Wichita State University Under Fire for Removing Chapel Pews to Accommodate Muslims

Chapel-compressedWICHITA, Kansas — A university in Kansas is under fire after it made alterations to its Christian chapel to accommodate Muslims.

According to reports, the Grace Memorial chapel at Wichita State University was renovated this past spring after Muslims on campus stated that they wanted a better place to say their prayers. The student Senate passed a resolution approving the change.

“Be it resolved that the Student Senate of Wichita State University recognizes the importance of inclusion and an interfaith prayer space and supports the renovation of the Grace Memorial Chapel into a flexible, faith neutral space,” the resolution read.

In March, university President John Bardo asked that a committee be formed to decide how to best carry out the request of the students.

Two months later, workers removed all the pews in the chapel and replaced them with chairs so that Muslims can move the seats and spread out their prayer carpets on the floor. The altar was removed as well.

The changes were satisfactory with most students, but when word of the alterations were made public this past week, many outside of the university expressed concern.

“The Muslims are ecstatic,” alumna Jean Ann Cusick posted on Facebook, according to The Wichita Eagle, sparking much discussion on both sides of the issue. “Sumpin’ not right here.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“Who do you think the Muslims in this country would back if ISIS ever invades or starts their terroristic acts against the United States of America?” one commenter wrote. “Sad to say it won’t be us.”

“It’s a more flexible space now,” another stated. “To me, there is nothing wrong with being accommodating, and it hurts no one.”

Bardo soon posted about the matter on his own Facebook page, asserting that Mrs. Harvey Grace—after whom the chapel is named—wanted the chapel to be open to all faiths.

“I’ve heard over the past several days from alumni and other friends of the university who are concerned about uses of Grace Memorial Chapel and the removal of pews,” he wrote on Tuesday. “The uses of the chapel today remain consistent with the original intent of the donor and with these guidelines first approved by President Emory Lindquist in January 1964…”

However, he said that because of the concerns expressed, he has asked Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Eric Sexton to “develop a process for the Grace Chapel committee to hear ideas and concerns from students, faculty, staff and the community about future uses and furnishings for the chapel.”

“I don’t think that change (the renovation) was undertaken with enough consideration of the feelings of all elements of the campus and broader community,” Bardo stated. “Our goal should be exactly what Mrs. Grace set out to do in her gift, to have an all faiths chapel that is welcoming to all religious groups on campus.”

There are currently 15,000 students enrolled at Wichita State University, with 1,000 identifying as Muslim.


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
  • afchief

    Islamic immigration should be halted immediately and permanently. All Muslims who are not citizens should be quickly rounded up and summarily deported. Those Muslims who already are citizens should be required to formally and specifically denounce fundamental Islam and all violent and unlawful (e.g. sharia law, etc.) practices of Islam. Those not willing to do so and not willing to reaffirm their oath to our Constitution and country over Islam should immediately lose their citizenship and be deported. If we truly want to excise this sociopolitical cancer, this is the hard line we must take.

    • SFBruce

      What you’re proposing is blatantly unconstitutional. First Amendment rights apply to all citizens, including those who follow the Islam tradition.

      • afchief

        Is Islam compatible with our Constitution? NO! I predict you will find that they may re-settle, but they do not adapt or assimilate. They bring their customs, language, habits, diseases, politics, and prejudices with them, and they seek to impose them on you. The USA, having been dumbed down by decades of “tolerance” and “diversity” propaganda has been too intellectually disarmed to even consider the threat. The refugees will find the social safety net and build a cocoon in it. You will pay for it all.

        Barack Hussein Rspect – “fundamental transformation” – we are about to find out just how transformative that is really going to be. Special thanks to the White Guilt dummies who voted for this chump, twice. You deserve what you are going to get; we don’t.

        But lest we be too harsh on our affirmative action preezydent, let us not forget that virtually everything he’s done to fundamentally transform the USA has been met with Deliberately Duplicitous Party silence, when they’ve not been actively aiding and abetting preezy Rspect.

        To say that the majority of Muslims here in the U.S. aren’t terrorists is comparable to pointing out that most Germans weren’t card-carrying, dues-paying members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and that of the minority of those who were, only a small percentage actually operated the gas chambers.

        Here’s a question I like to pose to those who insist that “the vast majority” of Muslims are peaceable, loyal Americans, aren’t terrorists, and don’t “support” terrorism:

        Let’s say that it’s 7:30 p.m., just after sunset, and a family of “peaceable, loyal” Muslims has just finished dinner. The doorbell rings, and it’s the ayatollah from their local mosque. Standing next to him, and glancing nervously over his shoulder and up and down the street with furtive, feral eyes is a scruffy young man of Middle Eastern appearance.

        The ayatollah speaks to the father: “I have a favor to ask of you, my good friend Abdul. Our friend Mohammed here needs a place to stay quietly for, oh, a week or so. Maybe a couple of weeks. I thought you might be willing to put him up in your spare room. No need to mention his presence to anyone else, if you don’t mind. He’s not very talkative, so there’s really no need to entertain him. But he does like to watch the news, so if there’s a television and a wifi connection in the guest room, I’m sure he’d appreciate that.”

        HERE’S THE QUESTION: What percentage of “peaceable, loyal” Muslims in the U.S. would refuse the “favor,” or disregard the request to keep quiet about the mysterious “guest”? How many, on the other hand, would try to find out the reason for the secrecy? How many–Allah forbid!–would actually “drop a dime” by finding an opportunity to make a call to the FBI–even if the lead story on the news that night had been about a terrorist bombing at a recruiting office on the other side of town?

        I hope I’m wrong, but I think the answers to all of those questions are almost certainly self evident.

        • SFBruce

          They certainly aren’t self-evident to me, or anyone else who takes the time to notice you offer absolutely no support for any of completely outrageous claims you make.

          • afchief

            My claims are facts!!! Go to Dearborn Mi and see for yourself!

            Yes, the truth always offends!!!!

        • Names_Stan

          True to form and sadly predictable. Words don’t mean anything though, right?

          Well, here’s Martin Luther’s words. And generations later, it was on his birthday in 1938 that the synagogues burned:

          Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

          …No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

          …but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

          -Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

          • afchief

            It is quite apparent you have NO understanding of Islam. Genocide of Christian’s right under our eyes. Ancient churches in rubble. Helpless civilians captured by ISIS. Yet we somehow thought it imperative that we send our military to Libya because a massacre was threatened. Clinton just had to go after Ghaddafi even though his son communicated that he was ready to step down. Ebola strikes Africa and 0bama sends in troops even though that is not a mission for the military.

            0bama turns his cold eye on slaughtered Christians and captured Americans around the world. He gives the Air Force permission to attack ISIS in a very restrained fashion: just enough to deflect political criticism but not enough to display the power of our military thus giving ISIS a recruiting tool in that they can claim they are still advancing despite the U.S.

            Iran is going nuclear!

            0bama ignores the Arab Spring failing to support a monumental movement.

            0bama releases prisoners from Gitmo.

            Thousands of Muslims have been allowed to come to America in a short span. Every state but Alaska has possibly been infiltrated.

            The southern border has crumbled.

            The antichrist look-a-like is truly, the most deceiving person ever, in the WH

            Barry is a Muslim

            0bama wreaks havoc on the world and his noose on America is getting tighter every day. I pray to God we survive 0bama.

            Islam is straight our of the pits of hell!!!!

          • Names_Stan

            It is quite apparent you have NO understanding of Islam.

            It’s quite apparent you have no understanding of dealing with people as individuals, and instead you favor sweeping generalizations that are based in fear.

            This is a characteristic of the lesser-evolved, hearkening back to times when loin-clothed tribe attacked loin-clothed tribe.

            The quote I cited is highly valid, as anti-Semitism is our best historical example of what happens when first fear, and then the propaganda of sweeping generalizations, rules the majority population.

          • afchief

            The quote you cite is not valid. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no such thing as ‘radical Islam’. Islam is Islam today as it was 1400 years ago. you have ‘Pure Islam’ and nothing more. There are practicing Muslims and non practicing people who identify with Islam. Some people call them moderates. A moderate in Islam is simply an Apostate of Islam. The penalty for apostasy under Sharia law is Death. No one has hijacked Islam. Islam was dangerous and full of hatred 1400 years ago and in 2015 it remains the same. The goal of Islam is a world wide Caliphate and the rise of the 12th Imam. In May 1991 the Muslim Brotherhood issued to its ideological allies an explanatory memorandum on “the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Explaining that the Brotherhood’s mission was to establish “an effective and stable Islamic Movement” on the continent, this document outlined a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” for achieving that objective. It stated that Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands so that God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR both have ready access to the White House. Imagine that.

            Read the Qur’an. You might begin with Sura 3:151.

            Where were Muslims on September 11th, 2001? If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and other cable news networks that day.

            Throw taqiyya into the mix and it becomes extremely difficult to know or trust who is the ever-elusive moderate Muslim.

            A moderate muslim is just a radical muslim in hibernation

          • afchief

            In his book Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam, Peter Hammond wrote a detailed analysis on the proportion of Muslims to the overall population and increased violence and adherence to Sharia law. Hammond’s research reads like a roadmap to ruin; a horrifying picture of the future of civilization. To summarize an oft-quoted section:

            When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.

            (Peace, of course, is never attained. Schisms among sects, starting with the rift between Shia and Sunni, erupt. The ideal of absolute power with divine authority always leads to internal conflict.)

            That the United States is ramping up Muslim immigration is sheer insanity. A crucial step to putting the brakes on this frenzied march to our demise is to close the door to Muslims – whether those from Islamic countries or anywhere else.

            Unfortunately, we’re doing the exact opposite.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      This is a wonderful idea, except that the erudite judges of the supreme court recently ruled that Christian views of marriage and morality are antithetical to “our Constitution”. The country is severely compromised, and in no position to win an ideological battle of any sort. The measures you propose are more likely to be directed against Christian citizens than against godless foreign infiltrators. If they don’t do that immediately, you can look forward to these same oh so wise and balanced judges imposing other unlawful foreign laws of their choice, and backing it up with empty rhetoric. Perhaps they will bring the country to the brink of ruin, perhaps they will push it over.

      • afchief

        A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!!

        • flackmaster00

          the supreme court didnt say that its legal for gays to marry, they said it was unconstitutional to disallow them the right to marry. the law already exists, its the constitution of the united states of america.

          your opinions are your own, but what you state as fact is ludicrous and ignorant. wipe some of the foam off your mouth and take some time to educate yourself.

          • No Comment

            Do you honestly think when the founders wrote the Constitution they intended for it it to allow gay marriage? It they did, they would have spelled it out.

            The Supreme Court opinion is just that, an opinion, a wrongheaded, liberal political agenda driven opinion that will eventually be overturned as unconstitutional.

          • acontraryview

            “The Supreme Court opinion is just that, an opinion”

            No, it was a ruling. Not an opinion.

            “that will eventually be overturned as unconstitutional.”

            You lack an understanding of the law. In order for a ruling by the SCOTUS to be overturned, a case regarding the ruling must come before the court. In order for a case to come before the court, an existing law must be challenged and the challenge must be based upon the law harming citizens. Since there is no law which specifically states that two citizens of the same gender are allowed to marry, there is no law to challenge. Without a challenge, there is no case. Without a case, there is no way for the ruling to be overturned.

          • afchief

            You really do have NO understanding of our three branches of government. Again, the SCOTUS ruling, opinion or whatever you want to call it, does NOT change the law. ONLY Congress can make and change laws. Look at abortion. Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. That’s right, there is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

            Planned Parenthood has been violating the law in all 50 states and should be closed, and all of the directors and abortionists should go to prison as accessories to murder. That is the law of the land, and that is the Truth.

          • acontraryview

            “does NOT change the law.”

            It doesn’t change the wording of laws, but it does determine if a law is enforceable.

          • afchief

            Hello!!!! For the umpteenth time, ONLY Congress can make and change laws. What does the word “legislative” mean to you? Do I need to define it for you? The SCOTUS ONLY renders an opinion!!!! It is up to the legislative branch to change the law!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “For the umpteenth time, ONLY Congress can make and change laws.”

            You are incorrect. Both Congress, and state legislatures, can make and change laws.

            “The SCOTUS ONLY renders an opinion!!!!”

            No, they issue rulings.

            “It is up to the legislative branch to change the law!!!!!!”

            Agreed. However, once a law has been ruled unconstitutional, it is not enforceable, regardless of whether or not a legislative body chooses to modify the legal code.

          • afchief

            Since you are quite ignorant of the law and what happened with the SCOTUS ruling, opinion or whatever you want to call it I will try and help you understand. The SCOTUS cannot rule that marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. It is NOT in our Constitution!!!! So, if it is not in our Constitution than it is up to the states to put it in theirs (if they want to) under the 10th amendment. Around 40 states did. They defined marriage between one man and one woman which has stood in most State Constitutions since they became states.

            We Christians know that since we have a lawless and lying pResident in the White Mosque who is gay friendly he appointed two homo judges to the bench. And we know they are NOT following the Constitution. If there were two conservative judges sitting on the bench instead of two homos, what do you think would have happened? It is quite obvious!!!

            Now for the SCOTUS to use the 14th amendment as justification for homo marriage is a bold face lie and they KNOW it. When the 14th was written it was solely for freed slaves. And when it was written homosexuality was against the law in ALL states at that time.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “The SCOTUS cannot rule that marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.”

            They didn’t. Marriage between one man and one woman is still legal and constitutional.

            The SCOTUS is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of any state law. If it were not, then how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            “They defined marriage between one man and one woman which has stood in most State Constitutions since they became states.”

            The first law put into place which specifically cited that marriage is only between a man and a woman was not put into place until 1973.

            “When the 14th was written it was solely for freed slaves.”

            Then why did the amendment not specify that equal treatment under the law only applied to freed slaves?

          • afchief

            “The SCOTUS is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of any state law. If it were not, then how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?”

            So what the states had in their Constitutions for centuries was a violation of the Federal Constitution when we get two homo judges to the bench to rule otherwise? Are you really this ignorant?????

            “The first law put into place which specifically cited that marriage is only between a man and a woman was not put into place until 1973.”

            Wrong! Read the states Constitutions!!!

            “Then why did the amendment not specify that equal treatment under the law only applied to freed slaves?”

            Why don’t you back and educate yourself and why the 14th amendment was added? Let me help you; The 14th Amendment is an instrument of international commercial maritime law, not the Biblical common-law administered by the State governments which recognize and protect our God given “natural” rights.

            The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which established an after-market “federal” subject citizenship for the freed slaves and vested them with statutory equality founded in legislation.

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again: The SCOTUS is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of any state law. If it were not, then how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            “So what the states had in their Constitutions for centuries”

            What did the states have in their Constitutions “for centuries” that the SCOTUS ruled was unconstitutional?

            “Wrong! Read the states Constitutions!!!”

            No, that is absolutely correct. The first law in our nation which specifically banned marriage based upon gender was put into place in 1973.

            From the 14th Amendment; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            What part of “any person” do you find confusing?

          • afchief

            NO, the SCOTUS rules on the Federal Constitution, NOT the State Constitutions!!!! Each state has it’s own Supreme Court.

            Wrong! Read the states Constitutions!!!!

            It was placed into the Constitution to provide Freed Slaves with US Citizenship. Due Process Right before the Ratification of the 14th Amendment was not conferred to Slaves. The Equal Treatment was to confer Citizenship Rights to FREED Slaves. The Context of the Amendment was to Freed Slaves Rights, NOT to Homosexual’s Marriages. That Power is left to the States under the 10th Amendment, as the States have never Enumerated that power TO the Federal Government BY Amendment. Not even the SCOTUS has the Power to even hear this case as the Power is left to the States.

            I’m done with ignorant people!!!! It is quite apparent you have NO understanding of our laws, Constitution and the three branches of government!!!

            Let me ask you this one last question; are you a homosexual?

          • acontraryview

            “the SCOTUS rules on the Federal Constitution”

            Correct. The case before the court was whether a state law violated the Federal Constitution. Therefore, it is an issue for the federal judiciary, as you stated.

            “Read the states Constitutions!!!!”

            Reading the Constitutions of each state does not change the fact that the first law to specifically state that civil marriage is restricted based upon gender was not put into place until 1973.

          • afchief

            Stop! It is quite apparent you do not understand Constitutional law! The SCOTUS broke the 10th amendment in doing so in the opinion on homo marriage. The SCOTUS canNOT rule cases that do not fall under Constitutional laws. One year ago, the same case was presented to the SCOTUS and their ruling then was that this was NOT a Constitutional decision and therefore it to be left up to each of the 50 states. This is what the 10th amendment states.

          • acontraryview

            “The SCOTUS broke the 10th amendment in doing so in the opinion on homo marriage.”

            The SCOTUS ruled on a law vis-a-vis its constitutionality in light of the 14th amendment. As per the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            Since the 14th Amendment is a part of the Federal Constitution, it is up to the Federal Judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of state laws.

            If the Federal Judiciary were not allowed to rule on matters of state law, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

          • afchief

            Ahhh silly homo liberal it is still quite apparent you have NO understanding of Constitutional law! None! Nada! Zilch! Let me educate that little brainwashed liberal cranium! The US Constitution does not mention Marriage anywhere. No where!!!! The Power is Not the Federal Government’s as the State’s have NEVER Enumerated that Power to the Federal Government BY Amendment. This falls under the 10th Amendment. The People have spoken in Referendum and have voted upon this. Which is why for years the States have stated marriage in their Constitutions. Appointing two homo judges DOES NOT change the law!!! The 14th Amendment does NOT apply as it was placed into the US Constitution for ONE reason ONLY and that was to Protect the Newly Freed Slaves and give ONLY them the Rights of Citizenship, The argument that the 14th applies is a FALSE argument. And when the 14th was put into law, homosexuality aka fudgepacking was against the law in ALL states.

            Does that sink into that little liberal cranium? Or is it too brainwashed with liberal lies and propaganda?

          • acontraryview

            “The US Constitution does not mention Marriage anywhere. No where!!!! ”

            How is that relevant to the federal judiciary ruling upon the constitutional of state laws?

            “The Power is Not the Federal Government’s as the State’s have NEVER Enumerated that Power to the Federal Government BY Amendment.”

            The Federal Government, via the ruling in Obergefell, did not create a federal law regarding marriage.

            The People have spoken in Referendum and have voted upon this.

            As is their right. However, if a law put into place by a vote of the people is found to violate protections provided by the federal constitution, that law becomes unenforceable.

            If the citizens of Utah voted to only allow Mormons to enter into civil marriage, would non-Mormons just have to accept that? Would they not be able to challenge that law in Federal court regarding it violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Would the federal judiciary not be empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of that law?

            “The 14th Amendment does NOT apply as it was placed into the US Constitution for ONE reason ONLY and that was to Protect the Newly Freed Slaves and give ONLY them the Rights of Citizenship”

            The 14th Amendment’s protection of equal treatment under the law applies to all citizens – not just freed slaves. The wording in the Amendment is clear, as I have pointed out.

            I’m curious, why do you feel that it should be illegal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?

          • afchief

            Ahh silly homo liberal, again let me educate you since you have NO understanding of our Constitution and Constitutional law. Because marriage was mentioned NO WHERE in our federal Constitution the States put it in their Constitutions IAW the 10th amendment. The States marriage clause has been in their Constitutions for years. It took a lawless, lying, Muslim. anti-christian, anti-american scumbag pResident to appoint two homo judges to the bench. Nothing changed except for two homo judges. When the SCOTUS agreed to hear this case they violated the 10th amendment (they also violated the 4th and 9th but that’s for another discussion) because the States already had marriage in their Constitutions and the federal Constitution did NOT!

            It goes even further that in the Constitution it is limited as is all of the Federal Government in what it can do and cannot do. And five of them have used the Constitution once again as toilet paper.

            It is called Judicial Tyranny!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “The States marriage clause has been in their Constitutions for years.”

            The first states to modify their Constitution to include marriage as being only between two citizens of opposite gender were Hawaii and Alaska, in 1998, only 17 years ago. Other states followed, with the most recent vote being in 2012 in North Carolina.

            “When the SCOTUS agreed to hear this case they violated the 10th amendment”

            Where in the 10th Amendment does it state that the Federal judiciary is not allowed to rule on the Constitutionality of state laws?

            “It is called Judicial Tyranny!!!!”

            Are you suggesting that anytime the Federal judiciary rules that a state law violates protections provided by the Federal Constitution, that the ruling is “judicial tyranny”?

            I’ll ask again:

            If the citizens of Utah voted to only allow Mormons to enter into civil marriage, would non-Mormons just have to accept that? Would they not be able to challenge that law in Federal court regarding it violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Would the federal judiciary not be empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of that law?

            I’m curious, why do you feel that it should be illegal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?

          • afchief

            That’s right! It is a States issue. Not a federal government. If the people of Utah voted for only Mormons to enter into civil marriage, than that is the states right. It becomes a state law.

            The 10th amendment states; Reinforces the principle of federalism by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people through the Constitution.

            Since marriage was NEVER mentioned in the Federal Constitution and the states did NOT delegated this authority, it was left up to the States to put it into their Constitutions. The SCOTUS has NO right to rule on homo marriage. NONE!!! They violated the Constitution!!!

            As a Christian marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman, period. In God’s eyes marriage is a covenant! Marriage is also institution. It is the central, the original institution of human civilization. It is the institution by which a civilization connects its past with its future. The family is the institution specifically designed by God to raise children into mature adults who will then go on to form families of their own. Before the state existed, before the academy, the priesthood, the arts, the market, or the military, the family existed. Originally the family patriarch or matriarch served as the family priest in dealing with God. The family patriarch led the family in battle against those who attacked it. The family patriarch directed and dictated the production, use, and distribution of the family’s resources. The elders educated the youngsters, in trades, arts, and values. As families began grouping together in communities and those roles had to expand beyond the family; all the other institutions of civilization developed.

            If marriage is merely a contract, nothing more than an economic arrangement, between two individuals there is no reason to require one of those individuals to be the opposite sex of the other. If marriage is nothing more than a contract, the there’s no real requirement the the contract be between only two individuals or for any particular length of time, let alone “till death us do part”. There is no need to require the contract to include concepts like sexual exclusivity (or involve sexuality at all). Contracts are mechanistic and legalistic. They have little room for notions like love and forgiveness, but they make lots of wiggle room and loopholes for manipulation and selfishness.

            One of the primary goals of the Left is to replace the central institution of the family with the institution of the state. They engage in a two pronged assault. One prong is by those who wish to control people. Thus replacing the institution designed to build children into mature adults is key to keeping the population at large immature and easily controlled by “free” stuff from Daddy Government that gratifies immediate appetites. (The mark of maturity being a willingness to sacrifice and work for ideals and a future that promises greater and more profound gratification than merely full bellies and entertained attentions.) The second prong is by those who seek to remove all cultural and religious restrictions (that is, moral standards) regarding the sexual exclusivity that is central to the idea of marriage and the guilt and shame that goes with those restrictions. This line of attack against marriage is supported not just by the liberal left, but also by some on the right who largely reject arguments from morality as a basis for law and seek to reduce many social institutions to the realm of contract law (and thus replace the family and the state with the Market as the central institution of civilization).

          • acontraryview

            “If the people of Utah voted for only Mormons to enter into civil marriage, than that is the states right. It becomes a state law.”

            If that law was challenged in Federal court, it would be ruled unconstitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment’s protection of equal treatment under the law.

            “The SCOTUS has NO right to rule on homo marriage. NONE!!! They violated the Constitution!!!”

            I’ll ask yet again: If the Federal Judiciary were not empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of state law, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            “As a Christian marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman, period. In God’s eyes marriage is a covenant!”

            You are certainly free to hold to that belief and to conduct your life in accordance with that belief. Your beliefs in that regard, however, are not a valid reason for restricting the rights of others.

            “If marriage is merely a contract”

            That’s what civil marriage is. A legal contract.

            “there is no reason to require one of those individuals to be the opposite sex of the other.”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “One prong is by those who wish to control people.”

            Actually, that would be people like you, who wish the control the actions of others based upon your religious beliefs.

            I’ll ask yet again: why do you feel that it should be illegal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?

          • afchief

            “If that law was challenged in Federal court, it would be ruled unconstitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment’s protection of equal treatment under the law.”

            How many times do I have to beat this in that little liberal brain of yours????? The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was written for freed slaves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At the time it was written homosexuality was against the law in ALL states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            What has changed??????????????? A lawless, lying, anti-american anti-christian pResident appointing two homo judges to the bench!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The SCOTUS violated the 10th amendment because marriage was already in the states constitutions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “I’ll ask yet again: If the Federal Judiciary were not empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of state law, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?”

            Are you really this constitutionally stupid????????????????? NOTHING in the states Constitutions violates the US Federal Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because it was NOT, the states put it in theirs IAW the 10th amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Marriage can NEVER be between people of the same sex. NEVER!!!! Call it a civil union or whatever you want. But is NOT marriage!!!! It is deviant!!!! It is unhealthy!!! It is perverted!!!! It is sin!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            The 14th Amendment applies to all laws, including laws regulating marriage and applies to all citizens, not just freed slaves.

            “appointing two homo judges to the bench!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            Which justices are you referring to and what is your basis for saying that they are homosexuals?

            “NOTHING in the states Constitutions violates the US Federal Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            The judiciary disagrees.

            “Marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            That is not relevant. If a state put a law in place that allowed only men to get a driver’s license, that law would violate the Federal Constitution’s protections of equal treatment under the law, even though driver’s licenses are NOT mentioned in the Federal Constitution.

            I’ll ask yet again: If the Federal Judiciary were not empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of state law, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

            “Marriage can NEVER be between people of the same sex.”

            That is clearly false, as two people of the same gender are indeed legally married.

            “It is deviant!!!! It is unhealthy!!! It is perverted!!!! It is sin!!!!!!!”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Those opinions, however, are insufficient justification for denying two citizens access to civil marriage based solely upon gender.

          • afchief

            I’m done dealing with stupidity!!!!! It’s quite obvious how deceived you are. Nothing sinks in. You want to believe the lies. You have to believe the lies. Homos don’t want marriage!! They (you) WANT TO DESTROY MARRIAGE!!! For you to think that the 14th amendment covers homo marriage shows just how deceived, ignorant of our Constitution and Constitutional law you are.

            Do you really want to know how deceived you are? What did the SCOTUS do three years ago? Let me help that little deceived homo brain!!!! They declared DOMA unconstitutional! Do you know why? Because they claimed it was NOT the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what marriage is and is not.

            DID THAT SINK IN???????????????????????????

            Then this year the SCOTUS declares that states constitutions on marriage are void because the federal government has the jurisdiction to declare what is and is not marriage.

            DID THAT SINK IN????????????????

            Does that little homo liberal brain understand that this is Judicial Tyranny??????????????????????????????????????????

            STOP MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR LIES.

          • acontraryview

            “They (you) WANT TO DESTROY MARRIAGE!!!”

            How does allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage “destroy” marriage?

            “For you to think that the 14th amendment covers homo marriage shows just how deceived, ignorant of our Constitution and Constitutional law you are.”

            That you believe that the 14th Amendment’s protections of equal treatment under the law does not apply to marriage laws shows how ignorant of our Constitution and constitutional law you are.

            “Do you know why? Because they claimed it was NOT the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what marriage is and is not.”

            No, that is not what the court’s ruling was. The court’s ruling was the the Federal government could not treat legally married same-gender couples differently than legally married opposite-gender couples. It had nothing to do with declaring what marriage “is and is not”. You really should take some time to educate yourself on these issues before commenting on them.

            “Then this year the SCOTUS declares that states constitutions on marriage are void because the federal government has the jurisdiction to declare what is and is not marriage.”

            No, that is not what the SCOTUS ruled. The SCOTUS ruled that laws which restrict the right of citizens to enter into civil marriage based solely upon the gender of the citizens are unconstitutional. The ruling made no declaration of “what is and is not marriage”.

            “Does that little homo liberal brain understand that this is Judicial Tyranny??????????????????????????????????????????”

            How is it tyrannical for the Federal judiciary to rule upon the constitutionality of state laws? Was it tyrannical when SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia?

            “STOP MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR LIES.”

            Please cite, specifically, what I have said that is a lie.

          • afchief

            You need to stay off your lying liberal homos sites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            BYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t explain how allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage destroys marriage. Got it. Thanks.

            So you can’t explain how it is tyrannical for the Federal judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of state laws. Got it. Thanks.

            So you can’t cite, specifically, what I have said that is a lie. Got it. Thanks.

            Enjoy your day.

          • afchief

            I’m done with you!!! Rightly does the Word of God say; “the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” (you).

            It is SO obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “I’m done with you!!!”

            Wise choice.

            The SCOTUS has ruled. Same-gender civil marriage is now legal in the US. There is no going back. Perhaps you should move on to issues that actually mattered to Jesus like administering to the poor and sick.

          • Monty Simmons

            Technically speaking you are correct. In reality such is not 100% true.

            Laws are made up of a plurality of “words” that form sentences. In an ideal world such words and sentences would be absolutely clear in their meaning. But they never are and are often composed of bad words, bad grammar, bad logic and poor consistency.

            Pick a law and try reading such law and have 4 friends read the same law and then have each explain what such 5 laws mean. I bet you get 5 different opinions.

            So someone has to interpret what laws mean.

            Honorable court tries to interpret the law to be consistent with the meaning of the law makers (“congress”, founding fathers, etc.).

            Dishonorable courts, like the current SCOUS, interpret the law they why THEY want it to read not the way the drafter wanted. Such is what makes our current SCOUS law makers instead of law interpreters.

          • afchief

            The SCOTUS still only renders opinions. This is why we have three branches of government……for checks and balances. Once the Judicial branch makes an opinion it is up to the Legislative branch to change or make the law.

            We have become so brainwashed that we believe what we are told. This is called Judicial Tyranny and it has radically transformed the direction of this nation. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

            Most of America has been brainwashed to believe this lie.

          • basalisk

            what they intended is irrelevant.

          • No Comment

            What you think is irrelevant.

          • flackmaster00

            youre right, i dont think the founders intended gay marriage. that is why it is not spelled out in the constitution. though if we lived our lives based solely on what the constitution spelled out, we wouldnt have this christian fanaticism injected into everything… yeah that sounds pretty good.

            mind that it is a supreme court *opinion* that the second amendment allows us to own guns (and i agree entirely). i bet that you dont disagree with that *opinion* though, so its not unconstitutional, right? like it or not, supreme count determinations of what is and isnt constitutional drives policy in america. if you dont like that, there are many countries run by fascists that are accepting new residents. i know that you prefer to be the fascist in power, but its pretty close.

          • No Comment

            Another mouth-breathing atheist heard from.

          • flackmaster00

            nice rebuttal, i can see that you’ve really done your homework and you make some very good points.
            you should try breathing from your mouth, it doesnt appear your brain is getting enough oxygen to operate properly

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            I doubt they considered interracial marriage either. I’m somewhat opposed to gay marriage, but the arguments religious people give are dumb.

          • afchief

            You are quite ignorant! The SCOTUS based their decision on the 14th amendment which was written in 1866 and homosexuality was illegal in ALL states at that time!!!

            “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

            Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

            Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

            Void – having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

            Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual and unenforceable.

            Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

            Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

            If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

            What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

            Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…well…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

            The 40 states that still have marriage between one man and one woman is STILL valid today!!!

          • acontraryview

            “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

            Unequal treatment under the law is repugnant to the Constitution.

            “If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law?”

            No, it would not be valid as it would violate protections provided by the Constitution.

            “What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal?”

            Consent is a rational, compelling, and legally valid requirement of entering into a civil contract.

            “Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law?”

            Nor did the ruling in Obergefell create law.

            “The 40 states that still have marriage between one man and one woman is STILL valid today!!!”

            If a law has been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, it is no longer enforceable.

          • afchief

            Again, it is quite apparent you have NO understanding of law, our Constitution and how are three branches of government work. The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

            Bear in mind that offering an “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            There actually was a Federal Law regarding homo-marriage. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act and was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013; however this did not nullify the law that was on the books. They only told us that it did, and we believed it, and told others to believe it.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny.

          • acontraryview

            “The “Supreme” Court does not make laws,”

            Agreed. Nor did they make a law in their ruling (not opinion) in Obergefell.

            ” If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution.”

            No, that is not how it works. The law merely becomes unenforceable. Legislators may vote to remove the law from the books, but it is not necessary, as the law carries no legal weight.

            “I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.”

            I’ll say it again: the court did not make law in their ruling on Obergefell.

            DOMA did not define who could and who could not marry.

            “The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013”

            What was “illegal” about the courts ruling on DOMA?

            “This is called Judicial Tyranny.”

            Are you saying that citizens should NOT have the right to challenge laws in court and that the judiciary should NOT be empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of laws and that a ruling by the SCOTUS should NOT be a determining factor in the enforceability of law?

          • afchief

            Wow! You really are ignorant of our laws, Constitution and how our three branches of government work. Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

            If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

            What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

            Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…well…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

            For instance, the recent Obamacare “decision” from the Supreme Court was supported by five justices, while four justices had a dissenting “opinion.” How can an opinion be enforceable? Especially an “opinion” so equally divided and strongly opposed?

            In Alabama, 81% of the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters? It can’t and does not!!!!

            I would advise you to study our Constitution and the roles and responsibilities of our three branches of government. Because what you are stating is a lie.

          • acontraryview

            “Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? ”

            No. Such a law would violate the Constitution.

            “If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law?”

            If the government changed tax law so that the effective tax rate was 90%, that law would be valid.

            “Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law?”

            I do know that. Did you know that when the SCOTUS rules that a law violates protections of the Federal Constitution that the law is no longer enforceable?

            “How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters? It can’t and does not!!!!”

            Then are you saying that the SCOTUS is not empowered to rule upon the enforceability of a law and that their ruling carries no legal weight? How would the provisions of the 14th amendment regarding state laws not violating protections of equal treatment under law be fulfilled if the Federal Judiciary were not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

            “Because what you are stating is a lie.”

            What did I state that is a lie?

          • afchief

            Everything!!!! A SCOTUS ruling changes NOTHING!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “A SCOTUS ruling changes NOTHING!!!!!!!”

            That is obviously not true. It’s unfortunate that you do not have a better understanding of how judicial rulings work.

          • afchief

            It is quite apparent you do NOT understand how our three branches of government work!!!! When the SCOTUS makes an opinion it is up to the Legislative branch to make or change the law and executive branch to sign it into law. That is HOW our government works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            STOP WITH YOUR LIBERAL IGNORANCE!!!! YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELF LOOK STUPID!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “It is quite apparent you do NOT understand how our three branches of government work!!!! ”

            Actually, it is you who has shown time and again that you are unfamiliar with the way our judicial system operates.

            “When the SCOTUS makes an opinion it is up to the Legislative branch to make or change the law and executive branch to sign it into law.”

            When the SCOTUS rules that an existing law is no longer enforceable, legislative bodies are free to, but are not required to, rewrite their legal codes. The law in question is not enforceable regardless of whether legal statutes are changed. So, yes, a SCOTUS ruling does change something – it changes the enforceability of a law.

          • afchief

            Ahhh the silly liberal who is a product of our education aka a sheeple aka a low information voter. Who has been brainwashed and has no idea how our constitutional government works.

            Let me educate that little liberal cranium. We have three equal but separate branches of government. The Legislative Branch which is headed by Congress, includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. The main task of these two bodies is to make the laws. Its powers include passing laws, originating spending bills (House), impeaching officials (Senate), and approving treaties (Senate).

            The Executive Branch is headed by the president. The president carries out federal laws and recommends new ones, directs national defense and foreign policy, and performs ceremonial duties. Powers include directing government, commanding the Armed Forces, dealing with international powers, acting as chief law enforcement officer, and vetoing and signing laws.

            The Judicial Branch is headed by the Supreme Court. Its powers include interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding cases involving states’ rights.

            Remember I said all three have equal power. Because they do, they ALL have to be in agreement. So when the judicial branch renders an opinion on a (Constitutional) case, the legislative branch has to agree and make or change the law. Finally, the executive branch has to agree and sign it into law.

            I hope that sinks in that little liberal cranium of yours??? Or is it too saturated with liberal lies and propaganda???

          • flackmaster00

            wow, you pulled out the big guns. how do you know that GOD isnt behind your hypothetical killing your child law? you know, like he commanded abraham to do?

            what if the “court” allowed you to marry your favorite animal? i wouldnt care, it wouldnt affect me in any way at all. and if you equate two consenting adults marrying with marrying animals or ten year olds, then your priorities are seriously screwed up. regardless, the courts dont allow any of those anyway. as much as you want your morals imposed on everyone, you need to realize that america is not your country, its not my country, its OUR country.

            what if you stopped living in a hypothetical dystopia? or if you lived your life without trying to interfere with others happiness that doesnt affect you in any way at all? i bet you would have a much happier life filled with fewer incoherent rants, fewer unconstitutional wet dreams, and fewer rabies vaccinations.

          • afchief

            Are the laws of the United States based on moral laws i.e. biblical laws?

          • flackmaster00

            morality and the bible are not mutually-exclusive, look at all the non-christian cultures that manage to not rape, kill, and destroy as much as (or less than) christian groups.

            and no, the laws of the US are not based on the bible. where in the constitution does it say that it is?

          • afchief

            An important aspect of our system of government is that it is based on the Rule of Law. This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments. Together with the concept of unalienable rights from God, these concepts helped ensure a way of life that respected the dignity of every individual. The combination of these biblical concepts is a foundation of our government that helps subjugate political power of potential tyrants. One only has to notice how every tyrant has a practice of changing the country’s constitution to suit himself (or to butter the bread of those who put him in power).

            Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: “The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

          • flackmaster00

            try reading something by a founding father named thomas jefferson, like his rewrite of the bible with the BS removed. John Adams was a unitarian. also try looking into George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, or Andrew Jackson, who were our first presidents and not christians.

            and where is it stated in the constitution that it or any other law is based on the ten commandments? if the founding fathers intended for us to live under a christian theocracy, dont you think they would have written that down somewhere?? you are making this stuff up because it suits your purpose, there is no legal standing to your claims.

          • acontraryview

            “This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments.”

            Then how do you explain that the protections provided by the Constitution directly conflict with seven of the ten Biblical commandments?

        • basalisk

          yes it is

          • acontraryview

            No, it is not. The Court is not empowered to write law. They are empowered, however, to rule that existing law is not enforceable.

          • basalisk

            what I mean is that it carries the same authority as law.

          • afchief

            No it does NOT!!! Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • basalisk

            a court ruling carries the same authority as a law and must obeyed

          • afchief

            Another ignorant liberal who has NO understanding of the law, our constitution and our three branches of government!

            Show me where in writing that a SCOTUS ruling has to be obeyed.

          • basalisk

            https://www. law.cornell. edu/constitution/articleiii

          • afchief

            You are making me laugh!!! There is NOTHING there that says otherwise.

          • acontraryview

            Not exactly. Again, a ruling by SCOTUS can render existing laws unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. The result of which is that something that was previously illegal, becomes legal.

        • Monty Simmons

          The supreme court consists of lawyers in black robes. Does one really expect lawyers to be honorable? LOL.

          But the opinion of these particular 9 lawyers does indeed become the “law” – such just does not become moral.

          Restated, the “law” does not equal “moral” and it sucks when one has to chose between the law and morality.

      • Names_Stan

        This is a wonderful idea except that the erudite judges of the supreme court recently ruled that Christian views of marriage and morality are antithetical to “our Constitution”. The country is severely compromised.

        Congratulations to this week’s winner of our It’s All About Them Gays Award.

        Not just anybody can connect Islamophobia to the Great Satan of gay marriage in one sentence. Gonna make it tough on next week’s winner.

    • Dave_L

      How many Christians might ISIS kill because they associate Christianity with your type of violent mind-set? We should be more responsible on public forums. You do not reflect the teaching of Christ.

      • afchief

        Your ignorance of the word of God is showing again!!! The word says to “go” into all the world. It does not say bring them here so they can corrupt others with their sinful and ungodly religion.

        You need to wise up in your understanding of the word of God. I see none in your posts. Nor do I see any discernment.

        • Dave_L

          Post Scripture instead of opinion. What I say is true, if not refute it with Scripture. Particularly the love of enemies required by Jesus of all who take his name.

          • afchief

            Matthew 28:19 (NASB) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

            It is up to you to “go” into all the world and make disciples. Not to bring them here against the wishes of other people.

          • Dave_L

            So we shouldn’t take in refugees? What a better way to share the Gospel when our actions match our words.

          • No Comment

            Let’s try it again since a word I used to describe a very personal and horrible type of assault put my first try at a response into moderation.

            The major metro area I live in is being overrun with Somali refugees, in fact it’s considered a sanctuary city. One of those..uh…fine refugee immigrants of the Muslim faith attempted to (an 8 letter word starting with “s” and ending with “y”) assault a with child (trying to avoid another moderation) 16 year old girl on the city bus he was driving. That’s just one of thousands of examples of why we should not be taking in any refugees period and sending home the ones who are already here.

            If you don’t agree, put out the word that they are all welcome in your neighborhood. In fact, practice what you preach and take some into your own home and try to “share the Gospel” with them and see how well that works.

          • Dave_L

            “For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.” (Luke 6:32–34)

            “But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Luke 6:35–36)

          • No Comment

            Nice dodge.

          • Dave_L

            Not a dodge at all, just our obligation as Christians.

          • afchief

            Nope! You are forcing your ways on others. Who is going to pay for them to be here? You? Who is going to house them? You? What state, city want them? What jobs are there for them? Yours? The government does not have any money. Should we just borrow and print more? Can you guarantee me none of these are terrorists?

            Until you open your home and your wallet and the majority of people want them here you have no leg to stand on.

            And the discerning mind knows exactly why 0lawless is doing this.

          • Dave_L

            Jesus expects us to be kind to enemies and uses the good Samaritan as an example for us to consider.

            But I understand your concern, seeing how an all volunteer army is a sitting duck for take over by “like minded volunteers”? The Draft leveled things out making it more difficult for any type of coup.

    • flackmaster00

      nice plan hitler jr, except that muslims have just as much right to be in america as you do

      • No Comment

        You are in violation of Godwin’s Law.

        • basalisk

          considering that afceft is advocating for the mass murder of Muslims the comparison is valid.

        • flackmaster00

          nice job ignoring the point

      • afchief

        Another brain dead liberal who has no idea what Islam is about. NONE!

        • basalisk

          how is he wrong?

          • afchief

            Read my other posts.

          • basalisk

            they don’t answer the question either. the first amendment guarantees freedom of beliefs and that includes Islam

          • afchief

            Is Islam compatible with our Constitution?

          • basalisk

            compatibility is irrelevant, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and beliefs no matter what they are.

          • afchief

            No it is VERY relevant. When you become a US citizen you take an oath to swear by our Constitution and none other. Islam does not and will not follow our Constitution. Look at Dearborn MI, the Muslims there are trying to implement sharia law.

            IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE!!!!

          • basalisk

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

            whether you think Islam is compatible with the Constitution or not is irrelevant as it still has a right to exist . so get over it

          • afchief

            Not when they circumvent our laws and Constitution.

            Allowing Muslims to emigrate to this country is like allowing cancer into your body. It will eventually consume you. Our constitution and Islam are incompatible.

            I have been studying Islam for several years now (know your enemy) and for anyone who follows what is clearly written in the Quran can not accept our constitution as the supreme law. For them Sharia is the only supreme law.

            The fact that most of the Muslims that are arriving in our country are poorly educated and show no indication of wanting to get off welfare should not be surprising. Their tradition tells them that they are “The Best of Peoples” and that the whole world belongs to Allah and therefore belongs to them as Allah’s chosen people, they are just getting what is owed to them.

          • basalisk

            do I have to quote the first amendment again? you cannot bar a religion or ideology for America just because you don’t agree with it.

          • afchief

            If they won’t live by our Constitution, you sure can.

            It is quite apparent you have NO understanding of Islam.

          • basalisk

            neither do you moron and you don’t understand the law either if you did you would know that it doesn’t matter if someone follow the Constitution or nor because the Constitution ONLY APPLIERS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

          • afchief

            Wow! More proof liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

          • basalisk

            prove me wrong, idiot

          • afchief

            “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land”

            Mustafa Carroll
            Director CAIR, TX

            AGAIN, YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • basalisk

            and how is that any different to the christians?

          • afchief

            You really are proving the mental disorder called liberalism!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • basalisk

            I’ve seen several people on this very site say that if the law conflicts with their faith then it should be ignored so how is Christianity different from Islam in that regard?

          • afchief

            There is no law on the books that conflicts with Christianity. In fact, our laws in America are based on Christianity. Even homosexual marriage is NOT a law.

          • basalisk

            “There is no law on the books that conflicts with Christianity.” when why do Christians whine that anti-discrimination laws violate freedom of religion oh and yes gay marriage is now legally recognized in all 50 states ?

            “In fact, our laws in America are based on Christianity.”

            no they aren’t, in fact laws need a valid secular reason to be passed, you can’t just quote the bible to justify it

          • afchief

            Silly liberal, facts and truth are for us Christian conservatives!!!

            While America’s constitutional government is not specifically Christian, it can be argued that its roots are taken from biblical doctrines. Here are just a few possible arguments in this regard:

            America’s first constitution was the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The Puritan framers of this document required that each aspect of it be grounded in Scripture. Other constitutions to follow contained many similarities to this one.

            At least 50 of the 55 signers of the U.S. Constitution were orthodox Christians.

            There is no doubt that the concept of our Constitutional checks and balances system is a direct result of the biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of mankind. All of our founders understood the importance of this doctrine to the social order.

            America’s foundational idea of The Rule of Law rather than the authority of man traces back to the Old Testament, beginning with the Ten Commandments.

            The idea that all men are created equal as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence is a biblical doctrine.

            The notion of the sovereign authority of God (as mentioned in the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, all 50 state constitutions, our currency, etc.)–rather than the sovereignty of the state–is certainly biblical.

            The existence of moral absolutes (a biblical concept) is an important idea in our Declaration of Independence–specifically, self-evident truths and unalienable rights from the Creator.

            Many other aspects of our laws come directly from the Bible–for example the judicial, legislative and executive branches trace to Isaiah 33:22. Fair trials with witnesses have numerous Old and New Testament support.

            Regarding civil liberty, founding father John Adams (and others) emphasized 2 Corinthians 3:17 as the basis for American civil liberty. The slogan on the Liberty Bell is “Proclaim Liberty throughout the land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof” is from Leviticus 15:10. Kennedy and Newcombe argue that Jesus himself was the greatest civil libertarian of all time.

            “Here we see, in its embryo, the idea of limited government. This idea derives from the Christian notion that the ruler’s realm is circumscribed and there are limits beyond which he simply must not go….Our modern idea of limited government takes the Christian notion of space that is off-limits to state control and extends it to the whole private sphere….The separation of the realms should not be a weapon against Christianity; rather, it is a device supplied by Christianity to promote social peace, religious freedom, and a moral community. If we recovered the concept in its true sense, our society would be better off.” (Dinesh S’Souza)

          • basalisk

            S’Souza? that idiot who was arrested? why don’t you provide some real sources next time?

          • afchief

            OK, we’ll quote the Founders.

            A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible

            (This list is by no means exhaustive; many other Founders could be included, and even with those who appear below, additional quotes could have been used.)

            John Adams

            SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

            The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

            Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.2

            The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.3

            Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!4

            I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.5

            John Quincy Adams

            SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

            My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.6

            The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].7

            In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.8

            Samuel Adams

            SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

            I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.9

            The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.10

            I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.11

            He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

            the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.12

            we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.13

            with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.14

            Josiah Bartlett

            MILITARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

            Called on the people of New Hampshire . . . to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord.15

            Gunning Bedford

            MILITARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGE

            To the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen.16

            Elias Boudinot

            PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT

            Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.17

            A letter to his daughter:

            You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature – the absolute necessity of a change of heart and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ – of salvation through His meritorious righteousness only – and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]. You are well acquainted that the most perfect and consummate doctrinal knowledge is of no avail without it operates on and sincerely affects the heart, changes the practice, and totally influences the will – and that without the almighty power of the Spirit of God enlightening your mind, subduing your will, and continually drawing you to Himself, you can do nothing. . . . And may the God of your parents (for many generations past) seal instruction to your soul and lead you to Himself through the blood of His too greatly despised Son, Who notwithstanding, is still reclaiming the world to God through that blood, not imputing to them their sins. To Him be glory forever!18

            For nearly half a century have I anxiously and critically studied that invaluable treasure [the Bible]; and I still scarcely ever take it up that I do not find something new – that I do not receive some valuable addition to my stock of knowledge or perceive some instructive fact never observed before. In short, were you to ask me to recommend the most valuable book in the world, I should fix on the Bible as the most instructive both to the wise and ignorant. Were you to ask me for one affording the most rational and pleasing entertainment to the inquiring mind, I should repeat, it is the Bible; and should you renew the inquiry for the best philosophy or the most interesting history, I should still urge you to look into your Bible. I would make it, in short, the Alpha and Omega of knowledge.19

            Jacob Broom

            LEGISLATOR; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

            A letter to his son, James, attending Princeton University:

            I flatter myself you will be what I wish, but don’t be so much flatterer as to relax of your application – don’t forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head, and I hope an indelible impression is made.20

            Charles Carroll

            SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR

            On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.21

            Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.22

            I, Charles Carroll. . . . give and bequeath my soul to God who gave it, my body to the earth, hoping that through and by the merits, sufferings, and mediation of my only Savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted into the Kingdom prepared by God for those who love, fear and truly serve Him.23

            Congress, 1854

            The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.24

            Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

            Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.25

            John Dickinson

            SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; GENERAL IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

            Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.26

            [Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.27

            Gabriel Duvall

            SOLDIER; JUDGE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; COMPTROLLER OF THE U. S. TREASURY; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

            I resign my soul into the hands of the Almighty Who gave it, in humble hopes of His mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ.28

            Benjamin Franklin

            SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

            As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.29

            The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author.30 (FRANKLIN’S EULOGY THAT HE WROTE FOR HIMSELF)

            Elbridge Gerry

            SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

            He called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

            with one heart and voice we may prostrate ourselves at the throne of heavenly grace and present to our Great Benefactor sincere and unfeigned thanks for His infinite goodness and mercy towards us from our birth to the present moment for having above all things illuminated us by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, presenting to our view the happy prospect of a blessed immortality.31

            And for our unparalleled ingratitude to that Adorable Being Who has seated us in a land irradiated by the cheering beams of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . let us fall prostrate before offended Deity, confess sincerely and penitently our manifold sins and our unworthiness of the least of His Divine favors, fervently implore His pardon through the merits of our mediator.32

            And deeply impressed with a scene of our unparalleled ingratitude, let us contemplate the blessings which have flowed from the unlimited grave and favor of offended Deity, that we are still permitted to enjoy the first of Heaven’s blessings: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 33

            Alexander Hamilton

            REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS; SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

            Following his duel with Aaron Burr, in those final twenty four hours while life still remained in him, Hamilton called for two ministers, the Rev. J. M. Mason and the Rev. Benjamin Moore, to pray with him and administer Communion to him. Each of those two ministers reported what transpired. The Rev. Mason recounted:

            [General Hamilton said] “I went to the field determined not to take his life.” He repeated his disavowal of all intention to hurt Mr. Burr; the anguish of his mind in recollecting what had passed; and his humble hope of forgiveness from his God. I recurred to the topic of the Divine compassion; the freedom of pardon in the Redeemer Jesus to perishing sinners. “That grace, my dear General, which brings salvation, is rich, rich” – “Yes,” interrupted he, “it is rich grace.” “And on that grace,” continued I, “a sinner has the highest encouragement to repose his confidence, because it is tendered to him upon the surest foundation; the Scrip¬ture testifying that we have redemption through the blood of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins according to the richness of His grace.” Here the General, letting go my hand, which he had held from the moment I sat down at his bed side, clasped his hands together, and, looking up towards Heaven, said, with emphasis, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Al¬mighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.” 34

          • basalisk

            none of that is true

          • afchief

            Go back to your mamma’s basement and to the democraticunderground and play with you little liberal friends! LOL!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I think that’s actually the official position of this site.

          • acontraryview

            “”If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land””

            Sounds very similar to the logic put forth by Kim Davis and those who support her putting her religious beliefs above her oath of office.

          • afchief

            Ahhhh silly homo liberal….remember, truths and facts are for us Christian Conservatives. You are a product of those indoctrination centers we call public schools. So we have come to expect the distorted, twisted godless views of the liberal cranium. It is so obvious for all to see!!!! So let’s see…..yes the USA was founded on Judea-Christian concepts, despite your far-left’s talking points and public school brainwashing. When the first people from the European Continent stepped foot on the New Land, they were escaping from the Church of England.

            They weren’t free to hold different beliefs than the beliefs of that Church. What was common among them, was the Ten Commandments. No Islam, Buda, and certainly no godless liberalism or whatever, was present in the early formation of this Nation.

            We do know the founders were men of conviction and morality, and for this reason they would still abhor even the idea of homosexuality much less be for marriage between two people of the same sex. If you think otherwise, you are delusional, you are a liberal. In fact, they would be horrified we’re even having this conversation. In their time, the topic of homosexuality would be whispered among themselves, if at all, and certainly with no ladies present.

            Christianity has always been the prevalent religion of this Country. The majority of our Laws are based on Christianity. There is a big difference between those who follow Christ, and those who follow Mohamed.

            In this day and age, the USA no longer accepts inequality between men and women. In Muslim Countries, the women are second class citizens. They can’t move about without a male escort; and some Countries don’t allow them to drive a car, and their genitalia is cut and sewed, to eliminate any pleasure from having sex. Can’t say this enough! Women aren’t allowed to derive pleasure from sex in MOST Muslim Countries, while men are. Does this seem “fair” to you? Does that line up with our Constitution? Yet President 0lawless supports this Muslim “crap”, even when he has two daughters. It’s disgusting and not compatible with our way of life and our Constitution!

            Does that help that little liberal cranium? Or is it too brainwashed with liberal lies and propaganda?

          • acontraryview

            Well let’s see:

            1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

            Directly conflicts with the constitutional protection of freedom of religion.

            2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

            Directly conflicts with the constitution protection of freedom of religion.

            3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

            Directly conflicts with the constitution protection of freedom of speech.

            4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

            Directly conflicts with the constitution protection of freedom of religion.

            5. Honour thy father and thy mother

            Directly conflicts with the constitutional protection of freedom of association.

            7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

            Directly conflicts with the constitutional protection of freedom of association.

            10. Thou shalt not covet

            Directly conflicts with the constitutional protection of freedom of thought.

            So, no, our Constitution, and subsequent laws, were not based upon the Christian belief system.

          • afchief

            Ahh since us Christian Tea Party Conservatives have to work harder to support you millions of lazy liberals on welfare and can’t get to our computers at work, I can now answer your questions.

            Let’s start with the first one. Tell me, how does having no other gods before me conflict with the 1st amendment?

          • acontraryview

            “I can now answer your questions.

            Let’s start with the first one. Tell me, how does having no other gods before me conflict with the 1st amendment?”

            That’s not an answer. That’s a question. Is English not your native language?

            The 1st Amendment protects the right of citizens to adhere to whatever religious belief they care to. They can worship a god other than the Christian god. That directly conflicts with the first commandment, which states that people are not to worship any god other than the Christian god.

          • afchief

            Ok, but how does a Hindu who worships a “cow” or whatever conflict with the first amendment?

            Our laws (Constitution) are based off Christian morals. No where are we saying a Buddhist can’t worship his god whatever that may be.

          • acontraryview

            “Ok, but how does a Hindu who worships a “cow” or whatever conflict with the first amendment?”

            It doesn’t. It conflicts with the 1st Commandment. If the US Constitution, and subsequent laws, were based upon the Christian belief system, there would not be freedom of religion. Citizens would only be allowed to worship the Christian god.

            “Our laws (Constitution)”

            The Constitution does not contain laws. It serves as a basis for laws.

          • afchief

            Come on man!!! Yes, our Constitution and laws are based off of Christian morals. We allow people to worship any god they want as long as they do not violate our countries laws.

            We Christians are not forcing anyone to accept Jesus as their savior. It is our job to tell you and show you Jesus.

          • acontraryview

            “Yes, our Constitution and laws are based off of Christian morals”

            How can the worship of a god other than the Christian god be consistent with Christian morals when the 1st Commandment specifically prohibits such worship? How can taking the “Lord’s name in vain” – a right provided for by the Constitution – be consistent with Christian morals?

            “We allow people to worship any god they want as long as they do not violate our countries laws.”

            You are not empowered to allow or disallow anything. That lies solely within the Constitution.

            “It is our job to tell you and show you Jesus.”

            Then why not just stick to that? Why the necessity to create laws which restrict the rights of others based upon your religious beliefs?

          • afchief

            This is like trying to teach a two year old!!!!!! Where are you going with this???? None of it makes any sense?!?!?!?

            “How can the worship of a god other than the Christian god be consistent with Christian morals when the 1st Commandment specifically prohibits such worship? How can taking the “Lord’s name in vain” – a right provided for by the Constitution – be consistent with Christian morals?”

            We Christians adhere to the teaching of the bible. Others do not! We Christians believe that God has given us a free will to worship who we want. Christians are forcing no one to worship Jesus. It’s called free will. It’s called freedom

            Because other people take the Lords name in vain they are the one’s who will answer to God.

            None of what you are saying is making any sense!!!

          • acontraryview

            I’m sorry that you are unable to grasp that if our Constitution and laws were based upon the Christian belief system there would not be freedom of religion, speech, and association, as the Christian belief system places restrictions on those things. It could not be any clearer.

          • afchief

            What???? You are making me laugh with your comments. They make NO sense!!!

          • acontraryview

            It’s nice that you find your inability to grasp simple comments amusing. Based upon your views, you must spend a lot of time laughing.

          • acontraryview

            “Islam does not and will not follow our Constitution.”

            Religions don’t take an oath to follow the Constitution. People do.

          • Karll

            The murderous, mongrel religion of brain dead savages.

          • basalisk

            do you have a point or are you just ranting?

        • flackmaster00

          thanks, but im not a liberal. i just apply critical thinking.
          and this has nothing to do with islam, it has to do with america. if you think that america is about oppressing other people and denying them freedom, then youre a fascist

          • afchief

            As a 23 year military vet and someone who has studied Islam, it is NOT compatible with our Constitution, period. From Peter Hammond’s book “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam;

            When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.

          • flackmaster00

            once again you have avoided the point.
            it doesnt matter if islam is “compatible” with the constitution or not (whatever that means, the constitution doesnt refer to any religion), it matters that you have fascist tendencies. i dont give a sh*t about islam and the world would be a happier place without them (and other crazy religions, to boot), but that doesnt mean they are not obligated the same american freedoms and protections as the rest of us.

          • afchief

            It sure does!!! Where Muslims are living, there are attempts to practice Sharia law. Look at Dearborn MI. When 0lawless brings in more Mulsims it will become worse. A lot worse.

          • flackmaster00

            and how long have muslims been coming to america? it didnt start eight years ago.
            check out africa where christian militias rape and kill innocent people. is that indicative of all christians? i certainly dont think so, why do you think that all muslims want to come to america and stone everyone?

          • afchief

            Oh please! What a bunch of liberal clap trap garbage!!!

          • flackmaster00

            again, i’m not a liberal.
            and again you ignore all points and respond with nothing. you are a religious fanatic, enjoy living in your bubble as the world grows around you

          • acontraryview

            “it is NOT compatible with our Constitution”

            Neither is Christianity, nor any religion.

          • afchief

            Another product of our education system that has NO idea who started and formed our country and what our countries laws are based on.

            Bye! I tire easily dealing with brain dead liberals. No reason! No logic. Due to it being a mental disorder!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Our country’s laws are based upon the Constitution. If you believe that our Constitution was based upon Christian teachings, then please explain why the protections provided by the Constitution directly conflict with seven of the 10 Biblical Commandments.

          • afchief

            Silly liberal! Facts and truth are for us Christian Conservatives!!! Dennis Prager who has listed Judeo-Christian Values and elaborated on this subject a long time ago. Yes, it is quite apparent you are a product of our education system.

            1. Our sense of right and wrong and our sense of wisdom come from the use of reason and common sense, but also, and importantly, from the Bible which, by faith was considered by our Founding Fathers to be God’s inspired text; and not just from the mind or heart of man. This faith lead to the mottos: “In God We Trust” and “One Nation under God.” Our Founding Fathers were believers in the God of the Bible, even if some were not orthodox Christians, and they put that faith into the Declaration of Independence, into our laws, into our national monuments, and into our culture. Faith is a part of American Culture, something Atheists, Secularists, Humanists and those of other religions should acknowledge and accept as historically accurate truth. To remove the results of Biblical Faith from America is to undo what the Founding Fathers have wrought.

            2. Truth is Sacred; there can be no liberty or justice, and little happiness without it. Jesus connected truth and liberty when he said “the truth shall make you free.” In the Book of Exodus of the Hebrew Bible God describes Himself: “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…” In Deuteronomy God is described this way: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice.” Listen to King David in Psalm 25: “Show me Your ways, O Lord; Teach me your paths. Lead me in Your truth…”; and in Psalm 51: “Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.”

            3. Human life is the first gift of God, and it is of infinite value since man is made in the image of God. Judeo-Christian Values have lead to a culture of life in America, not a culture of death. Americans with Judeo-Christian Values will defend innocent God-given life.

            4. Our Liberty is a gift from God and stated so in the Declaration of Independence. It is also stated in the New Testament Christian Bible: “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” Americans with Judeo-Christian Values will defend their God-given Liberty from tyranny and terror.

            5. Human creativity is also a gift from God and is not to be unjustly suppressed by totalitarian, tyrannical or excessively taxing government. The work ethic is an important part of Judeo-Christian Values since honorable work is a reflection of God-given human creativity. Human reason is also a part of God-given human creativity, and it has led to scientific knowledge and technological progress. Reason and science are important aspects of Judeo-Christian Values. Human creativity is central to the pursuit of happiness, but does not guarantee it; totalitarian systems such as Communism or Islamic Sharia Law guarantee utopian happiness, but don’t deliver it.

            6. “Establish justice.” This is commanded repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible. This is how it has been done in America: Honor Life, Liberty and Creativity. Liberty in practical terms means: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, no established or state-supported religion, right to bear arms and act in self-defense, uninterrupted elections and the division of powers into its three branches. Where our culture is now headed in the wrong direction, in my opinion, is to provide special rights for certain groups of people. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged these basic rights for all people, and our Civil War enforced it for the American slaves when they were denied their God-given Liberty.

            7. “Hate Evil”. This is commanded three times in the Hebrew Bible; this is from the book of Proverbs: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Hear the Prophet Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness….” Americans with Judeo-Christian Values, as opposed to Europeans, still believe in the death penalty for pre-meditated murder, and America is still the nemesis of terrorists and tyrants – see the seal of the state of Virginia.

            8. “Love your neighbor” – commanded in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. “Love your enemy” – commanded in the New Testament Christian Bible. Generations of Americans, starting with our Founding Fathers, have had to square the values of “Hate Evil” with “Love your enemy.” This has been done by hating the evil within the enemies of God-given Life and Liberty, but not hating the evil-doer him/herself.

            9. In the Judeo-Christian Value System there is a natural and common-sense balance between compassion and courageous confrontation of evil. This can be seen metaphorically as a natural balance between femininity and masculinity; both good and necessary. The secular culture of Europe and of many in the United States today have unwisely suppressed the masculinity of Judeo-Christian American Culture, and this has put our society out of balance.

            10. From Many, One: e pluribus unum. Ethnicity and race don’t matter, but values do matter. We Americans should consider ourselves blessed to live under God-given Liberty in the same melting pot; and we are privileged to pursue happiness through creative work and play, unencumbered by excessive government. Those things that divide us, such as race or ethnicity, can be viewed metaphorically as our various styles; and are not very important. Those things of lesser importance should melt into what is very important and which should unite us: our value of Life, Liberty and Creativity – those rights defined by the Declaration of Independence, and rightly identified as the gifts of God.

            11. The natural resources of the Earth, including the animals, along with the rest of creation should be honored and well cared for, but also used and enjoyed; and never worshiped.

  • bowie1

    I noticed a multi-faith chapel in our local hospital in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada which is signed both in English and Arabic but it still has chairs set up there with an open area in front of it, so users can decided what to use and not to use. There is a curtain up front so I don’t know what is behind it – could be a cross I suppose.

  • Suzanna Brown

    Of course in the climate that we are now living in, the 1000 students are more important than the 14,000 other students. The small minority gets what they want and the rest of us have it all shoved down our throats whether we like it or not.

    • No Comment

      Isn’t liberalism wonderful.

    • acontraryview

      How is replacing pews with chairs shoving something down someone’s throat?

  • Monty Simmons

    Yep, that is what Mrs. Grace wanted is for the Christian Chapel to be turned into a Muslim Mosque. Liberals are such asinine people.

    • flackmaster00

      its the same god, he doesnt have to go anywhere.
      whats the big deal?

      • No Comment

        You don’t know the differences between Christianity and Islam, do you. smh

        • basalisk

          that’s because there is no difference.

        • flackmaster00

          i get the feeling that no one here reads anything but the bible. there is a wealth of information that is free and publicly available if you want to look at it (i’m guessing you dont). a google search for “abrahamic religions” will give you a lot to think about, a lot of it from christian theologians to boot.

          • afchief

            There is NO other way, but by Jesus. NONE!!!!

            John 14:6 (NASB) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

          • flackmaster00

            ah, so your argument is “but this book says things”
            you gave up pretty quick. guess its easier than educating yourself, so i can see why you did it. learning can be hard work.

          • afchief

            Acts 4:12 (NASB) And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name (Jesus) under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

          • flackmaster00

            nice to know youve completely given up on this argument

      • Monty Simmons

        If it is no big deal then why the change? Look, I do not go to this school, thank god, and never will. If a bunch of asinine liberals wish to be smartazzes no skin off my back.

        Just know people are not stupid and they see what you are doing.

        • flackmaster00

          the change was because they needed to be able to have room.
          now both communities are served, what is the problem?

          • Monty Simmons

            “Two months later, workers removed all the pews in the chapel and replaced them with chairs so that Muslims can move the seats and spread out their prayer carpets on the floor. The altar was removed as well.”

            I guess that nasty old Christian Alter was getting in the way. I also read than the Chapel was “cleansed” of any Christian symbol.

            If so, screw you and the lying staff and students at that university.

          • flackmaster00

            maybe youve gone to churches where there the altar options are ‘we have an altar’ or ‘we will never have an altar’, but in the churches i’ve gone to they had movable altars to make more room for worship service or anything else.
            crazy thought, but the christians may not be altarless after all.

          • flackmaster00

            so it’s just sour grapes that the church has to share, got it

          • Monty Simmons

            Nope, not at all. If Islam is so great why do not the followers of Islam stay in the country that Islam built and stay away from the country Christianity built?

            Islam is a cult, a big one, but just a cult and all the societies built around Islam, to date, are sick worthless societies where atrocities against humanity are a daily treat.

            Indeed, just about any society built on a religion other than the Islam cult is better the the society built around Islam. So why would ANYBODY want Islam coming to their country?

            Islam has nothing to teach America, we, as do all people, already know how to hate and kill.

            But all that is beside the point. Islam and Christianity are not compatible. Christian should not be forced to allow the stink that is Islam to contaminate the Christian’s place of worship.

            The Isliam azzes should build their own den of hate. I know what you are thinking, look at all the hate toward Islam. Not true, I do not hate Islam or the idiots that follow Islam. It is just that one cannot describe “SHlT” nicely and be honest at the same time.

          • flackmaster00

            plenty of churches have movable altars so they can have more room for worship service or other events.
            again, both communities are served, what is the problem?

  • Friga Siera

    Hello guys, are u ready for this (Matthew 24:414) and other verse saying the same thing? It’s not about muslim or other things, it’s the time where we should prepare that christianity and name of Jesus will be unfavorited by most of parts of the world.. should we show anger or love by the end…

  • Friga Siera

    Anything is attacking christian value right now, abortion issue, LGBT marriage, including the presence of muslim… it’s the sign of the end of the world. Nothing can change that as it has been prophesied long2 time ago…. but the good news here, at where christianity is as a minority and many times being surpressed by local authorities, the growth of christian believer number is rising…. perhaps it is somekind of faith shifting all around the world I guess…

  • Tina Taylor

    the building does not matter, for we are the church. the best thing though is to either use existing or new buildings so all can be accommodated.

  • April J

    So no one that actually attends the school seems to be complaining, but this is a story because some illiterate woman is complaining on Facebook? I bet most Muslims have a firmer grasp on the English language than she. “Sumpin'”. ???? Really? Another slam dunk reporting job by Heather Clark and Christian News Network.

  • sammy13

    Muslims can kneel between the pews. Catholics and many other denominations do it all the time. Or the Muslims can build their own house of worship. Just another attack on the US.