Northern Illinois University to Remove Bibles from Guest Rooms Following Atheist Complaint

Gideons Bible pdDEKALB, Ill. — Officials at Northern Illinois University have agreed to remove all Bibles from the guest rooms at their campus student center following a complaint from a prominent atheist activist organization.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) reports that it recently sent a letter to the university to assert that the presence of the Bibles was unconstitutional. Co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor and her husband Dan Barker discovered the Bibles while staying at the Holmes Student Center Hotel during a visit to the area to speak to a chapter of the Secular Student Alliance.

“Providing Bibles to Holmes Student Center Hotel guests sends the message that NIU endorses the religious texts,” the letter read. “Including Bibles sends the message to non-Christian and non-religious guests that they should read the Bible, and specifically the version of the Bible provided: the Gideon Bible.”

“Certainly, if guests want to read this religious text during their stay, they can bring their own copy or access any of the numerous churches or libraries near the university,” it said.

FRFF states that the day after the submission of the letter, Gregory Brady, deputy general counsel for governance and administration, replied to advise that the university “will be removing any such Bibles from their hotel guest rooms.”

“Nonreligious hotel guests should not have to pay to be proselytized in the privacy of their own bedrooms,” Gaylor asserted in a statement. “The Bible calls for killing nonbelievers, apostates, gays, ‘stubborn sons,’ and women who transgress biblical double standards. What’s obnoxious in a private hotel, however, becomes inappropriate and unconstitutional in state-run lodgings.”

As previously reported, last year, the University of Wisconsin and Iowa State University likewise removed all Bibles from campus guest rooms after FFRF complained about the matter.

  • Connect with Christian News

But the religious liberties organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) asserted that the atheist group was wrong in their interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“[C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’”

ADF then warned that the universities, in heeding the advice of FFRF, could now be held liable for unlawful religious discrimination by generally allowing materials in hotel rooms while censoring anything of a religious viewpoint.

“[B]y succumbing to FFRF’s demands, you may have exposed yourself … to potential liability. Presumably, your guest rooms include a variety of printed materials, including magazines, phone books, and information about the campus and guest facility,” it explained. “By removing the Bibles because they are religious, you may have engaged in viewpoint discrimination, which is ‘an egregious form of content discrimination’ and a ‘blatant’ violation of the First Amendment.”


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
  • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

    If this was these atheists view point of Christianity then not only are they misrepresenting our faith but they are also incapable of reading. Surely they should struggle to summon the thought process to actually write a letter, let alone send it. We must love our enemies, we are promised persecution, We should prepare ourselves for the kind of persecution that occurred in the USSR and in China in the west for if this complaint is taken seriously then it is an extra step down a very very slippery slope. I mean “The Bible calls for killing nonbelievers, apostates, gays, ‘stubborn sons,’ and women who transgress biblical double standards” wow how off base and off reality are these guys.

    • Cady555

      Off base? Christians declare the Bible is the word of God. Surely you have read it.

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        So you are saying that the bible is about killing gay people and unbelievers?

        Jesus taught love and forgiveness, to the least, he taught us of charity, of love. He was incredibly un sexist, having women who he taught and spoke theology with, which was extremely uncommon, he even spoke to the Samaritan woman who had multiple husbands. He died for OUR sins for us to have eternal life, so obviously I would query this idea that the bible is all about killing people,. it shows a complete lack of true understanding.

        • Cady555

          The bible is not all about killing gays and unbelievers, but it does require that they be killed.

          Love? Dozens of Christian people, nearly every Christian commenting here, strongly support a memorial to veterans on government property honors only those veterans represented by a Christian cross. They are rejoicing because non Christian veterans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists and anyone who would not choose a Christian cross for their headstone, is not recognized.

          Is this what Jesus taught?

          The alternative memorial, of boots, rifle and helmet that honors all who sacrificed, was apparently so offensive that those who supported it were voted out of office amidst great rejoicing.

          Love? Compassion? Treating others how you would like to be treated?

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            It doesn’t require that they be killed, the gift of eternal was given freely, I am entirely unclear on what you are talking about with the Vets, I doubt any Christian wants any service man to die, or their remains to be treated badly, in all honesty, I am a vegetarian pacifist, who believes the last war to be fought in good stance was the 2nd world war, that America needs to stop its holy war against anyone who threatens to stop using the petro dollar to prop up its currency, I think you guys eat entirely too much meat and destroy too much of the environment, whilst I believe these things, I know Jesus is my lord and savour, and that he is anyone’s savour if they reach out to him. I greatly reject anyone being killed for their belief or being mistreated for their belief, whether Christian, Muslim or Atheist. I also know that it is Christians who operate like this but have a look at what’s happening to Christians around the world and yet they take the persecution, and pray for their persecutors . I can not speak for all Christians, only for Christ’s teaching and what I do in my own life, not all people who would call themselves Christians follow Christ’s teachings, and none of us are perfect, that’s what forgiveness is for

          • Cady555

            I think you and I would agree on a lot. I’m not a vegetarian yet but probably will be someday. I agree with you completely on WW2 and the wars since.

            Christians do experience real persecution in other parts of the world. So do atheists. 5 atheists have been hacked to death in Bangladesh in the last year. All religious based persecution is wrong. (That is why I care so much. This is a small thing, but a local government is being used to honor Christians while others are ignored. I really and truly care that our secular government is kept secular.)

            We are talking about a war memorial in a small town in America. Based on normal demographics, the town is likely mostly christian, but there will be some atheists and minority religions in town. Out of all the possible ways to build a memorial to American veterans, I truly do not understand what is wrong with a design that is inclusive of all veterans.

            Read back over the comments. Stop and listen to the gloating. I don’t understand the delight in the idea that Christian veterans and only Christian veterans are recognized.

            If you had a dear friend who was Jewish, would you be proud to show him the new war memorial in your town with a great big Christian cross? Wouldn’t you select an option that honored him too?

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Tbh i have atheist friends, agnostic friends, Jewish friends and Muslim friends, I lived in an Asian community for 2 years in London. None of my friends have an issue with the cross, the church I am involved with does outreach work with the homeless and cares after people what ever their denomination or beliefs. In the UK Christianity is the minority by far. In the US whilst 70% of ppl would claim to be Christian, the number is more like 20% that actually follow Christ, at least if I am to believe what I hear from the preachers out there. In both the US and UK there is a lot of people who call someone a Christian for being a good person rather than someone who lives their lives in Jesus Christ. As for persecution of Atheists in India I was aware, its just in numbers wise its a smaller issue, but that does not mean it matters any less. I just find it funny how Christianity fundamentalism means you love more, forgive more. As far as I know this is the only belief system that does that, atheisms most fundamental is communism and that’s killed more people than Hitler, the more fundamental you become as a Muslim the more likely that you are likely to take a violent action. Even Buddhists have been known to kill Christians

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: You and I are apparently meeting different Christian fundamentalists. The ones I meet are inclined to stone me if it weren’t against US law. See the comment section of any religious article on The Blaze for examples of people who claim to be true fundamentalist Christians ready to hate and harm non-Christians.

            Communism is not fundamentalist atheism. It is a government structure that found atheism to be a compatible belief, but they are separate concepts. To vilify atheism many Christians like to conflate the two.

            It’s great that you’re taking a benevolent approach to Christianity, but it still has its place. When you start installing it on public land and in government organizations it starts feeling like that ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend that you have to get a restraining order for because they’re showing up at inappropriate places and trying to inject themselves into your life.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            If a Christian was out to do harm to you they are not an actual Christian, there is a big difference between the faith and the religion. You will assume that all Christianity is religion but not so. Religion is man made doctrine, often people get so caught up with this man made doctrine that they never get to the actual good stuff in Christianity, which is the relationship in Christ, which means not only a relationship with God but actually following what Jesus taught us, which has a very obvious statement of love. In the USSR a lot of the secret police and the guards became Christians after seeing Christ in the followers they were torturing.

            If you read above I pointed out 3 varying states of Atheism, and the issue I have is not with people who do not believe in God but the Militants who have to try and eradicate other peoples beliefs, which they can not do so instead they attempt to vilify those with faith, what ever faith that is.

            for your easy will copy and post the above post “There has always been 3 types of atheists, those who do not believe but don’t need to talk about it except when asked, the ones who are open about the fact they do not believe in God, can be patronising to Christians but still accept everyone has their own right to their belief, the last kind are the militants, they act like the secret police in communist USSR and see it as their life mission to eradicate belief in any higher power, whether Christian or not. This last group worries me no doubt, because they have no logic to their arguments and are as radical and extreme as any believer, except an extremist Christian believes in love and respect whilst an extremist atheist sell hate, as bigots they try to make what they criticize seem the bigoted. Open discussion is pointless with them as they worship science without questioning all the things science does not answer, they claim anyone who believes in any higher power has limited intelligence despite so many of our great thinkers are Christian. They claim any showing of your faith is an abuse and threaten litigation where ever they can. For the aggressive nature of these people all I can assume is that they feel hurt and in pain, which makes me want to pray for them. I truly pray that these people become blessed by seeing exactly how much God loves them, just like me.”

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: Please look up *no true scotsman fallacy* when you have a minute. I honestly don’t care if you think they are really Christian or not. Catholics don’t think my Episcopalian parents are true Christians. Baptists see Lutherans the same way. Mormons think Calvinists have it all wrong. Islamic moderates think that fanatical members of ISIL and other terrorist groups aren’t true Muslims.

            Even if they’ve got your bible wrong (in your opinion), they are motivated to hate because somebody is opposing the religion they claim to follow.

            I also don’t care about your thoughts about classifications of atheists. I’m sure that it makes it easier for you to dismiss atheists by putting them in three groups that you can make assumptions about. As Cady555 correctly stated, the goal of militant atheists is education, awareness, and equality. Some are more or less motivated to keep people from beating them over the head with religion.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            I try to keep bible quotes out of discussions, basically because I feel atheists do not wish to read the bible but sometimes it is needed to show an example or illustration of point. So I will go over some simple numbers that you may understand and not have such an issue with 232 time love is mentioned in the new testament, hate was only mentioned 17 times, heaven 236 times, hell only 14 times. I am not saying anyone from any part of Christianity is unable to have a relationship with God, but that some doctrines and some parts of churches which has a very corrupt past do much to hurt not only the people of faith in Christ but the people around it. I don’t dismiss atheists, I just find that there are some atheists that you can have a discussion with, open and often agreeing on multiple points, and then there are atheists who would refuse medical care from a Christian doctor because they state that all Christians are of limited intelligence. I see posts where people ridicule some Jewish post or picture, saying how retarded it is to believe in the big unicorns in the sky, any dialogue with such people is pointless, for they have nothing but judgement for anyone who disagrees with them.

            The simple definition of a Christian is someone who lives in Christ, nothing more. There is a lot of people who would say they do not even know anything about Jesus above what they learnt in a nativity play when they were children who call themselves Christians, some people say they are Christian because they try to do the right thing, some people because they go to church on a Sunday. The only issue is that anyone who does not live in Christ and states that they are Christian hurts not only the people around that person but is a terrible example of the Christian faith. It should be clear that a relationship with Christ, attempting to live in love of the people around you, trying to live in the way he expects his people to live is the Christian way and belief. Christ hated the high priests for they did not live the way they appeared to do so, he wanted people to have a genuine faith. He protected the downtrodden, the ill thought of, the bottom of society, he healed the unclean people (lepers) which was deemed to make him unclean by the Pharisees. If he was walking the street today he would be helping the homeless, he would be doing prison outreaches, he would be helping the immigrants, just like Christians do all over the world, of all denominations today

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: I’m not expecting you to pick out moderate Muslims from fanatical terrorists. It’s not my job to sort out who’s a *real* Christian and who isn’t. I’m not Christian. When I encounter atheists that are abrasive and rude, I try to coach them. If you want to improve your religions image you should work from within instead of expecting me to do the work of sorting out your religion.

            So, back to the original point. Do you understand why bibles in hotels run by government affiliated organizations are not allowed?

          • Cady555

            Think about vatious dictatorships. Dictatorships use whatever tools are handy to exert control. If they can use religion, they become Christian or Islamic theocracies. If religion is in their way, they become non-religious dictatorships. In either case, it’s about power and thought police. Unapproved thoughts are punished.

            Secular democracies are different. They intentionally permit freefom of thought. All religions are permitted and none are promoted by government authority. We need to fight for our secular government. We need to fight any attempt to use government authority to promote religion or establish a preferred religious view.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            I know of Catholicism that has been used as a weapon by a corrupt religious system hundreds of years ago, but your country was founded by pilgrims who left the UK because of religious intolerance as the pilgrims wished to follow God in a more pure way outside of religious doctrines. Only 6% of all wars have a religious aspect to them, when you exclude conflicts involving Muslims it drops to bellow 3%. Your bill of rights and founding fathers were predominately Christian, and your oldest university’s were founded and ran by Christians, the founding fathers had bibles printed for the American family, not as a form of control but as a prevention from control.

            Do you honestly believe you live in a democracy? your government is owned by a tiny proportion of the population, they are bought off with campaign financing, the same companies paying off both parties and no one “runs a clean race”. The corrosion of Christian values is a destabilizing factor in a country that has a higher fear level than almost anywhere. When I say Christian values, I mean treating everyone with love and respect, always helping the people around you that are suffering, and now someone is criticised for praying, Donald Trump is saluted whilst blaming the poorest people in America for all its issues. (btw the whole world is pooping its pants in case you guys actually elect this guy)

            Christianity is seen as the biggest threats to any dictatorship because Christians are already following their own master and hatred propaganda doesn’t get accepted by them, that’s why so many Christians were killed by Hitler, they were hunted down in USSR and China. So which dictatorships are you thinking of that are Christian in nature, when it is so contradictory to our faith and what Jesus taught us? The last time I know of that Christians did great harm was during the Crusades but once again it was a corrupt Catholic church at the centre of that. Not saying I hate Catholics, not all Catholics are all doctrine and no faith, not by a long way but that Church has so much wealth and corruption in it, it could almost represent the US today.

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: I really think you should look up *no true scotsman fallacy*.

          • Cady555

            We agree on some things, but …

            The pilgrims came to America because they wanted a theocracy and british law would not let them. Once here, they passed laws requiring everyone in the colony to believe and worship how the political leaders told them to.

            What is the source of your 6% stat? Off the top of my head I place it much higher.

            Most of the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were deists who intentionally created a secular government. The bill of rights – freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom from cruel punishment – violates the teaching of nearly every religion.

            The “Congress printed bibles” story is a lie told by a pseudo historian and is not backed up by facts.

            We are in total agreement about campaign finance.

            We are also in total agreement about Trump. If you’re scared, you can imagine how the sensible people here feel.

            No one is criticized just for praying. They can pray all they want. The school district in Washington offered the coach a room to pray in. That wasn’t good enough. What one gets criticized for is using the authority if a taxpayer funded position to (a) cause children or other people to pray to your god and/or (b) gather up a few thousand people to watch you pray on government property.

            Hitler was a Christian. Like all dictators, he used thought police as a form of control and arrested anyone who challenged his power.

            It all comes down to one thing. We have a government that is not allowed to take sides on religion or promote religion. Deists fought for this, as did many christian denominations. Many current Christian political leaders have forgotten the harm that can be caused by government endorsement of religion.

    • George T

      Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: You’re wrongly assuming that only Christianity is the issue in this case. The crime is perpetrated by a government funded institution endorsing a religion. The religion doesn’t matter.

      Don’t worry. Christians still hold the majority in population and government representation. You’re just misunderstanding a removal of special privilege as *persecution* when it’s really putting Christianity on equal footing with other religions in our country.

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        Its a hotel and the bible is funded by the Gideons, people pay to stay there so I do not see how it is government funded, it is also a University which makes it a private enterprise, even if there is government funding going to the university then it is still a private enterprise, persecution happens in over 25% of the worlds populated areas of Christians, it includes beheadings, stonings, burning of homes and forced conversions to Hinduism and to the Muslim religion. The persecution in the US is a growing issue as it is all over the west, it’s not a question of if but when. The torch carrying pike fork holding atheists who believe they know all things yet can not explain how the universe started or why, can not explain the start of life, or how evolution became so many species and types of creatures, how complex everything is, and how a giant evolutionary step was made in a heart beat in the actual time of the earth. I am not saying all atheists are like this but there is a zealous minority that is growing and it has become ok to attack someone’s faith in this society, which is bigoted, because you would not want to be attacked for not being a theist surely? So why would it be ok to attack a Theist? The law says in the US that you can not propagate one religion over another in schools and government offices, having a Gideon bible in a hotel room is far outside of this reach.

        • George T

          Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: It’s a private enterprise that receives government funding and state endorsement. To honor that endorsement and respect the source of public funds (which are taxes paid by members of all religions and none) it’s only fair to not endorse any one religion.

          And again, you are seeing persecution in the US where in reality Christianity is just being held to the same standard as every other religion. I can’t speak to persecution in other nations.

          Everything else you said strikes me as random babble so I’ve skipped over it.

          • afchief

            You have NO understanding of the Constitution. None!

          • George T

            afchief: And you’re a constitutional scholar? Try looking up *Dunning-Kruger effect* before replying.

          • afchief

            I know the Constitution very well. And I know the SCOTUS does not make law, but only renders opinions. Only Congress can make or change laws.

          • George T

            afchief: SCoTUS doesn’t make laws, it interprets laws and renders judgment. It has done so regarding our 1st amendment, subsequent amendments that apply The Bill of Rights beyond Congress and to the state level, and further court precedent that has drawn a clear boundary around the issue of religion in government.

            …and it looks like you didn’t look up Dunning-Kruger like I suggested.

          • afchief

            It is quite apparent you do not understand Constitutional law. When the SCOTUS renders an opinion it is up to Congress to make or change the law. They don’t have to agree with the opinion. Which means NOTHING is changed. If Congress agrees to make or change the law, then it goes to the executive branch who signs it into law. If the executive disagrees, it does NOT become law.

            That is how our constitutional government works. All three branches have equal power and all three branches have to be in agreement to make or change law.

            For example; Roe v Wade was passed by the SCOTUS show me WHERE is a federal law? Show me where the Constitution has been amended to reflect abortion on a national level?

            Let me help you! 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.

          • George T

            afchief: You’re funny (^_^)

            Thanks to the 14th amendment the interpretation of Roe v. Wade carries weight on the state level, barring states from passing laws to remove a woman’s right to make choices relating to her own body and health.

            In that same way it’s seen as a restriction of religious rights for citizens when our government endorses a single religion to the exclusion of others (sectarian). Our government isn’t granted any religious rights. By choosing any one religion it’s seen as being partial, and imposing religion on our nations citizens automatically.

            Now get that caps lock key fired up! I want to see you rage and bluster thoughtlessly instead of considering what I’ve said! RED TEAM SUCKS!!! BLUE TEAM RULES!!!

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Did I not say liberalism truly is a mental disorder?? I sure did and this is more proof!!! The 14th amendment? Really? Do I need to educate on WHY this amendment was placed in the Constitution? Do I really? So the 14th amendment give the right to women to kill their baby? Is that what you are telling me? LOL!!! Where do you get these lies from? Huffington Post?

            I want you to go ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, I guarantee you 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.

            Silly liberal!!! Truth is for us Christian Tea Party Conservatives!!!

          • George T

            afchief: GRRRRR!!! FROTH AT MOUTH!!! OPINION STATEMENTS WITHOUT REAL FACTS!!! AD HOMINEM!!!! LIES ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD!!!

            Boy, you sure showed me. How can I ever combat that string of conservative talking points and half truths? Oh, what is a Kissinger Republican like myself ever going to do!!! The horror of my not being able to take you seriously (^_^)

          • afchief

            The truth always hurts!!!! Does it not????

          • George T

            afchief: So far I’ve been the only one referencing objective truths and it hasn’t hurt me one bit (^_^)

            C’mon!!! Hit that caps key again! I need another laugh d=(-_^)

          • afchief

            LOL! I have seen NO truth in ANY of your posts. It is typical of liberals……lying is their (yours) defining characteristic!!!

          • George T

            afchief: I don’t agree with you. You’ve decided that liberals are your enemies. Because I don’t agree with you I’m now labeled a liberal.

            The courts don’t agree with you. You’ve decided that liberals are your enemies. Because they don’t agree with you they’re now labeled activist liberals.

            You are a pisser!!! (^_^)

          • afchief

            Liberals are liars!! I know the Law!!!! Our government, media and educational system have been taken over by socialists. You are part of them!!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Shut up, you chAir Force hippie (^_^)

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth always hurts! Does it not?

          • George T

            afchief: You tell me, hippie. You’re the one that’s clearly butt hurt (^_^)

          • afchief

            Your a homo too?

          • George T

            afchief: You know people obsessed with homosexuality turn out to be repressed homosexuals themselves. Just admit it. You’ll feel better when you stop denying your true nature. (^_^)

          • afchief

            Sorry that lifestyle is one of the most disgusting and perverted lifestyles there is. Anyone who packs fudge is not in their right mind. It is a sickness!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Sorry to see that you hate yourself. I hope that you don’t do anything to harm yourself before you accept your true nature and come out of the closet. Really. It’s okay to admit that you’re gay.

          • afchief

            Sorry you cannot be a christian and homo

          • George T

            afchief: Soooo…. is this your way of telling me that you aren’t Christian?

          • BarkingDawg

            You keep saying that, but your posts indicate that it is you who lacks understanding.

        • Cady555

          Hitgurl – Go to the websites of FFRF and Americans United. Look at the cases they get involved in. Keep two running totals.

          On one side of the paper, put a mark every time the issue involves use of government to promote religion – public schools, government buldings, etc. On the other side, put a mark every time there is no government involvement, only private schools, private groups, churches, etc.

          I challenge you to do this. There will be no marks on the “private” side of the page. But don’t take my word for it. Don’t take a televangelist’s word either as he scares followers with horror stories between pleas for money. Do the research yourself.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            will do 🙂 I dont know about televised evangelist, closest thing to that would be on YouTube with Todd White who teaches love, we do not get any Christian TV over here. even Netflix does not have a Christian section over here.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            The Uk is like 10 years ahead of the US is on the removal of Christianity from everywhere, trust me please, you do not want to live in an entirely secular society

          • Cady555

            I agree with you that some in the UK have gone overboard in preventing any criticism of certain religions. That’s scary.

            Freedom of speech means freedom to offend and be offended. We need to protect that too. That’s why I like commenting in places where I disagree with people and they disagree with me. It is important.

            I want that (possibly nonexistent) balance where the government is truly neutral and individuals are free to speak out.

        • BarkingDawg

          It is not a hotel. These are guest rooms owned and operated by a public university.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’”

            ADF then warned that the universities, in heeding the advice of FFRF, could now be held liable for unlawful religious discrimination by generally allowing materials in hotel rooms while censoring anything of a religious viewpoint.

            “[B]y succumbing to FFRF’s demands, you may have exposed yourself … to potential liability. Presumably, your guest rooms include a variety of printed materials, including magazines, phone books, and information about the campus and guest facility,” it explained. “By removing the Bibles because they are religious, you may have engaged in viewpoint discrimination, which is ‘an egregious form of content discrimination’ and a ‘blatant’ violation of the First Amendment.”

          • BarkingDawg

            Stop spamming the same post over and over again.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            I assumed you guys hadn’t read the actual article because you are arguing that you are more correct than the Supreme court, that you are more educated or more free than the Supreme Court, Smarter, better? have a better understanding of the constitution. Seeing as your points have all been about leaving the Koran and every Christian has said fine, we are ok with that and it is acceptable under the constitution, the other argument has been that its a governmental building. So seeing as that argument has been defeated in the opening story, what have you got to add?

      • afchief

        There is NO crime!!! Stop lying!!!

        • George T

          afchief: Not a problem. I never started lying.

  • bowie1

    I would hazard to say the students tuition would not pay for these bibles, and also not the taxpayer which may subsidize tuitions through grants and the like. Atheists could always deposit these bibles in the library if they don’t want it in their room

    • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

      There is organisations that give bibles away for free for hotels and such, they are usually simplified bibles for English as a 2nd language or people who have little knowledge of the bible. They are there to help people who may be at the end of the line, or just totally alone, the fact this couple took issue with this practice is highly frustrating as they can serve a vital function for these lost people. They are not there strangely to convert everyone, just to help people who need them

      • bowie1

        Absolutely. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the FFRF.

        • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

          There has always been 3 types of atheists, those who do not believe but don’t need to talk about it except when asked, the ones who are open about the fact they do not believe in God, can be patronising to Christians but still accept everyone has their own right to their belief, the last kind are the militants, they act like the secret police in communist USSR and see it as their life mission to eradicate belief in any higher power, whether Christian or not. This last group worries me no doubt, because they have no logic to their arguments and are as radical and extreme as any believer, except an extremist Christian believes in love and respect whilst an extremist atheist sell hate, as bigots they try to make what they criticize seem the bigoted. Open discussion is pointless with them as they worship science without questioning all the things science does not answer, they claim anyone who believes in any higher power has limited intelligence despite so many of our great thinkers are Christian. They claim any showing of your faith is an abuse and threaten litigation where ever they can. For the aggressive nature of these people all I can assume is that they feel hurt and in pain, which makes me want to pray for them. I truly pray that these people become blessed by seeing exactly how much God loves them, just like me.

      • Ryan J

        If this was truly the intent of the hotel, they could pick from any number of great books that help people—of any faith—overcome depression or despair. If someone wants a Gideon Bible, and didn’t bring their own, they could find one easily enough at a library. Imagine if the only book in hotel rooms were a Koran, and they explained that the Koran was just there to help people who were lost or lonely, certainly not to convert anyone. I don’t imagine you would buy that explanation. That’s what it’s like for non-Christians in this situation.

        • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

          The Gideon bible is given freely, is your favourite self help author willing to give away their books for free? I am sure that hotels would be happy to have that authors book placed in their rooms too if so. Are Muslims willing to give away the Koran in random hotel rooms? as far as I knew they chose to protect their holy book away from unbelievers. The Gideon bible is often not read by believers btw its a simplified translation, designed for people who either have little experience in the bible, or for people who do not speak English as a first language, and having the requirement to go to a library kinda defeats the object of it being there. Most Christians have no overall issue with anyone having any faith, we just pray that people find Jesus so they may gain every lasting life, we do not have a “we gained a convert” club, we just try to live our lifes as love and help as we can.

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: The Koran is free distributed in Muslim countries. I found one in my UAE hotel room right after I noticed the arrow on the ceiling indicating the direction of Mecca.

            They probably don’t distribute The Koran in America because bigoted Christian hotel owners or staff would throw away the books instead of putting them in hotel rooms.

            And yes, I’m sure we all understand how you perceive your “come to jesus” mentality…

            Eskimo: ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’

            Priest: ‘No, not if you did not know.’

            Eskimo: ‘Then why did you tell me?’

        • Cady555

          One suggestion is that the hotel stock a number of different books near the lobby, with a variety of faiths and no faith represented. The bible is still available but the government is not showing favoritism to one religious viewpoint. The FFRF was happy with this solution in other cases.

      • George T

        Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgirl tm eu: Then why not leave a phone number for a secular suicide prevention hotline? No reason to force only one religion on possibly emotionally vulnerable people.

    • George T

      bowie1: A Satanic bible or Koran freely donated would also violate the 1st amendment as this is a government funded school. If they become a privately funded institution they’d be free to endorse only one religion if they want.

      • afchief

        It is NOT a violation of the 1st amendment. That is a lie!

        • George T

          afchief: It is a violation of the 1st amendment.

          If you’re thinking that it’s a lie because the 1st amendment only references Congress, then you need to read subsequent amendments and court rulings that expand the amendment to account for our religious plurality.

          Only reading the 1st amendment is like reading Genesis and authoritatively claiming to know everything about Christianity.

          • afchief

            It IS a lie. There is NO separation of church and state. It NOT found in the Constitution. No Where!!! Like I said ONLY congress can establish a religion, but the Constitution forbids them.

            This is the tactic you atheists and liberals are trying to use to squash freedom of religion. Only in America, with our un-Godly, un-righteous courts, could such a charade have been foisted upon us. There is no separation between the church and the state. They just tell us that there is and then they use that to dredge our children through the cesspool of secular humanism.

          • George T

            afchief: Actually, anybody can potentially establish a religion. Look up *Joseph Smith* or *L Ron Hubbard* if you don’t believe me.

            You’re still oddly focused on only The Constitution. We have made changes and improved on the original work over the years to account for the religious plurality that now makes up our fine nation. Our founding documents allow for modifications and improvements.

            And it still isn’t a lie. Get angry! Type in all caps! Grrrrr! (^_^)

          • afchief

            Prove it to me! Show me where separation of church and state is in the Constitution and I will show you where it is NOT!

            Prove me wrong!

          • George T

            afchief: Are you daft? I didn’t say it’s contained within The Constitution.

            …and yes, I’d love to see you pointing at The Constitution for hours on end angrily saying “NOT HERE!” Imagining the scenario is bringing a smile to my face as I type this. Thanks for brightening my day (^_^)

          • afchief

            Yes, more proof the liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Ha! Whatever you say (^_^)

          • Elie Challita

            Is the constitution the only legal document in the country? Are there any laws or regulation in the US which were not originally spelled out in the constitution?

          • afchief

            Only the legislative branch for the federal, state, and local government may make of change laws for their respective areas. Or by a direct vote of the people.

          • Elie Challita

            What about executive orders or judicial review and injunctions?

          • afchief

            Executive orders are NOT laws. The president does not make laws. Courts do not make or change laws. They only render opinions.

          • Elie Challita

            By opinions, do you mean that they are not enforceable? Or that executive orders can be ignored at will?

          • afchief

            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.

            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.

            An Executive Order is not legislation it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress.

          • Elie Challita

            I never brought up abortion, you’re changing the subject again.
            Answer me: As a citizen or a governmental body, do you have the legal obligation to comply with the judicial or executive branches?

          • afchief

            I would advise you to read our Constitution. For one we do not have a king, we have a president. He has NO authority over anyone. He does not make law. His oath is to carry out the laws of this country. Not make them.

            Again, the court does NOT make or change laws. For example, the last controversy decision by the SCOTUS was gay marriage. It is NOT binding anywhere. I repeat, it is NOT binding anywhere. The 30 states that have marriage between one man and one woman have not changed their constitutions to reflect this decision and do NOT have to.

            Only Congress makes or changes laws.

          • Elie Challita

            So are you free to ignore a court’s decision in a judicial case? If a law was passed saying you have the right to shoot children, and a court overturned it, would you still have the right to shoot children until your state altered the law?

            What about if you worked for a federal agency, and an executive order came down from your legal superior dictating that you use your resources towards prioritizing the enforcement of some laws while diminishing the importance of enforcing others. Would that be illegal? If yes, why?

          • afchief

            Your killing me! GO READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!

            “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.

          • Elie Challita

            So who reviews the laws and decides whether they are constitutional or not?
            And if a law is found unconstitutional, is it still in effect until the legislature gets around to altering it?

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        “[C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’”

        • George T

          Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: If all three books (bible, Koran, and Satanic tome) where all in the room there would not be such an issue. In this case only one religion is being given representation. That runs afoul of the 1st amendment and subsequent court rulings.

  • JGravelle

    Dude, you just disposed of free porn AND like a thousand pages of rolling papers.

    Not cool, man…

  • Rebecca

    Atheists are so silly. They don’t believe, which is fine, but gripe about a Bible they don’t have to even touch if they don’t want to. I guess they don’t handle cash, since it has the scary word God on it.

    • JGravelle

      To the contrary. I’m always delighted to find a Bible in my hotel room, and make certain to leave a “My Little Pony” bookmark in Ezekiel 23:20 for the kids to enjoy…

      • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

        “YOU” must really hate Christians and hate their Children as well.
        Shalom <

        • JGravelle

          I assure you, I do not. If I hated children, I’d take delight in dashing them against the rocks, a la Psalms 137:9.

          Mazel tov…

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I am talking about Christian Children. I do see your HATE! So sad for you. But you have the right to HATE US and our Children 🙁

          • prinefan

            The only hatred displayed all thru history and today comes from the religious who pretend they are not doing it. They are such liars. Religion is a phony mask they hide their dirty behavior behind,

          • JGravelle

            Soooo, NOT taking delight in dashing children against rocks is hateful? Is this what your faith has done to you?

            No, ma’am. I don’t hate you. I love you enough as a fellow human being to be brutally frank and honest, and hope for the sake of your own humanity you surround yourself with friends and family who are equally candid and don’t just say what they think you’d like to hear.

            I sincerely hope you have a terrific day…

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            May the God who Created heaven and Earth Rebuke you and Rebuke your hate for Christians and their Children.
            if it is God’s will for you to be delivered and to be saved may His Will be done here sa His Will is done in Heaven.
            In Jesus and in His Name may His Holy Spirit open your eyes,ears,understanding and you heart. I will keep you in my Prayers.
            Shalom <

          • JGravelle

            And you in my thoughts. I wish you nothing but the best, and hope your propensity to juxtapose love with hate fades in time.

            But if not, rest assured that Satan and I love you very, very much…

    • George T

      Rebecca: Incorrect assumptions.

      First, these bibles are unmolested in privately owned hotels. Because this is a school that receives government funding it becomes a 1st amendment issue. It could be a Koran, Buddhist script, or any other religious text and we’d see it as the same kind of national law violation.

      Second, I have a custom stamp that strikes out the theistic motto and prints E PLURIBUS UNUM instead. …because that’s far more inclusive and better represents all citizens of our religious plurality.

      • Cady555

        I received a twenty the other day where “In” was changed. It read “No God We Trust.”

      • afchief

        It has NOTHING to do with the 1st amendment. Here’s the truth: There is no law against praying or reading a bible anywhere. There cannot be a law. The right to freely express one’s faith is an unalienable right. Even for a school to put a bible in their dorms. Unalienable means CANNOT be taken away. It’s like skin color, or height, or dare I say it, sexual orientation. You is what you is and it cannot be changed. That is what unalienable means.

        Technically only Congress can take away the right to pray or for a school to a bible in their dorm rooms, and they are expressly forbidden to do so. In case you’re interested, here is the pertinent section of the First Amendment:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

        Putting a bible in a dorm room does not establish a religion. Only Congress can do that…but they can’t. The school is engaging in “free exercise.” If Congress can’t establish a religion, how can a school establish one?

        • George T

          afchief: It’s a right denied to our government. The US government and it’s representatives aren’t permitted to endorse any religion. I’ll break it down into simpler form…

          The government can’t place a Koran in a hotel. That would be imposing that religion on citizens.

          A citizen is free to bring a Koran anywhere, as long as they aren’t acting as a government representative.

          Now replace *Koran* with *bible*.

          • afchief

            The school has every right to place a bible in the dorms if they want to. Even if they receive government funds. Only congress can establish a religion…..and like I said…they can’t

            Since the 1947 Everson v Board of Education opinion, we have been sold a lie. Religious liberty is absolute in America. If the government can inhibit the mention of God, then government has inserted itself ABOVE God. That has been the Christ-haters plan all along. They have used that lie to run Christianity out of the Public Square.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know if Everson is a “lie” or not (and in fact, I don’t even know what that means). All I know is that Everson is in the books, and therefore, must be followed. Period. End of story.

            If you don’t want schools to have to obey it, you can either 1) have a case that gets appealed up to the Supreme Court on the same topic, ask it to overturn Everson, and with; or 2) support a Constitutional amendment to the point of passage that overrules Everson.

          • afchief

            Ahhhh……Mr “Make believe lawyer” who does not know the law!!!!! When a court renders a decision, is it law or is it an opinion?

            Do you need some help Mr “Make believe lawyer”? I will will surly educate you on the role of the courts and how law is made. Do you want me to teach you law 101?

          • George T

            afchief: You seem so filled with hatred and bias that you can’t even see the issue at hand. You just want to be right and get special privileges for your *team* which happens to be a religion.

            Yes, if government funding and state endorsement of the school is removed then they do have a right to sectarian endorsement.

            Our government isn’t inhibiting any citizen from mention of any god. What is at issue here is our government itself mentioning only one god.

          • afchief

            It has nothing to do with hatred, but the rule of law!!! Do I need to educate you on Constitutional law also? Do I need to define who Congress is? How laws are made in this country? Etc!

          • George T

            afchief: You’re clearly not qualified. So there’s no “need” for you to *attempt* to educate anybody. (^_^)

          • afchief

            Then stop lying about separation of church and state. Because it is a LIE!!!

          • George T

            afchief: I’m still not lying. You’re still not thinking. We’re still not agreeing (^_^)

          • afchief

            You are lying about the Constitution denying the right of a public school to place bibles in their students common area.

            Yes you are lying!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Ah! I wish I could include the image for this meme. I’m sure some people reading this will get the reference…

            NO!!! U!!!

          • afchief

            Poor liberal!!! Can’t handle the truth! Very typical!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Typical garbage from a chAir Force washout. Not reading all of the rules and regulations. Just claiming your right because… ??? (^_^)

          • afchief

            I am right!!! I know Constitutional law. Poor liberals like you can’t handle the truth!!!

          • George T

            afchief: RAAAAARRR!!! See! I’m using exclamation points!!! Also, I keep repeating that I know something that I have yet to show any understanding of!!! That proves I’m right!!!

          • afchief

            Don’t ya just hate when Christian Tea Party Conservatives are right?

          • George T

            afchief: Are you a Christian Tea Party Conservative? I never actually made a real assumption about you, like you’ve been making about me this whole time. I’ve just been saying anything I could think of to keep you posting. By now I’m sure nobody is reading this thread. They’ve seen long ago that your lack of accurate information isn’t worth reading.

          • afchief

            You have NOT proved one thing where I’m wrong. I have consistently shown where you are wrong.

          • George T

            afchief: You have NOT proven one thing where you’re right. Many people on here have explained where you’re wrong, but you’re too dense (with unjustified confidence?) to understand what they’ve said.

            Now please, continue with your ad nauseam non-arguments. Don’t forget the exclamation points!!!

          • afchief

            I just love liberals!!! Their so easily duped!!!

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Now explain to me how Congress = schools?

            Do you need some help?

          • George T

            afchief: This has been explained to you before.

          • afchief

            More lying from the liberals!!!! You have explained nothing!!!

            I’m still waiting for how congress = schools!! LOL!!!

          • George T

            afchief: More exclamation points from the closeted guy!!!!

            I didn’t say that I explained it. I’ve been reading other comments replying to your feeble posts. Clearly you have not, or you wouldn’t have to ask this question.

          • afchief

            Still waiting for how congress = schools!!! LOL!

            Ahhhh….liberalism it rests upon foundations of assumptions, revisionist history, bad scholarship, and the ever present moral superiority we all know and detest. Yes it truly is a mental disorder!!!!

          • George T

            afchief: You don’t have to wait. Just read all of the comments that people have posted for your education and edification.

          • afchief

            On the contrary!!! It is no where to be found!!! The First Amendment’s clause prohibiting an establishment of religion applied to the federal government, not the states. It clearly says “Congress [not the states] shall make no law…” It was publicly understood and acknowledged that the Constitution was intended to govern the federal government itself, not the people. The states were to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit in their pursuit of happiness.

            Why didn’t the First Amendment apply to the states? Many of them already had establishments of religion. At the time of the War for Independence, Massachusetts had a state church, Puritanism (or Calvinism). Connecticut’s official religion was Congregationalism. Rhode Island’s established church was Baptist. Pennsylvania’s was Quakerism. Maryland’s was Roman Catholicism. Virginia’s was the Anglican Church of England (which, after the war, became the Episcopal Church of America).

            STILL WAITING…………………………………

          • George T

            afchief: You seem to be a raving lunatic of a Christian. Maybe I should try a different approach.

            Do the actions of Jesus in the new testament change how people interpreted the laws of the old testament?

          • afchief

            This is why liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!! The first amendment is addressing congress. But silly liberals can’t understand that! Nooooooooo, it has to address alllllll government, because that’s what we want the 1st amendment to say. We don’t want to hear the truth that the founders left a religious state and put the constitution in place to protect the people. Noooooooo…….it has to mean alllllll government, because we have to wipe America clean of all Christianity in the public square. That is our end goal. We don’t care what the truth is!!!! We want our atheist/secular government at all costs.

          • George T

            afchief: Hmm… ignored the post and continued raving like an imbecile obsessed with conspiracy theories.

            Maybe I should also try ad nauseam.

            Do the actions of Jesus in the new testament change how people interpreted the laws of the old testament?

          • afchief

            Liberals make me laugh!! They are full of lies. They have no reason, no logic, no common sense. Only deception!!!

          • George T

            afchief:

            Do the actions of Jesus in the new testament change how people interpreted the laws of the old testament?

          • afchief

            The words in the New Testament say people like have a reprobate mind. It is quite obvious. Romans 1:28

          • George T

            afchief: ad nauseam

            Do the actions of Jesus in the new testament change how people interpreted the laws of the old testament?

          • afchief

            The words in the New Testament say people like you have a reprobate mind. It is quite obvious. Romans 1:28

          • George T

            afchief: ad nauseam

            Do the actions of Jesus in the new testament change how people interpreted the laws of the old testament?

          • George T

            afchief: I don’t normally troll people, but I just can’t resist in this case. You just won’t stop making a fool of yourself. It’s so entertaining (^_^)

          • afchief

            Because the truth is on my side!!!

          • George T

            afchief: MORE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!! RAGE AND BUTT HURT!!! (^_^)

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            l copy and paste from the article above that you surly would have read, rather than quote the bible or constitution – “[C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’”

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: Yup! They either give equal representation to a plurality of religions and beliefs or avoid the topic, saving tax payers money by abstaining from the whole issue.

            I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that the government is obligated to abhor religion. I’m just trying to point out that this action is sectarian, which violates the 1st amendment.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            They do not have to actually put the other literature in them selves, they just need to permit that all other faiths books to be put in, that would be equality, as the bible is given freely, it would be up to the Muslims the Hindis, the Atheists to provide the books, As I said a bunch of times, the couple could have been so kind to offer some Atheist literature, or looked to start a charity to do so, instead of taking the lazy and toxic path of demanding that the books are removed. The FFRF should be willing to help with this matter?? as for the other religions books there are hotels in the US where multiple books are side by side, Mormon, Hidi etc where the books have been given freely, so surely can happen at the university.

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: I responded to a similar post of yours in another comment thread by explaining basically what you’ve just said. …with the additional note that the hotel and hosting university could’ve politely returned the donation of books if no other organization donated equivalent texts. Instead they risked a 1st amendment violation by only distributing one religious text.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            “[C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’”

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Why do you assume that we care if there is a Koran there? Honestly makes me laugh that the peak of the atheist debate is arguing that the supreme court is wrong and that the Koran would be a scary book for Christians. Its only the Atheists who are scared of a book, intimidated by it. the fact that the Gideon bible has save peoples lives make it more valid being there than anything else. Before you state it no I understand your point about the Government, but seeing as its being sent by the Gideon organisation there is not that conflict, the government taking away and confiscating those bibles is a breach of the first amendment though. if you wish your agenda to be furthered organise some atheist literature to be sent to all the universities who still have bibles to be put next to the bible. As long as it helpful to those in need and not just a pamphlet explaining why you hate Christians no one will object, we welcome this – Our salvation is assured, and our requirement is to spread the word of Jesus’ love its not up to us to convert you to join us, just to tell you that Christ loves you, nothing more

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: Because for some Christians it is a jarring reality to consider The Koran or a Satanic tome on equal terms with the bible. Reality shaking moments can be very effective educational situations (^_^)

            Actually, the 1st amendment breach happens when an institution that receives public funding, from tax payers of all beliefs and religions, only accepts and displays a book of one religion. There was nothing stopping them from waiting for donations of other texts to add along with this holy book. That, or politely returning the books with an explanation that they can’t only give representation to one religion when no other texts are donated.

        • BarkingDawg

          The 14th amendment applies ALL of the constitutional protections to the states as well as the federal government.

          Civics 101.

          • afchief

            What’s your point?

          • BarkingDawg

            The university is a political subdivision of the state, so the establishment clause applies.

          • afchief

            Are liberals really this dumb???? The establishment cause is addressing congress WHO MAKES THE LAWS OF OUR LAND!!!! Besides the “establishment clause” and “free exercise clause” are connected by “or”. The courts and their legal miscreants have separated the terms. Establishment doesn’t trump free exercise.

            Does your little liberal cranium understand this?????

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Our “little liberal craniums” are perfectly capable of understanding the words you say, but that doesn’t mean that they’re true.

          • afchief

            Ahhh…..Mr “Make beleive lawyer” also has a reading comprehension problem! Now repeat after me the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Who makes the laws in our country? Can a school make a law by placing bibles in the student commons area? Really? And you call yourself a lawyer? Really? Do you still have a problem comprehending? Is it really that hard? Do I need to define Congress again?

  • Nidalap

    Just like a bevvy of vampires. Anything to do with Christianity starts all the hissing and fang-baring…

    • George T

      Nidalap: Only when it’s government Christianity. I’ve never hissed at my Christian parents because they don’t try to force their religion into government.

      • jmichael39

        LMAO…have you read every book you’ve ever seen? I won’t even say “I doubt it” because I am 100% certain you haven’t. Did you feel ‘forced’ to read them? Obviously not. Tell me how in the world anyone is being “forced” to become a Christian by having a Bible left in their room. If they left crochet magazine there would you feel like they’re forcing you to learn crochet?

        • George T

          jmichael39: Hello again! (^_^)

          I see that you’re still misreading my posts. I never said anybody is being forced to become a Christian. I said religion is being forced into our secular government. If you don’t understand, I’d suggest hiring an English tutor.

          • jmichael39

            You’re truly hilarious, even if only slightly shy of being an imbecile (see I can insult too…does nothing to enhance the discussion…shall we put an end to that now or do prefer to devolve into an all out war of words?)

            How is having any book in the rooms forcing anything on anyone, let alone an entire government? Besides which, a school is not the government. It is a place of learning. It seems appropriate to have a book in school. Sorry it’s not a book you would want to read.

            I wonder how the founders of this country got away with allowing church services to be held in the capitol building for so long. They must not have known about the Constitution.

          • George T

            jmichael39: Forcing religion on people isn’t the issue. First, our government would have to act as if it has religious rights in order to force any religion on anybody. Our government has no right to a religion, or to endorse one. Only citizens are given that right.

            Stop building straw men to attack.

          • jmichael39

            No one endorsing anything. The man has an unalienable right to express his faith. He’s not asking or compelling or leading or even inviting anyone to join him in his exercise of his faith.

          • George T

            jmichael39: By only presenting a book dedicated to one religion this organization, which receives government funding and endorsement and is subsequently held to the same conduct standards because of that, is functionally *endorsing* that religion. If they provided a bevy of texts from multiple faiths and backgrounds it wouldn’t be such an issue. An even easier solution is not having any religious text that could be seen as endorsing any religion.

            Now who is this “he” that you’re referencing?

          • prinefan

            Church services in Gov’t buildings were as unconstitutional then as they are now. Time to put a stop to it. And yes a Gov’t supported school promoting religion gives just that appearance. Not the job of any Gov’t entity to promote religion. When Gov.’t promotes religious ideology, a free society cannot exist.

          • BarkingDawg

            As a technical point, a church service in a government building is fine, as long as it is an open forum available to all.

            If you put a Crèche in front of city hall, then you have to allow the atheist display as well.

          • prinefan

            Yes, but it sets a dangerous precedent to allow either one. Our Gov’t is not there to play the whore no matter who the pimps are.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…how truly arrogant of you to tell the founders…the fellows who actually wrote the Constitution…that they were doing something unconstitutional by allowing church services to be held in several government buildings for decades. Those poor saps were so stupid to have thought otherwise.

            You’ll forgive if I just sit here and laugh my ass off at your petulance and foolhardy attitude.

            I don’t suppose it actually occurred to you that the unconstitutional acts being perpetrated are that of the activist judges over the past several decades who have decided to re-write the Constitution by simply re-interpreting it based upon what they wanted it to mean rather than what our founders originally meant. Just because you LIKE the rulings of these activist judges doesn’t make what they’re doing constitutional. And just because you don’t like the fact that our founders openly and happily allowed church services to be held in federal buildings doesn’t make they were doing unconstitutional. If anyone should know what was constitutional and what wasn’t it surely would have been the people who actually wrote and ratified it.

            “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” – John Jay

          • prinefan

            Petulance is the religious right using the term “activists judges” when the supreme court accurately interprets the constitution and rules against their religious tyranny when they try to use the constitution to wipe their sorry a_ses with. Khriztians left England, came over here and did the same thing they claimed they were trying to escape-mixing religion and Gov’t. They immediately started infecting, contaminating, polluting and poisoning our Gov’t with “THEIR” F’ing religion.
            “The reason for the separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries”.- James Madison, ” THE FATHER OF OUR CONSTITUTION”.
            Ignore the Treaty of Tripoli, why don’t you? Of course you will.

          • jmichael39

            You know if you weren’t so full of seething hatred, bigotry and irrational arguments, you might actually be fun to debate. Unfortunately for you, you have little to offer but your anger, hatred and bigotry.

            And just so you know, Madison didn’t coin that phrase anymore than Jefferson did. Rogers, the governor of Rhode Island did (and perhaps someone even before him). However, you’re understanding of it’s use and meaning is no more valuable to any debate than your vitriol is.

            And, no, I don’t ignore Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, I read it within the context of the rest of the historical statements made by our founding fathers…which you, apparently, do like to ignore.

            But I do want to thank you for making it perfectly clear that, in addition to being a hateful bigot, you’re a hypocrite and fairly unintelligent as regards to logic as well. Have a nice night.

          • prinefan

            I don’t pretend to be very smart and yes I am proud to be bigoted against religion and I hate it worse than anything on this earth because it is the worst thing on this earth and when you get mad enough at me for daring to challenge religion and expose it for the scam that it is you can cause more conflict, hatred, violence, blood shed and wars like religious wing nuts have always done. It will give you the perfect opportunity to show the type of person you really are as you realize you can’t hide it behind the façade of religion any longer. Keep pretending.

          • jmichael39

            Glad you don’t pretend. Then I won’t pretend to debate an irrational bigot. I’d wish you a wonderful life, but I also know what medical science has revealed regarding the long term effects of such hatred.

          • prinefan

            In spite of the terrible effects religion has on humanity, I do have a wonderful life. There can be no finer way to spend ones life than exposing the scam of religion and confronting it. It’s not just a good moral choice, it’s an obligation to humanity. Religion deserves to be hated and I thrive on my hatred for it.

          • jmichael39

            whatever you say dude.

          • George T

            jmichael39: If their intent was to only favor Christianity, I would happily tell our founding fathers that they were wrong. They were wrong on other issues like slavery. I’m sure these imperfect men had many other character flaws and wrongheaded ideas that fortunately didn’t impact our nations founding documents.

            However, I think they worded The Constitution and Bill of Rights very well to ultimately allow our courts to include other religions and beliefs and put them on equal footing with Christianity.

          • jmichael39

            No one ever said they weren’t on equal footing. What people like you’ve pushed for and succeeded in achieving in this country is an equal footing of no footing. And in thus doing that you’ve achieved exactly what the founders didn’t want…you’ve created an atmosphere except towards one religion…that of secular humanism and Atheism. And now you don’t like the fact that the largest religion in this country is finally fighting back.

          • George T

            jmichael39: As Madeline Ziegler (FFRF Legal Fellow) just wrote…

            A blank wall, an unadorned car bumper, a monochromatic cup—some may find it hard to believe, but none of these things take any position on the existence of ­a god, or whether one religion is better than others.

            Your car bumper isn’t atheistic if it doesn’t have a Jesus fish. It’s not Humanist. It’s secular at that point.

            And yes, you poor maligned Christians. Having confused not getting what you want with persecution and martyrdom. Oh, you poor, poor oppressive national majority!!! I weep for your privileged plight!!!
            (ToT)/

          • jmichael39

            So now you’re resorting to simple logical fallacies. How quaint coming from someone who likely considers himself a rationalist. Keep going…the bumper sticker on your brain is fading fast.

  • Ralf Spoilsport

    More Christians complaining about a level playing field…

    • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

      Its not a level playing field, atheism is being the aggressor here, not theists. I will copy and paste from above “[C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’”

      • George T

        Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: Removing all belief based literature is a level playing field. It’s called secular.

        If only an atheist publication were provided, that would be endorsing atheism.

        If only a Taoist book were provided, that would be endorsing Taoism.

        Endorsing only one religion is sectarian. …and a violation of the 1st amendment when government is involved. So the school is obligated to remove bibles or The US government is obligated to remove funding and endorsement of their educational program to avoid endorsing only one religion.

      • Ralf Spoilsport

        Its not a level playing field, atheism is being the aggressor here, not theists.

        The FFRF is ready to supply atheist books to be put in guest rooms, they’ve done this sort of thing before, and I’m sure Satanists would add books too.

        But when it comes to all or nothing in cases like this, usually “nothing” is what government entities go with.

  • BarkingDawg

    Good. It’s a secular organization.

    If you want a bible, go stay at the motel 6.

    • afchief

      So what? The right to pray or read a bible is unalienable. The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” The God-haters (and their cops) like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other.

      • prinefan

        And “no establishment” keeps gov’t and it’s entities from endorsing “your” religion, but that’s what it’s all about isn’t it? “Your religion”.

        • afchief

          Again, show me in the Constitution!!!

          • prinefan

            “No establishment”. Focus on that. Focus. When Gov’t promotes religious ideology a free society cannot exist.

          • afchief

            I guess you can’t read!

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Where does it say a school is establishing a religion?

            Does is say congress or school?

            Do you need some help?

          • prinefan

            Congress=Gov’t. Gov’t supported school=Gov’t. Congress, ie; the Gov’t shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and cannot be used like whore by religious pimps to accomplish their goals. Stop pimping our Gov’t out as your whore to promote your religion……….Ayatollah.

          • afchief

            Wrong again!!! The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” The God-haters (you) like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Read the 1st amendment again!!!

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            You CANNOT PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE!!!

            IS that too hard to understand for the liberal cranium????

          • prinefan

            It guarantees free speech too. Yell fire in a crowded theatre and see what happens. ” Free exercise” has limits, as does everything. It does not give you a license to steal. I don’t hate god because it doesn’t exist. I hate religion because it does to humans what rabies does to animals. I despise those who participate in it because they know it’s a scam that serves as a mask for the worst people in the world to hide behind.

          • afchief

            Well Jesus does not hate you. He came to this earth to die for you so you can have eternal life. If you want to reject Him, that is up to you. But when you leave this earth, there are NO second chances. It is Heaven or hell.

          • prinefan

            And you know this how? Because some one made up this nonsense thousands of years ago? You should join me as I put a bone thru my nose, dance naked around a fire, chant at imaginary beings and fart rainbows with skunk apes on my lawn. It’s all true. I say ii is. The stupidity that religion engenders is so demeaning, degrading and embarrassing. It robs people of their dignity. Threatening people with punishment by imaginary beings, is there any more pathetic waste of the human mind? People like you are a threat to normal people.

          • afchief

            You know it takes a lot more faith to beleive we evolved from apes then it does in a Creator. The chance the a male and female whatever would develop at the same time with sexual organs that were made to come together to reproduce is about the same chance that a tornado picked up a junk yard and when it was done it made a walmart.

            You are made in the image of God. He is not out there to hurt you. He came to give us life. Open your heart to Him and I guarantee you, you will not be disappointed.

          • prinefan

            Open your mind to logic and reason. god suddenly appeared and created everything? People like you are scary to normal people. When you abandoned your ability to be embarrassed, exactly what day was it? Water, chemicals, sunlight=life. Not goddidit. Change your screen name to “Mindless”, or “I’ll believe any BS anyone feeds me”.

          • afchief

            I’m a very logical and rational person. We Christians believe “In the beginning there was God”. You and other Evolutionists believe: In the beginning there was random chance.

            Really? Random chance? This complex body we live was created by chance? In your heart, you know there is a God. God put it on your heart. You have just chosen to harden your heart and deny Him. Something must have happened in your life to cause you to hate God. God is not up there with a big stick waiting to hit you. He is up there with open arms waiting to embrace you.

          • prinefan

            “There was god”? Got it. Skunk apes.

          • afchief

            What?

          • prinefan

            god =BS. Got it?

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            You may despise me, as a Christian, but I love you man, I pray for you. Not to find Christ as that between you and God but release from what ever twisted you up, spat you up, whether it was an authoritative figure you felt unloved with who went to church every Sunday, or the passing of someone you love, and you find it in you to blame God and therefore all those who represent him. I pray for you because I honestly believe you need it. Love to you dude

          • prinefan

            I despise you for promoting the scam of religion because you know it’s a scam and you do it anyway which is the height of willful ignorance and cowardice. 3 types of people believe in imaginary beings-Children, the mentally ill and cowards who live phony lives for convenience so they don’t have to face reality. Praying is stupid and embarrassing and does about as much good as putting a bone thru your nose, dancing naked around a fire, with skunk apes while farting rainbows and chanting skyward to imaginary beings. Nothing is more embarrassing and degrading to humanity than the scam of religion. It was religion, and phony people like you that caused my rage. Actually, it’s well beyond rage.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Wow you have colourful imagery, work with that. Debate is not one of your skills would say focus on finger painting and work your way up to talking with adults when you have an open enough mind to debate properly. Still praying for you btw bless you 🙂

          • prinefan

            Praying=pretending to talk to imaginary beings. Religion is so demeaning and degrading, it robs people of their dignity. It’s embarrassing.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Where is your reasoning? you have a different belief system than me and for that you say ” despise you for promoting the scam of religion because you know it’s a scam and you do it anyway which is the height of willful ignorance and cowardice. 3 types of people believe in imaginary beings-Children, the mentally ill and cowards who live phony lives for convenience so they don’t have to face reality. Praying is stupid and embarrassing and does about as much good as putting a bone thru your nose, dancing naked around a fire, with skunk apes while farting rainbows and chanting skyward to imaginary beings. Nothing is more embarrassing and degrading to humanity than the scam of religion. It was religion, and phony people like you that caused my rage. Actually, it’s well beyond rage.” you are not showing yourself to be a logical person, or able to debate anything, so whilst I am happy to pray for you, I see no point in debating with you. Btw I do not believe in religion (man made doctrines) I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ, my lord and saviour. I do not however criticize anyone for having faith or belief if anything they wish to do so, if you want to start up a my little ponies cult I have no issue with that, think you would be great at it too

          • prinefan

            It’s all in your head.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            My brain? that’s in my head, if you are talking in a deeper meaning then in my head is 36 years of experience, reasoning, and knowledge. I came to a acceptance of Christ after logically thinking it out when I was 18, I was not raised Christian, neither of my parents are Christians, i was an atheist up till I was 18 and then I rethought my position and saw it illogical to dismiss Christianity without actually learning more about it, what I found out left me seeking God and finding him. Are you sure you don’t want to start a my little pony cult? I can see you as a Broanie. You would be a much more reasonable person I am sure

          • BarkingDawg

            No where in the universities actions is free excercise prohibited.

            It’s as simple as that.

          • afchief

            They are exercising their 1st amendment right to put bibles in school dorms.

          • BarkingDawg

            The government does not have a first amendment right to establish a religion.

          • afchief

            Yes, liberals are really this dumb!!!! Who shall not establish a religion? Who? Does it say school in the 1st amendment? Let me help you……it says C O N G R E S S. Repeat after me…….Congress!!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Ad hominem and argument ad nauseous in one post! What skill?

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • George T

            afchief: I’m still waiting for you to post something true (^_^)

          • afchief

            You just proved my point!!!

          • George T

            afchief: I’m still waiting to see if truth offends me. Haven’t had an opportunity yet (^_^)

          • afchief

            Truth is foreign to liberals. It bounces off their craniums like a ping pong ball.

            So sad!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Whatever (^_^) You’ve been entertaining for a few hours.

          • BarkingDawg

            The constitution applies to the states and all political subdivisions in the states.

            The state university is a political subdivision of the state.

          • afchief

            I see you still have a reading comprehension problem. It is apparent you cannot read who the 1st amendment is addressing. You just spit out your liberal lies that you hear from you godless liberal websites and media. Look at the 1st amendment again. Look really hard!!! Who is the 1st amendment addressing? Do you need some help? Does it register in the liberal cranium?

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Free exercise cannot be inhibited by anyone. If it is restricted, it is not “free” exercise. Technically only Congress can take away the right to pray or place bibles in public facilities, and they are expressly forbidden to do so. In case you’re interested, here is the pertinent section of the First Amendment again:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

            The school is engaging in “free exercise.” If Congress can’t establish a religion, how can a school establish one?

          • BarkingDawg

            Try again.

            No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….

          • afchief

            Show me where the school is making a law by placing a bible in the dorm rooms? Show me? Tell me how this is not the school exercising their Constitutional right?

          • BarkingDawg

            If Congress can’t establish a religion, how can a school establish one?

            Exactly! They can’t. So therefore, the school can not place bibles in the guest rooms.

          • afchief

            Show me how the school is forcing everyone to practice Christianity? Show me how the school made a law?

          • BarkingDawg

            The school is engaging in “free exercise.”

            This is a public university.

            Your statement makes no sense.

          • afchief

            So what! The school has every right according to the 1st amendment to do so!!!

            Are you really this dumb??? Who is the 1st amendment addressing? You must have a reading comprehension problem. It is quite apparent!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            The school is a government entity. Why can’t you understand that?

          • afchief

            OK! The 1st amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

            Congress? The school? I asked you to show me how the school is making a law establishing a religion.

          • BarkingDawg

            Go up to the “newest post” I address your question there.

          • afchief

            No you didn’t! Show me the law that the school made?

          • BarkingDawg

            Yawn. You bore me.

          • afchief

            Because you are a liar and cannot handle the truth!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            Why won’t you address my post at the top of the thread?

            Coward?

          • afchief

            I already did! Let’s repeat the 1st amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

            I have asked you numerous times to show me WHERE the school established a law?

            You cannot answer this question. Is it too hard for you? Is it past your education level? Apparently so!!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            The establishment clause applies to official government actions as well as laws.

          • afchief

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

            So the school is Congress?

            Did I not say liberalism is a mental disorder?? I sure did and here is more proof!!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            “Congress” includes all political subdivisions of the government.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!! Can you show me that in writing? Oh wait, let me help you!!!!

            congress

            : a formal meeting in which representatives or experts discuss important matters, make decisions, etc.

            : the group of people who are responsible for making the laws of a country in some kinds of government

            Congress : a particular congress; especially : the congress of the United States that includes the Senate and the House of Representatives

            More proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!! LOL!!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            So any government agency can establish an official religion of that agency?

          • afchief

            LOL! Let’s look at the 1st amendment again!!!! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

            So the 1st amendment should read “Any government agency shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            So any government agency can make law? Is that what you are telling me???

            Civics 101 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.

            So let me help that little liberal cranium……Public schools cannot make laws!!!!

            LOL!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            So, if your argument is that the establishment clause does not apply to a local public school district, then, by you own logic, the free excercise clause does not as well.

          • afchief

            Silly liberal!!! It applies to Congress!!! Is that too hard for you to understand? Congress is the one who makes laws in this country.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, it’s proof that liberals read their Constitutional law.

            “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
            church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions
            or prefer one religion over another.” Everson v. Board of Education (ruling that no arm of the state, such as a school board, can enact any policy that gives aid to a religion) 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

          • afchief

            Ahhh…..the so called make believe lawyer who thinks he knows the law. So Mr “Make Believe Lawyer” there is no separation between the church and state. Prayer in schools and Bible reading in schools are not unlawful. The posting of the 10 Commandments violates no law. when the 1st amendment reads ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

            It means a school (in this case) is making a law establishing a religion on their campus because they put bibles in the student commons area. Can you show me the law that they wrote to establish this religion? And Congress means any form of government? Is that what you are telling me?

            Since the 1947 Everson v Board of Education opinion, we have been sold a lie. Religious liberty is absolute in America. If the government can inhibit the mention of God, then government has inserted itself ABOVE God. That has been the Christ-haters plan all along. They have used that lie to run Christianity out of the Public Square. There is no separation between the church and state. Prayer in schools and Bible reading in schools are not unlawful. The posting of the 10 Commandments violates no law.

            Mr “Make Believe Lawyer” I have a pretty good understanding of Constitutional law and it is quite apparent you don’t. Again, you are making yourself look foolish!

      • BarkingDawg

        Your grammar argument is invalid. The word “or” is a coordinating conjunction that, in this case, simply links the various clauses. It is not inclusive. The clauses are independent and separate from each other.

        The fact is that the university is a government organization.

        They have no buisnes establishing an official religion.

        • afchief

          Show me in the Constitution where it is a violation,

          • BarkingDawg

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

          • afchief

            Putting a bible in a dorm does not establish a religion. The school is exercising their free right to do so. Establishment doesn’t trump free exercise. Free exercise cannot be inhibited by lawyers or judges. If it is restricted, it is not “free” exercise.

          • BarkingDawg

            The school is a government entity.

            The trustees are appointed by the state governor.

          • afchief

            I see you have a problem comprehending what the Constitution says. Constituion 101………the 1st amendment….. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Who shall make no law? Do l need to spell it for you? Repeat after me…C O N G R E S S. Say it again……Congress!!!

            Now tell me how a school is violating the 1st amendment when they put a bible in their door room.

          • BarkingDawg

            You are denser than depleted uranium.

          • afchief

            The truth hurts!!! Does it not??? There is no separation between the church and state. Prayer in schools and Bible reading in schools are not unlawful. The posting of the 10 Commandments violates no law.

            Learn how to read!!!!

          • George T

            afchief: As I’ve told you before, only referencing The Constitution is like claiming to know all of Christianity after reading only Genesis. Just because subsequent laws and court rulings don’t favor your religion and political party of choice doesn’t mean they’re “activists” or “unconstitutional” like you’ve said elsewhere.

            Okay, now it’s your turn. Feel free to shout with your caps lock key and say frothing-at-the-mouth ludicrous claims.

          • afchief

            LOL! Liberals make me laugh. No logic! No reasoning! No facts! No truth!

            Again, for the umpteenth time, show me the written law that makes putting bibles in public schools common areas?

            Show me the written law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Silly chAir Force washout. Thinks he knows the law better than a judge and has to show everybody how big a mistake he just made.

          • afchief

            Yep! I sure do!!! I will prove my point. And you will prove it for me!! Watch!!!!

            The recent ruling on gay marriage the SCOTUS used the 14th amendment. Was this constitutional or not?

            I can’t wait to hear your liberal logic!!!!

            Waiting………………………

          • George T

            afchief: You’ve already argued this point. You’ve shown in other comments that you don’t know what you’re talking about and you refuse to understand how people who know more than you (constitutional scholars and judges) see this. Why would I waste time arguing with a fool when I can enjoy watching you squirm? (^_^)

          • afchief

            Show me you understand the constitution? Show me the justification with the SCOTUS decision on homo marriage?

            Can you do it? Or is it too hard for the liberal cranium?

            Waiting…………………………….

          • George T

            afchief: Given that you keep making flawed references to The Constitution… you first. You’ve been repeatedly schooled on this subject and you still haven’t realized it once.

            Thanks for the laugh tho (^_^)

          • afchief

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

          • George T

            afchief: Oh, the irony… (^_^)

          • George T

            afchief:

            LOL! Liberals make me laugh. No logic! No reasoning! No facts! No truth!

            Hi pot! Why are you calling the kettle black?

      • Cady555

        No one is interfering with the right of individuals to pray or read the bible.

        They are just saying the government should not communicate that one special religious text is endorsed by the government.

        • afchief

          The government is doing no such thing. The school has every right to put in the dorms whatever they want.

          • BarkingDawg

            No they do not. They are a government entity and as such can not establish a religion.

            Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

          • afchief

            It does not matter if they relieve government funds or not. They have every right to put a bible in their dorm rooms. I swear liberals CANNOT read!! Do I need to interpret this for you???

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            This is addressing Congress!!!! Not a school!!! Is that too hard for you to understand???

            The First Amendment also calls it “free exercise.” The you God-haters like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other. You still remember when marriage was marriage, don’t you?

          • BarkingDawg

            No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….

          • afchief

            Are liberals really this dumb? What law is the school making by placing bibles in their dorms? Tell how me the school established a religion by placing bibles in their dorm rooms. Tell me how that is not their “free exercise” to do so?

            Waiting…………………….

          • Guzzman

            There was a time when the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the Federal government could do and did not bind the states.

            However, in 1868, the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people “liberty” without “due process.” Since then, as cases arose, the U.S. Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 1940s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states.

            Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by Federal, state, and local governments. The Establishment Clause requires government neutrality on matters of religion, which is exactly why a state university, an arm of the government, must remain neutral on religious matters.

          • afchief

            Wrong! 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.

          • Guzzman

            You are flat out wrong about the First Amendment only applying to Congress. A few weeks ago, a Federal District Court ruled that a 10 Commandments display at a Pennsylvania junior high school violated the U.S. Constitution. The basis for the ruling was the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution: “The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Doe v. Indian River School District, 653 F.3d 256, 269 (3d Cir.2011), provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,’ U.S. CONST. amend. 1.”

            Ask yourself, how can a junior high school be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution? You said the Establishment Clause only applies to Congress.

          • afchief

            Are liberals really this dumb???? Yes they are!!!! The 1st amendment;

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            You God-haters like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other.

            The courts and their legal miscreants have separated the terms. Establishment doesn’t trump free exercise. Free exercise cannot be inhibited by lawyers or judges. If it is restricted, it is not “free” exercise. Technically only Congress can take away the right to pray, and they are expressly forbidden to do so.

          • Guzzman

            So you are lying then, because what you claim is clearly false based on hundreds of court decisions spanning several decades. I am accurately summarizing the law as it stands now, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does in fact require government neutrality on religious matters, and this applies at the local, state, and Federal level. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

          • afchief

            Only in America, with our un-Godly, un-righteous courts, could such a charade have been foisted upon us. There is no separation between the church and the state. They just tell us that there is and then they use that to dredge our children through the cesspool of secular humanism.

            Free exercise means free exercise. Free exercise! Not ACLU enforced “disestablishment” of Christianity.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I feel like I’ve read this statement, and the one you posted above it, over and over again. Your understanding of Constitutional law is incorrect. Copying and pasting it repeatedly does not make it any more correct.

          • afchief

            Yep, I repeating myself!! I have come to find out liberals have a hard time comprehending. If I repeat many times maybe it will sink in the little liberal craniums.

            Prove me wrong on Constitutional law.

            Waiting…………………………….

          • George T

            afchief: Argument ad nauseum… WITH CAPS LOCK UPGRADE AND EXCLAMATION POINT AGGRESSION!!!

          • afchief

            Don’t ya just love it?

          • George T

            afchief: Yeah, your self obsessed BS is hilarious! (^_^)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Um, the fact that every time SCOTUS has issued a ruling, things change everywhere in the country immediately? Do you see that gay couples are getting married in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee right now? Did any of those states pass a new law to comport with Obergefell?

          • afchief

            Ahhhh….. Mr “Make beleive lawyer” who does not know how the Constitution works!!!! Remember what I said? 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.

            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.

            Show me where the Constitution has been amended to include homo marriage?

          • Cady555

            By this argument every state and local government can outlaw possession of firearms, because the second amendment applies only to the federal government.

            I think not.

          • afchief

            Silly liberal who has NO understanding of our Constitution!!! When the 2nd amendment was put in place….who was the militia? Do you need some help? Or are you just another product of our indoctrination centers we call public schools. Do you want me to educate you? Liberalism is a mental disorder, so let me help you;;

            The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to hunt deer, pheasant or duck. It guarantees the people their right to shoot tyrants, no matter whether they are of the petty variety that accost you in your home at 3:00 AM and desire to murder you and your family, or the rather-more-dangerous variety that unfortunately have arisen too many times through the centuries, including in places like Nazi Germany, Rwanda and (yes), in Colonial America.

            Our Revolutionary War began when The British decided to send 700 soldiers in an attempt to determine who owned and then confiscate muskets, powder and ball from the Colonists. They demanded that the 77 Minutemen who faced them throw down their weapons and permit that confiscation to take place.

            The Minutemen refused.

            It is unclear exactly who fired first, but the fact remains that it was The British who tried to confiscate the Colonists’ weapons and in doing so caused shots to be fired, whether they actually fired first or not.

            The Second Amendment exists to guarantee the people arms of similar type and quality as used by a military organization, as in the extreme case where that Amendment need be deployed that is exactly what those bearing them will face.

            The founders wrote this into our Constitution because they had just survived exactly that situation, they knew darn well that it might happen again, and they were well-aware that the only reason they did not all wind up dead, imprisoned or hanged is that they had their guns — the equal of those facing them — and refused to surrender them.

            Silly liberal, if you need anymore education on the Constitution, just let me know. I know you liberals have a very hard time understanding!!!!

      • BarkingDawg

        No one is saying that the guests don’t have the right to pray.

        The issue is that a taxpayer funded university cannot promote a specific religion.

        • afchief

          They have the right to put whatever they want in their dorm rooms. If they put a bible or a koran in there, it does NOT violate the Constitution..

          • BarkingDawg

            No one has said that the students can’t have bibles in their dorm rooms. Are you “special” or something? The issue has nothing to do with students bringing their own bibles to their own dorm rooms.

            These are bibles in the rooms at the Holmes Student Center Hotel. They are not being placed there by guests.

            The issue is that the university can not offer guest rooms with bibles already in them.

          • afchief

            The school has every right to put bibles in the dorms. EVERY RIGHT!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            Wrong.

            And totally missing the point.

            You didn’t actually read the above article, did you?

            (Hint: this is not about dorm rooms)

          • afchief

            It does not matter where the bibles are placed. The school still can exercise their 1st amendment right and place them anywhere!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            The school is a government entity. No they can not.

          • afchief

            I truly see why liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals can’t read!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            Sort the thread by “newest post” and go up to the latest posts. I specifically addressed you and this issue.

          • afchief

            Ok! So instead of the 1st amendment saying; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Liberals believe it says; Schools shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Yes liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Liberals” may or may not believe that. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that the Supreme Court has ruled as such in Everson v. Board of Education. It doesn’t matter whether “liberals” believe that, or you that you refuse to.

            The law is the law, whether you like it or not.

          • afchief

            Ahhh….Silly Mr. “Make believe lawyer” who has NO understanding of law and Constitutional law!!!! Let me repeat this since liberalism truly is a mental disorder and I know you have a hard time comprehending.

            COURTS CANNOT MAKE LAW!!!!! THEY MERELY OFFER OPINIONS!!!!!

            Do I need to educate you again on HOW laws are made or changed in this country? Really? Are your really this ignorant of law????

          • George T

            afchief: CAPS LOCK 4 TEH WIN!!!!!

          • afchief

            Well you know liberalism is a mental disorder!!! Nothing sinks in!!! Maybe putting all the caps on will help liberals understand?

            I doubt it though!!!! LOL!

          • George T

            afchief: Only seen as a metal disorder by people who think it absolutes and assume incorrectly that they’re always right.

          • afchief

            Ahhh….Yes this is the root of liberalism……no absolutes. Yes, more proof that liberalism is evil and a mental disorder!!!

          • George T

            afchief: Ahhh… hollow victory claimed. Good for you chAir Force! (^_^)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I have a better idea. Since you’ve shouted till you’re blue in the face, bit have convinced precisely no one that you’re correct, why don’t you cite something? You know, like, a real lawyer. Not a “make believe lawyer” like me.

            Can you find a lawyer who agrees with you? (Or failing that, just about anyone would be a good start, since you seem to be getting no support even from your colleagues here.)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, why don’t you show us what we should be reading, since you keep insisting that we haven’t read enough?

          • afchief

            Start with the Constitution. Then go get a dictionary and look up the definition of “Congress”. Then study how laws are made in this country. I’ll give you a hint…..there are ONLY two ways. Then go read what the role of courts are and what their decisions mean. Then study our three branches of government and their roles. Maybe you will learn something!!! Just maybe!

          • George T

            afchief: We’ve already covered that. Your willful ignorance doesn’t somehow negate national law.

            BTW, until now I couldn’t understand how the Tea Baggers have lasted so long as a political force. No wonder Boehner resigned. Given the amount of ad nauseam arguments (like this) he must’ve put up with, I’m amazed he didn’t go completely insane.

          • afchief

            Did I not say lying was liberals defining characteristic? I sure did, and here is more proof.

          • George T

            afchief: I’m lying? So your willful ignorance does negate national law? Good luck with that.

          • afchief

            Again, let’s try and educated those little liberal craniums. I know it is hard. Their cranium size is extremely small, but here goes; The First Amendment’s clause prohibiting an establishment of religion applied to the federal government, not the states. Does that register? It clearly says “Congress [not the states] shall make no law…” It was publicly understood and acknowledged that the Constitution was intended to govern the federal government itself, not the people. The states were to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit in their pursuit of happiness.

            Why didn’t the First Amendment apply to the states? Many of them already had establishments of religion. At the time of the War for Independence, Massachusetts had a state church, Puritanism (or Calvinism). Connecticut’s official religion was Congregationalism. Rhode Island’s established church was Baptist. Pennsylvania’s was Quakerism. Maryland’s was Roman Catholicism. Virginia’s was the Anglican Church of England (which, after the war, became the Episcopal Church of America).

            In fact, most of the thirteen states at one time had their own official churches/establishments of religion and five of the thirteen had their own at the time the First Amendment was ratified. When James Madison was writing the Constitution, no mention of a guarantee of religious liberty was at first included because he feared that states such as Massachusetts and Virginia, with their strong state churches, would otherwise not accept the Constitution. However, he was persuaded to include the “no religious test” clause of Article VI. The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, which he later supported, provided the final corrective to the situation. The last of the state religions was disestablished in 1833. They were disestablished not by the Supreme Court but by the states’ own free will. The states voluntarily gave up their establishments of religion in the name of freedom of conscience.

            As yet another proof that our Founders recognized God as the ultimate authority for our government and our society, consider the symbolism of the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. It shows a 13-step pyramid representing the 13 original states, placed under what the designer described as “the Eye of Providence.” The Latin words Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has favored our undertakings,” float above the scene. The seal was approved after six years of deliberation over various designs. Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson reported to the Congress that “The Eye over & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.”

            If the doctrine of separation of church and state had been intended by the Founders to keep God and religion out of government, does it seem reasonable that such direct references to deity would have been approved for the official signature of our nation? Of course not!

            Thomas Jefferson saw that clearly when he wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” Likewise James Madison: “The belief in God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources…” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.”

            All were implicitly echoing the statement by William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, a century earlier: “Unless we are governed by God, we will be governed by tyrants.”

            The Declaration of Independence makes clear that God, not government, is the source of our freedom, our sovereignty, our equality, our rights, our justice and our human dignity. They are preexisting in us, before there ever was any government. So the Constitution does not grant any of that; it simply guarantees them for us and prevents government from interfering with it.

            Therefore it is perfectly legal, constitutional and (in the view of our Founders and Framers) right for citizens to publicly express their religion via prayers and symbols such as the cross, menorah, and others. That includes the military; one of George Washington’s first acts when he became Commander of the Continental Army in 1775 was to create the Chaplain Corps for the benefit of his citizen-soldiers. At the same time, Congress itself often held church services in the Capitol and also has had a chaplain since 1774.

          • George T

            afchief: The Declaration of Independence is a divorce notice to the leader of a nation and church. Later they specifically avoided mentioning god in our nations founding document, The Constitution.

            Later on the 14th amendment took those federal level rules and applied them to state level government as well. …including a restriction on government organizations (expanded from only Congress) endorsing (choosing one and excluding others) any religion.

            That’s where things stand. A more involved version of this has been posted by several different commenters. Read those if this isn’t clear enough. That, or attend a constitutional law class.

          • afchief

            Ahhhh……but sorry Mr. Liberal who does not know the Constitution or history, you are quite wrong again! If you liberals wish to discount our Declaration or discount God’s presence in the Declaration, then the purpose of our very existence as a nation becomes somewhat confused. The Founders created a constitutional republic, but why? For what purpose? The Declaration gives the why and purpose. A part of the Founders’ justification for declaring independence was that King George III “broke covenant” with the colonists for many reasons, and “covenant” is a sober biblical concept.

            Just so that we are clear about all of these matters, most Christians do not advocate a theocracy, although progressives delight in announcing otherwise. It’s just that the liberal construct of “separation of church and state” has mutated into state-enforced atheism. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” It is about Congress! Not the people! It does not say that Christians cannot influence or be involved in government. It does not say that God has to be removed from anything government has its tentacles in. It does not say that the ACLU can remove a Christian symbol at will or with the threat of litigation. Progressives have used the ruse of “separation of church and state,” which is not in the Constitution, to rabidly attack everything Christian. Christians should have as much influence in our culture and on our government as anyone else. Behind every law is some sort of value, and the source of that value is vital.

            Now, here is another item of galactic importance in our Declaration. Here is what it says: that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights[.]” Those rights, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” are from God Himself, not from governments or government leaders. So the Declaration is a most vital statement by the Founders. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. To an atheist leader like Stalin, Lenin, Mao or Hitler, people have no God-given rights at all.

            So now we are at a vital point: most of the time, when someone removes God from an equation, the result is confusion, dysfunction, and incoherency. Liberalism does this routinely and with reckless abandon. It is incoherent to suggest that abortion does not snuff out a life. It is incoherent to suggest that there is virtue in deficit spending. It is incoherent to suggest that there is no God, and Hitler just died and that’s the end of it.

            But for most progressives, that incoherence is preferable to the difficulty of having God in the equation. If God is in the equation, then maybe He has something to say about how I live and what I do. He might very well have some sort of claim on my very existence.

            The Founding Fathers were an enlightened bunch, and they afforded God his proper place. In the beginning…

          • George T

            afchief: tl;dr

            I’m guessing you said some babble about the founders being Christian.

            Ultimately it doesn’t matter because we now have a religious plurality that we need to support with our government. The 14th amendment allows that interpretation.

          • afchief

            Poor silly liberal who has no understanding of our republic, constitution and American history!!! Let me help that little liberal cranium understand! As yet another proof that our Founders recognized God as the ultimate authority for our government and our society, consider the symbolism of the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. It shows a 13-step pyramid representing the 13 original states, placed under what the designer described as “the Eye of Providence.” The Latin words Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has favored our undertakings,” float above the scene. The seal was approved after six years of deliberation over various designs. Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson reported to the Congress that “The Eye over & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.”

            If the doctrine of separation of church and state had been intended by the Founders to keep God and religion out of government, does it seem reasonable that such direct references to deity would have been approved for the official signature of our nation? Of course not!

            America has a secular federal government, but we are, and always have been, a religious society. The assault on religion in general, and especially on Christianity, which is under way today from many quarters — ranging from the ACLU, atheists, and liberals to the 0lawless administration’s hidden war on the military — is ultimately intended to overthrow the religio-spiritual foundation of America. If that happens, hell on earth will follow. Watch!!!

          • George T

            afchief: It’s not an assault for a growing majority to change their minds about religion.

            It’s equal parts funny and horrifying to hear Tea Baggers like yourself crying martyr because somebody who doesn’t agree with you gets equal treatment. I know, you want to have all the power for your religion. Some day I hope you learn to accept the reality that your religion doesn’t get to control government or other conflicting faiths and beliefs. If you want that, try moving to a sectarian country.

          • afchief

            Ahhh but Mr.Silly liberal who has no understanding of our republic, Constitution and American history!!! Let me help that little liberal cranium! In the Danbury letter, right before he credits the people with building the wall of separation between church and state, Jefferson states:

            Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…

            In other words, the central government cannot decide what is political and what is spiritual because these are matters of opinion that vary from person to person. These are issues between each individual “man and his god.” In a free republic, the central government has no right to inform matters of personal opinion of its citizens.

            After Jefferson’s assertion that the people have erected a wall of separation between the church and state, he continues:

            Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

            Jefferson understood that as we struggle, as a people who have fallen from grace, to build and rebuild the wall separating church and state, we do so for the specific purpose of perfecting ourselves, our families, and our communities in our efforts “to restore to man all of his natural rights.”

            We, as a people, build the wall of separation between church and state … to keep the government out of our right to worship whatever god we choose.

          • George T

            afchief:

            We, as a people, build the wall of separation between church and state … to keep the government out of our right to worship whatever god we choose.

            Sure. So why are a surprising number of Christians, like yourself, trying to give their religious rights to government?

          • afchief

            What?

          • George T

            afchief: Why are Christians trying to give up their religious rights to our state and national government? The more Christians inject their religiosity into government, the more government gets to dictate the what, how, when, where, and who of your religion.

            I want you to keep your religious freedom. I don’t want our government dictating what Christianity is for you or my parents and extended family. I’m fighting for your religious rights by supporting The FFRF, you blockhead!!! (^_^)

          • afchief

            How are Christians giving up their rights to the government?

          • George T

            afchief: I just explained how. You are suffering from *depleted uranium* level density, aren’t you (^_^)

          • afchief

            Poor liberal, you have proved NOTHING! I’ll ask you again; how are Christians giving up their rights to the government?

            Was the constitution set up to protect us from the government or the government from the people?

            Let’s so how much the little liberal cranium knows!!!

          • George T

            afchief: I didn’t say *prove*. I said I *explained* that already.

          • afchief

            I’m looking at your posts and you have explained NOTHING!!!

            Liberal logic says Congress = whatever we say it does

            No wonder it is a mental disorder!

          • George T

            afchief: Try again.

          • afchief

            LOL! Liberals make me laugh!!!! It is such a mental disorder. I enjoy the humor. And don’t forget Newtons 3 laws on liberalism;

            Newtons 1st law of liberalism:

            Each and every liberal action has an equal and opposite result! That’s why it’s called a mental disorder!!!

            Newtons 2nd law of liberalism:

            Liberalism is like taking a dump in your pants. You get a temporary warm fuzzy feeling, but later you realize it’s just crap.

            And don’t forget Newtons 3rd law of liberalism:

            If you believed in making the world a better place, you and other liberals would stop breeding!!!!

          • Cady555

            The government does not, repeat DOES NOT, have first amendment rights.

            Period.

            People have rights. People have the right to be free of government promotion of religion. People have all the rights enumerated in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

            The Billl of Rights RESTRICTS government action.

          • afchief

            The 1st amendment restricts Congress from making a law to establish a religion. Who does it restrict? Do I need to help your reading comprehension? It restricts CONGRESS!!!!

      • Elie Challita

        So bring your own damned Bible to school.

    • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

      “[C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’”

      • BarkingDawg

        So you are arguing that the guest rooms are open forums then.

        So you should have objections to having copies of the Torah, the Koran, Dianetics, Mao’s little red book, Satanist coloring books, Hindu Vedas, etc. in the rooms as well.

        Where will the guests sleep?

        • MamaBear

          The Bibles were donated free to the University for the guest rooms. The article says they were Gideon Bibles and that is what the Gideon organization does, supply free Bibles. If Muslims, atheists, Hindus and others want their books there, let them do the same and donate them free to the university. But, at least the atheists, would rather just complain, probably because they know which book would actually get read.

          • BarkingDawg

            It makes no difference where they came from. If the university has no intention of allowing the guest rooms to become “open forums,” then they do not belong there.

            Frankly I’m surprised that it took this long for the university to get rid of them.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nicely done, MamaBear! BTW, atheists are free to print up the Atheist Creed and distribute them too. I will be happy to remind them of their creed, if push comes to shove, but they should know it by heart by now. 🙂

  • dawnrosanne

    The FFRF is such a group of bullies. Just because they hate God and hate the Bible doesn’t mean we all do. How dare they threaten and intimidate others into believing what they say is right or correct? The University completely fell apart because they received a “scary letter?” The University should have stood up for the rights of Americans to read what they want. No one has ever been forced to read a Bible in a hotel room. Yet, on the other hand, the Gideons organization has reported that people have actually stopped suicide attempts in hotel rooms as a result of a prayerfully placed Bible in the dresser.

    • cobalt100

      How can you hate someone who does not exist? It’s been my experience throughout life that all the bullies and hateful people are religious people. Of course they do. It’s in that filthy book. It says to hate your mother, father, and even your brother and sister. Luke 14:26. In a recent poll, it is also shown that Christians are are a stingy bunch, and can’t be trusted to tell the truth. You should be more careful how you label others.

      • dawnrosanne

        Oh my goodness Cobalt. Do you have any idea what the FFRF does? Read up on them. They go around the country sending letters to every school, college, government institution, city, mayor’s office, etc…. threatening them with lawsuits if they don’t bow down and apologize and do exactly what the FFRF wants. Bullies. They don’t care who gets in their way—they’re only satisfied if every vestige of faith and God is removed from the public square. If you have ever read anything that their founder has written you sure wouldn’t hesitate at using the word “hate” because that’s what they specialize in: hatred of anything relating to religion.

        • cobalt100

          I am familiar with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I am a member of that fine organization. They are standing up to the religious bullies who claim that they are a privileged group that can impose their beliefs on others. This thing called religion is doing great harm to anyone who steps into this sticky pile of glue. Get yourself free. Join that group.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            How are people of faith bullying you cobalt? I know in India people are being tortured to death to convert to Hinduism usually from Christianity, but also sometimes from atheism. What is the FFRF doing in India? how about in Egypt, Iraq, or in fact most of the Muslim nations, what is the FFRF doing in these countries?

            Atheists are not being bullied into becoming Christians in the US, if you believe that honestly then you really need to educate yourself on what bullying actually is, what persecution actually is.

            You should look at what Christians are put through on a daily basis all over the world, and in the USSR before communism fell there, more than 60 million people killed by that Atheist nation.

            Not to say all atheists are violent, but purely that the Atheist dictatorships have been the most violent, with the US being so owned by big business, and with religion being removed how far away from being an atheist dictatorship is the US?

            They are already trying to remove / alter the constitution using the Gun topic as its one that the world pretty much thinks is crazy that so many untrained civilians have handguns and assault rifles (not saying I am one of them, I think to disarm the American people when the government is so owned by the 1%ers would cause civil chaos).

            SO when they remove the 2nd amendment, what teeth does your bill of rights actually have, what backbone? next will most likely be the 1st and so on, removing the peoples rights.

            If you do not believe me look at the laws they are trying to pass through in the UK and wait for them to come to the US, being associated with any “extremist group” which includes any group of people who do not share British values, can be shut down, this includes people who criticise the government, claim that the secret services are part of terrorist activities (9/11 questions?) and your beloved FFRF could be part of that list, as well as our church, they are also making it law to keep one year records of everyone web history, you think the AT&T debacle is bad wait till the secret service start looking at what porn you are into.

            Basically Colbalt100 you should be campaigning for the right of any faith or religion, that you should not have it dictated to you what you should believe, militant atheists are doing that right now. Everyone needs to have the right to practice their own faith, even if that faith is purely in science and humanism, that should be maintained, any attempt to re-justify, re-interoperate the bill of rights puts your liberty at risk.

          • cobalt100

            Just listen to the bullies that are running for the office of President. Ted Cruz said that atheists should not be permitted to hold any public office. And President H.W. Bush said that atheists are not citizens. In addition, there are many states that have in their Constitution that don’t allow an atheist to be governor.

            The public school that my son attended kicked him off the football team because he wouldn’t pray with the team. We had to move to another school district in order to stop the Christian bullies. In his senior year at the new school, he won athlete of the year award.

            For at least 500 years, religion covered the world with blood. The inquisition burned, and used the sword to murder at least 100 million people.

            Christianity is famous for their bullying tactics. That’s why it’s called their “Bully Pulpit”. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is merely addressing complaints from people who are being harassed by Christians.

            You should check out their website and become one of us.

          • Mark

            I’m with you fellow Homo Sapiens. Follow the logic and science will set you free.

          • afchief

            Wrong! Follow Jesus and the truth will set you free!!!

          • Mark

            It’s all about evidence. You cannot say someone is wrong without evidence. Manic depressive people think they are like Jesus. Perhaps even he was manic depressive. Also, spare me the bible records history. It is exactly that . . .His Story. Not necessarily the truth.

          • afchief

            “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

            —G. Chesterson

          • Elie Challita

            Chesterton is a very smart man, and a great writer, but his grasp of physics is sadly lacking and definitely outdated.

          • JGC

            Evolutionary models make not statements or predictions that ‘nothing turned itself into everything;
            I’m not really surprised that you don’t realize this, afchief, but would have thought Chesterton had more on the ball.

          • Mark

            This quote is false. For this quote to be true it would have to be a God. No evidence therefore not accurate.

          • Mark

            This quote is a prime example of someone who does not understand the science behind what they are trying to disprove. Please, before you start throwing things around as “fact”, make sure you understand cosmology to the best of our understanding. You’re talking to someone with a masters degree in astronomy and physics. Once you learn what we know AND why we know it, then we can have an intelligent discussion. Until then, any talk about the supernatural is not an intelligent discussion.

          • afchief

            I could care less what kind of degree you have. I have a computer science degree. Big deal!!! To believe that everything happened by random chance is laughable.

            It takes more faith to believe in random chance than it does to believe in a creator.

          • Mark

            The degree gives creedance to my claim. If you have an illness you go to someone with a medical degree. No difference here. You talk to someone who is trained in their field.

            I do not limit myself to an echo chamber of one site or another. Perhaps it is you who should broaden your horizons and not visit the “Christian” sites.

            I still stand by my observable fact over your imagined hope. I wish you well.

          • afchief

            A degree means NOTHING!!!

            2 Timothy 3:7 (NASB) always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

          • Mark

            Listen to what you say. I will no longer argue.. You may get the last word if you like. It is a waste of my time to discuss something as trivial as facts with someone as close minded as you. If fact, I bet you won’t be able to help youself but to respond to make youself feel vindicated. Good luck with your hopes, and dreams. Please do consider stepping out of the world you live and see the other side. I was once self righteous like you. I regret every minute of it.

          • afchief

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

          • Mark

            Follow a dead guy who may or may not existed. Follow a guy who may or may not of done the things that some human wrote and contradicted themselves in many different books within the Bible. Follow a guy who is written about based on someone deciding what books belong in the Bible. I don’t know, sounds like freethinking will set you free.

          • afchief

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

          • Mark

            A quote from a man written book of philosophy is not evidence.

          • afchief

            Your mind is blind to the truth. It is quite obvious. I pity people like you. You have no hope. You exist for the day. Just as the bible says in James 2:26 “For just as the body without the spirit is dead” you are a walking dead man that has no life in him. You exist for a few years and then you are gone.

            But there is a price to pay.

          • Mark

            🙁

          • afchief

            If you do not believe in God, why do you have morals? Why does anyone have morals? Why don’t you commit as much adultery, fornication, drunkenness and debauchery as you want?

            You know why? Because God’s laws are written on your heart whether you know it or not. This is why God says YOU are without excuse. When you leave this earth and stand before God, you will have NO excuse for your life. None!

            Matthew 7:13-14 (NASB) “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to hell, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

            It is quite obvious which road you are on right now.

          • Mark

            Moral comes from the Latin word mores, for habits. Last time I checked, God is not mentioned here in the original meaning. Much like your book of deity which has been translated and changed many times to suit the needs of whomever desired it. You can deny this, but the facts will always endure.

            You can use quotes, but a quote is nothing more than crap. To use quotes from writings that cannot be proven is nothing more than a self-reinforcing delusion. We believe because we want to, not because we can prove it.

            I mus say, your belief in the nonexistent is commendable. I think today I will believe in Thor. The book of The Almighy Thor is what I will push on everyone who disagrees with me. It’s beliefs that screw this world . . . . The rapture is comming. God won’t let the world die so let’s pollute all we want and forget that we are not animals. I want to live in a word free of dangerous fantasy called religion.

            Also, you ‘righteous’ people use a book that was put together and selected from (and leaving out) many writings from people not having the technology to discern fact from fiction. Get a brain and learn what we know as true as it right in front of our face.

            I could not help myself. I need to go now and begin my celebration of Saturnalia. You know the one that Christianity hijacked. It says so in the Bible. “Though shall go on crusades to kill in the name of God.” “Make all worship me by calling their holiday mine.” On second thought, maybe I will celebrate Festivus.

      • Adenike Adeyemi

        I think you are blind! I pray to God to open your eyes to see the truth. “For you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

        • JGC

          How exactly does one reliably distinguish between something that is true, and something they instead simply believe to be true? Prayer clearly is of no utility, or else there would only exist a single religious tradition: everyone who prayed would have been led to the same truth.

  • xinthose

    I graduated from this school and I’m not surprised at this. They promote LGBT studies, I’ve seen a man in high heels there, and the churches are worldly.

    • BarkingDawg

      A man in high heels? Oh noes!

  • sammy13

    Knuckling under without a whimper. If people do not want to read the word of God, they are not forced to. As it is with cable or satellite TV, you get a lot of unwanted channels with your subscription, but are not compelled to view them all.

  • Chris כריס Perver

    I wish atheists would actually read the Bible for themselves instead of just parroting stuff they have heard others repeat. If the Bible calls for gays and apostates to be killed, surely they must wonder why there are no Christians going around doing this today. Maybe if they read it they would understand what the Bible actually teaches, which is to love your enemies. Who can find fault with that?

    • prinefan

      Khriztians don’t “love” those who challenge and expose the scam of silly religious nonsense. Their hatred, meaness and spite-their true colors always show thru.

      • Chris כריס Perver

        Christians actually do love the people that challenge them, and the Bible specifically teaches us to do this (2nd Tim 2:25). Unfortunately most atheists have never read the Bible for themselves, so how can they expose something they have never read?

        • Cady555

          Hitgurl and Chris – Yes, Christians are capable of sacrifice and love.

          The problem in the US is that Christians have received special treatment for decades, and so perceive moves toward equality as an attack. Many christians reading the same book as you respond to requests that schools not promote religion with vicious threats of violence and rape. This is reality.

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        In the persecuted churches around the world from Egypt to India to China the Christians pray for the persecutors, Prinefan I am entirely unsure on what your point is trying to say, you are describing the way I see atheists react to Christianity, not to how people who follow Christ’s teaching and who try to live in Christ react or operate, we are taught by the word – taught by Jesus – to love our enemy and our friend, to treat everyone with love and respect, we intercede for you praying forgiveness and love for you. And all this is outside of our own power, it is purely Christ within us that allows us this privilege. I keep seeing atheists claim that there is Christian hatred but that just is not part of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

        • prinefan

          Tell your Khriztian buddies you have become an Atheist. See how you get treated, then get back to us.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            I live in the UK, a truly multi faith multi cultural society, I get more of a raised eyebrow for being a Christian than being an atheist, My church mostly does outreach work with homeless people and people who are broken down in society, we do not discuss our faith unless asked about it and help people of all faiths.

          • prinefan

            Why does religion have to be the motivation for doing good? Why not just do good for goodness sake? Religious charity is done for one reason-to attempt to legitimize religion, which has no legitimacy, credibility or validity, because it’s all made up, it’s not real. Charity from religion is like the late mobster John Gotti giving out free turkeys and hams at x-mas so everyone would think he was a swell guy and not a murdering bum. People are finally figuring out religion is just a scam.

        • George T

          Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: Again, hitting on the “no true Scotsman” fallacy 😉

    • Cady555

      I have read the bible, including the parts most American Christians ignore.

      The Bible is a mirror. Kind people pay attention to the parts that emphasize kindness. And there are a lot if kind Christians.

      Non Christians are well aware that Christians can be selective about which parts of the bible to obey. Most Christians fortunately ignore the most brutal commands and that’s a good thing, but the commands are still in the Bible.

      • Chris כריס Perver

        That is good. At least you have read it. We are selective with good reason. Not all of the Bible applies to us today. The commands of the Old Testament were given to a specific people (the Jews) for a specific period in history (from Moses to Christ) as part of a voluntary covenant they entered into with God. That covenant was temporary, and ended when Christ died on the cross. We are now under the New Covenant (New Testament). A Christian, even a Jew cannot go back to following the Old Covenant (Old Testament) because God has finished with it.

        • BarkingDawg

          Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

          • Chris כריס Perver

            The point is if atheists are going to complain about the Bible they should at least read it properly. And how did people get from Congress not being allowed to establish any law concerning religion, to banning every religion in the public sphere?

          • BarkingDawg

            It’s not an issue of what is in the bible, it’s an issue of having the bibles there in the first place.

            Should they put bibles in the toilet stalls?

          • Chris כריס Perver

            Your declaration of Independence says you are one nation under God. Your money says In God We Trust. You tell me.

          • BarkingDawg

            And the first amendment says that there is no official government religion.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            No it says that the government can not interfere with any religion or faith, putting one faith or religion above another is unconstitutional. You should be celebrating in this amendment, in India and in Iraq it is illegal to switch your faith away from Hinduism and Muslim respectively.

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: The US government does interfere when it keeps adulterers from being stoned to death, or denies apostasy killings called for by Sharia Law. That’s our freedom *FROM* religion at work (^_^)

          • afchief

            It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            The school has every right to place in their schools what ever they want!!!

          • George T

            afchief: If they want to maintain government sponsorship, no. A condition of such is to avoid favoring any one religion.

          • afchief

            This is why liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

            Liberal logic says Congress = whatever we say it is

            Ahhh yes that mental disorder is in full swing!

          • George T

            afchief: Nope. Just explaining how constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices rule on these issues. It doesn’t matter what I think, or what you think you understand of our national law.

          • afchief

            I do understand our Constitution and Constitutional law quite well!!!

            I have asked you numerous times how Congress = other government agencies…………..NO answer!

            I have asked you how the 14th amendment = gay marriage…………..NO answer!

            I have asked you, was the Constitution created to protect the people from the government or the government from the people…………….NO answer!

            I have asked you, did our founders come to America to escape a “religious state” in England which is why they said congress cannot establish a state religion…………………NO answer!

            I have asked you how a public school who puts bibles in their dorm rooms or where ever violates the 1st amendment. How are they establishing a law NO answer!

            I have a treasure chest of historical documents and writings to prove my point. All you have is lies.

            What is happening in our courts today is called “Judicial Tyranny”. For the discerning mind it is easy to see. For the reprobates minds, it is too hard!!!

          • George T

            afchief: You’ve asked many people many questions and you’ve received lucid and cogent answers from multiple people. Your response every time has continued to demand the answers they just gave you.

            I’m not repeating their responses. You can read them in your notifications.

            Good luck, closet warrior!

          • afchief

            Then go copy and paste them here.

            Waiting……………………………………

          • George T

            afchief: Do you want me to chew your food and *baby bird* feed you also? This would be a short comments section to scan through if it weren’t for your repetitive, babbling posts. Enjoy! (^_^)

          • afchief

            Waiting…………………………

          • George T

            afchief: For what? Feel free to read all of those comments you’ve been flippantly dismissing.

          • Cady555

            Really? Could you perhaps point me to the place in the Declaration of Independence where the phrase “one nation under God” appears?

            Word of advice, don’t hold your breath while you look for it. It is not there.

            History lesson. In the 1890s, a socialist named Bellamy wrote the pledge of allegiance. He teamed with a flag salesman to promote his pledge and sell lots of flags to schools.

            In the 1950s, in the middle of the anti communist freak out, the pledge was changed. “One nation indivisible” became “one nation under God indivisible.” However, the pledge is not law. In God We Trust was added to paper money at the same time.

            The United States is governed by a Constitution. The preamble states “We the people in order to form a more perfect union…” The Constitution is entirely secular.

          • Chris כריס Perver

            Haha whoops. Thanks for correcting me. Doesn’t the declaration say that “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”? The point I am making is, if the US is a Christian country (if there is such a thing), with its declaration, pledge, and money, there should be no problem with Bibles in universities. If the US does not want to be a Christian country, they would need to remove those things from the legislation.

          • Cady555

            Thank you! We all goof. It is so much more pleasant to have a conversation when we can talk interpretation, rather than go back and forth on facts.

            On the DoI, two points. 1. The writers were mostly deists. They did not believe in a personal biblical god. “Endowed by creator” means the same thing as “Endowed by Mother Nature.” 2. The DoI is beautiful, but it was essentially a press release. The Colonies needed money from France. This was a tool to support their requests for money. The DoI is not part of US law.

            The US is not a Christian nation. Our system of government is secular. Throughout our history the majority have used government authority to impose their religious rites on everyone else, but it was and is wrong. The system of Catholic schools exists because protestant politicians passed laws to require all school children to say protestant prayers and read from the protestant bible. After a 10 year fight and a few deaths, catholics withdrew and formed their own schools. (Google Philadelphia Bible riots.) The Courts have ruled that “In God We Trust” is not a religious statement. I respect the role of the Courts even when I think individual rulings are nuts. I think the Courts should revisit the slatheting of IGWT on everything not bolted down, because it is a religious statement.

          • afchief

            Wrong! Over 30% of the founders were ministers. Most were religious men. They came here to practice Christianity out from under the control of the King. Remember One Nation Under God”, and all that stuff.

            The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that our rights come from God. The Founders were very particular on that point, because it assured that any government was subject to the authority of God.

            The State is comprised of people; fallible, whimsical people. Our rights are an integral component of our humanity. The State cannot strip of us our rights, since they are God-given. The State can only actively force or passively coerce us into not exercising them. People-driven (or State granted) rights are not rights at all; they are privileges.

            This is NOT what the Founders intended or designed for America.

            History clearly shows that whenever a people reach a certain point of oppression, where working within the system does not achieve happiness or when freedoms are seriously broached, the people will rise up. This is a universal trait of humanity. The Founders were looking for an authority higher than any on Earth as justification for rising up – they chose God.

  • prinefan

    The worst thing that ever infected, contaminated, polluted and poisoned the human experience was the made up, hateful nonsense of religion. Imagine how much more peaceful our world would be without the conflict, hatred, bloodshed and violence it causes.

  • BarkingDawg

    So what if the school had copies of the Koran in each room?

    • prinefan

      In ‘Merica it’s “Khriztians only” allowed. Just like the signs “Whites only” posted on Khriztian owned businesses I saw growing up in the 60’s in the buybull belt. They are such phony, disingenuous liars. Religion is what they hide their rotten, hateful attitudes and behavior behind.

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        5678 posts, wow man you need to get out more, God bless you.

        • prinefan

          There is no more important thing to do in life than expose the scam of religion and challenge the threat that it is to all of humanity.You need to face reality. There is no god. Ruck Feligion.

    • Cady555

      Same rule. That’s the difference between equality and special privilege.

      The rule works exactly the same way for every religious view point. The school cannot place The God Delusion in every room. Nor the Koran. Nor the Bible. One rule, viewpoint neutral. The public school cannot favor any one religion or religious view point over others.

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        This is not a public school it is a university what’s more its a hotel on a university campus, in other places other literature has been left and no one would have any issues with an atheism self help book to be left with the bible, its just that instead of doing that this couple has gone with the none enlightened way of seeking the removal of the bible rather than giving a logical option to the reader as an alternative. Some hotels have books on Mormons, Hinduism, and a variety of reading material next to the bible, there is no reason to progress one faith over another yet removal of the bibles is doing precisely that, whilst including a more balanced choice would be be the more correct outcome.

        • Cady555

          This is a public university – as in state / taxpayer supported.

          A private university such a Notre Dame would be free to put religious literature in rooms.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            They are free to do so already “[C]ontrary to what FFRF implied, the Establishment Clause does not require government entities to dissociate themselves from everything religious,” the letters continued. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’ Rather, it ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.’” all they need to do is not treat one faith or religion above another, which means removing the bibles is unconstitutional as one belief – atheism is taking precedence over another belief, Christianity, a more appropriate action is to include humanism literature along with the theist

          • Cady555

            As you said “all they need to do is not treat one faith or religion above another,”

            Exactly. We agree.

            As I said earlier, it is fine if the school hotel has a small library near the front desk with a variety of religious literature representing many views. But the school cannot play favorites by putting only a protestant Christian religious text in every room.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            As I have said repeatedly by removing the bibles it is endorsing one belief over another, atheism over Christianity, the only way they could be even handed is to include other books in each of the rooms, Theist or not. By removing these bibles the University has already infringed the first amendment. No faith should be advanced over another, it doesn’t get much more simple than that!

          • prinefan

            Fk what the conservative, religious nut bag weighted supreme court said. The founders made it clear in the structure of our Gov’t that it was not to be used like a whore by pimps trying to promote religion or non-religion. Religion always wants an accommodation to enhance and expand their presumptuous privilege and entitlement. Religion should stop trying to turn our Gov.’t into a whore and our Gov.’t institution into stores selling religion=religious whore houses.

          • Cady555

            Explain how equal treatment is favortism. Sorry, that’s just silly.

            Replacing the Bible with “God is Not Great” or anything else written by Christopher Hitchens would be favoritism toward atheism.

            Silence regarding all religious views is not discrimination against the view reported to be “more specialer” than all the others.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Its not replacing its having multiple sources of information and help, if God is not Great is a resource that does the things that the Gideons bible does, then it should be sat next to the bible in the room. By removing bibles the government is purely endorsing Atheism, by including say the Koran and an atheist publication next to the Gideon, in a hotel room caters to all faiths, does not progress one faith over another

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: *Atheism* isn’t a synonym for *secular*, and vice versa. Cady555 is correct. Absence of any book is secular. Only putting “The God Delusion” or “god is not great” in rooms would be promoting atheism.

            Do you really not understand the difference?

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Well whilst I do understand the difference between secular and atheism is motivation important here? For the atheist has an issue with a none secular book being in their room, I see no issue with adding secular or aethist material along side the bible as an alternative to the reader who should have the mental capacity to make a choice that is logical for them, whilst removing the bible is against the constitution as the government is intervening on religion, offering alternatives along side, not as greater or lesser but equal importance is the most equitable response

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: You’re still not getting that the 1st amendment came into play when the bible was placed in the room. Our government funds and endorses the school. Either the bible needs to be removed, the school has to get other literature to provide equal representation to other faiths and beliefs, or the government is obligated to remove funding and educational endorsement to avoid violating its own 1st amendment. That’s why the school removed these books.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Well the article did make it clear that the university’s lawyers have said that by removing the bibles the university has opened itself to litigation and that the first amendment protects the right of the bibles to be there, so I will defer to their judgement.

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: The ADF isn’t the university’s normal legal defense. They are a predatory group that pretends to speak with authority, offer to defend people and organizations in exchange for publicity, and disappear when the courts rule against their clients. Then the client is stuck paying the bill while the ADF receives donations from the publicity.

        • BarkingDawg

          This is not a public school it is a university

          Head => desk

          Wow. That is a stupid statement.

          • prinefan

            Surprised? Just read previous posts.

  • acontraryview

    The University is a taxpayer-supported entity. Funds to support the University come from all taxpayers of all faiths, as well as no faith. As a taxpayer-supported entity, the University should not be supporting one religion but not others. Quite simple.

    • prinefan

      Khriztians don’t care about that. They want exclusive rights to everything…………..just like the Islamists.

    • afchief

      It is apparent you have no understanding of the Constitution.

      • BarkingDawg

        Look in the mirror

      • acontraryview

        How so?

        • afchief

          Read the 1st Amendment and tell me where is says a public school cannot place a bible in their common area?

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          • acontraryview

            It doesn’t. Hotel rooms are not “common areas”.

            I’ll ask again regarding your comment “It is apparent you have no understanding of the Constitution” – how so?

          • afchief

            LOL! Who makes laws in our country? Schools? Congress?

            I give you 3 guesses! LOL!

          • acontraryview

            There are a variety of bodies that are allowed to make law in our country. Congress, state legislative bodies, county commissions, and city councils.

            I’ll ask yet again regarding your comment “It is apparent you have no understanding of the Constitution” – how so?

          • afchief

            Silly liberal who has no clue of law and the Constitution!!! Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch (state and federal), 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.”

          • acontraryview

            So you don’t believe that city councils and county commissions can make laws? If you do, you are mistaken.

            “Courts can never make laws”

            Agreed. Nor have they.

          • afchief

            Do you know the definition of “Legislative”? Or do you need help?

          • acontraryview

            Yes, I do know the definition of Legislative. Why do you ask?

          • afchief

            They are the ones that make or change laws, period!

          • acontraryview

            That is incorrect. City councils and county commissions are not legislative bodies yet they are empowered to make laws.

          • afchief

            It has to go through the legislative branch. They are the only that can make laws. Or they bring it to a vote of the people.

            Again, go get a book and read how laws are made!!!

          • acontraryview

            “It has to go through the legislative branch. They are the only that can make laws. Or they bring it to a vote of the people.”

            That is incorrect. City councils and county commissions are empowered to make laws that apply to their cities or counties. Those laws do not require approval from state legislatures.

          • afchief

            If City, town, and county councilmembers and county commissioners are legislators then yes they can make law for their area and only their area

          • acontraryview

            No, city councils and county commissions are not considered legislative branches of government. They are empowered by the state legislature to enact laws. The laws they enact are only applicable to their respect areas of oversight and they do not require state legislative approval. Do you really believe that every city that changes a zoning law must submit that change to the state legislature for approval?

          • afchief

            That is what I just said!!! If they are legislators they can make law and they are empowered by the state!!!

            Legislative Bodies

            City, town, and county councilmembers and county commissioners are legislators. Together they constitute a legislative body which is given authority by the state constitution and state law to make local law. Local legislative authority is generally limited to what the state specifically grants to counties, cities and towns. However, code cities, charter cities, and charter counties have “home rule” powers which permit them to exercise authority not specifically granted, provided that the state has not specifically prohibited that local authority.

            Our political system is a representative democracy. We elect legislators to make policy decisions and enact laws on our behalf. Except through the exercise of the initiative and referendum, we do not practice direct democracy. The essence of the legislative process is the give and take of different interests, and the search for a compromise that is acceptable to the majority. Often there are elaborate mechanisms to involve citizens and interest groups in the policymaking process. But in the end, legislative bodies make the decisions. Those who are not satisfied with the outcome can always seek to change the representatives by voting them out of office. But they must abide by the decisions whether they like them or not.

          • acontraryview

            “That is what I just said!!! ”

            No, what you said was, and I quote: “Only Congress can make laws!!!!” and “Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch (state and federal), or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people.”

            That is incorrect.

          • afchief

            Ok, let me clarify; only legislators and a vote by the people can make or change laws.

          • acontraryview

            You’re making great progress in understanding! Now, just a couple more steps. While the people do, on some occasions, vote on changes to laws, they don’t actually make laws. They vote to approve changes in law. Those changes are then put into place by the appropriate body – be it Congress, state legislative bodies, or county or local commissions or boards.

            Finally, while county commissions and city councils are empowered to put laws into place, they are not formally referred to as “legislators”. That term is used to refer to elected officials of at state or federal level whose primary job is to legislate.

            I applaud you for being open to learning and gaining a better understanding of how our legal system works. That’s great. It is important that, as citizens, we have a thorough and accurate understanding as it impacts all of us.

          • afchief

            Wrong! The initiative process is a form of direct democracy. Two types of initiative process are widely in use today. The first is called citizens’ initiative or popular initiative (hereinafter, “citizens’ initiative”). In the citizens’ initiative process, citizens draft a legislative bill or constitutional amendment (a “measure”), which they then propose by petition; if the petition receives sufficient popular support, the measure is then placed on the ballot and can be enacted into law by a direct vote of citizens. Some citizens’ initiative processes allow the government to make a counter-proposal to the measure; the government’s counterproposal appears on the ballot with the measure.

            This is why judicial activists overturned the will of the people in California with proposition 8. The people voted for it and it became law. But, homo activist violated the Constitution and we let them.

          • acontraryview

            Legislative bodies must put the law on the books. If citizens vote to approve a law, the legislator must abide by the vote of the citizens.

            “But, homo activist violated the Constitution and we let them.”

            Oh, goodness, I see more work needs to be done. While citizens are allowed to vote on any law, and legislative bodies are allowed to vote to put any law on the books they decide to, citizens are also allowed, by the constitution, to challenge those laws in court. In turn, the judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of those laws. That is one of protections provided by the constitution. States are not allowed to put any law on the books which violates the protections provided by the Federal Constitution.

            Challenging laws in court does not violate the constitution. Quite the opposite. Our system is specifically designed so that the majority may not “vote away” the rights of others.

            For example. Let’s say that the citizens of Utah vote to only allow Mormons to marry. While that law may have been approved by a majority of those who voted, that does not mean that the law is constitutional. A non-Mormon citizen is free to challenge that law in court, and the judiciary is empowered to strike that law down if it finds that the law violates the protections provided by the Federal Constitution, which is most certainly does.

            While you, or I, may not always agree with a ruling of the judiciary, it nonetheless is how our system is set up, and is there to protect our individual rights from the whims of the majority.

          • afchief

            Wrong Again!!!! Do you remember we live in a Democracy? The majority rules. 81% of the people in Alabama voted for marriage between one man and one woman. Do you REALLY believe that the opinions of five political hacks on the Supreme Court trump the will of 81% of the citizens in Alabama?

            Let me repeat what I just said because apparently it did not sink in the liberal cranium!!!!

            “In the citizens’ initiative process, citizens draft a legislative bill or constitutional amendment (a “measure”), which they then propose by petition; if the petition receives sufficient popular support, the measure is then placed on the ballot and can be enacted into law by a direct vote of citizens”

            Do your understand that???? If the voters approve of the petition/bill/amendment IT BECOMES LAW!!!! The state Constitution is amended to reflect the law!!! IT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!

            Learn your Constitution!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Do you remember we live in a Democracy? The majority rules”

            Oh dear. You have a fundamental misunderstanding. We do NOT live in a pure democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. As such, the majority is limited in their power to restrict the rights of others.

            “Do you REALLY believe that the opinions of five political hacks on the Supreme Court trump the will of 81% of the citizens in Alabama?”

            Under our system, yes, they do. Just as they did regarding the majority of citizens who opposed interracial marriage.

            Do you actually believe that a vote of the people takes precedence over the Federal Constitution? Would non-Mormons in Utah, under the example I gave, have no recourse? Would they simply have to accept that change in the law?

            Let’s use an example that may be one you can better relate to. The citizens of Colorado approve a law that makes it illegal to discriminate based upon sexuality. The owner of an inn chooses to not rent a room to a married same-gender couple because of the owner’s religious beliefs. He is then found to have violated CO law. According to your view, he should not be allowed to challenge that law, under that basis that it violates the protections provided by the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and the federal judiciary should NOT have the authority to rule on such a case, because a majority in CO voted for the law.

            Would you tell the owner that he can’t challenge the law in federal court because a majority voted for it? Does he not have the right to challenge the law?

          • afchief

            Do me a favor and stop coping and pasting liberal talking points because I have seen these lies before!

            I should have said we have Democratic process so the liberal mind can understand!!!

            Again, you do NOT understand our democratic process!!!! If the people voted for whatever law and it passes by a popular vote, it then becomes law!!!! Is that too hard for you to understand?????

            The federal Constitution is to limit government powers over the people. Why do you think States have their own constitutions? For the heck of it?

          • acontraryview

            I didn’t copy and paste anything. Those are all my words.

            Yes, we do have a democratic process. But we are not a pure democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Therefore, the people do not have the final say.

            “it then becomes law!!!!”

            Of course it does. in turn, citizens have the right to challenge those laws in court. in turn, the federal judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of those laws. Is that too hard for you to understand?

            If citizens were not empowered to challenge the constitutionality of laws, what would be the purpose of the federal judiciary? Just for the heck of it?

            So, based upon your logic, you would tell non-mormons in Utah that they just have to live with the law, and tell the owner of the Inn that he just has to live with the law, correct?

            What about the challenges that have been made to gun laws that were put into place by a vote of the people and overturned by the courts on the basis of the 2nd Amendment? Should the court not have the authority to rule on such laws?

            How would the protections provided by the Federal Constitution be secured if the federal judiciary were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

          • afchief

            I have seen those exact same liberal talking points on other forums. Yours are not different!

            Wow! You are starting to understand!!! Yes if the people of Utah voted for a measure and it passed, it then becomes law. If some people do not like it, they can move or get a petition to put it back on the ballot next election cycle. It is that easy!!!

            Here we go. Liberals like to compare “apples and oranges”. I see it all the time! First tell me what guns laws were put in place by the will of the people (voting) and we’ll go from there.

            The SCOTUS rules and decisions that effect/violate the federal Constitution. What is your point?

          • acontraryview

            “I have seen those exact same liberal talking points on other forums. Yours are not different!”

            Funny how facts show up in different places, huh?

            “If some people do not like it, they can move or get a petition to put it back on the ballot next election cycle. It is that easy!!!”

            Or they can challenge the law in court.

            “The SCOTUS rules and decisions that effect/violate the federal Constitution. What is your point?”

            Ahhhh…I’m so proud. You’ve finally figured out that a vote of the people is not necessary the final say. The federal judiciary is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and strike them down, regardless of how many people vote for them.

          • afchief

            Negative! The activist fed judiciary CANNOT strike down the will of the people!!!

            KNOW THE LAW!!!!

          • acontraryview

            You are incorrect.

            The 14th Amendment provides the protection of equal treatment under the law. If the Federal Judiciary were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of state law – including those laws put into place by a vote of the people – how would the protections provided by the 14th be secured?

          • afchief

            More proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!

          • acontraryview

            What proof? It appears, from your response, that you have once again provided proof that you are unable to defend your inaccurate claim.

          • afchief

            When you are dealing with a reprobate mind (you) it is quite obvious there is no reasoning with them. You are proof!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you continue to be unable to provide proof and continue to be unable to answer a simple question about the statement you made. Rather, you resort to puerile comments. Unfortunate.

    • MamaBear

      It said they were Gideon Bibles. The university did not purchase them. Gideons are an organization that supplies free Bibles for hotel rooms, hospitals, guest rooms at schools, etc.

      • BarkingDawg

        The fact that they are Gideon bibles makes no difference whatsoever.

        They to not belong in a taxpayer funded facility.

      • acontraryview

        How the bibles were paid for is immaterial to the issue.

  • prinefan

    The constitution DOES require complete separation of church and state. It’s just that simple. Religion has “gotten away” with intruding into our secular Gov’t for way, way too long and it’s time to put a stop to it.

    • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

      So you are going to change the constitution? prinefan have you been having us on? are you really Obama? sir mr president sir, are you going to write and executive order changing the constitution, wait doesn’t that need to be ratified? Naw Dog. Bless you man

      • prinefan

        No need to change the constitution. We will just stop the religious right from using it to wipe their sorry a–es with. Saying bless you is one of the stupid parts of the stupidity of the scam of religion. There are no supernatural beings to bless or do anything for any one..

        • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

          Sorry your point is?

          • prinefan

            The stoopid…………….it burns. Thanks, religion.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Still waiting for an actual debatable point here, try English? Might help convey the point you are making.

          • prinefan

            Point-Religion is the best, and worst scam ever invented. It’s designed to terrify, enslave, and control to maximize power and profit for the hucksters selling the scam (you’ll find them in the pulpit every sunday) who have their hands on the controls.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            How is your negative view on my faith relative to the question of if it is constitutional for the government to remove bibles from the accommodation? which it really is not. You really do have a terribly inaccurate view point of Christianity, I am sure you have been hurt somehow. I would suggest you spent more time researching your points and less time posting on a Christian news article ^^ bless you

          • prinefan

            Gov’t is real, religion is not. It has no place in our Gov’t. No I have not been hurt but I have seen the hurt religion has caused to humanity and I’m sick and tired of it and seeing people like you get away with promoting it and pretending you don’t know what you are doing.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Whilst religion is actually real, even the most ardent Atheist can not deny that religion is real, however I am not a religious man, I do not follow any man made doctrines, I just have a relationship with Jesus, who is my lord and saviour, I read the word (that’s what we call the bible) follow the Holy Spirit (Gods presence on earth that’s been with followers since Jesus went on to heaven, leaving the spirit for his church – The body of Christ. As for government, putting your faith in a very corrupt system owned entirely by big business and therefore a tiny percentage of the worlds population. So in other words you believe in the rothschilds, being your leaders, who teach you what? I am promoting my faith?? I don’t know about that, I am debating with an atheist who is more likely to start a my little pony cult rather than follow a God that loves him. I am open about my faith but I do not drag anyone down to a church, I have the right to my own faith. I do not try to convert anyone to Christ, I do not have any issue explaining my point of view if I need to. Keep in mind it is you posting on a Christian news site, not me posting on an atheist or agnostic site. You are the one trying to spread your beliefs and trying to convince everyone of your beliefs, I just explain what I believe and if asked will explain what my relationship is like.

  • Bezukhov

    I’m an Atheist, and I say let those Bibles stay. They make great coasters for my whiskey sours, the pages can be used to roll up some weed in a pinch, and I love leaving pictures of naked women in them, and imagine the reaction of the next person that opens it.

    • Kandy

      Including (((((((((((((Children)))))))))))))))))) You are a very sick and have a very cold heart. The best way to hurt a Christian is through their Children. I’m sure you are great at doing that! You must sleep great at night knowing you are doing your best to hurt Christians and their Children!

      • prinefan

        Khriztians are the ones hurting their children by passing down the ignorant, supernatural, superstitious, silly nonsense of made up religious mythology. It’s child abuse.

      • Bezukhov

        I’m sorry. You’re right, that isn’t very nice. I have a better idea. I’ll edit out all the sex and violence in the next Bible I pick up. There is an awful lot in there. It’s for the Children.

        • Kandy

          I pity your hate for Christians and their Children…………………………………………………
          In Jesus and in His Name Shalom.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Does it make you feel like a man knowing some Child may see that. Both Christian or Non-Christian??? Shame on you!

      • prinefan

        Seeing pictures of naked bodies is part of reality-something religion prohibits.

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          Children should NOT have to be part of your Hate for Christians.
          Shalom <

          • prinefan

            Children should not have to endure abuse from Khriztian parents who pass down the same primitive, ignorant, made up supernatural nonsense their parents passed down to them . One day these children will understand their parents did this to them, parents they trusted, and they are going to hold their parents accountable.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Children of ((((((Christian))))))))))))))))) should not have to be abused by hateful people like you!
            In Jesus and in His Mane Shalom<

          • prinefan

            Normal people should not have to be abused by religious wing nuts either. All the religious people I have known are hateful. Like the phony cowards they are they try to hide their hate behind religion, but it always shows thru.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            May Jesus Rebuke you and may He Rebuke your hate. And return it to you! Your dust be upon you and your head as I shake it from my feet!

          • prinefan

            Dead motivational speakers don’t do anything. When you say such crazy things, you wonder why people ridicule religion?

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            LadyFreeBird, I do not intend to upset you further in this exchange you are having. I did want to gently remind that our Lord stated to bless those that curse you , and pray for those that mistreat you (Luke 6:28).

            It’s a road I’m walking on, too.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            They are being so hateful to other people. I will Pray for them. Thank you .

      • BarkingDawg

        This brings up an important point. If you want to create an open forum so that bibles can be placed in the rooms, then it would be perfectly legal to place copies of Hustler magazines in the rooms as well.

        Obviously no one wants that, so it would be inappropriate to designate the rooms as open forums.

  • Michael Falsia

    Once again our brave and intellectual atheist rulers are offended and afraid of a book? So confidant in their faith that they get hysterical in the presence of a Bible? What fools and idiots. Whats most annoying is that these institutions are catering to their open bigotry!

    • BarkingDawg

      So they can put copies of the Koran in the rooms, then.

      • Cady555

        I’m sure the Satanic Temple has a publication appropriate for placing in each room.

        • BarkingDawg

          And they will be able to, if you want to claim that the rooms are open forums

      • MamaBear

        It said they were Gideon Bibles. Gideons supply Bibles for free to hotels, hospitals, schools, any place willing to accept them. Most places that accept them stick them in a drawer, so they are usually not even in plain sight. This atheist probably had to look for it before complaining.
        If Muslims want copies of the Koran in hotel and guest rooms, they can supply them without cost to those places, also.

        • BarkingDawg

          This is not a privately run hotel.

          These are guest rooms owned and operated by the state government.

          • afchief

            It doesn’t matter. They can put both bibles and korans in the school

          • BarkingDawg

            Or not.

            It all goes to the concept of an open forum.

            The university has determined that it is not appropriate to designate guest rooms as open forums.

            It is within their authority to do so.

            Do you understand the concept of open forum?

            Look it up.

          • afchief

            Yes, they put them there or not. It is up to them. Put to place them there is NOT against the law.

          • BarkingDawg

            placing the bible in a government owned and operated hotel facility creates an imprimatur of official sanctioning.

            If you don’t like that, take it up with the Supreme Court

          • afchief

            Again, where does it say that in the 1st amendment? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Waiting…………………….

          • George T

            afchief: Again, where does it say that the meek will inherit the Earth in Genesis! And don’t bring up those activist apostles that claim to have written the new testament! I’m a biblical originalist.

            Waiting…………………….

          • JGC

            And the Hindu, Santerian, Wiccan, Zoroasterian, Wiccan, Ba’Hai, Mormon, Navajo, Buddhist (multiple versions)….etc.
            By the time they’ve brought in religious texts from every religion on the face of the planet (as they’d be required to do in order to avoid violating the first amendment proscription against establishment of religion) where would they find room for the guests and their luggage?

          • afchief

            Another liberal who cannot read!!!!

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Does the 1st amendment say Congress or school?

            I’ll give you 3 guesses!!!

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        Why not BarkingDawg, the Gideons have multiple recounts of people who have stopped themselves from committing suicide because of one of their bibles they put in their hotel rooms. How about you find the best self help atheist book and you put that in your local university’s dorms? just one copy, as an act of faith by you that it would help, that’s how the Gideon project first started, soon they were sending out bibles to every new hotel, with extra spare ones, and new ones every 6-7 years, free, gratis, purely to help people when they can be at the most alone. What act of faith would it take for you to do the same thing? I am sure you have some masterpiece, some unifying book that helps people who are about to commit suicide, who are lonely, and need some help, or in the case of one of the posters here, just wants some free rizlas.A book that illuminates peoples lives and gives comfort and shows them love. So please do it brother. No Christian is threatened by you doing that. It is only Atheists who are threatened by a book. If it helps just 1 person it will be worth your time too. God Bless man

        • BarkingDawg

          The US Constitution trumps the Gideons.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            as such there is no debate, the constitution is not on your side on this debate, the government are acting in bad faith by removing the bibles and choosing Atheism over Christianity.

          • BarkingDawg

            They are not “choosing atheism” the are being religiously neutral.

            The rooms are not public forums.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            It is a choice, the bibles are produced by a charity as a tool to help people, especially when they are most in need. to not be advancing the agenda of any specific religion they would need to include other options along side the bible rather than remove the bible. To remove the bible is to actively remove something of faith to leave the space empty, funny enough just like if you took a theist, removed his faith and left him an atheist.

          • BarkingDawg

            They are a government agency. The guest rooms are not an open forum.
            The fact that the Gideons give them the bibles has nothing to do with it.

          • afchief

            Sorry, but you are quite wrong!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            The university is not a government body? How so? Is is chartered by the state. It’s trustees are appointed by the state.

            Please clarify your statement.

          • afchief

            Are they Congress?

          • BarkingDawg

            They are subject to the same restrictions as Congress, curtesy of the 14th amendment.

            Are you arguing that because the University is not Congress, the Free Excercise clause does not apply to them?

          • afchief

            The are subject to the same restrictions as Congress? Really? Can you show me that in writing? LOL

            The 14th amendment? Really? The 14th Amendment was specifically proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. Nothing else. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues it has been since cited for with lots of creative interpretations.

            Even women had to wait until the 19th Amendment for a constitutional right to vote

            Silly liberal!!! Try again!

          • BarkingDawg

            Really? The 14th amendment states that it only applies to former slaves? Please quote the text of the 14th amendment that states that.

            I find it extremely amusing how you are a literalist when it comes to interpreting the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, but you rely on an imaginary intent when it comes to the Privleges and immunities clause of the 14th.

            Your pretzel logic is nonsensical.

          • afchief

            Reading the Constitution is not enough for you liberals, you have to understand what you are reading. For roughly 150 years, the meaning of the 14th Amendment was clear. Now, suddenly, too clever people with too clever arguments and sympathetic judges have decided that nobody, including the people who wrote the 14th Amendment, actually understand what it meant. Especially using this amendment for homo marriage???

            Again, the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws or the separations of church and state? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?

            Since the people “evolved” on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn’t act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.

            Again, you are quite wrong!

          • Ryan J

            So your position is that states should not be bound by any restrictions in the Bill of Rights? If a state were to forbid all anti-gay speech, for example, the First Amendment would be irrelevant?

            Local governments cannot violate federal rights. You would be in support of that, if the issue were anything other than dislodging Christian privilege.

          • afchief

            How are local government violating federal rights?

          • Ryan J

            Just as the First Amendment protects each citizens’ right to speak, assemble, and practice religion freely—protects them from local governments, not just “Congress”—it also protects those citizens’ right to a government that is neutral toward religion.

            If you are unwilling to budge in your position that the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress, you are committed to the position that states are permitted to abridge both your right to free speech and your right to freely exercise your religion. If Illinois were to forbid all Christian worship, and all speech supporting Christianity, would you really be arguing that the Free Exercise Clause doesn’t apply? This is why your literalist argument of the First Amendment was laughed out of court a century ago.

          • afchief

            Yes, it only does apply to Congress. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong. The First Amendment’s clause prohibiting an establishment of religion applied to the federal government, not the states. It clearly says “Congress [not the states] shall make no law…” It was publicly understood and acknowledged that the Constitution was intended to govern the federal government itself, not the people. The states were to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit in their pursuit of happiness.

            Why didn’t the First Amendment apply to the states? Many of them already had establishments of religion. At the time of the War for Independence, Massachusetts had a state church, Puritanism (or Calvinism). Connecticut’s official religion was Congregationalism. Rhode Island’s established church was Baptist. Pennsylvania’s was Quakerism. Maryland’s was Roman Catholicism. Virginia’s was the Anglican Church of England (which, after the war, became the Episcopal Church of America).

            In fact, most of the thirteen states at one time had their own official churches/establishments of religion and five of the thirteen had their own at the time the First Amendment was ratified. When James Madison was writing the Constitution, no mention of a guarantee of religious liberty was at first included because he feared that states such as Massachusetts and Virginia, with their strong state churches, would otherwise not accept the Constitution. However, he was persuaded to include the “no religious test” clause of Article VI. The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, which he later supported, provided the final corrective to the situation. The last of the state religions was disestablished in 1833. They were disestablished not by the Supreme Court but by the states’ own free will. The states voluntarily gave up their establishments of religion in the name of freedom of conscience.

          • Ryan J

            This historical argument you keep regurgitating is between you and the Supreme Court, as several other people on here have tried to explain to you. Since you are taking the fingers-in-the-ears approach to these explanations, I’ve asked a question that you’ve dodged twice now, assuming for argument sake that your interpretation is correct.

            Third and last try for you: if a state were to censor your anti-gay speech or prevent you from worshipping your chosen god in your house or church, do you think the First Amendment would be irrelevant? That’s the only consistent path for you, but if that’s how you’re going to play the game, you are arguing that states are welcome, if they choose, to forbid religious worship, and unpopular speech, altogether. I would not want that, and I can’t imagine you would either.

          • afchief

            Sorry, but it IS the truth. Historical writings prove otherwise as I have demonstrated. This is liberal logic……Congress = whatever we think it does, period!!! You and others have proven what I have known….that liberals are liars. There is NO truth in them. You ignore history and the intent of the framers. IT IS SO OBVIOUS. Even my 11 year old understands WHY the founders left England!!! But you liberals do not! You have NO understanding of history, our republic and our Constitution!

            1st amendment; 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.

            I have already answered your question. That the 1st amendment did not apply to the states. It applies to congress. Read my above post. The states have their own constitutions. The 1st amendment applies to Congress and to congress ONLY. It is that easy!!!

            What we have seen in the courts is called Judicial Tyranny. The SCOTUS using the 14th for homo marriage is proof!!!

          • prinefan

            Faith is another word for willful ignorance and stupidity. That’s why Atheist don’t have “faith” in made up, supernatural nonsense. The buybull “helps” people by telling them to stone women and children, keep slaves? Don’t forget, you better not be eating any shellfish.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Have you perhaps read the new testament? was made around 2000 years ago, but still has truth today as it did then, Jesus came to replace the law with sacrifice of himself, to forgive our sins. he spoke to the Greeks, Israelites and the Samaritans, he spoke to women in an equal way as he did men, he did not care about colour, race, creed he was here for the beggars, the lepers, the paupers, the criminals. He taught love and forgiveness, he taught to not be hypocrites but to walk your life in faith. Stoning? Jesus stopped the stoning of an adulteress which in that time was a criminal offence by saying let he without sin be the first to cast a stone, no one threw a stone as they all were sinners, he told the women to go on sin no more. Shellfish? eh? Oh lastly there was slaves back then but they weren’t as we think of them, they were free men who worked for 7 years on the behest of someone they owed a debt to, as all debt was forgiven every 7 years so was the agreement nullified at that point. It was not a life time of labour like you had in the Americas so recently ago, and is still going on in many place of the world today.

          • prinefan

            History is full of motivational speakers and all sorts of books. So what? There are no gods , devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, souls, virgin births, talking snakes, the dead don’t come back to life. It’s all silly BS. Every bit of it.

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: You referenced a mythology written by Saul of Tarsus and other anonymous authors several decades, and in some cases hundreds of years after the time that Jesus is claimed to have existed. No other records beyond they apparently fictitious writings verify the existence of The Nazarene.

            I’m a little shocked that you’re trying to justify slavery of any kind…

            But hey! Have you read Harry Potter? I hear that’s a pretty cool work of fiction that has a lot of followers.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Actually I am not justifying slavery, I am just explaining slavery in the biblical era was 7 years and was in lew of debts, last I checked debt is still slavery today, at the end of the 7 years the “slave” was given provisions and offered a job or to walk on his way. Where as slavery goes on today and is not this agreement, slavery in biblical times was not based on colour, creed or beliefs it was a financial agreement. Think of it as an employment contract. Even then I am not saying it is acceptable by today’s standards, just as slavery by the banks holding us in slavery by creating wealth and lending it to desperate people at crazy high interest rates is not acceptable. As for other records of the time, there is records not only by the writers of the bibles but by Romans and Jews, he is mentioned in the Koran as a prophet. How much evidence do you need? the requirement of history is 2 witnesses, yet for Jesus there is hundreds of witnesses, from multiple sources that do not just include Christians. Even the most established atheist scholars do not try to deny Christ was real, or that the bible is a historical document. The only thing you might be able to show is that the first 4 books of the Old Testament have little evidence of historical record, but seeing as they were from 4-5 thousand years ago that is hardly surprising.

            So you are left with YouTube, popularism atheists who are not scholars, who summarise and ignore facts like the video about violence in atheists countries ignoring a lot of countries, or misrepresenting the actual make-up of Christians or atheists.

            I would suggest you look at your sources and find out if they have any qualifications for what they say. I have a bible, which is as close to a historical document as any could be of 2000 years ago, a messiah who I have a personal relationship, and even the most ardent atheist scholars can not prove that God is not real, nor that Jesus was not born, died and was resurrected Have a look at a youtube video called

            Is Jesus Real? – Non-biblical Evidence of His Existence

            .I can not link it on this site so go have a look

          • George T

            Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu: Debt and slavery are two different situations.

            My sources that doubt the existence of a single man named Jesus are qualified. But I’m not interested in bickering about the validity of your religion. Believe it and enjoy your life (^_^)

            I made that abrasive post to counter your abrasively authoritative religious assertions directed at other commenters. You’re still aces in my book for at least trying to not be as religiously invasive as a surprising number of US Christians are.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            George T, in biblical times they were not two different situations, and as of today having lenders who make up money (up to 90% of actual owned debt is based on only 10% of actual currency) with interest rates up to around 30% mean that often it is impossible for the poorest in our society ever getting out of debt, being owned more and more by the banks.

            Fair point on not trying to disprove Christianity, it shows a greater reasoning power as it really gains either of us anything, I will not come to your point of view and I am not trying to prove to you that you should follow Christ, only backing up my assertions behind my beliefs. I find it odd when people craft poor statements without any evidence and expect someone to suddenly change their position simply because they have insulted them.

            I think you would miss the comments I am replying to as they were removed, most likely by the author who fell into the atheist camp of spouting aggressive hatred towards Christians purely because of their beliefs, who I suggested he would be better served making a my little pony cult to lighten his outlook on life and show his position was ridiculous.

            If someone wants open debate I am happy to offer that as its something I really enjoy. Unfortunately some Atheists are extremist, unwilling to debate properly and instead spout hate and as such dangerous. From what I can see all incidences of extremists who gain power who are atheist generally have led to large scale destruction and death. Not that as I say I believe all atheists lack reasoning, just that the ones who can not reason their thoughts are a dangerous blight to us all, atheists and Christians alike.

            If you have experienced prejudice based on your faith (of not being a God) then that is not acceptable, but hold some comfort in the fact we often have a joke about certain Americans who have a very small mind and outlook on life, who will say England? Isn’t that in London. It is well know that reasoning skills are not encouraged in America, and that a great deal of people follow what they are told to think and believe on TV.

            That there is people on all schools of thought who can not debate their point of view without just spouting repeated views of a few populist views instead of forming their own opinion. We have some of the same people here, and it is the bane of our lives

            I would suggest you check out a podcast called The Renewed Mind, it is hosted by a Christian but looks at a number of subjects, not just Christianity. I would ask that you separate the Christian religion from the faith, many Christians despair at the dogma and man made rules that put us in conflict with one and another, rather than the faith that can unite us, even if we have a different view point. If you want to see what my church is like have a look at the Jesus Army, you will find it has nothing to do with religion or Dogma but instead helping our most impoverished and trying to live like the early Christians, Which means in love, not hate, respect not war 🙂 Bless you dude

          • JGC

            ” Jesus came to replace the law with sacrifice of himself, to forgive our sins”
            And the objective evidence demonstrating this represents anything other than an article of faith would be what, exactly?

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            So you want me to prove a Christian tenant without any Christian sources? There is proof of his existence, discussion even of his resurrection from a secular source, discussion of Christians who will die for their faith after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, all by secular sources. But as soon as someone acknowledges the absolution of sins through Christ they have lost their secular status. So you want what from me?

          • JGC

            If to your mind Christian sources do not represent objective evidence, then yes: that’s what I want.

            You could start by citing the secular sources which attest to the fact that Jesus actually existed as depicted in the gospels (hopefully you’re not referring to the Testimonium Flavianum from book 3 of Josephus’ Antiquities), or which attest to the truth of his claimed resurrection. I’ll note that even if you successfully support either of those points you will still need to support the claim he came for the purpose of replacing the law with sacrifice of himself or that doing so was necessary to achieve forgiveness for our sins.

            As for Christians dying for their faith, that only represents evidence that they believed in the truth of their articles of faith, not that what they believed to be true actually were true. Note also that all religions can point to martyrs in support of the ‘truth’ of their faith, and they can’t all be simultaneously true.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            I apologise I am currently working so my answer is short, go watch Is Jesus Real? – Non-biblical Evidence of His Existence on YouTube

          • JGC

            I’m sorry, but I’m unable to consider YouTube videos credible support for anything as anyone can post videos claiming anything, after all (there are videos presenting ‘evidence’ autism spectrum disorders are causally associated with routine vaccination, that 9/11 was an inside job, that FEMA is building interment camps around the US in preparation for the coming New World Order, etc.)

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Well watch it then disprove the sources still working

          • afchief

            It doesn’t matter

          • afchief

            Your interpretation of the Constitution is quite wrong! Tell me where is states public schools cannot place bibles in them?

  • BarkingDawg

    Northern Illinois University is a government entity.

    It’s Board of Trustees is appointed by the Governor of Illinois.

    The school is bound by the US Constitution

    Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

  • BarkingDawg

    Afchief, continually repeating a factual error, as you seem to like to do, does not make that error magically true.

    Prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment, the establishment clause only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state based religions. Some actually did.

    The Privileges and Immunities Clause to the 14th amendment changed all that. Now, the establishment clause of the 1st amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. When I say that it applies to the state, I mean that it applies to all political subdivisions of the state as well. (Political subdivisions being state agencies, counties, cities, townships, etc)

    Northern Illinois University is owned by the state. The Board of Trustees is appointed by the State Governor. In other words, it is a political subdivision of the state. The establishment clause of the first amendment applies to it just as it applies to Congress.

    Why is that simple fact so hard for you to understand?

    • Guzzman

      I have attempted to explain to Afchief how the Bill of Rights came to be applied to the states and even pointed out specific state level violations of the Establishment Clause, but it is like talking to a wall. Good luck.

      • BarkingDawg

        If the Air Force could ever figure out a way to weaponize the chief’s skull, it would make depleted uranium look like air soft pellets.

        • prinefan

          And these are the one who are supposed to insure our security and safety.

        • George T

          BarkingDawg: That was the best laugh I’ve had all week (^_^)

      • prinefan

        When some one says they believe that “In the beginning, there was god”, do you really think a person like that can be reasoned with?

    • Guzzman

      Many good points well stated. And to extend Afchief’s argument further, if the U.S. Constitution did not apply to the states, the states would be free to ban gun ownership, search homes and seize property at will without warrants or court oversight, ignore due process, prohibit free speech, prohibit freedom of the press, prohibit freedom of assembly, and so forth. What he is asserting is so utterly preposterous as to not even merit serious discussion.

  • BarkingDawg

    Afchief, let’s try this again.

    Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that a local office of a federal agency let’s say the Social Security Administration, adopted a policy require img that all citizens that came into the office of that agency convert to Islam prior to being served.

    Your argument seems to be that because Congress did not create a law to do that, the policy would not be s violation of the establishment clause.

    Why do you make that argument?

  • Fallenman4Jesus

    Pretty sad to see these institutions cave under a little pressure – the FFRF is EVIL to the core – when will people stand up for God?!

    • prinefan

      Because there is no god to stand up for. Silly nonsense.

      • Fallenman4Jesus

        The fool has said in his heart ‘there is no God’ —- fool

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          Amen. There are a couple fools here this evening and they are being mean.

          • prinefan

            Religion has been mean to humanity. How do you like a taste of your own medicine?

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I shake your filthy dust from my feet.
            May the Lord Rebuke you and Rebuke your hate. Your hate be upon your head. May your hate return to you in full measure !
            In Jesus and in His Name Shalom <

          • prinefan

            Do you have family that can help you get into a mental health facility? I sure hope so. You are overdue for some intensive therapy.

        • prinefan

          Only fools believe in made up, supernatural nonsense.

      • Fallenman4Jesus

        Also, you are swine and dog in addition to fool. No pearls for you. Go away.

    • BarkingDawg

      This is not an issue of “people.”

      It’s a government entity.

      The establishment clause applies.

  • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

    did pinefan go through and remove every one of his bonkers posts?

    • George T

      Is there a way to delete posts? I usually assume that the account was deleted when I see missing posts like that.

  • BarkingDawg

    Afchief wrote:

    LOL! Let’s look at the 1st amendment again!!!! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
    So the 1st amendment should read “Any government agency shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    Actually yes. That is exactly how it works. Congress passes laws that create and define federal agencies. Congress delegates certain powers and authority to those agencies.

    Certainly a “chief,” such as yourself, understands the concept of delegation.

    So yes, Congress is ultimately responsible for the actions of federal agencies.

    Afchief wrote:

    So any government agency can make law? Is that what you are telling me???

    Yes that is exactly what I am telling you. Federal agencies can and do make laws. Congress has delegated (there’s that word again) that authority to them. These laws are compiled in a multi-volume set of 50 titles called the Code of Federal Regulations (or CFR for short). For example laws created by OSHA can be found in CFR title 29.

    I hope this helps your understanding of how our government works.

  • BarkingDawg

    Civics lesson # 2

    The claim has been made by afchief that the establishment clause of the first amendment does not apply to public schools.

    First, as I pointed out in lesson 1, the term Congress in the 1A refers not just to the legislative body, but to all those political entities authorized and delegated by Congress to perform various government functions.

    Next, the question is: does the establishment clause of 1A apply to the states?

    Interestingly, when the first 8 amendments were written, they only applied to the federal government. States could, and often did, enact laws that violated one or more of those amendments.

    This was changed by the 14th amendment. The privileges and immunities clause of the 14A states:

    “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. . .”

    This clause was specifically inserted into the 14A to apply the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution to the states.

    So the answer is yes, the establishment clause of the US Constitution applies to the states as well as to the federal Government.

    Are you following this so far, afchief?

  • BarkingDawg

    Civics lesson 3

    I have described in lessons 1and 2 how the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution (including the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment) apply to federal government agencies, and how the Privleges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment extends those protections to the states as well.

    How then is a public school subject to the restrictions guaranteed by the US Cinstitution?

    Well to start, you have to recognize that there are only two (groups of) governments allowed by the US Constitution. Those are the federal government and the individual states. That’s it. Cities, counties, etc are not mentioned at all.

    This is where we have to grasp the concept of political subdivisions. Encyclopedia fot com defines political subdivisions thus:

    POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS are local governments created by the states to help fulfill their obligations. Political subdivisions include counties, cities, towns, villages, and special districts such as school districts, water districts, park districts, and airport districts.

    So all local cities, counties, school districts, etc. derive their authority and legislative powers from the state. The state has delegated those powers AND the restrictions placed on those powers by the US Constitution, to the political subdivision.

    Thus a state university is subject to the same establishment clause of the first amendment that Congress is.

    I hope this helps some of you understand how this works.

    • afchief

      It’s ;amazing liberals do not know how to read!!! The 1st amendment states; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

      Congress is the only one to make laws in our country. So how is a school making law by putting bibles in their commons area. What law was written.

      Saying a prayer after a football game does not establish a religion. Only Congress can do that…but they can’t. If Congress can’t establish a religion, how can a school establish one?

      Only in America, with our un-Godly, un-righteous courts, could such a charade have been foisted upon us. There is no separation between the church and the state. They just tell us that there is and then they use that to dredge our children through the cesspool of secular humanism.

      Free exercise means free exercise.The school can put bibles in their dorms or not. The same is true with all schools. Free exercise! Not ACLU enforced “disestablishment” of Christianity.

      Your post is a lie!!!

      • BarkingDawg

        Your argument that the establishment clause does not apply because the university is not Congress, means that the free excercise clause does not apply as well for the same reason.

        Your logic is extremely flawed.

        • afchief

          Since liberals have a hard time understanding. Let me help the little liberal cranium!!!

          The 1st amendment states that Congress shall make NO law establishing a state religion. Why? Because this what Great Britain did when the Founders left England. The 1st amendment also states that Congress shall not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. Meaning anyone is free to practice any religion they want. Including public schools!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            your logic is a FAIL. If your argument is that because Congress did not pass a specific law ordering bibles to be placed in public schools, then the university is free to do so
            Then
            The logical corollary is that because Congress did not pass a soecific law prohibiting the free excercise of religeon by a school ( a ridiculous concept, by the way), then the schools are free to do so.

            You can’t have it both ways. Either both clauses apply to the University, or neither does.

          • afchief

            You are making me laugh!!!! The 1st amendment is addressing Congress. Who makes laws in our country? Is it that hard for you to understand???? What part of “not prohibiting free exercise” do you not understand?

            Congress is the one who cannot make a state religion

            Congress is the one who cannot prevent free exercise of religion

            Is that too hard for you to understand????????

          • George T

            afchief: The 14th amendme… oh, who am I kidding. You can’t seem to understand anything past the 2nd amendment and your own fragile ego.

        • jmichael39

          Actually, Dawg, his logic is not flawed. The incorporation of the 14th Amendment onto the Bill of Rights has been highly debated for 150 years. It has only been since the FDR administration (and actually mostly much later than that) that those who argue as you do have had any serious success in convincing the SCOTUS to incorporate the 14th Amendment onto various elements of the Bill of Rights.

          Allow me to give you a bit of history, as you are so apt to want to teach us.

          We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution refers to the states it clearly says so. For example, it says in Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” That this only applies to the federal government is evident because in the next section it prohibits states from passing “any Bill of Attainder” or “ex post facto law.”

          This view of the Constitution prevailed even after the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1875, which was several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed in the House of Representatives by James G. Blaine, the speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875. Known as the Blaine Amendment, it reads:

          “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”

          The Blaine Amendment passed in the House but not in the Senate so it was never sent to the states for ratification. The purpose of the amendment — to keep Catholic schools from receiving state funds — is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opening phrase, which should be compared with the opening phrase of the First Amendment:

          “No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          The wording of Blaine Amendment shows that the Congress at the time did not consider the First Amendment to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that bulwark of the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment — was not incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment, then neither was the Fifth Amendment or any of the others in the Bill of Rights.

          If the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the Fifth Amendment, then why did the framers of the Amendment find it necessary to repeat verbatim the “due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment? A simple reading of the 5th and 14th Amendments shows the repetition of certain phrases from the 5th Amendment into the 14th Amendment except that the 14th Amendment specifically identifies the States.

          It is sometimes argued, the “due process” clause incorporates the Bill of Rights; it is merely a shorthand expression for the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Except when you read what Justice Frankfurter emphasized in his concurring opinion in Adamson v. People of State of California (1947):

          “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has an independent potency, precisely as does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in relation to the Federal Government. It ought not to require argument to reject the notion that due process of law meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth.”

          Clearly the Justice is indicating that the ‘due process’ clause in both Amendments have the same meaning, but with different “potency” referring to the application of one to the federal government and one to the states.

          Writing the opinion for the Court in the case of Bartkus v. Illinois (1959), Justice Frankfurter summarized the case against incorporating the “due process” clause:

          “We have held from the beginning and uniformly that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the States any of the provisions of the first eight amendments as such. The relevant historical materials have been canvassed by this Court and by legal scholars. These materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a short-hand incorporation of the first eight amendments making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States.”

          In Adamson v. California, decided just a few months after the Bartkus case, Justice Frankfurter described the negative consequences of the incorporation doctrine:

          “To consider “due process of law” as merely a shorthand statement of other specific clauses in the same amendment is to attribute to the authors and proponents of this Amendment ignorance of, or indifference to, a historic conception which was one of the great instruments in the arsenal of constitutional freedom which the Bill of Rights was to protect and strengthen. A construction which gives to due process no independent function but turns it into a summary of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights would, as has been noted, tear up by the roots much of the fabric of law in the several States, and would deprive the States of opportunity for reforms in legal process designed for extending the area of freedom. It would assume that no other abuses would reveal themselves in the course of time than those which had become manifest in 1791. Such a view not only disregards the historic meaning of “due process.” It leads inevitably to a warped construction of specific provisions of the Bill of Rights to bring within their scope conduct clearly condemned by due process but not easily fitting into the pigeon-holes of the specific provisions. It seems pretty late in the day to suggest that a phrase so laden with historic meaning should be given an improvised content consisting of some but not all of the provisions of the first eight Amendments, selected on an undefined basis, with improvisation of content for the provisions so selected.”

          He also gave the Court a history lesson:

          “Between the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution and the beginning of the present membership of the Court — a period of 70 years — the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by 43 judges. Of all these judges, only one, who may respectfully be called an eccentric exception, ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments theretofore limiting only the Federal Government, and that due process incorporated those eight Amendments as restrictions upon the powers of the States. Among these judges were not only those who would have to be included among the greatest in the history of the Court, but — it is especially relevant to note — they included those whose services in the cause of human rights and the spirit of freedom are the most conspicuous in our history. It is not invidious to single out Miller, Davis, Bradley, Waite, Matthews, Gray, Fuller, Holmes, Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo (to speak only of the dead) as judges who were alert in safeguarding and promoting the interests of liberty and human dignity through law. But they were also judges mindful of the relation of our federal system to a progressively democratic society and therefore duly regardful of the scope of authority that was left to the States even after the Civil War.”

          “The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the States all the rules which it seemed important to Eighteenth Century statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments, was rejected by judges who were themselves witnesses of the process by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution.”

          “Those reading the English language with the meaning which it ordinarily conveys, those conversant with the political and legal history of the concept of due process, those sensitive to the relations of the States to the central government as well as the relation of some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the process of justice, would hardly recognize the Fourteenth Amendment as a cover for the various explicit provisions of the first eight Amendments.”

      • BarkingDawg

        congress is the only one to make laws in our country.

        States don’t make laws?

        Cities don’t make laws?

        The Code of Federal Regulations are not laws?

        • afchief

          Let me help you understand how laws are made! Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch (state or federal), or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws.

          Those are the only TWO ways to make laws in our country. Do you know what legislative means? Or do you need some help?

          • BarkingDawg

            So federal regulations are not legally binding laws?

            Try that argument in tax court, I dare you.

          • afchief

            The IRS and EPA are violations of the Constitution. They have NO right under our Constitution to make law. Only the Legislative branch does!

            Read the Constitution! You might be enlightened!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            You are a nut job.

            Article 1, Section 8

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

            Try again, please.

          • cobalt100

            No sir, it is you who is intellectually impoverished.

          • afchief

            Yes, liberals really are dumb!!! Show me in the Constitution where it authorizes the IRS and EPA?

            Waiting…………………….

          • Elie Challita

            So do you think you have the right to not pay taxes. or to file your taxes in a way not approved by the IRS, or to dump toxic material on federal land or in water supplies?

          • afchief

            Another person ignorant of our Constitution!!! Does is say the IRS or Congress?

            Section. 8.

            The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            Who makes the laws in our country? The EPA or Congress?

            Section. 1.

            All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

          • Elie Challita

            That’s not what you said earlier. You literally claimed that the IRS and the EPA were violations of the Constitution.

          • afchief

            Ahhh….yea…they are violations of our Constitution. I just showed you why.

          • Elie Challita

            No, you didn’t show me why. You said that legislation has to go through Congress. Great, we agree on that.
            But executive agencies usually have leeway to interpret laws and how to best apply them using their resources. Do you disagree?

          • afchief

            What? The legislative branch IS congress. 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. The EPA has no authority to make laws according to our Constitution. NONE! The IRS has no authority to tax anyone. Only Congress does.

            Again, both are a violation of our Constitution!!!

          • Elie Challita

            You’re sidestepping: Do executive agencies like the IRS or the EPA have any leeway regarding allocation of resources or applications of the law?

          • afchief

            What? I told you both are a violation of our Constitution and both should be dissolved.

            Congress cannot delegate it’s duties.

          • Elie Challita

            You’re not answering the question. Why are you running away?

            Do executive agencies like the IRS or the EPA have any leeway regarding allocation of resources or applications of the law?

          • afchief

            NO! And I have already told you why. Don’t ask again!

          • Elie Challita

            So executive agencies have to consult the legislative branch before approving every single use of resources or actions?

        • jmichael39

          CFR, while having the force of law, is not itself law, but the rules for the application of a law.

      • Mark

        Truth hurts. Instead of a complete argument, you end in calling the post a lie. Stay classy friend.

        • afchief

          Another liberal who can’t read. It’s an epidemic!!! No wonder our schools are dropping in the world every year.

          Liberals can’t read!!!!!!

      • acontraryview

        “Congress is the only one to make laws in our country.”

        That is incorrect. State legislatures, as well as city councils and county commissions can also make law.

        • afchief

          Wrong! Go get a book and study how law is made!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Given that your statement that only Congress is empowered to enact law is false, it would appear that you are one who needs a better education in how law is made.

          • afchief

            You know the more I converse with liberals and homosexuals, the more I see how truly a mental disorder it is!!!

          • acontraryview

            The more posts of yours I read the more I realize how horribly misinformed you are about how laws in our country are made and that when it is pointed out that you are incorrect, you, rather than learning, resort to personal attacks. I feel sorry for you.

          • afchief

            The reprobate minds speaks. No one listens!

    • afchief

      It’s amazing that so many people don’t understand what the word “establishment” means, nor the history behind the religious aspect of the 1st Amendment, i.e. the persecution of persons that didn’t belong to the official State sponsored religion. As a frame of reference, people that belonged to a religion other than the “established” State religion were treated much the same way that Christians are treated by the PC police today. If you lived in a Catholic country you were Catholic, or else. A Protestant country? No Catholics allowed.

      Many people came here precisely because they were able to worship freely, without governmental interference. This was later codified in the First Amendment.

      The “no law prohibiting the free expression thereof” wording doesn’t get much attention. It doesn’t mean that you may practice your religion as long as you do it indoors and keep quiet about it.

      The First amendment was meant to protect religious expression from the Government, not to protect the Government from religious expression.

      Yes, more proof liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

    • afchief

      Hey “Mr. Wacko civic lesson” , did the founders write the Constitution to protect the people from the government? Or the government from the people?

      Let’s see how smart you are!!!!!

    • FoJC_Forever

      Your view of history, the Constitution, and the role that US government bodies are to play in this country is so skewed and messed up that nothing you “teach” is worth learning. You are indeed just a barking dog wanting attention and only making noise.

  • Adenike Adeyemi

    What is the Northern Illinois University’s mission and value? Is respecting belief of others part of it? If not, I rest my comments but if yes, I think they have contradicted themselves. A guest house should be culturable; having it their mind that customers can come from different places and different countries and they should be prepare to accommodate them. A bible and Koran can be in the room and if there is any other religion books can also be in the room.
    I see their action as discriminating. They danced to the tone of the devil. ”God is not a respecter of any person.”

    • BarkingDawg

      If you don’t like it, feel free to sue the university.

  • Joe Soap

    They could always go the other way of course and place Koran’s, Torah’s, Gita’s etc in the rooms. Probably just simpler to remove the bibles. Why do you even care? I doubt anyone was even reading them. Probably make good door stops though.