-response to your own doubts.

          • GibbyD

            I see you kind of repeat yourself with the same phrases and put downs toward others.

          • James Von Borcke

            I’m consistent in how I regard people who exhibit the same Pavlovian impulses.

          • GibbyD

            now who is trying to justify their stale old same old, over used ,ad hominem insults and arguments ?

          • James Von Borcke

            Not really; if the behavior is repeated, repeating the criticism is adequate.

          • GibbyD

            You judge wrongly someone’s heart , motives and reasoning and you think that is appropriate as you repeat the same old railing accusations and belittling ?

          • James Von Borcke

            I repeated one sentence twice… Forgive me, already. Jeeze…

    • uzza

      Oh wow, if he did that he really blew it.
      1: You shall have no other gods —violates the US Constitution’s Establishment clause
      2: You shall not make a likeness of anything — Take that, Hollywood!
      3: not take lord’s name in vain—-bans a good part of the English language,
      4: no work on Sunday —- I’ll let Walmart take this one
      6: Don’t kill — US drone program? Capital punishment?
      7: no adultery — bans currently legal open marriages
      9: don’t lie — reverses SCOTUS decision on Fox News, for one
      10: don’t covet — there goes the entire advertising industry.

      ====looks like we really screwed the pooch all right.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Has anyone ever pointed out the use of the word “church” by the founders and founding documents of the USA is a distinctly Christian term and not one which applies to all other religions?

    Unfortunately, we live in a Time of Wickedness. Most people don’t care about God or Truth. As such, Chaos fills the streets, courts, homes, and businesses of America and the world.

    • amostpolitedebate

      Most people in America are still Christian, dude. They’re just over the idea that they have to keep all other ideas/cultures out of *their* country at all costs.

    • weasel1886

      The world gets better everyday

  • Bry

    I would love to see them try to enforce it, pray on my friends, dont let the bullies push you around.

    • weasel1886

      Prayers are OK as long as YOU agree with the content

      • Bry

        Don’t care if someone wants to pray to Allah, or Satan, they have that right given to them by our constitution. As for me, I will not bow down to bullies distorting America by trying to silence any of us. People do not have to be in the room if they don’t want to hear the prayers.

        • Bry

          Oh, and being a veteran, I have no problem defending the rights of all those people to worship as they please.

        • weasel1886

          So excluding citizens is good?

          • James Von Borcke

            Only if it’s ~those~ kind of citizens…

            Those kind, of course, may (and have) included the following: Africans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Women, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, etc. etc. etc.

        • James Von Borcke

          “As for me, I will not bow down to bullies distorting America by trying to silence any of us.”

          And the Persecution Narrative continues…

    • Bobby Mae

      So you won’t bully the Muslim that prays to Allah at one of these meetings, right?

  • Robert

    I will never pray to alla or baal! I don’t pray to idols.

    • amostpolitedebate

      Was… anyone asking you to?

    • Nathan Marcy

      You know the word allah is just Arabic for god, right? You know Christians in the Middle East pray to allah? Also, the god in Islam is the same god as in Christianity and Judaism (Yahweh). Muslims just believe god’s prophet was Mohommad and not Jesus. That’s literally the only difference between the religions.

  • Jason Tirre

    Pray to God in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ anyway. I will. Praise God.!!!

    • weasel1886

      No one is stopping you

      • Jason Tirre

        youre right weasel 1886, regardless of this discussion or any other no one can or will stop me, only our FATHER can, and why would HE, if I stopped praising HIM the rocks would cry out!. goodnight.

      • Jason Tirre

        You are right Weasel no one is for if God be for me who can be against me.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    I am at a loss to understand why prayer of any kind should be a part of any governmental meeting. The county commissioners are not there to discuss religious issues. They are there to conduct county business. Certainly, if individual commissioners want to say a prayer prior to the meeting, they are free to do so. But to include prayer as an official part of the meeting is unnecessary.

    ““Personal religious affiliation, their relationship with Christ, is being attacked,”

    Please. Spare me the hyperbole. These commissioners are free to believe as they like and whatever relationship with Christ they care to. To suggest that their not including Christian-only prayers as an official part of the Commission meetings about to an “attack” on their personal religious affiliation is simply without merit.

    ““Whatever that religion may be, I believe they have the fundamental basic, constitutional right to pray their religious affiliation.”

    And they do. They do not, however, have the right to include their personal religious beliefs as an official part of their governmental meeting where they are conducting governmental business. They were not elected to promote their religious beliefs. They were elected to deal with county business.

    How long will it take before people get it through their heads that governmental bodies are not there to promote any particular religion?

    • Tim

      I would agree not to promote a particular religion. Since religion is a freedom open to everyone, there should be no stigma attached to any religion. I’m sure there are many in government that believe in God. It seems religion is a hot topic in politics today after reading about the candidates for Pres. and what they have been saying.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “I’m sure there are many in government that believe in God.”

        I think it would be reasonable to say that the vast majority of people in politics believe in God.

        “It seems religion is a hot topic in politics today after reading about the candidates for Pres. and what they have been saying.”

        I think it would be more accurate to say that religion is a hot topic in Republican politics today as their candidates attempt to placate the portion of he electorate who are upset that Christianity is no longer being given a place of privilege in law and government.

        • Tim

          “I think it would be more accurate to say that religion is a hot topic in Republican politics today as their candidates attempt to placate the portion of he electorate who are upset that Christianity is no longer being given a place of privilege in law and government.”

          So if I understand you correctly, only the Republican candidates consider religion to be a hot topic? I wasn’t aware that “Christianity” was given a privilege in law and government. Who was it that you believe established a “place of privilege in law and government” to start with? I’m rather curious about your position on that matter.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “So if I understand you correctly, only the Republican candidates consider religion to be a hot topic? ”

            I don’t see Democratic candidates making it a focus of discussion. Do you?

            “I wasn’t aware that “Christianity” was given a privilege in law and government.”

            Really? Are you new to the U.S.? In the early years of the nation, some states limited public office only to Protestants. For years we had required Christian prayer in schools. Laws governing business were based upon the Christian belief system (they were called “blue laws”). Christian prayer, and only Christian prayer, included as a part of governmental meetings. City governments putting up Nativity scenes. Yes, the Christian religion was given a place of privilege in law and government, and still is in some cases.

            As far as who, the answer is legislators.

          • Tim

            “I don’t see Democratic candidates making it a focus of discussion. Do you?” Is that what this is really about? Democrats vers Republicans? So, you do admit that Christianity has been a part of our nation (for how long?). In government and in schools. And you’re position is that for all this time our institutions believe in Christ? Fantastic!.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Is that what this is really about? Democrats vers Republicans?”

            So I take it that you don’t see Democratic candidates making religion a focus.

            “So, you do admit that Christianity has been a part of our nation (for how long?).”

            Of course. With over 70% of the population stating that they are Christian, it continues to be.

            ” And you’re position is that for all this time our institutions believe in Christ?”

            Uh, no. Our institutions, or any institutions, do not have the ability to believe in something. People believe in things. Institutions do not.

            “Fantastic!”

            What is it you find “fantastic!”?

          • Tim

            “Uh, no. Our institutions, or any institutions, do not have the ability to believe in something. People believe in things. Institutions do not.” And what are institutions made up of?

            I find Christ in people’s lives Fantastic.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “And what are institutions made up of?”

            A lot of things. The basis for their being. The laws and rules by which they operate. Their stated purpose. In addition, institutions have members. The institution itself, however, not being sentient, does not have beliefs.

            “I find Christ in people’s lives Fantastic.”

            How do you determine if Christ is in a person’s life?

          • Tim

            “A lot of things. The basis for their being. The laws and rules by which they operate. Their stated purpose. In addition, institutions have members. The institution itself, however, not being sentient, does not have beliefs.” So your belief is that institutions are not made up of people, but laws and rules and the basis of an institution stands alone. Interesting.

            “How do you determine if Christ is in a person’s life?”

            “For years we had required Christian prayer in schools. Laws governing business were based upon the Christian belief system (they were called “blue laws”). Christian prayer, and only Christian prayer, included as a part of governmental meetings. City governments putting up Nativity scenes. Yes, the Christian religion was given a place of privilege in law and government, and still is in some cases.”

            Based on your comment, we would have to first define Christian.

            Chris·tian

            ˈkrisCHən/

            adjective

            1.

            of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.

            “the Christian Church”

            noun

            1.

            a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

            Presuming all is correct and the definition of Christian is true, you may have already answered that question previously. But the definition itself would be the answer.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “So your belief is that institutions are not made up of people, but laws and rules and the basis of an institution stands alone.”

            Given that people come and go, yet the institution remains, then the institution is not made up of the people. With that said, as I made clear, the institution has members and the members are what fulfill the purpose of the institution.

            The important point, however, is that the institution itself is not sentient, therefore it cannot have religious beliefs. If you believe differently, then tell me, what is the religious belief of the US Court System, Congress, and Public Schools?

            “But the definition itself would be the answer.”

            So you take their word for it. Interesting.

          • Tim

            “Given that people come and go, yet the institution remains, then the institution is not made up of the people. With that said, as I made clear, the institution has members and the members are what fulfill the purpose of the institution.”

            So given your definition of institution is it possible there are other definitions of an institution such as:

            an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like,devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program,especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character:
            This college is the best institution of its kind.
            2.
            the building devoted to such work.
            3.
            a public or private place for the care or confinement of inmates,especially mental patients or other persons with physical or mentaldisabilities.
            4.
            Sociology. a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture,as marriage:
            the institution of the family.

            5.
            any established law, custom, etc.
            6.
            any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture. (Since institution could be a long-established person, or a practice, it would seem that an institution would be in fact a person, or a practice of persons that are familiar to us)
            7.
            the act of instituting or setting up; establishment:

            Maybe used in a sentence: “The institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.”

            Related to the context of institution as I used the word, it would indicate a person, that practices (in this case Christianity).

            When you say “their word”, are you stating that I’m taking the definition of Christianity by the Dictionary is “their word”. Because if that is what you’re saying, yes I believe the Dictionary defines what a Christian is and if they are as the Dictionary explains, then that person or persons would have Christ in their lives. Although I don’t speak for all Christians and don’t know what all Christians think or do, I can only speak for those that I know personally. Those people live by the definition stated.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Related to the context of institution as I used the word, it would indicate a person, that practices (in this case Christianity).”

            Here is the context you gave: “In government and in schools. And you’re position is that for all this time our institutions believe in Christ?”

            So, no, your use of “institution” would not indicate a person.

            “Maybe used in a sentence: “The institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.”

            That would depend on where one lives. It would not be an all-encompassing statement.

            “When you say “their word”, are you stating that I’m taking the definition of Christianity by the Dictionary is “their word”.”

            No, I’m saying that you take the person’s word for it that they have ” received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.”

            I’ll ask again: If you believe differently, then tell me, what is the religious belief of the US Court System, Congress, and Public Schools?

          • Tim

            Again I quote: any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture. (Since institution could be a long-established person, or a practice, it would seem that an institution would be in fact a person, or a practice of persons that are familiar to us). You’re interpretation of what I indicated is not what I indicated (smile).

            Now to your question: I have no idea.

  • Tim

    I’ll trust in Jesus Christ. Some have other beliefs. I’m not against them as people, I’m just convinced in Jesus. The courts can’t take that away if you believe in him.

    • Nathan Marcy

      The courts aren’t out to take away the personal beliefs of anyone. They’re only out to stop a practice of elected officials subjecting those there to do business to the impression that the government is a Christian one. No matter what the commissioners are on private time, when they’re working they are there to do the business of government, and the government must remain neutral on matters of religion.

      • Tim

        Thanks for your comment. I’m glad the courts aren’t trying to take away personal beliefs. It seems that this article points out that prayer is not limited to Christian prayer. If you notice, the candidates are expressing their personal beliefs in public places. I doubt that is going to change. It’s been that way for a long time.

  • Paul Hiett

    Prayers of any kind shouldn’t be part of a government meeting.

    • Tim

      Would it be fair that if any of the people wanted to have a prayer, that they could gather before the meeting (any religion that believes in God as an example) and have their prayer and then go do government business? Another question I would have is, must they remove themselves from a government building to have their prayer (its possible that some may gather as Christians, Jews, or Muslims for prayer). Just a thought.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “Would it be fair that if any of the people wanted to have a prayer, that they could gather before the meeting (any religion that believes in God as an example) and have their prayer and then go do government business?”

        Absolutely.

        “Another question I would have is, must they remove themselves from a government building to have their prayer (its possible that some may gather as Christians, Jews, or Muslims for prayer).”

        Absolutely not.

        • Tim

          Thank you for your comment. I’m in agreement with you.

  • Mark Desade

    This has already been decided by the Supreme Court who ruled last year in May that legislative bodies such as city councils can begin their meetings with prayer, even if it plainly favors a specific religion.

    The court ruled 5 to 4 that Christian prayers said before meetings of an Upstate New York town council did not violate the constitutional prohibition against government establishment of religion; the justices cited history and tradition.

    All nine justices endorsed the concept of legislative prayer, with the four dissenters agreeing that the public forum “need not become a religion-free zone,” in the words of Justice Elena Kagan.

    “Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court’s conservative majority.

    The ruling was a victory for the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester.

    “The prayer opportunity in this case must be evaluated against the backdrop of historical practice,” the majority wrote in its opinion. “As a practice that has long endured, legislative prayer has become part of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive idiom, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of ‘God save the United States and this honorable Court’ at the opening of this Court’s sessions.”

    The majority justices further argued that the intended audience is not “the public, but lawmakers themselves.”

    In 1983, the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska Legislature and said that prayer is part of the nation’s fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment. Monday’s ruling was consistent with the earlier one.

    By the way, the Supreme Court, like Congress, opens every session with a prayer offered by a chaplain.

  • Jamestroy

    This has already been decided by the Supreme Court who ruled last year in May that legislative bodies such as city councils can begin their meetings with prayer, even if it plainly favors a specific religion.

    The court ruled 5 to 4 that Christian prayers said before meetings of an Upstate New York town council did not violate the constitutional prohibition against government establishment of religion; the justices cited history and tradition.

    All nine justices endorsed the concept of legislative prayer, with the four dissenters agreeing that the public forum “need not become a religion-free zone,” in the words of Justice Elena Kagan.

    “Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own e

    • James Von Borcke

      Did you really have to post the same copy/paste job as the ~last~ person to post before you?

      • Jamestroy

        And you think I am supposed to care that what you say will mean anything to me? Dream on brother. If you don’t have anything of value to share, then I suggest you mind your own business and leave things be. We are not under your suggestion as to what to post

        • James Von Borcke

          “We are not under your suggestion as to what to post”

          I just pointed out the redundancy… But if you wish to be redundant, then carry on.

  • Vickie

    Have all of you forgotten what the founders did prior to any meetings they had? It was good then for them, and has been good till the atheists/secularists/communists decided they didn’t want to “allow” us to pray to God! It started with Madelyn Murray O’Hare and her communists comrades! She was evil, she is no longer here! Christians have become complacent, that’s why America is going to fall, unless we ask for forgiveness, and turn from our wicked ways, as in 2 Chronicles 7:14!

    • Tim

      I don’t think that most people have forgotten the personal beliefs of, let’s say the Presidents. Not all of our founders believed but it seems from what I have discovered throughout history that many did believe in God. If Christians are to take up our cross daily, I think its best to look to Jesus for that guidance. He loved all mankind, that was more or less his mission statement if you will. America has the freedom of religion which is non-exclusive. Although I believe in Jesus Christ, even he rebelled against the religious paradyme during his mission because they became callous and it was their way or death. I speaking for myself only, believe that showing love is the only way. Following Jesus is the difficult way because we are not doing what he is asking. Forgiveness, praying for those that are oppressive in private, and continuing to look at ourselves instead of others to remove our own thornes so to speak. The only way not to be complacent is to love. You may or may not agree, but that is what I think Jesus is calling me to do.

    • James Von Borcke

      ” It started with Madelyn Murray O’Hare and her communists comrades!”

      The issue with the O’Hares isn’t that there was prayer, but that her child was being pressured to join in prayer by being ostracized by the school and classmates for ~not~ participating.

      That is what made school prayer an endorsement of religion.

      That said, I don’t care if a governing body engages in prayer before they get down to the civic duties they were elected to perform, so long as my ~not~ participating in such prayer is not held against me while attempting to tend to whatever business brought me to their forum. So long as my non-participation isn’t used as an excuse to discriminate against me, it matters not if they pray to Jesus, dance for Diana, hail Satan, or slaughter a chicken for ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier.

  • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

    Why are so many afraid of the Name of Jesus? What did he do to cause such fear? The thing I could think is that Only spirits inside people would be afraid of His Name. Jesus was able to make spirits leave a person. Even Demons can be cast out in the Name of Jesus. I think it is the Demons who really fear the Name of Jesus. That is why they work so hard to prevent us from speaking in the Name of Jesus.

  • Willem Toerien

    When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near.

  • Mike Wilson

    The Book of Acts (chapter 5) deals with this issue. The Apostles response to it was:
    29. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN. Acts 5:29 (KJV)

    I hope the commissioners stand firm in their faith and keep praying in the name of Jesus.

    • James Von Borcke

      “I hope the commissioners stand firm in their faith and keep praying in the name of Jesus.”

      I hope the commissioners would stand firm in their faith by adhering to Jesus’ condemnation of public prayer in Matthew 6.

      • GibbyD

        He did not condemn it . He said don’t do it just to be seen of men . There are still those that pray in public that do it with the sincere intent of seeking the wisdom and blessing of God upon what they are about to do .

        • James Von Borcke

          Well, that’s what they say.

          It’s still doing what Jesus said not to do. You Right Wingers really love your justifications.

          • GibbyD

            Just simply reading what Jesus said without adding or taking away .

          • James Von Borcke

            He said to pray ‘in secret’… You’re adding and taking away quite a bit if that’s not what you’re doing.

          • GibbyD

            He was speaking to and rebuking those that prayed to be seen of men. He did not say that we could not pray in public otherwise The Apostles and Jesus would be guilty of it .

          • James Von Borcke

            “He was speaking to and rebuking those that prayed to be seen of men.”

            And how do I know the difference? Seriously… If I go to City Hall to take care of some business but find I have to wait while a group prays, how do I know if they wasted my time actually praying from the heart or praying just to be seen? All I know for sure, after all, is that my time has been wasted while a group of primitives wail their insecurities at a god that thinks I’m worthy of eternal torture.

          • GibbyD

            A number of years ago our town was visited by KKK members. They went to the court house and obtained a permit to demonstrate on our court house steps and proclaim their perverse sick ideas. There was a counter protest and heated words between camps. Some wondered how the KKK were able to be allowed to use our court house steps to say the things they did. The same free speech rights that that wicked group of sinners used to proclaim their evil , is the same free speech right that gives a county commissioner from North Carolina , the freedom to take a moment and on his own, pauses, and prayers a prayer to seek and ask God to grant wisdom and help guide as they make decisions for the county. If he closes the short prayer in the name of Jesus , that is His right. If several county commissioners from another county , say no prayer , that is their right also. It is speech that is protected , not ears.

          • James Von Borcke

            “…that wicked group of sinners…”

            Oh, no… They’re good Christians who, just like you, have Christ’s grace absolving them of the consequences of their sins. Go ahead, just ask them.

          • GibbyD

            Nope , their beliefs were more aligned to what you believe James. They knew nothing about the grace of God but were relying on their “good works” and religion instead of grace through faith in the finished work of Christ . That was learned when one of our local Bible Believing street preachers called them on it as he ripped them apart with His powerful loud voice that drowned out their presentation.

          • James Von Borcke

            “Nope , their beliefs were more aligned to what you believe James.”

            $10 says they vote for the same people you do. Birds of a feather and all that.

          • GibbyD

            I doubt it . “This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” ( Daniel 4:17)KJB

            “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs ofthis life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” ( 2 Timothy 2:4)KJB

          • James Von Borcke

            What’s to doubt? They believe in magic God-Jesus just like you do. They believe themselves righteous just like you do. They believe that a government empowered to defend the rights of people they don’t like is an infringement of their own rights just like you do.

            Just two bushels of rotten fruit from the same rotten tree.

          • GibbyD

            First , the kkk does not even believe that Jesus was Jewish. The kkk is for separation of the races. The Scriptures do not forbid or command that races not mix . The Bible rather teachers that believers should not be un-equally yoked together with un-believers. The kkk dos NOT preach The Gospel , they preach and teach a works based ,good out weighing your bad brand of professing Christiandom. Much of what is known as “Christiandom” believes this false teaching that you can earn and merit favor and acceptance with God by your own self-righteousness. God simply calls all of that ” FILTHY RAGS ” ( Isaiah 64:6)KJB.

          • James Von Borcke

            One must wonder if your inability to comprehend is intentional…

            Apparently, you seem to have forgotten what I’ve said ~numerous~ times which, while I can accept that you don’t believe to be true, you should at least believe explains my position. Failing to do that is an intentional choice on your part.

            So listen up…

            My position has been, and remains, that when you stick to the Gospels (for which the Gospels in my Bible end with the death and burial of Jesus), one will do well, but when you insist that the other stuff (the Old Testament, Resurrection Narrative, Saul, Revelations) is true, then all sorts of bad neighbor things become justified.

            The Klan are an example of just that: Using non-Gospel lessons from the Bible to justify actions that are contrary to Christ’s ministry while proclaiming themselves the anointed champions of a magic God-Jesus, performing the same mental gymnastics, with loose interpretations of some parts while demanding strict interpretation of others, as every other magic God-Jesus sect that exists.

            Including yours, as you’ve illustrated at extensive length.

            I reiterate: My sect has an 1800 year long history of disregarding the idea of magic God-Jesus. And my sect was also one of the first put on the hit list when magic God-Jesus Christians gained political power in Rome. And we remained a persecuted sect up until the Enlightenment, by Catholic and Protestant alike, allowing for brief periods of reprieve during the various Renaissances during which we were actively contributing to art, culture and inquiry (just as we had been before a mob of magic God-Jesus Christians burned down the Library of Alexandria for containing ‘heathen knowledge’).

            So don’t think you can disregard the KKK so easily, as they are simply a ‘fossil species’ of your own social and political philosophy; if you are glad you don’t think or act like them, thank a liberal. If you hate that they show up at your political rallies like unwanted inbred cousins at a family gathering, then you should speak up instead of quietly accepting their votes.

            “The Bible rather teachers that believers should not be un-equally yoked
            together with un-believers. The kkk dos NOT preach The Gospel , they
            preach and teach a works based ,good out weighing your bad brand of
            professing Christiandom.”

            Did you even read this before hitting the post button?

          • GibbyD

            So you pretend to follow some of the lessons that Jesus taught but don’t believe everything He said , in particular His own Resurrection.

            If you want to ascribe what political party was more entrenched in the KKK and racist actions and policies in government, you need not go any further than The Democrat party. I am sure you know the history. It was Bible believing Christians that helped to end slavery and pushed harder for equal rights for minorities than the southern democrats did. Do a search and study on William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833). From there search more about the Christian movement that eventually ended slavery.

            From what i have seen , The Tea Party movement has disavowed and disallowed any participation from anyone that would espouse any racist beliefs. Democrats and the media tried to portray the Tea Party as racist but failed. Certain democrat leaders even tried to fabricate accounts of situations where they said they heard people from the tea party use racial slurs launched at them. When it was investigated and the video and tapes were played back , it was obvious that nothing of the kind happened .

            You need to realize that not everyone that says “LORD , LORD” , is a real Christian . The wheat and tares are growing together sadly but there will be a separation at the judgement seat of Christ . There are many hearers but not doers of The Truth . Those that are born again have a new nature and one that enables them to live for God.

            –James , from what you are telling me you identify yourself more as a Sadducee rather than a Pharisee.
            “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.’ ( Acts 23:8)KJB
            — I suppose that is why they were so Sad …..U see ? 😉

            “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.’ ( 1st Corinthians 15:17-19)KJB

          • James Von Borcke

            ” I am sure you know the history.”

            You mean about them getting kicked out of the Democratic Party in 1948, and then how Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy to harness the angry white southern vote following the Civil Rights Act, and then given a voice by Reagan via the so-called ‘Moral Majority’, who then got themselves all full of false pride after 9/11 thanks to Bush Jr, and now have become manifest as the Tea Party, a ultra-conservative social movement disguising itself as a tax protest while pushing for all the same neo-Confederate nonsense? Yes, I am ~quite~ familiar with that history. Got a few family members that have proven themselves to be shining examples of such.

            Oh, and they all vote Republican.

            Seriously, you people adopted them, now you can keep them. It’s not our fault that you feel dirty every time they show up.

            “From there search more about the Christian movement that eventually ended slavery.”

            Yes; Liberal Christians. Allied with Liberal Jews, Liberal Deists, Liberal Atheists, Liberal Agnostics, etc. etc. etc. Y’know… Liberals.

            The Conservatives committed treason to keep slavery, and were almost exclusively Christian. Your sort of Christian, as a matter of fact.

            And I never identified as a Pharisee; first, it’s not culturally correct, and second, I don’t try to exploit religious laws to enforce my own sectarian authority (which is to say, your position as Chief Lawyer remains uncontested due to my lack of interest in such petty thrones).

          • GibbyD

            And now for the whole truth .

            “During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.

            Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged Representatives and Senators to do “more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined”. Though he shared Johnson’s convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.

            The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

            Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

            In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate”, filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

            Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama’s infamous “blacks in the back of the bus” law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors.” Mike Zak

          • James Von Borcke

            None of which addresses the progress of the last 50 years, nor the fact that the KKK now votes entirely Republican… And, yes, the KKK was booted from the party; Google ‘Dixiecrats’.

            And, yes, there used to be liberals in the Republican Party, just as there were conservatives in the Democratic Party; both, in fact, had liberals and conservatives in them. But where are the liberal Republicans now? They were all purged by the conservatives. Something regarding the term ‘RINO’ comes to mind.

            Which is my point… While the Democratic Party got on board with Civil Rights (with the segregationists steadily ejecting themselves with each election cycle), the Republicans pulled a hard-right and kept going. Now those who care about rights and freedoms for everyone (not just themselves or their group) no longer have a tough choice between one party or another; and its the Christian Conservatives who took over the Republican Party that made that choice easy.

            Consider someone like David Duke, who thought running in 88 as a Democrat was a good idea thinking he could get enough support from the ‘old guard’, but then discovered that no one really wanted to hear his tired nonsense anymore… His sort either had no political affiliation (didn’t vote in primaries) or had gone full-pledged Republicans (didn’t vote in the right primaries). But then in 92, he found himself with a lot more traction as a Republican. Still lost, but served as a splendid example of how things were shifting between the parties.

            It’s a shame, really, giving new life to a dead political and social philosophy, holding us back now just as it did when Jefferson’s condemnation of slavery was stricken from the Declaration of Independence (by southern conservatives). Meanwhile, they are preaching the same ‘states rights’ and ‘small government’ nonsense that the Dixiecrats championed because they found the defense of other people’s rights to be offensive.

            Reminds me of the time Goldwater said, “When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”

            And what d’ya know… He was right.

            “I did not say you seem as a Pharisee but rather a “SADDUCEE” .”

            What you had said was…

            “…from what you are telling me you identify yourself more as a Sadducee rather than a Pharisee.”

            I’m merely pointing out that there was no reason (other than one you may have constructed in your own head) for the ‘rather than…’ portion of that sentence.

            As is, I wouldn’t identify as either; both were entrenched sectarian groups within 1st Century Jewish culture before Jesus began his ministry work. I couldn’t even begin to imagine what the first converts believed before hearing Christ’s teachings; they may have been a small group from a singular culture and faith, or they may have come together from a myriad of backgrounds and faiths.

          • GibbyD

            The facts are that the Democrats distanced themselves from their racist roots only after seeing that it was costing them politically. Now they are intent on enslaving minorities and the poor by creating and ever dependent class that are beholden to Government for every facet of their lives. The New Slave Masters are the leaders in The Democrat Party and their money backers George Soros and Tim Gill. — I would not call that “progress”. The racist leadership in the Democrat Party, Lord over the masses that are enslaved to them. They have been told that they must let the Government take care of them because without the government they will be able to take care of themselves.

            The Democrat Party says it cares more for minorities than The Republicans do yet the Democrats are the ones that are Pro-Abortion. Abortion kills more innocent Afro American girls and boys percentage wise than any other race of people in The USA. I think that is a major connection as to the reason why the big dogs of the Democrat Party are so adamantly for Abortion. They don’t care that there is a Black genocide going on in this country. Three thousand innocents are killed every day in this country and one of the largest groups of those are composed of innocent black girls and boys. That is YOUR party and those YOU identify most with. There use to be a few Democrats that were pro-life but they were hounded out of the party and never given a chance to lead. I remember the former Governor of Pennsylvania , Bill Casey, was forbidden to speak to the delegates and address them from the podium during the late 80s and early 90s at their National Primary Conventions . It is even worse now. If you are not in goosestep with Obama on every issue, you are silenced or doomed for any future in the Party . Being for traditional marriage , trying to protect innocent human life, and seeking more efficient and less costly government , does not make anyone a racist. I do not see how you can make any connection. When are are private sector is thriving , ALL Americans do well and advance. We are in a Capitalistic economy and we need to make that system work . We cannot do that by punishing productivity and rewarding dependency. It is not fair to those who really need help if all that hard earned tax money revenue is being wasted on programs that are worthless and failing and people that abuse the system. Concerning freedom and people’s rights and protections ? Only The Republican Party champions that cause so well . Democrats even want to try and force a county commissioner from praying in the name of Jesus.

            “I couldn’t even begin to imagine what the first converts believed before hearing Christ’s teachings;…”

            —- Are you serious ??? They were primarily JEWS! Other nations heard but the primary and first audience that Jesus was speaking to were Jewish. He came to them FIRST . His intention was to go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.FIRST. We know exactly what they believed . It is recorded and we have those Scriptures from very reliable manuscript copies and written now for us in English. What the Sadducees believed is recorded.

            “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.” ( Acts 23:8)KJB
            “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,”( Matthew 22:23)KJB

            James , You are more like a Pharisee and Sadducee than you realize. But by definition , more a Sadducee. Not all that they were about was bad but the reputation for their error and abuse is noted even today.

          • GibbyD

            Our nation’s top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

          • GibbyD

            During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.

            Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged Representatives and Senators to do “more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined”. Though he shared Johnson’s convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.

            The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

            Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

            In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate”, filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

            Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama’s infamous “blacks in the back of the bus” law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors.

            I said you seemed more like a Sadducee. They also did not believe The Resurrection , angles , etc. That is probably why they were so Sad…U-see?

    • Lark62

      Acts chapter 5 addresses prayer at government meetings by elected officials in a secular democracy? Perhaps not.

      • Mike Wilson

        In Acts Chapter 5 the Apostles were teaching and preaching in the name of Jesus. The Jewish leaders, aka Sanhedrin, acted as both the religious leaders and a proxy government of the Roman Empire to maintain order over the Jewish people. The High Priest commanded the Apostles to stop teaching in Jesus’ name to which Peter responded “we ought to obey God rather than men.”

        Apply the teaching to this article. A federal judge, acting on behalf of the federal government, is ordering American citizens, men of the faith, to stop praying in the name of Jesus. Hopefully these commissioners will follow the example of the Apostle Peter and respond to this judge the same way Peter responded to the leadership of his day.

        The U.S. is not a secular democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. A Democracy is the rule of the majority; a Republic is the rule of law, hence, Constitutionally protected rights. Even though these commissioners are elected officials, they are still American citizens who have the right to exercise their faith. It’s no different than an elected official exercising his/her right to free speech, or the right to due process, or the right to keep and bear arms, etc.