Group Wants Air Force General Court Martialed for Speaking at National Day of Prayer Event

OlsonWASHINGTON — A group that works to separate God from the military has written a letter to Air Force officials to demand that an Air Force general who spoke about his Christian faith at this year’s National Day of Prayer event be court martialed for his “unforgivable crimes.”

Major Gen. Craig Olson was among a number of distinguished guests at the Washington, D.C. observance on May 7, and presented a 20-minute speech about his personal testimony and the power of prayer.

“I’m thankful that I’m a redeemed believer in Christ standing here right now,” Olson told those gathered, receiving applause.

He said that he came to Christ as the result of a Bible study at the Air Force academy, and has since learned to depend upon God for every task that he has been assigned to.

“[God] put me in charge of failing programs worth billions of dollars,” he stated. “I have no ability to do that, no training to do that. God did that. He sent me to Iraq to negotiate foreign military sales deals through an Arabic interpreter. I have no ability to do that. I was not trained to do that. God did all of that.”

But when the Military Religious Freedom Foundation learned of the speech, it sent a letter to the Pentagon, asking that Olson be punished for his behavior. President Mikey Weinstein called the event at which Olson spoke an “annual shame spectacle and display of Christian supremacy.”

“Olson’s highly publicized, sectarian speech is nothing less than a brutal disgrace to the very uniform he was wearing and the solemn oath he took to support and defend the United States Constitution,” it read. “This public address was his, and the USAF’s, ‘contribution’ to this scathingly sectarian 2015 version of the NDPTF’s annual shame spectacle and display of Christian supremacy and exceptionalism held in the Cannon House Office Building…”

  • Connect with Christian News

Weinstein asked the Pentagon to watch the video of Olson’s speech and “tell me that you’re just not sick to [expletive] death seeing an active duty Air Force general officer boastfully proselytizing and freely witnessing his personal brand of his own fundamentalist flavor of his evangelical Christian faith to literally a worldwide television audience.”

He asserted that Olson’s speech violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as military regulations such as Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.12, which prohibits superiors from engaging in the appearance of a government endorsement of religion.

Consequently, Weinstein asked that Olson be court martialed for his speech before the event.

“[T]he Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) hereby demands that Major General Craig S. Olson be immediately, aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions via trial by General Courts Martial and that any and all others who assisted him with his NDPTF speech of fundamentalist Christian supremacy be likewise investigated and punished to the full extent of military law,” he wrote.

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
  • Mike Fitch

    Gee, the article reported that the general told his PERSONAL story of how Christianity has impacted HIS life. It sounds like Weinstein wants to silence everybody who does not agree with Weinstein’s view.

    • Lark62

      The general can attend his church on Sunday as a private citizen and give his testimony until the cows come home. He cannot use government authority to advance his personal religious beliefs.

      • Tim

        He can also freely express himself in a prayer meeting. Did you miss that part?

        • Lark62

          Did you miss the part where he is in violation of Air Force Instruction 1-1 Section 2.12?

          You can’t push jesus when on the clock. You can’t use the authority of your taxpayer paid position to push your religion.

          • Tim

            A national prayer meeting, and he can’t talk about God? That is ridiculous.

            “You can’t push jesus when on the clock.” WHAT? He would be on the clock so to speak when on the Battlefield, and your saying he could not speak about Jesus on the clock. Again, how crazy that sounds is how crazy this whole thing is.

          • Lark62

            If you were in the military, what would life be like if your general mocked, criticized and discriminated against your brand of christianity? Pretty miserable, I expect.

            Commanders need to keep their personal beliefs personal while in uniform to protect the religious freedom of those under their command.

          • Tim

            You could tell that to my friends who served in the Korean War and they would tell you, that isn’t even close to being an issue. Men in uniform don’t keep their personal beliefs to themselves, are you living in the real world? Every man I have ever seen on documentaries during WWII talked about their faith in public, in uniform, and those that survived give credit to God for their very lives. People of today have bent things so out of proportion that they thing that God is discriminatory. Well, God isn’t. Your making an argument that you know little about (no offense). I have spent countless hours with men that had to go into battle. The last thing they would want to think, is that there was no God. The first thing they thought about is that God would protect them. Unbelievable to me that a new generation does not want these men to share their beliefs in a War-time situation, or a prayer meeting mean’t to share about God. What is this world coming to. What is this new generation trying to do?

          • Lark62

            Thanks for proving my point. The approved brand of god worshipers talk god all the time. And you heard not one voice offering any other view because those voices knew what would happen if they didn’t lie.

            The Korean War was 65 years ago.

            Every single person in the military has a right to serve without religious coercion.

          • Tim

            And this is today.

            “There are so many good and godly people in the military who would be appalled to think that their leaders would be saying things like this,” he said. “The attempt on the part of the social engineers of our day to secularize our culture is in full swing. Everything they can do to remove God, the Bible and morality from the marketplace is being done – not subtly but overtly.”

            “I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.”

            Boykin said he fears that the attacks on the Christian faith of soldiers could destroy the morale and the readiness of the military.

            Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Institute, wondered why Christian soldiers must hide who they are.

            “Why are we ashamed of one of the major reasons our Nation is the most generous and self-sacrificing for the benefit of others that the world has ever known – our inherently Christian benevolence,” he told Fox News. “We have freed the oppressed, fed the hungry, and restored nations throughout the world without anything in particular to show for it other than the satisfaction of making the world better than we found it for the sake of goodness and doing the right thing. Why should we hide a major motivation that compels Americans to do this?”

            Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, told Fox News he was extremely disappointed to hear the news.

            “I’m so concerned that the military is caving in to an organization that does not understand the First Amendment,” Crews said. “Christians have every right to exercise their faith in the military.”

            “It appears Christianity is being marginalized in our military,” he said. “The fact is Christian military personnel have the right –the God-given, Constitutional right to worship in an environment that speaks of who they are — and that includes having the cross as a symbol in a place of worship — even in a Muslim country.”

            Boykin called on Americans to call their elected representatives and make a “vehement protest” against what is taking place.

            He said it’s no coincidence the Obama Administration is using the military, a bastion of traditional American values, to implement social changes.

            “You are seeing an assault on the military in an effort to change our society,” he said. “The traditional values of the Judeo-Christian beliefs that America was founded upon – is a target of the Administration.”

            “In Dispatches From Bitter America this ‘Great American’ finds that not only is our American way of life under attack, but also that most Americans do in fact love God, this country, their families, and are anything but bitter!”

          • Hermit

            Have you read “The War Prayer” by Mark Twain? It is the logical end position of what you advocate.

            Attempting to justify through special pleading that because a certain belief was granted an unlawful privileged position in the past that we should continue to break the law would be a logical and moral failure.

          • Tim

            You have become irrelevant to any other discussion, since you have provided nothing in the way of intelligence from our previous conversation and wrote things that by inference were completely inaccurate. I certainly won’t be discussing this issue with you.

          • Hermit

            That is just your dissonance speaking 😛

          • Tim

            LOL, whatever that means.

          • Hermit

            Or your uniform. Or your position in the armed forces. If you want to be a god botherer, you can always resign from the military and do it on your own dollar.

          • jmichael39

            You have no authority under any law to require a person conform to your religious beliefs in order to be in our military. No matter superior you might think your beliefs to be.

          • jmichael39

            Did you actually read that section?

            2.12. Balance of Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. Airmen must insure that in exercising their right of religious free expression, they do not degrade morale, good order, and discipline in the Air Force.

            No. Nothing in there he violated. or maybe you meant 2.12.1

            2.12.1. All Airmen are able to choose to practice their particular religion, or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others
            whose viewpoints differ from your own.

            No!? That can’t be it either. Maybe 2.12.2

            2.12.2. Your right to practice your religious beliefs does not excuse you from complying with directives, instructions, and lawful orders; however, you may request religious accommodation. Requests can be denied based on military necessity. Commanders and supervisors at all levels
            are expected to ensure that requests for religious accommodation are dealt with fairly.

    • Hermit

      He wore his uniform and spoke in public about his personal beliefs. Both are against military law. As such he broke the law and you are saying that you consider illegal behaviour by senior soldiers acceptable. On what basis did you decide that and what behaviour do you think you would you find unacceptable?

      • jmichael39

        WHAT LAW…show us.

        • Hermit

          Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.12:

          2.12. Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause.
          Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief. Violation of this order is potentially a felony underthe Uniform Code of Military Justice.

          Major General Olson’s religious performance in full dress uniform on behalf of the NDPTF, which is a private organization, not only “endors[ed]” his personal; “faith, belief” it also violated the Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.7-R) prohibition on endorsement of non-Federal entities and DoD Instruction 5410.19, which prohibits the providing of a selective benefit or preferential treatment to any private organization, as well as violating a slew of other DoD directives, instructions, and regulations and the “No Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights as
          well as having constructively created a banned “religious test” in
          specific contravention of Clause 3, Article VI of the body of the United
          States Constitution”.

          cf letter from www dot militaryreligiousfreedom dot org.

          [Version without link to avoid automatic censorship]

          • jmichael39

            DoD 5500.7-R – uses words like “suggest official endorsement” and “implied” and “preferential treatment” and never once defines any of those terms anywhere in the document. While I understand why a God-denier would want to make their OWN definitions for those terms. I don’t quite think you have the authority to do that for the DoD. I could be wrong. But I don’t think you do.

            DoD Instruction 5410-19 specifically does not apply

            “2.4. Does not apply to voluntary participation in community and civic activities by DoD personnel when they participate in a personal capacity in an off-duty status. See DoD 5500.7-R (reference (d)) for additional guidance regarding off-duty or personal capacity activities.”

            and of course, when one looks at DoD 5500.7-R relating to off-duty activities…it says the following:

            Section 3-211 (c) does say about speaking at events held by non-Federal entities: “Speeches by DoD employees at events sponsored by non-Federal entities are not precluded when the speech expresses an official DoD position in a public forum in accordance with public affairs guidance.”

            Unfortunately, this falls under the heading of “Logistical Support of Non-Federal Entities” and as one reads through the section it becomes clear is not talking about off-duty activities that personnel participate in…but rather incidents where said personnel are participating via official capacity.

            So that leads to the question as to whether a military person is in their “official capacity” by simply wearing his/her uniform.

            “Personal Capacity: Attendance is generally allowed so long as it is clear that personnel are attending in their personal capacities and acting exclusively outside the scope of their official positions.” (JER 3-300.a.)

            Then there is this from Defense Directive 1344.10 Sect. – “Use of his military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.”

            So, the seemingly key aspects of this event are whether there was any reason for anyone watching the event or listening to him speak to conclude that he was, in way, implying that his words or presence there was as a representative of the DoD in any official capacity. Wearing one’s uniform does not immediately imply that. So it would have to be deduced by what he said or how he presented himself and his speech.

          • jmichael39

            REASONABLY be construed. Wearing his uniform to the prayer event and speaking is not considerer a reason to consider it to officially endorsing the event….as I’ve shown already.
            We get it, hermit…you would like the ruin the career of a success military man merely because he dared to actually believe in a God you want nothing to do with. I get it that you’re a hateful, vindictive woman. You don’t have to keep explaining that. We hear you.

      • Melvin Gillham

        Wrong again leech, he wore his uniform duh he was a general in the military, his personal beliefs are allowed under constitutional law, as long as he doesn’t put them forth as the military’s point of view, he is within his rights and military code

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    If the general was speaking as a representative of the U.S. military, his speech was illegal. If he was speaking as a private person, he should not have been wearing his full dress uniform during the speech.

    • Tim

      You might explain that to the President as well.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        Indeed, I think it is a mistake for any president to participate in these sorts of events. The president should not use the prestige of his office to favor one religion over another.

        • Tim

          You know what I have to say about that. Get over it! Seriously this is ridiculous.

          • Greg Sandhurst

            Oh, good argument. You’ve certainly convinced me. Oh wait, I have a rebuttal – you get over it! Oh man, I’m good.

          • Tim

            You ARE good, I’m impressed with your rebuttal.

        • Levi

          So I would imagine you would support the suppression of the faith of atheism, secularism and the rejection of God by anyone in the armed forces as well? I mean, if you want to be consistent. This type of request/demand by the MRFF is just absolutely and overtly anti-God, anti-Christian and clearly satanicly fueled. It’s just unbelievable that a group who assumably promotes “tolerance” for some would be so inconsistently intolerant of others for their belief in God. My hope and prayer is that the MRFF’s request is rejected.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            Yes, I would equally oppose a U.S. general giving a speech in full dress uniform at a conference of atheists. It is inappropriate, and tells all Christians, Muslims, or Hindus under his command that they are second-class citizens. Our soldiers should know that they are all viewed and treated equally by their commanders, regardless of their religious beliefs.

          • Tim

            If you were to tell that to a WWII vet, he would probably lead you by the hand to the memorial and explain to you how God saved his life. I don’t believe for a moment that the men under this man’s command feel like they are second class anything. More likely, he empowers them with his care of them.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            You bet! He absolutely empowers those who share his religion. But what about those who don’t? What about the atheists under his command, or the Muslims, or the Jews? America is not 98% Christian anymore, and neither is the military. Our leaders should not let their religion (or lack of it, if such a case exists) get in the way of good leadership.

            This general is in violation of Air Force Instruction 1-1 Section 2.12, which says: “Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief.”

            By wearing his uniform to make his speech, the general’s words could certainly be construed to be an official endorsement of a particular faith. He is in violation of this policy. Case closed.

          • Tim

            At a prayer meeting. Your stating a statute that would not even apply at a prayer meeting where everyone is praying and telling their stories about God, right, thats what your saying. This has nothing to do with good leadership, its a sad attempt at ruining a good man’s life. What about anyone under his command, it isn’t a prayer meeting that would get him in trouble, it would be the capability to lead as a General. Your making an argument that is baseless. He has the characteristics to empower his men based on his talents (he might suggest his God given talents), this has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion. He hasn’t forced one person into “Christianity”, and likely would not. This is nothing short of descrimination because he is a Christian, and has nothing to do with his abilities to lead.

          • Hermit

            That is a lie. My partner knew a number of WW I veterans who were atheists who objected to the overt religiosity of the WW I celebrations (and knows veterans of WW II, Korean and other wars who are atheists and feel the same way).

          • Lark62

            While in uniform and speaking as a representative of the US military, no person should advance any religious viewpoint, including atheism.

            What would it do to the freedom of religion of the soldiers under him if a general declared that people with religious beliefs are ignorant and cannot be trusted? What does it do to the freedom of religion of soldiers under him for a general to declare that evangelical christianity is the only true belief? Can you see the problem?

            As a commanding officer, the general must create an environment that permit all to live their beliefs

          • Levi

            To answer your questions, this kind of stuff happens all the time in the real world…superiors and those under them really do hold beliefs that most of the time have exclusive claims to truth.

            To believe that ppl with religious beliefs are “ignorant and cannot be trusted” is in itself ignorant and such ideas need to be done away with. As a Christian, I know there are ppl of opposing beliefs who very capable of performing and doing their job well. Christian doctrine teaches that we are all given gifts and talents for helping and serving others even if they’ve rejected God.

            A superior officer and even a private or corporal can express, respectfully and out of love and concern that Christianity makes claims to be being the only true religion and it is up to the individual to vet that out for whether that claim is true or not. Like Lee Strobel, who is an ex atheist, he went and sought answers for himself and after years of studying, researching and interviewing, he came back a Christian and it was his wife who first came to Christ which caused him to start his investigation.

            So, no I can’t see the problem because people are able to express their beliefs and have them challenged by other already. And we need more intellectual, respectful and mature discourse on beliefs in this world because the truth is more valuable than realized in this culture.

          • Sarah Jones Geer

            Ah- so it’s totally fine for Christians to abuse their position to proselytize, but no one else. Got it.

            FYI- using Strobel doesn’t help you. He makes some of the poorest arguments possible for a god- boils down to “I don’t get how anything works- therefore goddidit”.

          • Levi

            Who said that prosthesyzing was an “abuse of power?” Anyone can share what they believe freely in this country…well, for the most part…it seems that the first amendment is under attack nowadays. Anywho, we can all share what we believe under freedom of speech and like I said, your views can be scrutinized and examined for truth. I love criticizing atheism and showing atheists the problems with what they believe. It would only be an abuse of power of be used his position to force his belief on others and I don’t support that.

            And FYI, I was referencing Stobel for his research that lead him to drop athiesm for Christian theism after vetting it out, not as a reference for who has the best arguments for God’s existence. For that, I would turn you to Dr. William Lane Craig. And Dr Craig does not use God of the gaps arguments. In fact, he frequently points out how atheists often mistakenly attack God of the gaps arguments that we never presented because these are easier to knock down than dealing with the actual arguments for God’s existence that count negatively toward atheism.

          • Hermit

            atheism, secularism and the rejection of God are no more “faiths” than not swimming is an aquatic sport.

          • Levi

            I understand it’s popular to deny that you must have faith to be an atheist and living as though God doesn’t exist isn’t a worldview, but it’s also quite uncritical to blindly accept and parrot that motto. It absolutely takes faith to believe there is no God.

          • Hermit

            Faith is a word borrowed from Latin (where it meant “trust”) by shifty-eyed religiots, and it is a mistake to vest trust in shifty-eyed religiots, where faith invariably pretending to know something which you don’t kn ow or cannot know, and belief is the assignment of a truth value in the absence of sufficient compelling intersubjectively criticiseable evidence to compel acceptance, or the presence of sufficient compelling intersubjectively criticiseable counter evidence to compel rejection, and in this case your faith is leading you to believe things which are palpably not true.

            Theism-vesting belief in gods.

            So atheism is “without vesting belief in gods”, there is no space in that little word to cram in any more meaning than that.

            It doesn’t speak to whether or not the gods exist (that is the role of positive or strong atheism) or may exist (that is the role of negative or weak atheism) or what the attributes of the gods may be or if they can even be known (that is the role of agnosticism), or whether atheists are smart (smarter than theists anyway) or nice (nicer than theists anyway). It speaks only to not vesting belief in them.

            And unless you have compelling intersubjectively criticiseable evidence that the attributes which are necessary and sufficient to earn some things the right to be regarded as deities exist in our Universe, and compelling intersubjectively criticiseable evidence that some entities possess these attributes, and if you assert that your god thingies are the only deities, compelling intersubjectively criticiseable evidence that there are no other god thingies in our Universe, you have no more reason to vest belief in such thingies than you have to vest belief in faeries.

            Do you believe in fairies Levi? Or are you claiming that you have faith that there are no faeries? Do you vest belief in Thor if you don’t vest belief in the idea that there is no Thor? In which case, how do you know? Perhaps he does exist, along with the hundreds of thousands of gods men have worshipped, billions if you include ancestor and spirit worship.

            Fortunately, we are all born atheists and most of us have functional paracingulate sulci. Only those of us who are not, or whose brain function is permanently damaged by being taught to vest belief in imaginary things learn not to be able to discriminate between reality and fiction. And even there, there are signs that no matter how delusional the believer, their brains remain aware that that they are lying when they say, “I believe in god thhingies”, because all neuroimaging to date reflects that recalling interactions with god things activate self-centric modules, not the judgement based modules involved when dealing with externalities.

            It seems as if your faith, like all faith, is simply pretending to know what you don’t, and being too delusional to realise it.

          • Levi

            Faith is what the atheist has when considering how we got here and why we exist. What I’m saying is that while atheism is defined as you have listed, it takes faith to make a conscious choice to believe in metaphysical naturalism versus believing in God. Faith is what the atheist has, not what the atheist is, which is what you may be confusing. I would also add, the atheist definitely believes that his/her rejection of the Supernatural is true based on your definition of “belief.”

            And you seem to assume that in order for something to exist, evidence is required to substantial such existence. This is called “evidentialism.” I’m not an evidentialist. Even if there was no evidence for/in support of Gods existence, that doesn’t make Him nonexistent. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” If you require something physically tangible, then the existence of a contingent universe is where i like to start.

            Given that the universe had a beginning in the finite past, it requires an explanation that is outside of time, space and must be immaterial. It must also be a very powerful source. Proposing an unobserved multi verse not only reveals the desperation of atheists to avoid God, but only pushes the question to ask who created the multiverse or the generator that is spitting out the universes. Proposing that the universe came from nothing is absurd and claiming that it somehow created itself before even existed is equally absurd. All of these have been tried by atheists who were very educated, but can’t seem to think critically when their beliefs are challenged by an insurmountable challenge…the existence of our continent universe is best explained by an all-powerful, all-knowing Being who is immaterial, timeless and space less. These are the characteristics of God.

            Do you pretend to know how the universe got here and that it must have gotten here without God? If you don’t know, I understand, but you must also understand that God remains as the best explanation for how our universe got here.

            Btw, it’s not very nice to think of theists as less intelligent and less nice than atheists just because we believe in God. This seems rather religiocentric and arrogant. i can enjoy a mature dialogue about these topics, but all too many times find atheists to be quite insulting, arrogant and outright disrespectful. If this will be your m.o. for exchanging arguments, then I’ll pass on continuing.

        • Liz Litts

          Get over your stupid self.

          • weasel1886

            Quoting Jesus ?

      • Hermit

        Not that the current president has ever worn a military uniform while involving himself in religious claptrap. Not true of the previous incumbent though.

        • Tim

          Here is an example of a President that did wear a Uniform.

          On this day in 1956, two years after pushing to have the phrase “under God” inserted into the pledge of allegiance, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signs a law officially declaring “In God We Trust” to be the nation’s official motto. The law, P.L. 84-140, also mandated that the phrase be printed on all American paper currency. The phrase had been placed on U.S. coins since the Civil War when, according to the historical association of the United States Treasury, religious sentiment reached a peak. Eisenhower’s treasury secretary, George Humphrey, had suggested adding the phrase to paper currency as well.

          Although some historical accounts claim Eisenhower was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, most presidential scholars now believe his family was Mennonite. Either way, Eisenhower abandoned his family’s religion before entering the Army, and took the unusual step of being baptized relatively late in his adult life as a Presbyterian. The baptism took place in 1953, barely a year into his first term as president.

          Although Eisenhower embraced religion, biographers insist he never intended to force his beliefs on anyone. In fact, the chapel-like structure near where he and his wife Mamie are buried on the grounds of his presidential library is called the “Place of Meditation” and is intentionally inter-denominational. At a Flag Day speech in 1954, he elaborated on his feelings about the place of religion in public life when he discussed why he had wanted to include “under God” in the pledge of allegiance: “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”


          Remarks at Luncheon Meeting of the Republican National Committee and the Republican National Finance Committee, 2/17/55

          “Today there is a great ideological struggle going on in the world. One side upholds what it calls the materialistic dialectic. Denying the existence of spiritual values, it maintains that man responds only to materialistic influences and consequently he is nothing. He is an educated animal and is useful only as he serves the ambitions — desires — of a ruling clique; though they try to make this finer-sounding than that, because they say their dictatorship is that of the proletariat, meaning that they rule in the people’s name — for the people. Now, on our side, we recognize right away that man is not merely an animal, that his life and his ambitions have at the bottom a foundation of spiritual values.”

          “In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.”

          “Today I think that prayer is just simply a necessity, because by prayer I believe we mean an effort to get in touch with the Infinite. We know that even our prayers are imperfect. Even our supplications are imperfect. Of course they are. We are imperfect human beings. But if we can back off from those problems and make the effort, then there is something that ties us all together. We have begun in our grasp of that basis of understanding, which is that all free government is firmly founded in a deeply-felt religious faith.”

          “The churches of America are citadels of our faith in individual freedom and human dignity. This faith is the living source of all our spiritual strength. And this strength is our matchless armor in our world-wide struggle against the forces of godless tyranny and oppression.”

          “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning.

          Especially is this meaningful as we regard today’s world. Over the globe, mankind has been cruelly torn by violence and brutality and, by the millions, deadened in mind and soul by a materialistic philosophy of life. Man everywhere is appalled by the prospect of atomic war. In this somber setting, this law and its effects today have profound meaning. In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war.”

          “We are essentially a religious people. We are not merely religious, we are inclined, more today than ever, to see the value of religion as a practical force in our affairs.”

          “Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first — the most basic — expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God’s help, it will continue to be.”

          “Since the day of creation, the fondest hopes of men and women have been to pass on to their children something better than they themselves enjoyed. That hope represents a spark of the Divine which is implanted in every human breast.”

          “The purpose is Divine; the implementation is human. Our country and its government have made mistakes — human mistakes. They have been of the head — not of the heart. And it is still true that the great concept of the dignity of all men, alike created in the image of the Almighty, has been the compass by which we have tried and are trying to steer our course.”

          “Basic to our democratic civilization are the principles and convictions that have bound us together as a nation. Among these are personal liberty, human rights, and the dignity of man. All these have their roots in a deeply held religious faith — in a belief in God.”

          “The freedom of a citizen and the freedom of a religious believer are more than intimately related; they are mutually dependent. These two liberties give life to the heart of our Nation.”

    • The Last Trump

      Somebody doesn’t know their Constitution OR their history.
      The number of presidents, elected officials and members of the military who HAVEN’T referenced God at one time or another can almost be counted on one hand compared to the ridiculously long list of those who HAVE as evidenced by recorded history.
      Those darn facts keep gettin’ in your way, huh? No worries. Just disregard them. Like the rest of the educationally ignorant anti-Christian trolls around here.

      • Sarah Jones Geer

        If Christians paid attention to history, they’d know our Founders were very vocal opponents of endorsing religious beliefs in office, and a great many were openly critical of Christianity.

    • Liz Litts

      Hey butthead- where do you think you are getting your information–or mis-information–It is still a free country and if you think that people can’t express themselves no matter how they are dressed, you are duped!

  • Tim

    “Major Gen. Craig Olson was among a number of distinguished guests at the Washington, D.C. observance on May 7, and presented a 20-minute speech about his personal testimony and the power of prayer.”

    This was a national prayer meeting. He expressed his gratitude for his life and gave credit to “God” When you see things like this, the signpost reads ‘Going Overboard’ “[T]he Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) better also write a letter to have the President Impeached for talking about his life as a Christian. While they are at it, they better stop most of the Presidential Candidates from running since they credit “God” for their success, and speak about their beliefs in public. The commander and chief of our armed forces “can’t talk about their faith” oh no, according to the MRFF, next the Chaplins must be fired within the armed forces, hmmm lets see, prayer will be forbidden in Hospitals, on the battlefield, oh and if you get caught talking about God, the firing squad is next. These organizations are going crazy, they really are going crazy. This craziness needs to stop. Good people are having their lives torn apart over believing in God. What is so strange is, the Bible predicted it. The very things that are starting to happen are predicted to happen over 2200 years ago. It won’t be IS that gets Christians in the U.S. It will be our own brothers and sisters of the U.S. I cannot understand this, or this trend. It’s beyond me to explain, except out of total frustration.

    • Conrad

      Don’t forget to mention Obama’s Muslim faith too. He did it twice.

      • Disqusdmnj


      • MisterPine

        No, he didn’t.

  • The Last Trump

    DESPITE the RELIGIOUS nature of the event, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has called for Olson to be “aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable CRIMES AND TRANSGRESSIONS (!?)” adding that any other service members who helped him should be investigated and punished “to the full extent of military law. ??


    These liberal leftists are outta their freakin’ minds and off the reservation!
    And the assertion that Olson’s speech violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution?

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”

    THAT Establishment Clause?

    Exactly. The Establishment Clause doesn’t PROHIBIT religion from the public arena or from government process. IT PROTECTS IT. And that’s why it’s ALWAYS been there.
    Until now. Because today we have a generation of hedonistic, pleasure seeking, God hating, sexually immoral liberal fascists that seek to eradicate any mention of the widespread sin that they are desperate to indulge in. The generation the Bible told us was coming. The LAST generation.

    Imagine! Court Martialed for giving thanks to Almighty God in the United States of America! Never thought I’d live to see the day. But praise God, the KING is coming! 🙂
    Not soon ENOUGH.

    • Tim

      I never thought I would see the day either, but these things are explained in the Bible, just like what is happening. This trend is unbelievable.

      • Hermit

        The bible doesn’t write about anything happening now. Its interest was focused on the period in which it was written, and most of it was done bar editing by about the mid-fourth century in the current era.

    • Croco Dile

      The belief in “authority”, which includes all belief in “government”, is irrational and selfcontradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.

      As long as the belief in “authority” remains, so will oppression.

      People are taught that “doing as you’re told” is synonymous with being a good person, and that “playing by the rules” is synonymous with doing the right thing.

      On the contrary, being a moral person requires taking on the personal responsibility of judging right from wrong and following one’s own conscience, the opposite of respecting and obeying “authority”.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Without God, you cannot know right from wrong, You will simply make it up as you see it benefiting you personally and fitting into your personal world view.

        Your carnal nature is contrary to Good.

        • Croco Dile

          Which one of those hundreds of gods is on your mind ?
          I guess the Jewish one ? Correct ?

          • FoJC_Forever

            There is only one God and Father of all, Who sent His Word to become flesh, to become human, and we call Him Jesus (the) Christ, Who was born from a virgin, Who lived a sinless life, Who went willingly to the cross to endure the penalty for the Sin of mankind, Who was raised from the grave on the third day, Who now sits at the Right Hand of Power in Heaven, and Who sent His Spirit to baptize and fill those who accept His Salvation, Who starts and completes the Work of Salvation.

            All other ‘gods’ are either invented in the minds of Unbelievers or are demons lording over people as a god or gods (higher beings).

          • DenisetheCelt

            Well that is certainly Mikey the Jew’s Tribe.

          • Croco Dile

            Right, this is what I mean.
            The god from the Bible is the Jewish god.
            So, what is so special about this particular god you are worshiping compared to, let’s say Shamash or Horus or Zeus ?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your answer is in the comment.

          • Croco Dile

            I already know how special YAHWEH is.
            The Old Testament does give a good picture of this mythical entity.

          • DenisetheCelt

            The Jewish God is called “Satan”.

          • Croco Dile

            This may be.
            It’s the god of the Bible.

        • Hermit

          How do you know what is good?

          On what authority do you hold your “moral beliefs”?

          What good reasons or justification do you have for your “moral beliefs”?

        • Hermit

          No answers? So you were lying when you claimed that “Without God, you cannot know right from wrong”?

          • FoJC_Forever

            No, I just have many people coming at me on this comment board and don’t always have time to answer every question posed to me. You can probably get some of your answers by reading what I’ve already written to others.

            God defines what is Good, for He is Good, thus Evil is defined as being anything contrary to Him. If you reject God, then you are susceptible to the lies of the Devil, and he will lead you into Sin.

          • David Cromie

            So, whatever your ‘god’ says is automatically ‘good’. Rather arbitrary, don’t you think? Why would your ‘god’ not agree that something is good in itself, no ifs, no buts? In other words, is your ‘god’ not capable of acknowledging the good when it sees it?

          • Melvin Gillham

            He’s very capable and will acknowledge because it was already established before it was ever done what “good” is. His word by the way is in no way shape or form arbitrary, it is His Word therefore inarguable. Straight up, you can’t argue with God, you will not win.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The LORD is God of everyone, not just me. You too will give an account before Jesus (the) Christ. God is the only definition of what is Good. He defines it, He embodies it, Eternally.

            Your view of God is that which the Devil, through Sin, has taught you.

          • Tim

            Mr. Cromie, I’m one of respect for other people’s opinions. Would you agree with this application of study:

            Santa Clare University: Source

            Applied Ethics Studies

            An American religious perspective derived from Edwards, Josiah Royce, John Dewey, and H. Richard Niebuhr concurs with Calvin that knowledge of the self and knowledge of the divine are mutually implicated. The two are related, however, not theoretically but practically. This perspective does not focus on the question of the existence of God or on an absolute ontological order that transcends experience. Instead, the discussion centers on a dimension within experience which orders and sustains its coherence. There is an irreducible religious dimension to experience which is a necessary ingredient in the constitution of the self as engaged and responsible in the world. Whether these philosophers attribute distinct ontological status to God or not, they portray the religious dimension as a pervasive ingredient of human living which enters into the constitution of the self. If this dimension is ignored, certain aspects of experience are obscured and action is frustrated.

            These American thinkers expand Mead’s social account of the self to include a religious dimension. When we attend to this dimension we appreciate the microcosm of intimacy and the macrocosm of ultimacy which were neglected in Mead’s social psychology. Investigating the relations of trust and loyalty that establish intimate relations leads to ultimate questions about the trustworthiness of that on which the self depends and the value of the causes to which it commits itself. A “thicker,” more adequate description of the self cannot be attained without probing the depths and comprehensive context of social relations.

            Knowledge of the self and knowledge of the divine imply each other on a practical and affective level. God and the self are not known through introspection or abstraction. The two forms of knowledge imply each other because God and the self are intimately and ultimately related. The religious dimension has practical consequences for self-constitution because it

            organizes the self by relating it to an ordering environment,

            orients the self by sustaining participation in the world, and

            motivates the self by engendering dispositions to appreciate the world and to act constructively. Ironically, these benefits do not occur when the individual concentrates on developing the self but only when the person is captured by a reality and goodness beyond the self.

            Please remove yourself from the common “atheist” outlook and respond to the study itself. Thank you.

          • David Cromie

            Is this approach not just another way of saying that humans have, historically, proposed a ‘god’ to fill in the gaps in their understanding, due to missing/undeveloped scientific expertise that would have, had it been available, supplied more rational explanations for experienced phenomena, in other words there was a supposed requirement for a ‘religious’ dimension, which is, for some, characterised as ‘irreducible’? This would seem to fit broadly into, at least, (Margaret?) Mead’s rationale, while Calvin’s viewpoint derives from an already biassed fundamentalist christian stance, and therefore may be discounted for all practical purposes.

            Knowledge of the ‘divine’ only comes from assuming that the ‘divine’ already exists, nothing more, since there is no proof that the idea makes any sense, except by deliberately reading the ‘divine’ into the situation in question. The fact that the other ‘thinkers’ would disagree is beside the point, since they always have ‘faith’ to revert to in the absence of such proof.

          • Tim

            No, that is not what is implied. I’m curious, how do you come to the conclusions you have. Where do you find any evidence from a purely materialistic viewpoint that would make any of your statements in fact true? Are you stating within science you can conclude the power of God, or the elimination of Satan as a foregone conclusion, or of an upcoming reality? How can an atheist make an argument for a good or a bad? For instance, there are norms that society states are good and bad, but without anything other than self to make a conclusion of good and bad, it becomes a non reality. There would be no sufficient explanation for good or bad, only what an individual prefers. I would conclude from a recent study that knowledge of the divine is a journey, an exploration, a constant study. To pre-suppose that you as an atheist could even define what God could or could not be would in fact make you above God, or all knowing. In the sense of all knowing for humans that is a laughable proposition. We haven’t even been able to achieve living on another planet, or concluding other than a guess that there is intelligent life in the vastness of our universe, we can’t even understand more than 7% of our own oceans much less make a call on God. That is why I find the atheistic viewpoint so irrelevant. It’s more a choice than a discovery.

          • David Cromie

            If you believe that it is necessary to have a sky fairy to dictate to you the difference between right and wrong, or anything else, for that matter, then you evidently know nothing of morality, or atheism.

          • Tim

            Please explain morality and atheism. Please explain the relationship between God and the sky fairy? What method of science or personal opinion do you use in order to disprove the Bible, and thus God. Where do you find that Jesus dictates, and if that were so, how come you are free from being dictated to. Thanks

          • David Cromie

            Do your own research, if you think you are ignorant on a particular subject (which you obviously are)! ‘Gods’ are just different forms of sky fairies. Do you believe in fables? If not, why not? Do you accept the existence of the attested to ‘gods’ which predate the biblical version? Again, if not, why not?

            I, and the other unbelievers in sky fairies, am being dictated to, and preached at, continuously by christers, who, strangely, are reluctant to provide any proof of the existence of their favourite sky fairy, other than claim that ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ is all that is necessary to bring into existence their assumed ‘god’.

            No evidence of either logic or science needed for christers, it seems, just a particular book of fairy tales. How unthinking, superstitious, and credulous can an adult be in the 21st century?

          • Tim

            Is this a form of bigotry? When you make a statement concerning evidence, it comes from a philosophy that would state that there should be evidence. Do you believe that by calling me ignorant on a particular subject, I become ignorant because of your perception of me? Have I dictated anything to you? I believe that you can believe (or not) in anything you wish to, (or not) believe. Does that suddenly make you less ignorant on particular subject matters? You have made a statement about “Gods”, as different forms of sky fairies. And yet there is no materialistic scientific method in which you could test your assumption, so to you it would have to be an assumption. How can you bring into existence something that has always existed, no matter if you believe in it or not? Your very statement is based on your bias, not on any foundational reality, you simply don’t either understand, or are presenting anger as a method to appease your desire to be superior. I neither conceptually can consider you inferior or superior. And yet you have already put me into a category, called me unthinking, ignorant, and I can imagine you will continue without reason or evidence to support anything you have just said. If I present you with evidence of a creator, you will claim it isn’t sufficient. If you cannot provide evidence that there is no God (no matter what your concept of God is) then the argument is circular. If this is the best approach you have toward making a point, you have made it. In other words there is no point to be had.

          • David Cromie

            Just present the evidence for your sky fairy, and we can continue from there. While you are at it, what reasons do you present for not believing in the ancient ‘gods’ of history?

          • Tim

            David, is it possible to have a reasonable conversation with you without the references to what Dawkins often uses. I have a fantastic conversation going on with Nicole who is an atheist and she is smart, reasonable, and presents things, as I do to her without the negative references. If you can, I would be more than happy to have a conversation with you. If you can’t that is ok, we can go our separate ways with some mutual respect. Since I am a strong believer in Christ aka God, I don’t wish to get into the normal angry rhetoric that happens often between those that believe and those that don’t. Do you understand where I’m coming from on this. I see too many discussions that are just lame punches and I’m tired of those discussions. Aren’t you tired of them as well?

          • David Cromie

            What on earth makes you think I am angry? I notice that you have dodged answering my questions, yet again.

          • Tim

            Sorry, I haven’t been dodging the question, I just wanted to make sure you’re ready for the answer. You may or may not agree with the answer, but it is my evidence to you. After that, and after your (I’ll say predictable) comment, I will start with a list of criteria we can look at. Keep in mind that you want a materialistic answer to your question, and most empirical scientists cannot prove or disprove God’s existence.

            1. Trust: Trust always requires unanswered questions

            2. Why: We as human beings will always ask why things are the way they are

            3. Knowing: If a human trusts something to be true, that human will believe that it is true. An example of this is if you recognize Christ is “truth” you would also recognize you are loved, and if you trust that you are loved, that truth will provide the means by which fear and dread have little meaning within reality.

            4. Can someone believe in something that cannot be based on the five senses. Ex in science: Dark Matter. Intelligent life outside the earth. Multi-verse theories. So, if by believing in God without a materialistic worldview, we can believe in God without the need for the use of our five senses.

            5. Christ said, “I am the TRUTH, the light and the way” If Christ is the truth, than believing without seeing is also the truth. Christ said, Blessed our those who believe but have not seen me.

            6. The POWER of believing is the belief in something that helps you

            7. Faith: Faith steps outside the realm of proof and takes a risk. Ex. You have what it takes to succeed.

            8. Believing means choosing what to believe in. Faith is knowing without question. Ex. I have faith that Christ loves me, therefore I believe in Christ because I desire his love.

            9. Theory is not ultimate truth. Theory can be modified or discounted, but ultimate truth cannot. If Christ is as he says “I am the TRUTH” than Christ cannot be modified or discounted.

            10. Believing in Jesus is always a NOW scenerio. It can begin now at this very moment

            11. There are many things that an individual can say “I don’t know”, and still know that Jesus is the truth, and can be trusted by believing in the truth.

            Let me know when I may continue.

          • David Cromie

            You have not provided any evidence for the existence of your ‘god’, other than that you believe in it, and it ‘helps’ you to do so, in some way (is there some version of Pascal’s wager behind this?). It is rather like some cosmic placebo effect, arising from a delusion. Not just any ordinary delusion, but a delusion that deals in absolutes, ultimate truth, etc., and the fact that it makes you feel better, and it ‘loves’ you, does not mean it is any the less the reification of a mental construct.

            In other words, there is nothing in the real world that equates to your sky fairy, any more than if you were to tell me that there were fairies living at the bottom of your garden, for, as you say “Knowing: If a human trusts something to be true, that human will believe that it is true”, and you term this ‘evidence’? Sorry to say, but this is a statement of the paradigm case of a delusion, which you obviously wish to deny, rather than live with the uncertainties of the real world, from which you are determined to escape.

          • Tim

            We must then study your specific form of evidence in the real sense of the word “evidence” keeping in mind that again, materialistic concepts can equally be “delusional”. If I would subscribe to the content of your statements obviously presented much the same way that Richard Dawkins presents his philosophy there has been no substantive scientific formulation which states God exists, or doesn’t exist. I can’t really give Dawkins much credibility and you present a landscape in words to share in Dawkins philosophy.

            Now that we can gain an understanding from a conceptual standpoint, I will go next to the data. Here is the list of topics to explore individually:

            Quote: The reality of God’s existence is the most important question, since it has eternal consequences. The evidence for God’s existence comes primarily from the design of the universe. It is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained by chance in order for stars and galaxies to exist….Rich Deem – Agnostic, scientist, now a Theist.

            The Evidence: All of these topics can and will be addressed individually


            Evidence for the fine-tuning of the Universe

            Extreme fine-tuning – Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant

            The Incredible Design of the Earth

            There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

            From the Beginning to Man – How God declares His love to us through the design of the universe

            Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe – Why do scientists believe in God?

            The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of Life, the Universe, and Everything

            One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? – Antony Flew Renounces Atheism – After actively promoting atheism for decades, Prof. Flew embraces deism, saying he “had to go where the evidence leads.”

            If God Created Everything, Who Created God?

            Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?

            Size of the Universe: Isn’t it Too Large to Have Been Created by God for Humanity?

            God of the Gaps – Do All Christian Apologetics Fall Into This Kind of Argument? – A survey of arguments reported to support the existence of God and whether they are just due to a lack of scientific knowledge.

            Supernatural Evidence

            Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer

            Prayer for Healing: What Does Science Say?

            Scientific Studies that Show a Positive Effect of Religion on Health

            Mind-Body Dualism – Is the Mind Purely a Function of the Brain?


            Origin of Life Theories: Metabolism First vs. Replicator First Hypotheses

            Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?

            Problems with the Origin of Biological Membranes in an Early Earth Environment

            Man, Created in the Image of God- How Man is Unique Among All Other Creatures on Earth



            Gibbons, G. W., Gielen, S., Pope, C. N. & Turok, N. 2009. Naturalness of CP Violation in the Standard Model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102: 121802.

            Big Bang nucleosynthesis, Wikipedia.

            Cosmology Tutorial, Part 3: Spatial Curvature; Flatness-Oldness; Horizon, Edward L. (Ned) Wright, UCLA.

            “The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically “dead de Sitter;” that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure). Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, “mixing” into it in a “porous,” phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region. Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will occasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the “miraculous” states discussed above.” from Dyson, L., M. Kleban, and L. Susskind. 2002. Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. Reprint from arXiv.

            evgeny Epelbaum, Hermann Krebs, Timo A. Lähde, Dean Lee, and Ulf-G. Meißner. 2013. Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass. Physical Review Letters DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.112502.

            Halliday, D. and R. Resnick. 1988. Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd ed. extended, New York: Wiley, p. 544. Note that universal time bounds for electronic computers have clock speeds between ten and twenty magnitudes slower than the Planck time- see Ingo Wegener, The Complexity of Boolean Functions (Stuttgart: Wiley-Teubner, 1987), 2.

            Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254 401: 252-254.

            Discovery Supports Astronomers’ Paradoxical Views of the Universe from Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum

            Dyson, L., M. Kleban, and L. Susskind. 2002. Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. Reprint from arXiv.

            Glanz, J. 1999. AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY MEETING: Hawking Blesses the Accelerating Universe. Science 284: 34-35.

            The Origin-of-Life Prize� from the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.�.

            “My approach to reality is different. I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well, then God exists.” Tipler, F. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity.

            “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time.

            Penrose, R. 1966. An analysis of the structure of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.

            Hawking, S.W. 1966. Singularities and the Geometry of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.

            Hawking, S.W. and G.F.R. Ellis. 1968. The cosmic black-body radiation and the existence of singularities in our universe. Astrophysical Journal 152: 25-36.

            Hawking, S.W. and R. Penrose. 1970. The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: 529-548.

            “Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?” (Isaiah 43:13)

            Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:2)

            For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

            but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; (Romans 16:26)

            Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)

            To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

            God created and was acting before time began:

            In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

            No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

            This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)

            The hope of eternal life, which God… promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

            To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

            In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

            For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17)

            The universe was formed at God’s command, so that what was seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

            Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. (Revelation 4:11)

            The following verses suggest that God created the universe through an expanding universe – what science has called the Big Bang. In many cases the Hebrew text indicates present tense – a process still continuing.

            Who alone stretches out the heavens, And tramples down the waves of the sea; (Job 9:8)

            Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalm 104:2)

            It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)

            Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5)

            Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone” (Isaiah 44:24)

            “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host.” (Isaiah 45:12)

            “Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.” (Isaiah 48:13)

            That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13)

            It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)

            It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)

            The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)

          • David Cromie

            Your basic ‘evidence’ is merely a restatement of the ‘Argument from Design’. This has been discredited for years, now, and it is surprising that you should rely on it as evidence of your ‘god’s’ existence. Repeating verses from the so-called Bible is merely a circular argument, and therefore worthless, and it is quite beside the point that anyone else, even a ‘scientist’, is a believer in any ‘god’. All in all, from what you say, it is obvious that christers are unable to provide any real, testable, evidence for the existence of any ‘god(s)’, but rely simply on blind ‘faith’ and fatuous ‘belief’.

          • Tim

            I really don’t rely on it as any evidence, as I would not rely on you to provide evidence that God doesn’t exist, simply because that would be improbable. I agree that atheism uses the same circular arguments, so in the end all that can be presented is what anyone would consider to be true. In other words you cannot provide anything that would change my belief, and I cannot change your worldview. However, scientists like this one will disagree with your statement of being discredited:

            Dr. Biedebach is Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach. He writes:

            Stephen C. Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is a truly remarkable book. Tightly woven in its 413 pages of text are four interrelated arguments. With 753 references, he presents evidence of the serious weaknesses in materialistic theories of biological evolution, and positive evidence for the theory of intelligent design. What are those weaknesses?

            First, according to Meyer, no neo-Darwinian (or other alternative materialistic) mechanism has any conceivable way to search the vast number of possible combinations of coded symbols that could generate the complex types of functional genes and proteins found in living organisms. Second, tightly integrated networks of genes, proteins and other complex molecules are required within (and even extending from) cells, which must arrive at the right place at the right time in an embryologically developing organism. For such processes to arise, a materialistic theory of evolution would require vastly more time than has passed on earth since life began.

            Third, early-acting mutations that could possibly generate large-scale changes in an organism are invariably deleterious. Fourth, according to Meyer, neo-Darwinian evolution provides no imaginable way to generate (by random mutation) the quantity of epigenetic information that would be required to generate a new body plan.

            The focus of Meyer’s Part One (Chapters 1-7) is on the many thousands of fossils found in the geologically very short “Cambrian explosion” (530 to 525 million years ago). During this brief period, 16 new animal phyla and 30 new animal classes first appeared in the fossil record. (Only three animal phyla had previously existed in the Precambrian period.)

            If one is to believe that each new phylum that suddenly appeared during the Cambrian explosion arrived by the process of neo-Darwinian evolution, then at least some transitional fossils (of the multitude that should have existed from the three Precambrian phyla) ought to have been found by now. According to Meyer, none have been found. Neo-Darwinian evolution works gradually over millions of years. It is a trial-and-error process of mutation and selection through which an organism must obtain and maintain a functional advantage through a series of incremental steps.

            Meyer asserts that those who believe neo-Darwinian (or any other conceivable materialistic) processes provide a satisfactory explanation for the existence of life on earth must invariably resort to a metaphysical assertion known as methodological naturalism. This is the view that it is possible to explain all features and events that occur in the natural world by reference to exclusively natural causes. (This has sometimes been called “exclusionary methodological naturalism,” because a purposive intelligence, mind, or conscious agency is excluded as a cause.)

            But Meyer argues that to restrict methodological naturalism in such a way renders one blind to the possibility that intelligent design is the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the new information necessary for new cellular network circuitry or a new body plan (whenever previous transitional fossils do not exist).

            Meyer’s attack is really against “macroevolution” (large scale population change). Michael Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) points out that there is abundant evidence for “microevolution” (smaller population change), but there is a boundary at which the evidence for microevolution stops and evidence for macroevolution either doesn’t exist, or any clues that do exist are beset with problems so serious that explanatory attempts boil down to “just-so-stories.” This leaves macroevolution sitting atop a boundary (or wall) with an outlook no better that that of Humpty Dumpty.

          • David Cromie

            It is logically impossible, for me or anyone else, to prove a negative, But it is incumbent on those who propose any entity, especially a supernatural entity, to give cogent reasons, based on verifiable evidence, why anyone should take its existence seriously.

          • Tim

            I’ve been trying to explain that to you. It’s also impossible to show any evidence that there is no God. The more you think about something the more you /anyone can draw conclusions about God. If you trust that the Bible is evidence and scholars provide the evidence of the Bible, then there possibly is evidence. You can’t provide evidence because you don’t believe in God, that is clear.

          • Tim

            I will then begin here: The newest “solution” to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical “multiverse” spinning off an “infinity” of other universes:

            “Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger ‘multiverse,’ each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves.”10

            What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

            “Appeals to multiple or “parallel” cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic “Big Bang/Crunch” oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical andmetaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age.”11

            According to Paul Davies:

            “Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not�.If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible.”

            Theistic solution – measurable design

            On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the “God hypothesis” is testable. However, the “God hypothesis” is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam’s razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.12

          • David Cromie

            Whatever some scientists may speculate about multi universes, is quite beside the point, and does not contribute anything concrete to the question of the existence of a ‘god creator’, or any other ‘god(s)’ you care to mention. Such theorising is a mere distraction from the central question; where is the proof for the existence of a ‘god’, as described in the unscientific folktale known as Genesis?

          • Tim

            That is just my point “Scientists, many scientists speculate” about all types of things, and some call it a theory. I need to know if you believe that Scholars are legitimate scientists? If they are not, then you might say they have wasted their time on the Bible. If they are than you could equally say that the Bible IS evidence about God and Christ aka God’s son. You may find it distracting, however your response either indicates you have no knowledge about the “new science” or you don’t trust it, so don’t believe in it. (Recall from my previous post) In other words where do you get any knowledge that you yourself understand science anymore than someone who believes that Jesus walked the earth with messages that feed the soul. Oh wait a minute, we must also define what is the spiritual relationship between a man’s brain, and his individuality from others with the same brain design. You will find that humans are creatures of design, in that we intelligently design things, such as computer code. Many scientists conclude that our genetic makeup is similar to computer code. I think you can read up on that and see the similarities. If the Bible is a folktale then you have concluded it is not a valid source. If that is the case, you may want to discuss that with people such as Patton, Lincoln, Washington, anyone that has exactly the opposite view of the Bible than you do. Can the recordings and testaments of the Bible be collaborated outside the Bible by those that lived in the era of the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Jews, and the languages in which the common day Bibles were interpreted. In other words, are you eliminating the Bible as “evidence” of the societies that existed, the history that is presented about the cultures, because if that portion of our discussion cannot be discussed, then again you are showing bias, and no matter what may be presented, you will automatically discount it. Therefore you will never understand any evidence or lack thereof related to God/Christ. If you can admit that, then your correct, to you there will be no concrete evidence. However to me, it is the ultimate evidence.

          • David Cromie

            Belief without evidence is the ultimate evidence for self-delusion.

          • Tim

            What is the ultimate evidence that God doesn’t exist? Is everyone (millions upon millions of people) delusional because they believe in God? You haven’t addressed my comment you side-stepped it. I encourage you to read it again, and address the comment, not give me your philosophy on delusions. That is just another boring explanation based on Dawkins philosophy. If I trust in something or someone, it is likely I will believe in it or believe the person. If I believe for example the Bible, and scholars have worked tirelessly in it’s authenticity, I trust those scholars know more about the Bible than I do, and will study what they have found. Thus in the end I will believe what they present as evidence, and that evidence will further support my beliefs in God and Christ. The same is true of science. If I trust it, I believe it to be true, and if I believe it to be true I will act upon it, and live my life according to what I believe. That is the same for most individuals. You believe that God doesn’t exist, and present the atheist game as something believable. (That is why I said before that your answers would be predictable, because they fall in line with other atheists in the “tribe”). Since you cannot provide evidence to support your position (that there is no God) you become just as delusional as you claim I am. That is the definition of circular. You don’t believe, I do. I trust in my beliefs just as you do. They are not going to be the same, and no matter what you state, it has little meaning within my worldview. I would say equally that holds true for you. So there it is.

          • David Cromie

            First you tried to rely on the Argument from Design, now it is the turn of the equally fallacious ‘argumentum ad populum’. Believing in the veracity of a fairy tale is not evidence that the fairy tale is in any way ‘true’, irrespective of how many people believe the opposite.

            As was pointed out to you, it is logically impossible to prove a negative, yet you insist that I should prove that there is no ‘god’, why? As it happens, I have not claimed that there is no ‘god’, but have asked those who do believe in one to provide their evidence that they are not deluded.

            The only circular argument being presented here is when the bible is quoted in support of the belief in a sky fairy, just because the same bible declares said sky fairy exists.

            Since you use the ploy of ignoring my questions to you, it is obvious that you prefer to go around in circles, because that is all your underdeveloped brain is capable of. Thus you are wasting my time, and it is time to say goodbye to your declarations of delusion and stupidity.

          • Tim

            LOL, as you wish. It’s not impossible to prove a positive, which is what the Bible is. Does God need to prove anything to you? No, he relied on what is evident through his creation. Do scholars and archeological finds show evidence that the Bible is accurate. The answer is, of course it does. As an atheist you certainly do claim there is no God, if it were not for God there would be no such thing as an atheist. Think about that one. Your time. It doesn’t seem you have anything better to do so how would I be wasting your time? You have no idea what my brain is capable of, and you are no smarter than the average atheist. An opinion that I am delusional and stupid has no relevance in this conversation so keep your mouth shut when it comes to who I am. You simply could not know who I am and what I know, and as I said before you are a predictable atheist with the same rhetoric that other like minds use. You certainly cannot prove anything related to God’s existence negative or not and you know it. That is just another atheist excuse. I haven’t even seen any science that you believe in. You have been reading too much Dawkins and that is what I call a closed mind. Dawkins says that those millions of people have mass hallucinations that believe in God. To me that is hilarious.

          • Tim

            Would you agree or disagree with this study?

            Recently a friend sent me a link to a TEDx talk, “Digital biology and open science — the coming revolution,” which affirms that life’s “complex interacting molecular machines” reveal “molecular clockwork is real and pervasive” and appear to be “built by an engineer a million times smarter than” we are. The speaker is biologist and engineer Stephen Larson, who holds a PhD in neuroscience from University of California, San Diego, and is CEO of MetaCell, a systems biology research and consulting company that seeks to understand biology through computation.

            Now I don’t think that Dr. Larson is pro-intelligent design, which makes his descriptions of biology all the more striking. In fact, after recounting some complex features of biology that appear designed, he immediately throws in the disclaimer that “what we understand of course is that life evolved on the planet over billions of years.” Nonetheless he admits that he finds the extremely “well organized” nature of life’s “technology” to be “unsettling.” He even says, “I’ve got to be honest with you, I kind of hate this.” Here’s the transcript of the relevant section, from most of the first 4:30 of the talk:

            [A]s science continues to reveal how life works, we find again and again that the magic that seems to distinguish between things that are alive and things that are not [is] actually created by complex interacting molecular machines. These microscopic machines are as precise and intricate as a mechanical watch, but instead of being run on gears and springs, are powered by the fundamental rules of physics and chemistry. Our understanding of the precise coiling and uncoiling of the DNA molecule, or the way that one molecule can literally walk almost robotically along the tightrope of another molecule, continue to show us again and again, this molecular clockwork is real and pervasive.

            Now what’s most unsettling to me about this is that we didn’t build these machines. As someone originally trained as an engineer, I’ve got to be honest with you, I kind of hate this. As the most clever species on the planet, we kind of like to think of ourselves as the builders of the most sophisticated technology in the entire universe. We invented written language and the printing press. We cured polio and sent a man to the moon. Heck, we even took savage beasts and turned them into kittens, and then built a global communications network to share pictures of them. That’s pretty impressive.

            And yet when I look through a microscope at a humble bacterium — by the way its ancestors were on the planet a billion years ago, billions of years ago — I still wonder how it really works. Because the mechanical watch that is life is not like any watch we’ve ever built. It is biological gears and springs, but they fill rooms and buildings and cities of a vast microscope landscape that’s bustling with activity.

            On the one hand it’s extremely well organized, but on the other hand the sheer scale of all of this unfamiliar well-organized stuff that happens in there makes me feel that I’ve stumbled onto an alternate landscape of technology that’s built by an engineer a million times smarter than me. The more that I search for principles beyond the ones we’ve already learned, the more I am overwhelmed with the feeling that this stuff was built by aliens.

            OK, not literally. I don’t literally mean that I think little green men and women came down to the earth and seeded life here a billion years ago. What we understand of course is that life evolved on the planet over billions of years. But the results of evolution confuse even our smartest engineers when we try to understand how we could build what biology has evolved.

            What if life has good engineering principles and we just haven’t figured them out yet? Could studying biology give us the ability to extract new engineering principles that maybe then we could use to solve the world’s intractable problems? Our experiments only give us glimpses into what happens in these tiny spaces, but what happens there has huge implication for the future, in the 21st century, and beyond.

            Now Larson is a systems biologist, which means he is trained to see life from an engineering point of view. In such a perspective, scientists treat biological systems as if they are infused with teleology — built from the top down to achieve some goal, not blindly from the bottom up as Darwinian evolution sees them. This doesn’t mean that systems biologists have doubts about Darwinian evolution (doubts that they’ll admit) or that they support intelligent design. They hold their extremely fruitful systems biology viewpoint in tension with the origins-models they otherwise endorse. Here’s how physicist David Snoke describes the field with its sense of cognitive dissonance:

            Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.

            Larson talks further about the machine-like nature of many biological systems, how we can use computers and an engineering-based view of biology to better treat diseases, and even how we can understand complex biological mysteries like love. He says we can only understand biological feelings like love as “a series of complex but specific and knowable events that happen inside your body.

          • Tim

            I suggest highly that you watch the documentary called “The nightmare”. Then explain that in scientific terms after listening to the people interviewed. Lets see who is self delusional shall we?

        • Melvin Gillham

          Don’t bother with this unGodly leech he presents no good evidence concerning we who are of Faith he only argues anti Christianity and will not even consider truth when he hears it. He is the epitome of evil. He argues the ” human condition” as his god his carnal mind will drop him into the fires of hell in the end.

    • MisterPine

      There is no such thing as a “liberal fascist”, Rumpy. Liberals are center or center-left on the political spectrum, and fascists are hardcore right, the same as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and many of your heroes such as Pat Robertson, Jack Chick and Kent Hovind.

      • The Last Trump

        Oh, Intolerant One! Your ignorance on display for all to see, yet again, hmm? No worries, little attention starved troll. Like a small child tugging with frustration at his mother’s sleeve, your repeated and desperate attempts for my attention has paid off.
        “Mother” shall school you. Once again.

        “According to most scholars of fascism, there are both LEFT and RIGHT influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked communism, CONSERVATISM AND LIBERALISM.” – Wikipedia.

        “Fascism was influenced by BOTH left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational. A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the LEFT and the RIGHT, or as BOTH of those things” – Wikipedia

        “Fascism: a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government: very harsh control or authority” Merriam-Webster

        “Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements ACROSS the political spectrum.” – Wikipedia

        “George Orwell wrote in 1944 that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless … almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist'” – Wikipedia.

        So, to review. Fascism refers to authoritarian, intolerant bullying and can be situated anywhere across the political spectrum.

        There you go “son”! Always glad to help the less fortunate and poorly educated. Now at least you’ll have a better understanding of what all the good folks keep referring to you as! 🙂

        Hee, hee! Too easy!
        Don’t forget to submit this post now, my little LGBT fascist!

        Love, “Mom” 😉

        • MisterPine


          https://sepetjian.files.wordpress. com/2012/09/left_right_political_spectrum_011.jpg

          And read again the quote YOU posted about people like you who use it pejoratively, in effect rendering it meaningless. Excuse the hell out of me for using the word the way it was intended.


          Back to ironing your sheets, Rumpy.

          • Hermit

            Not sure that there is a left left in the USA. Pretty much everything here is far to the right of what used to be centre.

          • MisterPine

            I know. It’s sad. You can’t compromise with unreasonable people, and the far-right (and far-left) are as unreasonable as they get.

          • Melvin Gillham

            Right is “right” wrong is left, simple language, the left is destroying what is “right” and good as well as helping to destroy any morality that exists, admit it Kermit the hermit you deny any morality or good, you work to destroy any good to be gained from being moral and right.

      • DenisetheCelt

        Adolf Hitler tried to warn us about the Weinsteins. We should have listened. Herr Hitler was the Good guy. Stop repeating the lies o the Jews.

        • MisterPine

          If you’re trying to shock me, I have read far worse here from the Christofascists.

          • DenisetheCelt

            I’m not trying to shock you, unless facts shock you.

          • MisterPine

            Yep, good ol’ Herr Hitler, eh? How trite.

          • Melvin Gillham

            Not facts, only definitively delusional.

        • Melvin Gillham

          “Herr hitler” was a verifiable psycho.

        • Melvin Gillham

          Stop promoting communism

      • Melvin Gillham

        Whoa talk about mixed up…. You contradict yourself in that statement.

        • MisterPine

          Nope. No contradiction.

    • Hermit

      Liberalism is valuing independent thought and cherishing, as the US founders did, equality and liberty.
      I can understand why you might reject independent thinking, but do you object to liberty or equality as well?

      • Melvin Gillham

        Lmbo and you think independent thought disqualifies Christianity, leech.

      • Melvin Gillham

        Liberty ,yes ,equality,yes, active denunciation of our religious freedom,liberty,and equality,NO,

    • Sarah Jones Geer

      He’s not allowed to do it in uniform- that constitutes a military endorsement of religion. It’s just like how teachers aren’t supposed to talk about their religion while in school, and law enforcement officers aren’t supposed to give sermons or talk about religion while in uniform.

      You can’t be a government official and endorse a religion while using YOUR OFFICE or position- you can do it in civilian dress as a private citizen. You can certainly talk about being in the military. But wearing the uniform is considered being in your official capacity. And that’s not ok.

      But please- keep pretending Christians are persecuted (magically, despite having a supermajority and all political representation in the US), while desperately trying to paint anyone who disagrees you as some sort of immoral demon. It makes you look so darn sane and reasonable.

  • Joel Rivera

    Somebody please give Mikey Whine-stein and his whiny crybaby flunkies a pacifier.

    • Tim

      For Sure!!!!

  • Greg Sandhurst

    “God did that. He sent me to Iraq to negotiate foreign military sales deals”

    This sounds like an anti-theist parody of the things christians say. This man is his own satire.

    • Tim

      Please grow up. See, how good I am at rebuttals? I’m great, oh wait, this comment is irrational, never mind.

    • Josey

      What?? It is a Christian testimony to the goodness of God who gives wisdom among other things to His children who ask Him, and God changes not. This General is referencing the wisdom God has given him in making huge decisions and nothing more. If more of our leaders would ask God to give them wisdom in making decisions and follow that wisdom, there would not be so much corrupt greed and self glorying in some’s decision. I ask God to give me wisdom in daily situations all the time and I give Him the glory. This General also recognizes that it is God working in his life to give him favor and grace and God has put him in the high ranking postion he is in. All you haters of God’s work can hate all you want but I would admonish you stop being jealous and submit yourself to God’s will for your own life through the saving grace God offers through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the only way to Heaven and leave this man of God alone for no weapon formed against him shall prosper and every tongue that rises in judgement against him he shall condemn. God is on his side, will never leave or forsake him, the battle is the Lords and if you haters don’t repent of your wickedness, you will soon find the wrath of God.

    • Melvin Gillham

      You rearranged his statement that’s not a valid statement.

  • bowie1

    Recently the Canadian veterans attended VE Day remembrances in the Netherlands which is a very liberal country, and yet they were allowed to talk about God, sing or play with instruments a few hymns and songs, and they had a R.C. priest and protestant minister to close off the event. If they can do it in the Netherlands why not the USA?

    • Nullifidian

      Because the Netherlands is a different country, and they have different laws than the United States.

      You should not need to have this explained to you, Bowie.

    • BarkingDawg

      1). They were Canadians. The Canadian military is not the same thing as the US Air Force

      2). If they were veterans, then they were not active duty personnel.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    This seems extreme. He was not addressing troops as a part of his military duties. He was speaking before an evangelical group and sharing his views on faith. I see nothing wrong with that.

    • BarkingDawg

      A political, evangelical group.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        Do you think that is relevant?

        • BarkingDawg

          In the case of an active duty officer, it is extremely relevant.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            How so?

          • BarkingDawg

            From the Air Force regulations:

            2.13.2. You may attend partisan political rallies or speeches when not in uniform, not on duty, and when solely acting as a spectator. You may not speak before a partisan political event, ride, or march in a partisan political parade, or engage in partisan political fundraising activities, regardless of whether or not you are in uniform.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            In what way was this event political in it’s content?

          • BarkingDawg

            You do realize that we are talking about Shirley Dobson’s little event here.

            Nothing that family does, is not political.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Yes, I am aware that Shirley founded the organization that runs the event. That, however, in and of itself, does not make the event a “political” one regarding the definition as provided in regulations.

            I’ll ask again: In what way was this event political in its content?

          • BarkingDawg

            It’s a matter of interpretation. As far as I am concerned, anything that couple is involved with is political in nature.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you are unable to cite any basis for it regarding the content of this event, then there isn’t much of a basis for suggesting that regulations were violated.

          • BarkingDawg

            Except that the regulations also prohibit participation in any religious event designed to prosletyse.

            Are you going to argue that that wasn’t the case here as well?

          • Melvin Gillham

            Yes ankle biter

          • BarkingDawg

            2.11. Government Neutrality Regarding Religion. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion. Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartiality and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Airmen, especially commanders and supervisors, must ensure that in exercising their right of religious free expression, they do not degrade morale, good order, and discipline in the Air Force or degrade the trust and confidence that the public has in the United States Air Force.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

            He wasn’t speaking to his subordinates.

          • BarkingDawg

            How do you know?

            It was on live TV and is on YouTube.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            That his subordinates may have heard his comments is different from him addressing his subordinates in his role as their commanding officer.

          • Melvin Gillham

            He has no control over who views it, but he was not directly addressing his subordinates, that is the point ankle biter

          • BarkingDawg

            So you admit that this was a “Public Event”

            Command officers speaking at public events are subject to strict rules.

          • Melvin Gillham

            Lmbo you just invalidated yourself ankle biter

          • Melvin Gillham

            Check the title of the event.ankle biter

          • Melvin Gillham

            NOT,ankle biter

          • Melvin Gillham

            Only in your small mind ankle biter

  • Dave L

    Separation of Church and State is a good thing. The more separate the better. It is not only taught in the Bible where Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world, and Christians are not to be of the world. But history shows some of the worst persecutions ever by the Catholic State Churches from the time of Constantine onward. I also think it is undeniable that there are many confused American Evangelicals, failing to discern the Biblical nature of true Israel, who would sacrifice America in a heartbeat in behalf of Middle Eastern Israel.

    • Melvin Gillham

      The catholic religion is not representative of true Christianity it has its own agenda not in keeping with God’s Will, would you blame them we have elected an anti American enemy of both Christianity and Israel to office. Both catholic and Islam are politico-religious cults bent on world domination and now the poop and the ecumenical movement want to join hands with Islam and all other faiths contrary to God.

      • Dave L

        Interesting point. If you check into it, the Catholic Church has killed an estimated 50,000,000 (mostly Christians) from the Middle Ages on. I do not think the Israelis in the Middle East are the Israel of God mentioned in the Bible.

        Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

        Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

        Galatians 6:15–16 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

        • Melvin Gillham

          Well put ,but in truth, they remain His chosen people, in revelations it states they will be almost completely destroyed save the 144,000 of the twelve tribes. That however doesn’t delineate there origins. Your thoughts?

          • Dave L

            Thanks for the reply. I once believed that way but over the years came to believe the following: Galatians 3:16. states that Jesus is Abraham’s Seed and not the Jews. Read it carefully. Here it is from the King James Version line for line.

            Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. (Notice Seed is singular, not plural).

            He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; (notice Paul makes sure you understand that the word “seed” is singular and not plural)

            but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Paul says Abrahams’ seed is Christ.)

            Why did Paul need to say this? He said this because we didn’t understand that Abraham’s seed is Jesus and not the Jews.

            Paul later said in Galatians 3:29 that those who are in Jesus are also Abraham’s’ seed.

            v29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

            The same verse in Young’s Literal Translation of the Greek says;

            29 and if ye are of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise—heirs.

            So the promises apply only to Jesus and believers in both Old and New Testament times. This is why the Bible speaks of The Israel of God (saved believers) and Israel after the flesh (lost unbelievers).

            Whoever believes in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, they are the Israel of God and it is to us the promises apply.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Prayer is communication and communion with the LORD. It is the best way to live every single moment of every single day. Praying without ceasing is the only way to fulfill God’s Calling in this life for the furthering of God’s Word and Will in the earth. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-24.

    This gentleman has done nothing wrong nor illegal. Those who are calling for his prosecution are wildly moronic.

    • Melvin Gillham

      Special interest ankle biting babies.

    • Melvin Gillham


  • LeftCoast

    Hey Weinstein, strap up, get a weapon and stand at a post before you come out and disrespect an honorable soldier that is defending you and keeping you safe. He has Christ in his heart, so what? Your kids are safe because of him and his brothers.

    • Melvin Gillham

      Awesome statement!

    • Sarah Jones Geer

      So he can’t even uphold the rules of the military, that’s what. How can you expect him to uphold the Constitution? How can you respect his integrity, if he abuses his position and office to proselytize?

  • Disqusdmnj

    Ugh, this is ridiculous, and embarrassing for this atheist. The General is professing his faith, not forcing others to engage in it. I’d hope he finds his own self-worth and abilities are his own and from his own hard work, and not some gift given from above or beyond for him but not anyone else. But the MRFF has absolutely NO CASE here.

    • Sarah Jones Geer

      ACtually they do. You aren’t allowed to use your office to promote a religious belief- wearing the uniform constitutes using the office. There have been multiple court cases where law enforcement officials have been found to be in Constitutional violation by wearing their uniform and doing similar things- and law enforcement doesn’t even have a specific code prohibiting religious endorsement like the military does.

      • Disqusdmnj

        Oh… my bad then. The law’s the law!

  • ethelagnes

    I thought ISIS was persecuting and killing Christians – now it’s the United States Government under the direction of atheists and our ‘Christian’ president. We are in an all out assult on Christ. Stand firm and follow Him not evil ones in D. C. God help us.

    • DenisetheCelt

      This outfit is run by the Christ HATING Jew Wein-STAIN. That Judenraus has been attacking Christianity for over a decade. Why is this vermin even in the USA?

    • Sarah Jones Geer

      Right- being forced to follow the law and not getting special treatment is now being “assaulted”?

      good grief.

  • DenisetheCelt

    This is not due to Muslims – this is a JEW thing.

    • Melvin Gillham

      Yea? And you need not spout your communist bullshit here. It is completely inspired by satan as you are.

  • Sean Davis

    He was not speaking as an individual. He was in full uniform and representing the United States Air Force. At the very least, he should have been in civilian attire while giving a public testimony of his faith. A definite breach of protocol and quite likely a violation of long-standing military code.

    • NCOriolesFan

      He is a MILITARY man representing his position. What’s your problem with that? Religious Freedom is for all, including our military personnel in uniform.

      • BarkingDawg

        Military officers do not have the same rights as civilians.

        • Melvin Gillham

          Yes they do, they simply follow a code that guarantees they defend this country and constitution and you say he doesn’t have those rights as well? Complete drivel there ankle biter,

          • BarkingDawg

            Military personel, are not allowed to endorce any religion.

            They may practice said religion, but they may not violate the establishment clause.

    • Melvin Gillham

      NOT, idiot

      • Sean Davis

        Well, that certainly settles it, lol.

  • Josey

    He was sharing his testimony of God’s goodness in his life to other believers at a prayer breakfast, this is nothing more than satanic hatred being spewed out of this man, so what if he was in uniform. My family served in the military for over eighteen years and the uniform was worn to church a time or two, it’s not a matter of what he was wearing it is a matter that the devil in this man is enraged at the bright testimony this General gave in encouragement to other believers. Thank God for this General who boldly proclaims his faith in God and Jesus Christ who gives him the power to overcome.

    Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. Glory to God!

    • Melvin Gillham

      Nicely done!

  • Settlk

    He realizes it is God who has kept and protected him all these years and the uniform is a mere covering for his body that is kept alive by The Power and The Mercies of God daily!

  • NCOriolesFan

    The organization should be renamed The Military ‘anti’ Religious Freedom Foundation. Isn’t religious freedom why the Major-General was at the National Prayer Breakfast in the first place? I guess not with Mickey Weinstein preaching his anti-Christian bigotry.

    • Sarah Jones Geer

      Nonsense. A great many of the MRFF are Christians themselves- it’s not an atheist organization. Furthermore, he was wearing his uniform- that’s the violation. If he did this as a private citizen, no one would care.

  • Deina

    He was speaking at a religious event. What’s the problem?

    Had he made the same speech to his troops gathered on the parade field, it would have been an entirely different matter.

    • BarkingDawg

      The day of prayer has nothing to do with religion. It’s all about political speaches.

      • Deina

        Most people would consider the official title “National Day of Prayer” as a clue regarding the substance of the aforementioned “political speeches.”

        Nothing he said was out of line or against regulations.

        Now if you wanted to argue that the National Day of Prayer itself should be done away with, I might agree with you on that.

        • BarkingDawg

          EVERYTHING the Dobson’s are involved with is politics wrapped up in a flag and carrying a cross.

    • BarkingDawg

      Was this a private event? No?
      Was this event not broadcast on TV and the Internet? No?

      I think the prohibition in the rules applies no matter if you call it a religious event, or a political event.

  • BarkingDawg

    Since the Day of Prayer event has morphed into a Day of Political Speaches event, it seem to me that the General is in violation of Section 2.13, more than anything else.

  • BarkingDawg

    I do believe that the general also violated this regulation as well:

    2.15.5. When you are expressing personal opinions on social media sites and can be identified as an Airman, you should make clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of the Air Force. While service members may generally use their rank and service even when acting in their personal capacity, they should not do so in situations where the context may imply official sanction or endorsement of their personal opinions.

  • Melvin Gillham

    All you special interest leftist idiots need to get a good dose of reality, he neither promoted his beliefs a being endorsed by the military nor broke military code . Your stupidity is very evident where the article called it a Christian supremist doctrine. He merely stated that in the tasks set before him He was aided in the success of those tasks by his faith, success of the mission stated is expected by those who tasked him with it. Take you little wimpy,crybaby, special interest minority asses home. You have no basis for complaint. Furthermore you only serve to destroy what is right and good and promote destruction and victimization. Panty wastes!

  • BarkingDawg

    Here is another Air Force regulation that General Olson may be in violation of.

    2.14. Public Statements. The issuance of public statements on official Air Force matters is the responsibility of cognizant unit or installation commanders and their public affairs representatives. Ensuring that official statements are properly worded and approved avoids statements that do not reflect official Air Force policy or that, if taken out of context, could be misleading to the public. Public statements should be fully coordinated with the appropriate public affairs office before release.

  • BarkingDawg

    2.1 Overview . . . This respect for others not only involves personal interaction, but also extends to communications and interactions in social media and cyberspace. You must never degrade the public’s trust and confidence in the United States Air Force and in you.

  • BarkingDawg

    2.1 Overview . . . This respect for others not only involves personal interaction, but also extends to communications and interactions in social media and cyberspace. You must never degrade the public’s trust and confidence in the United States Air Force and in you.

    Remember that this was a very public event, broadcast in TV and social media

    What did he say?

    “He put me in charge of failing programs worth billions of dollars. I have no ability to do that – NO TRAINING TO DO THAT – God did that.”

    “He sent me to Iraq to negotiate foreign military sales; deals through an Arabic interpreter. I have no ability to do that – I WAS NOT TRAINED TO DO THAT – God did all of that.”

    “I also went in as a very self-sufficient person. I thought if you work hard, study hard you’ll do fine and that was working great in high school. Did not work very well at the Air force Academy. That’s where I realized I had a very limited intellectual ability.”

    “I still carry in this pocket my transcript from the Air Force Academy – as Exhibit A in the court of law – that you’re not a gifted intellect; you have no real academic skills.”

    He doesn’t exactly inspire a lot of trust and confidence in the Air Force, or his leadership abilities, does he?

    • Jim H

      That was good. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

  • Sarah Jones Geer

    Yeah, that darn MRFF wanting military officials to follow their own laws and the Constitution. Shame on them.

    But please- keep pretending the Christian supermajority with all political representation is persecuted in America. It makes Christians look so SANE.

  • awareoftruth

    Jesus is king of kings!