Atheist Activist Group Takes Issue With Poster Promoting Biblical Marriage at Clerk’s Office

Poster-compressed (1)KIOWA, Co. — A prominent professing atheist group is taking issue with a poster quoting a Scripture about marriage that is displayed at a county clerk’s office in Colorado.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently sent email correspondence to several county clerks and two state lawmakers who had been discussing in an email chain this summer how those with religious objections to same-sex “marriage” should proceed with handling the issuance of licenses.

As part of the discussion, Elbert County Clerk Dallas Schroeder explained that he had a poster created last year that cites a Scripture about marriage. The poster partially quotes from I Corinthians 7:2, and reads, “…let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

“I talked with a local artist, who is also a Christian, and he created a beautiful poster which I have had hanging for about a year,” Schroeder replied in the group message. “There is no way to miss it if you are in for a marriage license. It is a picture of a bride standing on a hill with the groom walking up the hill to meet her.”

“I am not denying anyone service,” he said. “My thought process is that they have to see the poster and if they choose to violate God’s written word, then that is on their head. I have warned them.”

FFRF recently sent a letter of complaint to those involved in the conversation, not only to contend that the clerks “must issue licenses to gay couples whatever [their] personal religion,” but to also assert that Schroeder’s poster is unlawful.

“Mr. Schroeder is displaying words from his religion’s holy book to issue a religious warning to all citizens in a government building,” wrote staff attorney Andrew Seidel, according to a news release about the matter. “This is unconstitutional.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“Mr. Schroeder is abusing a public office to further his personal religion,” he said.

But Elbert County Sheriff Shayne Heap is rejecting FFRF’s argument, and has refused to listen to the group’s complaint.

“These conversations are initiated to pervert the truth and do whatever is necessary to get the results you want,” Heap replied.

“I’m going to get back to work and I’m going leave the cross in my office, the Bible on my desk and I support the clerk’s constitutional rights,” he proclaimed.


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
  • Nidalap

    Wowzers! Another sheriff actually taking a stand like a man! Everyone notice how refreshing it just felt to read that? Personal courageousness is rapidly diminishing to the point that it can be considered a superpower. Right up there with common sense and logic…

    • gizmo23

      What does getting a legal contract from the state have to do with a Biblical marriage?

      • ppp777

        That’s where it comes from .

        • gizmo23

          Thers is no requirement that a couple believe or even love each other. It may have been linked more in the past but today it’s just a legal contract from the states point of view

          • ppp777

            There is certainly one basic arequirement for marriage and that is one is male and the other is female , no more then if you want the colour pink you must mix red with white .

          • Ralf Spoilsport

            There is certainly one basic arequirement for marriage and that is one is male and the other is female

            Not in the US, no.

          • afchief

            It sure is! The SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion. No law has changed! Only congress can make or change laws.

          • acontraryview

            “The SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion.”

            No, it is a ruling. If the SCOTUS rules that a law violates the Constitution, it is no longer enforceable.

            “No law has changed!”

            No law has to be changed. An existing law is simply not enforceable.

            “Only congress can make or change laws.”

            You know that is false.

          • afchief

            More proof that liberalism and homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            So the SCOTUS has more power than the executive and legislative? Is that how our government works? When SCOTUS makes a ruling the other two branches do not have to agree? Is that what you are saying???? That we do not have three equal branches of government and all three do not have to come into agreement before a law is passed or changed? Is that how are government works????

            Geeez lousie……….another product of our indoctrination system we call public schools. No wonder this country is in so much trouble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “So the SCOTUS has more power than the executive and legislative?”

            The SCOTUS has the ability to rule on the constitutionality of laws. If the SCOTUS rules that a law violates protections provided by the Constitution, then the law is no longer enforceable.

            “When SCOTUS makes a ruling the other two branches do not have to agree?”

            No, they do not.

            “Is that what you are saying????”

            Yes, that is what I am saying.

            “That we do not have three equal branches of government and all three do not have to come into agreement before a law is passed or changed?”

            That is correct.

            “Is that how are government works????”

            That’s how our legal system works.

            if you believe any of the above is incorrect, please cite your basis.

          • afchief

            Yes, liberalism and homosexuality truly ARE mental disorders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have absolutely NO understanding of how our government works. NONE!!!! Yes, another product of our indoctrination centers we call public schools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            Silly liberal, ONLY congress makes and changes law. Go get a book and educate yourself. Because right now you have NO clue how our government works. NONE!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Yes, liberalism and homosexuality truly ARE mental disorders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ”

            Basis?

            “You have absolutely NO understanding of how our government works. NONE!!!!”

            How so?

            “But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.”

            It did take time. That does not, however, mean that the other two branches agreed with the ruling.

            “Silly liberal, ONLY congress makes and changes law.”

            No you know we have been over this before. In addition to Congress, state legislatures, county commissions, and city councils can also create law.

            You still have not provided a basis for indicating what I said in my previous post that was wrong.

          • afchief

            How many times do I have to tell you that A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that? Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land. Roe v Wade was an OPINION handed down by judges. Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions.

            Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy? Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            Go get a book on Constitutional law and read it. Because you have NO clue what you are talking about. NONE!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I have read many books on constitutional law. They tend to assign them when you’re in law school.

            All of them say that court decisions are binding. All of my professors taught the same thing, so it must have been a conspiracy.

            After I graduated and went into practice, every attorney who opposed me practiced that way, and every judge I practiced in front of ruled that way. I guess it was a really big conspiracy.

            Maybe you would like to present some evidence to the contrary now?

          • afchief

            Ahhhh the “Make believe lawyer”!!! Okay smart guy, show me where it is written in federal law Roe v. Wade is the law of the land?

            Waiting…………………………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I have no idea what you’re asking. Where is it written that Roe v. Wade is the law? What?

            If you’re asking where courts obtained the right to judicial review, Art III, Clause 2 states “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact.”

            Marbury v. Madison clarified “appellate review” to mean that courts have the right to strike down unconstitutional laws.

            Now, why don’t you show me where it is written that courts issue advisory opinions?

          • afchief

            You know exactly what i’m asking!!! I asked you to show me where it is written in Federal law Roe v. Wade was put into law?

            Let me help you!!!!!! 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.

            So I will ask you again……Where is it written that abortion is legal? WHERE?

            You are NO lawyer if you do not know what the SCOTUS rulings are!!!

            When the Court announces a decision, the individual justice’s opinions are revealed. A unanimous decision (9-0) indicates that the justices were in total agreement. This vote is rare because the cases that have been chosen are the tough ones. Decisions are usually split 6-3, 7-2, or 5-4.

            Along with the decisions, the justices release explanations for each side. A majority opinion is prepared (usually by the senior justice on that side), and the justices whose point of view did not prevail release a dissenting opinion. A justice who agrees with the majority decision but reaches the same conclusion for different reasons sometimes presents a concurring opinion.

            The Supreme Court comprises one chief justice, and a number of associate justices that is determined by Congress. Today, there are a total of nine justices.

            The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.

            Despite the Supreme Court’s limitations in implementing decisions, the justices often set policies that lead to real social change. So even though justices don’t do a great deal of their work in public, and most Americans don’t have a good sense of what they do, their decisions are very important. The Supreme Court has real power in the American political system.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If you’re saying that Supreme Court decisions sometimes need executive action to enforce them, no one would disagree with you.

            But you keep insisting that they actually have no force and effect at all, a point on which no one will AGREE with you. That’s a patently ludicrous argument to make. Why would the Executive Branch need to enforce a law that doesn’t exist? Why did Kennedy send the National Guard to the University of Alabama to enforce Brown v. Board if Brown v. Board wasn’t the law?

          • afchief

            LOL!! What in the heck are you talking about???? Are you telling me the SCOTUS makes or changes law? Is that what you are saying? And you call yourself a lawyer??? Where did you get your law degree from? Marco Polo’s dance studio for the mentally deficient?

            Hey Mr. “Make believe lawyer” The Constitution specifically grants Congress its most important power — the authority to make or change laws.

            NOT THE SCOTUS!!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “LOL!! What in the heck are you talking about???? Are you telling me the SCOTUS makes or changes law? Is that what you are saying?”

            Yes. The Supreme Court can strike down laws as unconstitutional. I am telling you that. We’re all telling you that. Everyone on this site has told you that. You just insist upon not listening.

            “And you call yourself a lawyer??? Where did you get your law degree from? Marco Polo’s dance studio for the mentally deficient?”

            University at Buffalo Law School, actually. Where did you get yours? Do you pick up a lot of legal knowledge processing chickens?

            “For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.”

            You really can’t distill a complicated, messy, political and legal issue like the Indian Removal Act down to a few pithy sentences. Needless to say, that’s not what happened.

          • afchief

            Show me what law was struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional and removed from federal law?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            In Obergefell, any law banning same sex marriage. In Roe, any law banning abortion outright. In Brown v. Board, any state action that allows schools to be segregated. In Griswold v. Connecticut, any law banning contraceptive use by married couples. I’m Santa Fe v. Doe, any state action in which students led a prayer in the official capacity of a school event.

            Shall I go on? There are 200 years worth of cases!

          • afchief

            Wow! More proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder and that you are NO lawyer!!!! Go read the state Constitutions. They STILL read (the ones that have them) that marriage is between one man and one woman!!!

            Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! 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.

            The rest of your statements there is NO law on the books.

            AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A LAWYER??????????????????

            Where did you get your law degree from? Marco Polo’s dance studio for the mentally deficient?”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And yet, every state in the union, including those in the Sixth Circuit, are issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples. If I recall correctly, it started right after Obergefell.

            Why do you suppose that happened?

          • afchief

            I’ve never seen a dumber lawyer. How many times do I need to tell you courts only render “opinions”????? You have absoutely no understanding of how law is made. NONE!!!! 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.

            Are you really this dumb?????

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So all those states that began issuing same-sex marriage licenses after Obergefell, are they just run by people who don’t understand the law?

          • afchief

            And you are hard of hearing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m not “hard of hearing,” it’s just that what you’re saying is absolutely false. And it doesn’t become true simply because you stomp your foot and say it louder.

            Now I’ll ask you again: Why does everyone stop what they’re doing when a Supreme Court ruling is issued if the ruling has no effect?

          • afchief

            Yes, more proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!! You cannot READ!!!! 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.

            Show me where Roe v. Wade is WRITTEN as law!!!

          • George T

            afchief: The defining qualities of your demand are impossible. As several people have stated, it’s not a law.

            You’re functionally asking people to show you the corner of a circle, or to lasso the moon and pull it down from the sky. It’s a foolish request.

          • afchief

            Liberals think the SCOTUS can make or change law from the bench. They can’t!!! That is why we have three branches of government. They all have to be in agreement before a law is made or changed.

            Liberals are dumber than a box of rocks!!!!!

          • George T

            afchief:

            Liberals think the SCOTUS can make or change law from the bench.

            Incorrect generalization and mischaracterization. Straw man argument.

            That is why we have three branches of government.

            We have three branches as a balance of powers.

            They all have to be in agreement before a law is made or changed.

            Incorrect. Only two branches are involved in the process of creating laws.

            Liberals are dumber than a box of rocks!!!!!

            Projecting

          • afchief

            Another liberal who has NO clue!!! The SCOTUS CANNOT legislate from the bench!!! PERIOD!!!

            When the SCOTUS rules on a constitutional issue it takes the legislative branch to make or change the law and the executive to sign it into law.

            LIBERALS ARE DUMBER THAN A BOX OF ROCKS!!!!!

          • George T

            afchief:

            Another liberal who has NO clue!!! The SCOTUS CANNOT legislate from the bench!!! PERIOD!!!

            I didn’t make that claim.

            When the SCOTUS rules on a constitutional issue it takes the legislative branch to make or change the law and the executive to sign it into law.

            Incorrect. When the SCOTUS rules on a constitutional or legal issue, it’s decided. The judicial branch has the power to interpret laws, or deem them unconstitutional which invalidates the law. From there the legislative branch can try to modify an existing law or pass a new law past the POTUS if they disagree.

            LIBERALS ARE DUMBER THAN A BOX OF ROCKS!!!!!

            Use of caps lock and exclamation points doesn’t validate your flawed understanding of our government.

          • afchief

            Again, you are wrong!!! The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.

          • George T

            afchief:

            Again, you are wrong!!!

            Incorrect

            The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited.

            Ah! So you’re moving the goalposts. Changing your argument. We weren’t talking about enforcing SCOTUS decisions before now. We were discussing laws and court decisions based on them.

          • afchief

            I am not changing my argument. This has been my argument from the get-go! The SCOTUS does not make or change law. They only render “opinions”.

          • George T

            afchief: You apparently keep missing that an opinion is different from a Supreme Court decision. A decision can and does change how a law is enforced, or if it’s enforced at all.

          • afchief

            Then show me where the Constitution has been amended to reflect Roe v. Wade? Show where the Constitution has been amended to reflect homo marriage.

            Show me where any of these “opinions” are written as law?

            Waiting……………………………………….

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Hey there, chief. Has a certain poster named Van Der Ven been following you around? Lol.

          • afchief

            Yes! The man is a liar. Everything and anything he says is a lie. There is no truth in him.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            He is indeed reprobate and apostate. Since he got banned from Charisma News, he’s followed me around on at least a half dozen different blogs, attempting to distort Scriptural truths while siding with just about anyone whom I get into debates with.

          • afchief

            I have seen his type before. He tries to distort the truth with his lies and disrupt conversations. I will Just ignore him.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Outstanding advice, chief. I’m doing so also, from here on out.

            Peace to you and yours!

          • afchief

            You to Adam, be blessed! You still posting on Charisma?

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Seldom, nowadays. They seem content with being more P.C. and allowing certain deceivers to post, uninhibited. A far cry from how it was even a year ago. Must have been a leadership change for the worse, as the emails you showed me proved.

            If there’s certain articles where I can provide useful testimonies or Scripture, I’ll post. But otherwise, not the same community it used to be.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            Adam it needs to come down: it seeks to demean the marriage of two same sex couples. It is the clerk stating his religious beliefs in a governmental position. No person should when exercising their constitutional right to marry be forced to tolerate someone’s attempt to denigrate their marriage, His religious position is irrelevant. He is there to dispense licences not to cast moral judgement based on a false understanding of scripture.

          • Guest

            Adam, I just want to give you guys a heads up. There are some LGBT activists posting on Charisma, and they are pretending to be Christians. They’re the ones writing things like claiming they advocate blowing up abortion clinics, etc, and all kinds of things that Christians really wouldn’t do or say. I let the mods know who these guys were (with link proof) and they just ignored the warning and let those guys keep posting. Some of the trolls who were banned from here are now on Charisma (some with multiple accounts), trying to harass Christian posters. Any anti-Obama post gets deleted. I have no idea what’s going on there. They also know the Tracey Marie account is Mensa (I told them) but they are choosing to ignore it. Can’t figure those guys out.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            It don’t surprise me! About a month back, I emailed the site admin and let him know that Mensa came back after being banned under Talkin_Truth. I even linked both accounts together to show the same posting style, same sites followed, as well as the obvious similar use of alliteration in the names.

            I got a reply back saying he’d relay it to the mods. Obviously, nothing was done about it until very recently.

            The site is just going downhill, man. They deleted that whole thread we had earlier, and even deleted a reply I tried to make to Scoopie in an article from a month, prior. Whomever they hired to run their boards (maybe that same guy who emailed chief) isn’t doing a good job. Just some milquetoast, PC agenda where upholding the integrity of God’s Word takes a back seat.

            Thanks for the heads up 🙂 Do you still have those links you sent to the admin?

          • Guest

            Do you mean the Tracey Marie thing or the LBGT activist guy? I have both.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Could you link up both? It could probably help me in recognizing more of their tactics. (and they’ve been getting pretty slick, here lately).

          • Guest

            Adam, my post is “pending” because it contains links. Let’s see if I can tell you how to do the search yourself.

            The Tracey Marie thing is found out by doing a search on her avatar. Right-click the avatar, copy the link that appears, then go to Google image search, type in the link, click the little camera that will appear on the right hand side of the bar, and continue. It will take you to past posts of MM, who used that dog on old Liberaland posts. Same thing with angkorwat’s avatar search. Search his image and you will see it was taken by an LGBT activist by the name of Mark Vogler. Google his twitter and see who he is. After you’ve read this, reply to this post so I can delete it. I make it a habit not to keep posts that personally identify someone.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            I’ve got it, Guest 🙂

          • Guest

            Thanks. 🙂

          • Guest

            Just wanted to let you know that I think they banned Sonny and That Guest. They also banned gears glorified. He’s come back as gizmo23 and petej.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Wha…? They banned “The Guest” that always posted relevant Scriptures? They even temporarily banned BereanMan (wiped out a month’s worth of his posts) at one point, for apparently calling out their shilling of Jeremy Cahn.

            Yeah, I’ve noticed also that when they ban accounts like “gizmo” or “ralph_spoilsport”, they’ll just swap their IP addresses and comeback as “gizmo23”, “ralph_spoilsport4”, etc. They really need a no-nonsense moderator that will stay on top of things and keep booting them back out.

          • Guest

            That Guest criticized the mods, so she was banned. Berean Man got banned for being argumentative, but another mod (not the one who banned him) allowed him back on.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Ah, Heaven forbid somebody criticizes them. I guess good posters such as her weren’t part of “the gains” that they had in mind keeping.

            If I ever start writing blogs on my site, it’ll be a real Christian community–and not some PC “all views are equal” nonsense, either. I’ll keep the place well moderated, and keep the fowls at bay.

          • Guest

            She thought they moved her post. She didn’t realize that you can change how you view the posts by clicking the options on the upper right hand side under your name. When her post wasn’t where she thought it should be, she accused the mods of moving it and changing another one.

            Yes, a place needs to be well-moderated. Charisma is not. I understand why they have the rule that you can’t accuse another poster of not being a Christian, but when they write obviously false things, it’s kind of ridiculous to play a pretend game.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            I agree on that.

            I remember back during Halloween, they had two separate articles concerning the holiday: One for why Christians should embrace it, and one why Christians should take a Biblical stance and avoid it.

            …why post contradicting views? Is this now Hannity & Colmes? Just stick with Scripture.

            But I digress, Guest. I like your posts, and have come across many strong Christians on DISQUS. It’d be great to find a strong, bible-centered Christian community to post and edify each other at.

            And if I can’t find one, I’ll probably end up making one! 🙂

          • Guest

            If you make one, please let me know.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Lord willing, it may end up being in the plans for 2016. I’ll let my fellow brothers and sister know 🙂

          • Guest

            Sounds great. 🙂

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            LOL go to my History I have not followed Atchief. He fled when I was answering his Hebrew. Feel free to go through my posts. You accuse me of following you Adam in Christ and I am doing that until you realise that I share the same interests. Maybe for a day or so. I have bigger fish to fry as I said. I am not following intellectual midgets. Read my posts on Pravda and Der Spiegel.

          • George T

            afchief: Again, you are making a demand that doesn’t relate to what I’ve said. Furthermore your rude demand is nonsensical. It would be akin to demanding that you show me where in the bible I can find a recipe for Chili’s salsa. …or where in Shakespeare’s works I can find a link to Google’s main website.

          • afchief

            Nonsensical???? If Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, then show me where in federal law it is written.

            You seem to think the SCOTUS can legislate from the bench. Show me WHERE they can.

          • George T

            afchief: Whoa!!! You just changed your demand. What happened to every law being enshrined in The Constitution? You’ve been asking where everything is in The Constitution. Why are you changing it up again?

            Now, to address what you’re trying to ask, Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision regarding existing laws and structures of government.

          • afchief

            You are going in circles and dodging the question. I have asked you several times…..if the SCOTUS renders an “opinion”, where is it written that it becomes law?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            In Article III, which grants the power of appellate review, and interpreted by Marbury v. Madison to mean that SCOTUS can render a law unconstitutional.

            As I’ve told you many, many times.

          • afchief

            Ahh Mr. “Make believe lawyer” if a law is rendered unconstitutional by the SCOTUS….for example states constitutions that state marriage is between one man and one woman…where is it written in federal law now that two homos can marry? Why do states still have in their constitutions that marriage is between one man and one woman?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Because rights are not affirmative. You don’t need it written anywhere that you’re allowed to eat a banana. Does that mean eating a banana is illegal?

            Why are same sex marriage bans still written in the state constitutions? Because no one has bothered to take them out. Doesn’t mean they’re enforceable.

            If same sex couples couples can’t get married, why are they?

          • afchief

            Oh brother!!!! Rights are not affirmative? So a county clerks does not have to issue homo marriage certificates. Because that is her right!!!

            “Why are same sex marriage bans still written in the state constitutions?”

            Because they are still state law!!! The Federal government has NO authority to overturn them IAW the 10th amendment!

            “If same sex couples couples can’t get married, why are they?”

            Because people are sheeple!!! A court decision does not carry the force of law, and it most certainly does not “change” the law. They just tell the sheeple that they can, and the sheeple believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • George T

            afchief: I’m not dodging your question. I’m explaining why it’s a poorly formed question. I’ve repeatedly said that SCOTUS doesn’t create laws, so why do you keep asking for the law they’ve created?

            It is a decision about the reading of existing laws and how it’s to be applied and enforced, and how it should be considered in further court cases.

          • afchief

            Also, the SCOTUS cannot change laws. Only the legislative branch can do that.

          • George T

            afchief: Also, I didn’t say that SCOTUS can change laws.

          • afchief

            Then what is your point?

          • George T

            afchief: To correct your poorly worded and/or ill-conceived questions. You have a tragic history of asking questions that invalidate themselves.

          • acontraryview

            “How many times do I have to tell you that A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that? ”

            You don’t have to tell me even once. Court rulings are not laws nor have I ever suggested they are. They are rulings. The judiciary cannot create law. They can, however, render existing laws unenforceable.

            “Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?”

            Yes, I am aware of all those cases. In each, the Court upheld existing laws.

            “The law cannot be changed by a “judge.””

            Agreed. The enforceability of a law, however, can be changed based upon a judicial ruling.

            “If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.”

            Which, as you pointed out, is actually the case, as in the case of sodomy laws. At one point those laws were upheld. Later, those laws were ruled to be unconstitutional. The same with laws banning interracial marriage or full rights for non-whites. You unwittingly provide the basis for proving the your point was false.

          • afchief

            Did I not say that liberalism and homosexuality is a mental disorder? I sure did and you posts are proof!!!!

            Show me where homo marriage is legal? Show me where the Constitution has been amended? Show me where state constitutions have changed the definition of marriage? Show me where Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? Show me where the Constitution has been amended to reflect this?

            Waiting……………………………………………………

          • acontraryview

            “Show me where homo marriage is legal?”

            Do you want me to provide you with a map of the US? It’s legal in every state. If you’d like, I can also provide you with a list of other countries where same-gender marriage is legal. Just let me know.

            “Show me where the Constitution has been amended?”

            The Constitution does not contain laws. The Constitution does not mention marriage. The Constitution does not require amendment in order for same-gender marriage to be legal.

            “Show me where state constitutions have changed the definition of marriage?”

            I’m not aware that any have been changed. Nor is it necessary that they are. Laws prohibiting same-gender marriage are no longer enforceable.

            “Show me where Roe v. Wade is the law of the land?”

            Roe v Wade is not a law. It is a court case.

            “Show me where the Constitution has been amended to reflect this?”

            The Constitution does not contain laws.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Show me where the Supreme Court is not allowed to rule that a law is unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            Since marriage was NEVER mentioned in the Constitution, it is NOT unconstitutional. The Fed Government has zero Constitutional Authority to redefine marriage or violate the 9 & 10th Amendment (or the others for that matter). The opinion of SCOTUS is just that, opinion and not the Law.

            The States and Counties need to begin exercising their 9th and 10th Amendments by simply ignoring or nullifying outrageous SCOTUS rulings. And should 0lawless and his Dept. of INjustice attempt to use force, then States should meet that force with thousands of outraged citizens engaging in civil disobedience

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The 9th Amendment? How is that being violated? That actually supports same-sex marriage being legal, in that marriage is one of the unenumerated rights, (which the SC has consistently maintained to be the case) that can’t be denied to citizens of the US.

          • afchief

            Sorry, but this ruling was predicated upon the 14th Amendment, which has overruled the entire Constitution. The 14th Amendment is an instrument of international commercial maritime law, not the Biblical common-law administered by the State governments which recognize and protect our God given “natural” rights i.e man and woman marriage which is defined in state constitutions.

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

            Federal (international law) law is superior to State law, consequently the 14th Amendment overruled the Bible based State laws that contradict it, as well as the 9th and 10th Amendments. There is no more “States’ rights”.

            There is nothing “American” about the 14th Amendment and anything “federal”. This is the same “alien jurisdiction” our Founders rebelled against and fought a Revolution to free us from. Through international treaties and contracts such as the 14th Amendment, Social Security

            Act, and the UN Charter, we have reduced ourselves to regulation by a global commercial authority, which does not protect rights.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That totally didn’t answer my question. How do you see that the 9th Amendment is being violated? Also, this country does not go by “Biblical law”. Our laws and constitution are not based solely on the Bible or Christianity. I won’t deny that they are somewhat, given that a large number of the Founding Fathers were Christians (but it’s really less than what alot of people think, some of them probably wouldn’t be considered Christians nowadays!), but I always like to remind people, only 2, maybe 3 of the 10 Commandments are things that have any parallels in our law. And what are those? Don’t kill, and don’t steal, and don’t bear false witness (perjury, if you look at it that way). Hardly things that only the Bible says you shouldn’t do.

          • afchief

            The SCOTUS ruling plainly violates the 1st and 9th Amendments by denying American Christians, Jews, and Muslims the right of free religious expression through consensual marriage with the ability to ignore and refuse marriages to those individuals that do not meet proper religious criterion to marry; thus this flawed ruling can be ignored.

            The Ninth Amendment was ratified as a timeless means to protect all rights not explicitly enumerated throughout the Constitution. Marriage and sexual activities held between consenting adults (free from government intervention) can be considered extensions of 1st and 9th Amendment rights until such time as three-quarters of the States should ratify an amendment which deprives we the people of this freedom. Gays have a right to freely conduct themselves in any way they choose so long as they do not deprive others of life, liberty, or property. And government has no sound legal basis to take these rights away from them.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And you or anyone that disapproves to same sex marriage should have that right to express that disapproval all you want. If you’re talking about a church, they should have the right to ignore and refuse, recognize, or not recognize, whatever marriages they want. Churches don’t have authority over what the Constitution and/or The Supreme Court says, though. And they don’t have authority over civil marriage.

            ” Gays have a right to freely conduct themselves in any way they choose
            so long as they do not deprive others of life, liberty, or property.”

            Yes, you’re absolutely right. Does having a legally recognized marriage deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property?

          • acontraryview

            “There is certainly one basic arequirement for marriage and that is one is male and the other is female”

            Haven’t been keeping up, have you? That is no longer a requirement for civil marriage in the US.

          • ppp777

            It is a requirement according to God and natural law , and im only too well aware what is going on in the world today

          • acontraryview

            More accurately, it is a requirement based upon what you have chosen to believe is God’s word. Unless you are God, you cannot say with certainty what his views are. Are you God, pp?

          • ppp777

            Where in his word does it indicate God thinks different , where in natural law does it indicate different , nowhere .

          • George T

            Where in his word does it indicate God thinks different

            Can you show us the words of this god that you claim?

            where in natural law does it indicate different

            Where in natural law does a legal contract matter?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “There is certainly one basic arequirement for marriage and that is one is male and the other is female”

            Nope, not a requirement any more, not in this country.

          • ppp777

            It is a requirement in any country as long as male and females exist .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            According to your religion, maybe, but not according to the law.

          • ppp777

            According to plain natural law and the laws of logic and non contradiction , you have clearly been given over to a reprobate mind .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            For pointing out what the law in this country is? Okay, whatever. Lol

          • ppp777

            You may as well legalise marrying apes , I won’t laugh .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you don’t see what the difference between that and same-sex marriage is, I can’t help you.

          • ppp777

            According to your demonic theory of evolution we are no different than animals , not surprising you reason like one .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No different from animals? We are animals, just the smartest of the bunch. (third smartest, if you read the Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy books)

          • ppp777

            ” Smartest ” , then what is your excuse ?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oooh, what a snappy comeback, I am utterly devastated. Excuse me, for I must bow down to your sparkling wit. (sarcasm, in case you’re not sure)

          • ppp777

            The real tragedy is there is a lot of reprobates like you in this world , but Gods word must be for filled .

      • Nidalap

        Did someone feed you after midnight? Isn’t this story about a poster?
        Ha! I just posted. That makes me a poster too! I just posted a post in a thread about a poster! (^_^)

        • gizmo23

          Weird

          • Kandy

            Did you ever watch Gremlins? When Gizmo got wet it had babies and when fed after midnight they become Gremlins. The gremlin caused a lot of trouble in a town at Christmas time. It was a dumb movie but my daughter loved it. And the second one as well. She made me get both movies for her. Google it and watch it. Than you will understand what he meant. Have a good fun filled Sunday.

          • gizmo23

            I forgot about that movie when I choose my name lol

          • Kandy

            At least now you know it was not as weird as you though. Mr Gremlin. Stay out of the sun………….

          • gizmo23

            I won’t eat after midnight

          • Kandy

            Good.Remember only eat before midnight.

    • acontraryview

      “I’m going to get back to work and I’m going leave the cross in my office, the Bible on my desk and I support the clerk’s constitutional rights,”

      What constitutional right is he referring to? There is no constitutional right for a government official as a part of their job to promote religious belief.

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

      I do believe he has them all figured out. “These conversations are initiated to pervert the truth and do whatever is necessary to get the results you want.” It’s a pretty succinct summary of how the FFRF works. Why have a conversation with someone who is only interested in getting their own way? That’s not actually called conversation anyhow.

  • Mark Moore

    Biblical marriage with sex slaves, concubines, multiple wives is a wonderful thing. I especially like the idea that I can rape who I like for fifty silver coins. I like the idea of murdering unruly children too. The bible is so great. I think I’ll go get on my unicorn and go find a woman that needs raping and then I’ll marry her so I have her around for my pleasure when I like. Thank you, God.

  • gizmo23

    Biblical marriage and legal marriage are 2 separate contracts

    • ppp777

      Marriage is a covenant between a nan and a woman it is not a business or is that too much for you to understand .

      • gizmo23

        From the state point of view it is nothing more than a legal contract, no emotional or spiritual component needed

        • ppp777

          I am obviously not getting through to you .

        • Madman WithSwag

          The “State” should NOT be involved! Marriage is between a man and a woman ….period!!!

          • gizmo23

            So why all the fuss about gay marriage

          • ppp777

            There is no such thing in reality .

          • gizmo23

            Legal yes. Religious to each his own

          • ppp777

            Certainly not , that is Gods demain

          • George T

            pop777:

            Certainly not , that is Gods demain

            What is a “demain”?

      • acontraryview

        Civil marriage exists to establish legal standing for the couple, or is that too much for you to understand?

        • ppp777

          Between a man and a woman yes , between two same sex couples —- certainly not .

          • acontraryview

            So it is too much for you to understand. Well, no surprise there. Those with extreme conservative views have been shown to have lower IQs.

            “between two same sex couples”

            Two couples aren’t allowed to marry, PP. Only two individuals. You are proving my point.

          • ppp777

            Your nit picking semantics and pure stupidity is clear to see and is now getting to a point of being tedious .

          • acontraryview

            “pure stupidity is clear”

            What pure stupidity is that, dear? Are you saying that two people of the same gender are NOT allowed to enter into civil marriage?

            Pointing out that “two couples” is not the same as two individuals, is not “nit-picking semantics”. That you view it as such simply bolsters my point.

          • ppp777

            Talking about ” Given over to a reprobate mind ” , you need to give yourself over to Christ otherwise your finished .

          • acontraryview

            How is pointing out the reality that two citizens of the same gender are allowed to legally marry in the US a sign of being “given over to a reprobate mind”?

            “you need to give yourself over to Christ otherwise your finished .”

            While I certainly understand that you believe that to be true, pp, unless you are God, you cannot say so with 100% certainty. Are you God, pp?

          • ppp777

            Put a bullet in your brain and you will find out for certain , but then it will be too late , other then that use your God given brain and use your common sense and less on emotion [ absolutes is the key ] , and get into Gods word [ the bible ] .

          • George T

            ppp777: Why do you absolutely assume that god’s word is the bible?

          • acontraryview

            “Put a bullet in your brain”

            Ahhhh…how sweet. Is that how you show your Christian spirit?

            So you can’t cite how stating the facts regarding civil marriage is a sign of being “given over to a reprobate mind”. Got it. Thanks

            “get into Gods word [ the bible ] .”

            While I understand that you believe the Bible to be God’s word, unless you are God, you cannot say so with certainty. I’ll ask again: Are you God, pp?

  • Michael C

    To be perfectly honest, If I saw this poster while waiting in line to get a marriage license for me and another dude, I’d think it was cute. It’s sweet and sappy and romantic.

    After hearing the offensive and disgusting reason it was placed on the wall, I’d feel rather differently about it. After finding out that it’s only true purpose is to demean me and my legally valid and equal relationship, I’d want it taken down.

    • John Buchanan

      Two dudes getting married is sinful , unnatural and offends God. I’d suggest you take it up with Him

      • Ralf Spoilsport

        Only some gods are offended. People believe in different ones.

        • Representative

          believing in the wrong thing is life-threatening

          • Ralf Spoilsport

            Yep — some kids die because their parents pray to the Christian god instead of getting medical help.

          • Nidalap

            Oh? But if those same children had been killed in the womb by those parents, you’d be taking the other side of the issue, now wouldn’t you just?

          • Ralf Spoilsport

            What’s this got to do with government promotion of religion? Oh, right — nothing.

          • Nidalap

            Logical reply to your post (Ha! Poster!) If you want to stay on topic, stay there! 🙂

          • Ralf Spoilsport

            Your reply was just a red herring.

          • Nidalap

            Don’t be silly! I’m not underwriting any new issue of stocks or bonds pending approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, so have circulated no such tentative prospectus! (^_^)

          • BarkingDawg

            Who’s doing the threatening.

      • gizmo23

        There are thousands of things in culture that offend God. Most are acceptable to the vast majority of people

      • Michael C

        Cool, bro. Thanks for the tip.

      • acontraryview

        “Two dudes getting married is sinful , unnatural and offends God. ”

        While you are certainly entitled to your beliefs, John, unless you are God, you cannot say with certainty what offends him. Are you God, John?

        • John Buchanan

          Romans 1 clearly makes it plain . When you have the Word of God given unto humanity, you know God’s commandments. Scripture makes it clear that homosexuality is an abomination unto God . It’s against God’s design

          • acontraryview

            That you have chosen to believe that the Bible is the word of God, your choosing to believe that does not make it so.

      • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

        You are right. In the Bible we learn what Offends God and what is sinful in His eyes.

      • acontraryview

        I discussed it with him. He’s cool with it. He said your beliefs are wrong.

        • John Buchanan

          Who is him ? You mean the God of your own creation ? Is that the God who approves of all you do , without penalty or consequence ? Here’s a good word for you-deception . Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived . God is not mocked , for whatsoever a man soeth, that shall he reap. For those that sow to the flesh shall reap destruction , but those that sow to the Spirit shall reap everlasting life.
          Just because it feels good to your flesh doesn’t make it good . You can try to rationalize it any way you want . The real question is does it please God ? You already know it’s sin . The wages of sin is death . No thanks.

          • acontraryview

            “Who is him ?”

            God

            “You mean the God of your own creation ?”

            All concepts of God were created by man, including yours.

            “Is that the God who approves of all you do , without penalty or consequence ?”

            Oh goodness no.

            “Just because it feels good to your flesh doesn’t make it good .”

            Agreed.

            “You can try to rationalize it any way you want .”

            I don’t have to rationalize it.

            “The real question is does it please God ?”

            I believe it does.

            “You already know it’s sin .”

            No. That is what you believe. I do not share that belief.

            “The wages of sin is death .”

            We all die.

          • John Buchanan

            For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son , that whosoever believes on Him would not perish but have everlasting life . John 3:16
            Those words resonate with the hearts of all humanity, whether you choose to believe in Jesus is a choice which is called free will . So yes, we all die in this earth suit . I don’t speak of the temporal but of the eternal .
            Being a whosoever is a choice but you must choose .

          • acontraryview

            “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son”

            To suggest that somehow this was a huge sacrifice on the part of God because it was his only son, when God could have made as many sons as he wanted to, is nonsensical.

            “Those words resonate with the hearts of all humanity”

            No, they do not. They only resonate with those who have chosen to believe that is true.

    • Patrick Van Der Ven

      Too right it needs to go.

  • Ralf Spoilsport

    And clerks who are against divorcees remarrying can post quotes from Jesus, like “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery”

    And clerks who are against interracial marriage can post quotes from LDS leader Spencer W. Kimball against race-mixing.

    But why would clerks want to inflict their prejudices on the general public?

    • John Buchanan

      Jesus addressed divorce and said it’s allowed because of the hardening of the heart, and no place in scripture does it say interracial marriage is sin. Romans 1 makes it plain that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, separating one from the life of God, is for those given over for the degrading of their body due to lust and is not without penalty .

      • Ralf Spoilsport

        None of these religious opinions belong in a government office, of course.

        • afchief

          They are breaking NO law!!!

      • acontraryview

        “and no place in scripture does it say interracial marriage is sin.”

        Who are you to determine what is and is not a valid religious belief?

        In Loving v Virginia, Judge Bazile wrote in his ruling: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

        • John Buchanan

          Why would I care what Judge Bazile wrote ? I know what The Supreme Judge of the Universe wrote in the Word of God . I’d suggest you take it up with Him before Judgement Day .

          • acontraryview

            So you only care about your interpretation of the Bible. Should I then assume that you believe that your interpretation is the correct one, and all others are incorrect?

            I’ll ask again: Who are you to determine what is ad is not a valid religious belief?

            “I know what The Supreme Judge of the Universe wrote in the Word of God”

            More accurately, you know what you have chosen to believe is the Word of God. Whether that is true or not, you cannot be certain. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          • John Buchanan

            Oh I am certain . I am fully persuaded . I am in relationship with the only true and living God . I know Him personally and I am betting my life and the one to come that the Bible is truth , and it’s the number one selling book of all time . All scripture is God breathed . I know my name is written in the Lambs Book of Life because of my acknowledgement of Jesus Christ , who is the Son of God , who went up on a cross and died for the sins of the world, rose again from the grave to conquer death, hell and the grave, and Who now sits at the right hand of the Father. Because of Him, I’ll be getting in . Therefore my eternity is secure. How’s everything with you and Jesus ?

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. But they remain just that…beliefs. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact.

            “All scripture is God breathed .”

            Why? Because they writers said it was?

            “I know my name is written in the Lambs Book of Life”

            You don’t “know”, you believe.

            “Therefore my eternity is secure.”

            Perhaps. None of us will know for certain until we die.

            “How’s everything with you and Jesus ?”

            Good. Thanks for asking.

          • tyler

            I feel that is a risky bet you’re taking. If you were born in most other countries in the world, you’d have a different religion – and you’d be just as convinced with that religion that you are as a Christian.

          • John Buchanan

            Tyler , I think what you say is very accurate in the sense that If I were born in India my family’s religion might be Hindu , therefore my religion might be Hinduism . Perhaps if I were born into a Persian family in Iran, then logic says my religion would be Islam . I however am not religious . In fact I hate religion . Religion is full of rules, regulations and the traditions of man . Religion is about being good enough and doing enough good . Nobody was Jesus harder on than Pharisees who thought themselves pious enough to get into heaven . I am not religious . I have had a personal encounter with Christ . He has made Himself real and known in my life . So I’ve had an experience with the Lord . Jesus changed my life

          • Mike Laborde

            I know that you are sorely outnumbered.

          • acontraryview

            In what way?

          • Mike Laborde

            85% of Americans plus about 50% of the world believe in the One True God Creator , and not Alah Islam.

          • acontraryview

            “85% of Americans”

            Basis?

            Christian adherents account for approximately 31.5% of the world’s population. The are vastly outnumbered by those who are not Christian.

          • Mike Laborde

            I don’t know how you believe your information and will disagree with you.

          • acontraryview

            So you have no basis for your numbers. Got it. Thanks.

            “I don’t know how you believe your information”

            Facts are facts. You are certainly free to disagree with facts, but why would you do so?

          • Mike Laborde

            Your facts are bogus. Your fact finders never lived when the universe was created and scientist on your side dream up so called “facts” Whereas the Biblical account also has real historical facts and writings in many other publications.
            . Besides , atheist, is an oxy moron. In that you war against something or someone that you don’t believe exist. You fight so hard, that just by your fight, you acknoledge that there is a Creator God. I wouldn’t waste my time on something I “thought” does not exist.

          • acontraryview

            “Your facts are bogus.”

            Since you don’t know the source for the facts I presented, how is it you are able to state they are “bogus”? I’d be more than happy to provide you with the support data for my numbers.

            Speaking of bogus, I asked you before what your basis was for your statement “85% of Americans plus about 50% of the world believe in the One True God Creator”, but you failed to provide it. is that because you can’t?

            “Your fact finders never lived when the universe was created”

            How is that relevant to the statistics regarding the number of people who state they are members of certain faiths? Or, to quote you from below, “What does that have to do with the price of apples?”

            “In that you war against something or someone that you don’t believe exist.”

            I’m not an atheist.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Being an atheist is not an oxymoron. It merely means you have a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The only thing that that acknowledges is that the concept of a god or gods exists. That’s what some atheists “fight” against. I don’t really fight against that, I say to each their own belief, as long as people don’t use their belief to infringe on anyone else’s or use their beliefs to deny others the rights they should have.

          • Cady555

            Not long ago, Christians used the Bible to justify prohibitions on interracial marriage.

          • Mike Laborde

            What does that have to do with the price of apples?

      • Patrick Van Der Ven

        Yawn*.

    • Cady555

      And clerks against religion can put up posters on the evils of religion, highlighting increased abuse and divorce. I’m sure the Christian couples coming in for marriage licenses would celebrate the clerk’s religious freedom. Not.

  • Representative

    From my perspective he was very brave, knowing he was going to hurt feelings. The sheer audacity of revealing his beliefs!

  • violetteal

    As much as I would love to keep that verse, where it is; it counters the new law of the land. I imagine the polygamy and incest will be legal in the state within the next 20 years. Pray friends.

  • Mark Barker

    The Freedom From Religion crowd is using this, as with every other lawsuit, to further THEIR religion. Pushing their lack of faith and personal beliefs of the rest of society. So the sad part is, they cannot see that they are pushing exactly the same thing as they are fighting against.

    • acontraryview

      By definition, a lack of faith is not a religion.

  • madgrandma

    This state is crawling with the atheists and liberals. Stand strong Sheriff. Stand Strong Clerk… They brought the battle to you. This is how I feel and I know millions of other do too.
    No more acceptance of, or compromise with, the mass murder of unborn babies.
    No more compromise with those who seek to destroy one man-one woman marriage and the natural family.
    No more obedience to, or cooperation with, the illegitimate, unconstitutional decrees of judges.
    No compromise on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    No more compromise of our national sovereignty, security, or borders.
    No more acceptance of spending on unconstitutional programs or agencies, or the running up of debts we cannot repay.
    No more compromise of the sacred oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    • Ralf Spoilsport

      Start a civil war, that worked so well last time.

  • Cady555

    It is wrong for an employee to use their employer’s resources to promote personal stuff.

    An employee at a bank cannot promote their love for knitting while on the clock.

    When one’s employer is the taxpayer, this is even more true. A person can promote their personal beliefs on their own time. It is wrong for an employee to promote personal beliefs to customers.

    Absolute morality and all that.

  • Brenda Golden

    Why should the religion of the atheists be considered more valid than that of a Christian? If you don’t like seeing it don’t look at it. Maybe the atheist needs to talk to his god (the one he see’s in the mirror) and see how that works out. Point is that just because you don’t like it gives you no right to discriminate against Christians.

    • Elisa

      Wow. So that was out of the blue. Which atheist is complaining that their “religion” isn’t promoted? “If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.”. Apply that same lack of logic to the Mosque that is built across the street from you and quotes the Qu’ran on your tax dime.

      Is everyone doing crack in churches these days?

    • acontraryview

      “Point is that just because you don’t like it gives you no right to discriminate against Christians.”

      How are Christians being discriminated in this situation?

    • Ryan J

      You have quite a warped worldview.

      1) Atheism is religion like abstinence is a sex position.

      2)Atheists don’t believe in any gods, including themselves, by definition.

      3) Requiring government employees to be neutral toward religion is not discrimination. It only seems to be a targeting of Christianity because governmental promotion of Christianity has been the norm for so long that going back to “neutral” mostly means taking down crosses and bible verses.

    • Cady555

      The views of atheists are subject to the same limitations. An atheist can believe that Christians shouldn’t get married because of their higher divorce rate. But an atheist working in the clerk’s office must still process marriage licenses for all with professionalism and courtesy. And hopefully they would even manage a smile and a “congratulations”.

  • acontraryview

    A government office – which serves people of all faiths as well as no faith – cannot be used to promote religious views. Simple as that.

  • Rebecca

    Poor little whiny atheists. You don’t believe, fine, but keep your nose out of those who do. Move on and live your life. Why would you be bothered by something you don’t believe in? I don’t believe in unicorns, so a picture of a unicorn doesn’t bother me.

    • Mary Arnold

      And, by extension, a clerk who posted a sign saying “In Ma’at we trust” wouldn’t bother you either. Right?

      • Nidalap

        You might be better served by asking yourself if that would bother YOU as much as a Christian statement does…and if not, why?

        • Mary Arnold

          I consider both to be equally misguided. In my opinion, neither belongs on a poster in the clerk’s office.

          • Nidalap

            An expected response. You may even think you mean it. Would you take it upon yourself to travel to a pagan website just for the opportunity to speak against it? I’m doubting it…

          • Mary Arnold

            I got here by searching “atheist” in the news, which seems to come up a lot on Christian sites, not so much on pagan ones. But, yes, if my search had brought me to a site where a pagan were engaged in the same behavior, I’d have posted a similar comment. I’ve yet to see that happen.

            I want to address what I think you’re saying more directly, that I have a particular problem with Christians or Christianity? Not at all. At home, when the Christian members of my family come over and want to say prayers before we eat, that’s exactly what happens. Without exception and without hesitation. We just had Thanksgiving, and Christian prayers around my table, even though I don’t believe. What’s more, this is pretty much standard for the non-believers in my life. I observed the same thing at the home of a non-believer close to me the day before.

            It’s really not about which set of beliefs you hold. If you’re going to speak for all of us (and this is a government employee in a government building), then your beliefs as an individual are really not relevant. You shouldn’t be posting scripture, and I shouldn’t be posting quotes from clever atheists explaining why I don’t believe.

  • Joey

    You know what gets me? There is no where in the constitution nor the bill of rights that even imply a separation between church and state. if there where the first Congress Wouldn’t have had bibles printed up and given to schools for teaching student’s. I find it funny people don’t know history and try to change what they said and did in our nations government from the foundation of the U.S.A. lol Some people will always change the truth for a lie to get what they want.

    • Michael C

      I would recommend avoiding quoting David Barton. Congress did not have bibles printed for schools.

    • Rebecca

      You are right, people don’t know history and do like to twist and rewrite it.

      • Michael C

        (like claiming that Congress printed bibles for schools)

    • Kandy

      They deny the truth. But I think in their hearts they know the truth.

      • Rebecca

        If not now, they will one day.

        • Kandy

          No matter what one day they will. Hopefully before they die in their Rejection.

          • George T

            Kandy: I happily renounce the god of Christian mythology (^_^)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And that is the beauty of it, George: God will not force you into His Presence against your will. Heaven would be Hell for you, George, and it would be Hell for us too if you showed up there in your depraved condition:

            “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” — CS Lewis

            So, rejoice and be glad, George, be glad that you were given a choice in the matter: you can “happily” renounce God for all of Eternity!

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: The funny part of it is that it’s all made up. The tragic part is that you waste your time pining for a fiction after this life that you’ll never attain.

            …but don’t get me wrong! I still support you and your right to follow a Bronze Age death worshiping cult. Odd choice, but it’s your choice to make.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The funny part of it is that it’s all made up.”

            George, prove it. That is a positive assertion, so the burden is yours at this point.

          • Valri

            “I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” – Robert Heinlein

            This is something you need to accept, Crazy. Over and over and over. Your God is not required for morality to exist.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: You first. Prove your assertions that a god or heaven exists.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            George, you made the claim that “it’s all made up.” Now, that is a clear knowledge claim on your part, and I called you on it. It is irrational for you to reply “you go first” in my request for your evidence for your assertion. It leaves me wondering if you actually have any rational reasons for your assertions, or if you are merely engaged in a blind faith atheism. (Don’t feel bad: most New Atheists are religious in that sense.)

            I will be happy to provide my evidence for the God Hypothesis once you give your evidence for the No God Hypothesis – which you asserted.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Claiming to know the intent of a mythological deity, or the events that will happen after death are also similar knowledge claims. I called you on it, too.

            I believe there is no god. Given all available knowledge, I have found no positive reason to believe that there is a god. Nobody has been able to make a positive knowledge claim regarding anything after this life. It all seems to be a comforting fairy tail that humans told each other. Later it was accepted as truth with no evidence to back up the claim. Now if you have evidence, please do what hundreds of generations of storytellers haven’t.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I believe there is no god.”

            That’s atheism, George. What is your evidence for this?

            “Given all available knowledge, I have found no positive reason to believe that there is a god.”

            That is agnosticism, I believe – different from atheism. Which are you? If you are an intellectually honest agnostic, you would also be able to equally make the claim that “Given all available knowledge, I have found no positive reason to believe that there is NOT a god.” So, I am a bit confused as to what worldview you are representing here: atheism, agnosticism, or something else?

            “Later it was accepted as truth with no evidence to back up the claim.”

            Really? Is that how people came to believe in God? Do you have any evidence for this? What about:

            Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galilei, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz (a brilliant theologian-apologist too), Boyle, Faraday (a pretty awesome fundamentalist preacher too, BTW), Mendel, Lister, Pasteur, Babbage, Maxwell, Stokes, Riemann, Joule, Linnaeus, Kelvin, Planck, Einstein (a deist only), von Braun (a creationist got us to the moon – with God’s help of course! :-)), etc. Did these scientists, whose careers were based on logic and evidence, come to believe in God with no evidence? That would seem odd.

            I’m still going to give you proof for the God Hypothesis, George, but, prior to that, you continue to make a lot of unsubstantiated claims that appear to come from low brow atheist internet chatter, not scholarly considerations. I pray I am not mis-representing you here?

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Yes, I have made a step past agnosticism. I gave you my agnostic reply to explain my refutation of your mythology. I then stated my belief that there is no god. I explain that by pointing out that there is no intellectually honest reason to assume that something exists with no basis. Look up *Bertrand’s Tea Pot” for further information on that subject.

            Your appeal to authority regarding scientists who had varying degrees of faith (including some who possibly pretended to be Christian to get church funding) isn’t a valid reason to believe either.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            So, I actually see you are providing no evidence whatsoever for the No God Hypothesis, except that you believe that an absence of evidence knowledge (on your part) means it is rational to believe there is no God? Really?!? That seems so blind faith. Bertrand’s Tea Pot is as weak an argument as the Flying Spaghetti Monster – at least in scholarly circles. Are you saying that you cannot prove a negative?

            “Your appeal to authority regarding scientists”

            It actually was NOT an appeal to authority at all. Nowhere was I saying that because these men believed in God, that such means that God exists. I was refuting your claim that God was accepted with no evidence by giving you examples of evidence-based scientists who accepted God.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: I never said I would provide evidence for a negative claim. I provided the logic for not accepting the existence of a god as fact. I also gave my reason for believing there is no god. You have yet to provide the evidence that you’ve offered.

            I was refuting your claim that God was accepted with no evidence by
            giving you examples of evidence-based scientists who accepted God.

            Some of those men accepted the Christian god. That doesn’t mean they accepted the Christian god because they found evidence.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I never said I would provide evidence for a negative claim.”

            Then you are not allowed to assert it, George. if you are rational, that is. Is this a version of say-so atheism that you are involved with?

            “I provided the logic for not accepting the existence of a god as fact. I also gave my reason for believing there is no god.”

            Your only “logic” was the absence of evidence fallacy, and your only reason was emotional or say-so. Neither is rational.

            “Some of those men accepted the Christian god.”

            if I am not mistaken, all but Einstein accepted the Christian God.

            “That doesn’t mean they accepted the Christian god because they found evidence.”

            If you have data that shows that, I would be happy to view it. But, I am not taking your word on this, because you seem to be a say-so atheist, no hard feelings implied. These men were not what the New Atheist likes to (falsely) characterize modern-day Christian believers to be in order to not deal with 150 years of cosmological evidence that goes against the atheist position. Their scientific lives were intertwined with their theological lives – to the point that they included prayers in their scientific publications.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            Then you are not allowed to assert it, George.

            If you’re allowed to assert your opinion that there is a god and that you know its mind, I see no reason why I’m not allowed to assert my opinion.

            Your only “logic” was the absence of evidence fallacy, and your only reason was emotional or say-so. Neither is rational.

            Apparently you misunderstand the fallacy. I stated that I have been given no reason to believe in a god. That in itself is not an “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” claim. As a separate statement I explained that I am also atheistic in that I have a belief that their is no god based on materials and evidence found or provided by individuals like yourself. I have made clear that it is my belief, which is not a knowledge claim backed with evidence. That’s why I’ve never offered to provide evidence. You and I are both unable to provide any evidence of a god or non-existence of one.

            if I am not mistaken, all but Einstein accepted the Christian God.

            If I’m not mistaken, we’re only able to draw conclusion from writings that survived. We don’t even know with absolute certainty that anybody is expressing their true thoughts in modern writings. We can only draw conclusions from older writings.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I see no reason why I’m not allowed to assert my opinion.”

            Except that I asked you to give evidence for your No God Hypothesis, and you failed. Let’s review:

            1. You: “The funny part of it is that it’s all made up.”

            2. Me: “George, prove it.”

            3. You: “You first.”

            That’s not the way it works in the real world, George. You would have been kicked out of any engineering design review on the planet with such nonsensical thinking. Just admit it – you overplayed your cards, and have no basis for your assertion. Your atheism is say-so, not scholarly, logical, or rational.

            “I stated that I have been given no reason to believe in a god.”

            That’s agnosticism.

            “As a separate statement I explained that I am also atheistic in that I have a belief that their is no god”

            That’s atheism. Which one are you?!? You keep bouncing back and forth between the two. You should have good reasons for your beliefs.

            “You and I are both unable to provide any evidence of a god or non-existence of one.”

            Speak for yourself, please. I have tons of evidence for God. I am just waiting to see if you can provide the evidence for the No God Hypothesis, because I have been in too many conversations with atheists in which I present my evidence, they reply that they don’t like it, and they continue to bring absolutely ZERO to the table.

            In fact, it looks like you are admitting that you cannot provide evidence for your position here?Your statement is now back to being an agnostic one. If you admit that you are now an agnostic and not an atheist, and refer to yourself as such in the future, because you have no evidence for the No God Hypothesis, then I will proceed in my next reply to give you my first line of evidence for the God Hypothesis. Fair enough? (Don’t feel bad: it took exactly 5 minutes for me to drive a state chapter president of American Atheists from referring to himself as an atheist to an “agnostic non-theist.” So, you would not be the first. :-))

            “We don’t even know with absolute certainty that anybody is expressing their true thoughts in modern writings.”

            Now, THAT is skepticism. We don’t even know with absolute certainty ANYTHING. 🙂 I would say you are a hyper-skeptic agnostic then, if I am not mistaken? When it comes to historical writings, it is the practice of scholars to take the words of the author at face value unless they have overriding evidence to the contrary. That is orthopraxy in historical analysis for everything else, and should be applied to the personal testimonies of the scientists I presented as well. They should not be treated in a discriminatory manner, because one does not like the fact that two Christian theists invented calculus.

            As an example, Newton believed that his most important works were his theological ones, and Faraday, the greatest experimental scientist in history, was a fundamentalist preacher. To be skeptical of a person’s testimony, without additional evidence, is to descend into a form of self-refuting absurdity from which one cannot escape.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Yes, it is how this works in the real world. If you assert that something exists then the onus is on you to prove your claim.

            I’ve already stated clearly that my atheism is a belief claim with no absolute evidence, but based on a logical consideration of evidence. I’ve said that multiple times. Maybe English isn’t your first language. Is that the case?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            1. You: “The funny part of it is that it’s all made up.”

            2. Me: “George, prove it.”

            3. You: “You first.”

            Dude, that is either cowardly agnosticism or absurdism, not atheism.

            “based on a logical consideration of evidence”

            Please provide this in premise-conclusion form. And admit that you cannot back up your claim that “The funny part of it is that it’s all made up.”

            Look, George: Atheism is the truth claim that “God does not exist.” If you are going to make such a claim, you must present your evidence (including logic, etc) in favor of that No God Hypothesis that “God does not exist.” One thing I know for sure: you do NOT work in a technical field. And if you do, you need to switch. I cannot imagine having someone do the Atheist Dance as poorly as you do it in one of my meetings.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Sure. I’ll admit that I made a belief claim. Now I invite you to admit that your belief in a god, and further claiming to know its mind is a belief that you stated before I made my belief statement.

            Look, WGC… if you’re going to assert that a god exists then you are obligated to provide evidence before expecting people to take action based on your beliefs. You’re expecting a person to prove a negative shows that you’re logical and skeptical method is flawed.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            OK, thanks George. I appreciate your honest admission and intend to honor it tonight. Thank you so much.

            So, here is one line of evidence that I would like to present for the God Hypothesis, and, BTW, if you DO come up in the future with some evidential argument for the No God Hypothesis, I will happily admit it into our “debate.”

            Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

            Premise 2. The universe began to exist.

            Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a Cause.

            Premise 1 supported by the fact that “out of nothing, nothing comes,” otherwise, anything and everything could come from nothing, and experience confirms this – no purple elephants popping randomly into our living room. (And, we know that every one of the 7 billion people on this planet came into existence causally.) Causality forms one of the elements of foundation for scientific inquiry, and we do not wish to throw that element away without underlying the proper use of science in the first place.

            Premise 2 supported by Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermo, positive expansion rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem – not to mention that an actual infinite of past events cannot occur and a series formed successively cannot be actually infinite.

            Therefore, God exists.

            So, that is one line of evidence using science, math, and logic that would argue in favor of the God Hypothesis.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: You can’t validate your first premise. Anything else?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I gave 7 billion and 2 pieces of evidence in support of Premise 1. Do you have any counter-evidence? If not, then Premise 1 holds.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Incorrect. Everything existing mean that everything exists. You have not proven that it has a cause.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Premise 1 is not “everything that exists has a cause,” but “everything that begins to exist has a cause.”

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: I really urge you to read the *cosmological argument* section at IronChariots dot Org when you have a few minutes.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Why? Are you having trouble defeating it? 🙂

            OK, just read it, and the counter-arguments to it are not EVER presented in scholarly journals. In fact, William Lane Craig put together a short video of “objections so bad he could not have made them up.” This shows what the internet chatter is coming up with, and it is really a denial of all scholarly logic methods. In other words, for one to accept those objections, one would have to deny logic and descend into absurdism. Here is the video – pretty funny (just take the spaces out):

            http://www .reasonablefaith .org/media/objections-so-bad-i-couldnt-have-made-them-up

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: No, I’m not going to blow and hour on WLC unless you pay me for an hour of my time.

            I don’t care if the arguments are published in scholarly journals. The refutations on that website address where you appear to be taking this discussion. Why should I bother commenting on this when your arguments have already been addressed? If your argument isn’t addressed by that website, then please explain how.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “No, I’m not going to blow and hour on WLC unless you pay me for an hour of my time.”

            So, I have to pay you to see how the objections on that silly site fail, but you don’t have to pay me to view that silly site?!? I should be paid a much higher hourly rate just for having to wade through such drivel. 🙂 You are really coming off as a hypocrite here.

            “I don’t care if the arguments are published in scholarly journals.”

            Wow! That tells me a lot, maybe more than I wanted to know. 🙂

            Look, George, I gave you a ton of science and logic and math and your reply was “view this website.” I know atheism is easy to do intellectually, but since you cannot come up with anything yourself, just admit defeat and go lick your wounds. I should not be expected to argue against myself – which seems to be what you are asking. My goodness, you didn’t even understand the first premise – you completely mis-stated it.

            It is OK to admit that something is over your head. But, the next time you come over here to CNN, I just ask you to be less silly and not write things like:

            “The funny part of it is that it’s all made up.”

            You are not dealing with fellow atheists over here but a fair number of scholars. God bless and nice talking with you, George.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            So, I have to pay you to see how the objections on that silly site fail, but you don’t have to pay me to view that silly site?!?

            Given the time stamps on your comments, both of us were able to read the website faster that WLC talks.

            but since you cannot come up with anything yourself

            I could retype everything, but I’d rather save time by referring you to resources that concisely cover the topic. Do you have something similar for whatever WLC covers in that video?

            You are not dealing with fellow atheists over here but a fair number of scholars. God bless and nice talking with you

            Congrats on your status. Well wishes to you since there isn’t a deity to be blessed by (^_^)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I could retype everything, but I’d rather save time”

            You are the first New Atheist I have encountered who, once confronted with an argument you could not understand, was even too lazy to cut and paste from the latest and greatest wiki site, not exactly scholarly material, if you know what I mean.

            “Do you have something similar for whatever WLC covers in that video?”

            If you had bothered to scroll down on the link I gave you, you would see the full transcript, where WLC gives New Atheists a short lecture on sophomore level logic. 🙂

            “since there isn’t a deity”

            My goodness – you ARE the say-so atheist, aren’t you?!? You seem to have adopted this worldview for emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, as you have produced nothing to back it up with. But, on the plus side, you are now back to pretending to be an atheist! I am getting whiplash watching you do the Atheist-Agnostic Shuffle. Looking forward to you actually understanding your OWN worldview someday. 🙂

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            confronted with an argument you could not understand

            Incorrect assessment. I just don’t see the benefit in going back and forth with you when the topic has been covered. I’ve got a vacation to prepare for.

            If you had bothered to scroll down on the link I gave you, you would see the full transcript

            I had looked up the video on YouTube and closed the window when I noticed the length of the video.

            Looking forward to you actually understanding your OWN worldview someday.

            Looking forward to you actually understanding my clearly stated worldview earlier in this comment thread (^_^)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’ve got a vacation to prepare for.”

            Merry Christmas, BTW. Where are you headed?

            “my clearly stated worldview”

            Seriously, George. Take this from a (former) Old Atheist: your worldview is not clearly stated when you bounce back and forth from atheism to agnosticism and then back to atheism. I’m just asking you to think that through a little better.

            “He just rehashed the same material I’ve heard before with the same flaws and assumptions.”

            Oh, well, THAT settles it! 🙂 OK, your atheism-agnosticism is just the same sort I have “heard before with the same flaws and assumptions.” There, now it’s settled. 🙂

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Happy holidays and general well wishes to you! I’ll be hopping from Fiji to several of the surrounding islands and back home after the year turns.

            your worldview is not clearly stated when you bounce back and forth from atheism to agnosticism and then back to atheism.

            Have you tried reading what I’ve stated again? Maybe you’re not comprehending or willfully ignoring what I’m trying to express. Not intended as a slight, but an honest point of concern.

            I’ve stated that as a first stage, I see no reason to accept that Christianity or any other religion is true. That is my knowledge claim. Then I make a belief claim. I believe that there is no god. So if you’re addressing knowledge level, you could say that I’m agnostic. Richard Dawkins and many other atheists who are intellectually honest make similar statements. They also see no conflict with a belief that there is no god regarding related subjects like an afterlife or time potentially spent dedicated to a religion or better spent on other things.

            Oh, well, THAT settles it! 🙂 OK, your atheism-agnosticism is just
            the same sort I have “heard before with the same flaws and assumptions.”
            There, now it’s settled. 🙂

            Great. See. Time saved. You’re dedicated to your beliefs and I still see no new evidence or information to consider. I wish you did have something as I’d be very happy to find that there is an afterlife or continuation of existence in some way. Unfortunately dreams of immortality don’t play out just because we wish them to.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            My son lived in the Kwajalein Atoll for a couple of years, but I guess Fiji is still a good distance from there.

            “Maybe you’re not comprehending or willfully ignoring what I’m trying to express.”

            Not at all. You began our interaction with a clear atheistic truth claim, then when called on it, you provided no evidence and conveniently retreated into agnosticism. Then, when you wanted to have fun again, you jumped back into atheist mode with “since there isn’t a deity.” So, you are an atheist when it comes to taking pot shots at theists, but you are suddenly an agnostic when it comes to backing up your claims. How convenient. Pretty easy life, no – the New Atheist Dance? And, yes, Dawkins does it too – that does not make it intellectually honest. There is a reason he refused to debate William Lane Craig, and it isn’t because he is logical or rational. He knows he would be crushed.

            “I wish you did have something”

            I gave you science (tons of cosmology), math (BGV Theorem), and logic, and you have BOTH failed to refute it (after mis-stating Premise 1, showing you do not understand the argument) AND you have failed to provide evidence for the No God Hypothesis. So, it would have to be clear to a reasonable reader that theism has carried the day here.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: I’ll be visiting Majuro for a few days.

            You began our interaction with a clear atheistic truth claim

            No. I made a belief statement, just like you did.

            And, yes, Dawkins does it too

            Yes, he honestly explains that he is an atheistic 6 out of 7, leaving 1 off for agnosticism because he can’t claim to absolutely know that there is no god or afterlife. What’s dishonest about that?

            There is a reason he refused to debate William Lane Craig

            Because it would give WLC a functional equivocation to Richard Dawkins credentials.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “No. I made a belief statement, just like you did.”

            No, George, you made the claim that it is all a myth. While that is indeed a belief claim, it is also a truth claim, for which you fell back into your lacking belief (merely a belief claim) when you could not produce evidence for your truth claim. You even admitted this somewhere earlier in our conversation.

            “What’s dishonest about that?”

            It makes you and Dawkins come across as intellectually dishonest. You take shots at theism, then cower behind agnosticism. It’s not only cowardly and dishonest, it lacks any scholarly thought. Which is why Dawkins is afraid to debate WLC. He knows he has nothing, and that the only ones he can convince are low brow New Atheists.

            “Because it would give WLC a functional equivocation to Richard Dawkins credentials.”

            Is that you way of saying that WLC would wax the floor with Dawkins? Because most atheists even called Dawkins out for being a coward. 🙂

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            No, George, you made the claim that it is all a myth.

            Ah! That. Well, beyond popularity of the faith, is there a difference between a religion and mythology?

            when you could not produce evidence for your truth claim.

            Well, it’s true that there is no active reason to believe that Christianity is any more valid than Islam, Judaism, Hindu, or any other faith. All contradict each other with overlapping claims and none have supernatural claims that are validated more than any other. That is true. That is my atheism.

            My agnosticism is not being able to claim knowledge of anything post-death or beyond known boundaries of nature. I see no reason to believe anything claimed by any religion, but I can’t prove or disprove any claim. Just like you couldn’t disprove a claim that we all, saint or mass murderer, get transported to Candy Land when we die. It’s highly unlikely, but something you or I can’t absolutely disprove.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Nice” talking with you.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: “Thanks!” (Why did you quote that word?)

            I can appreciate your attempt to validate your beliefs. I look forward to hearing other attempts in the future (^_^)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh, and I wanted to address one more thing I just caught that you wrote:

            “You’re expecting a person to prove a negative”

            Are you saying that it is impossible to prove a negative?

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            Are you saying that it is impossible to prove a negative?

            It depends on the scope of the negative you’re expecting someone to prove. If it’s an immediate quality, like proving that my hair color isn’t green, then that can be done. Expecting me to prove that there’s no green hair anywhere is not possible given the resources available.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Can you prove that there are certain things that exist nowhere?

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Ah… the cosmological arguments. Are you going to use the Kalam argument? If you don’t know what I’m talking about, please do some reading about cosmological arguments at IronChariots dot Org when you have a few minutes.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Is this in reply to my question “Can you prove that there are certain things that exist nowhere?”?

            As for cosmological arguments, I expect you to explain it to me, not direct me to websites. (Except where there is evidence you wish to link to.) Various cosmological arguments are quite heavily in play today in scholarly circles, especially given the fact that the past 150 years have shifted the evidence away from past eternal universes to Premise 2 “The universe began to exist.” That bodes well for the first 3 words of the Bible – quite well indeed. 🙂

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Sorry, this was in response to your other posting.

            …but I don’t care what you expect me to do. You’ve taken this to the point where, if you’re not willing to do a little research or read the resources I’ve provided then I expect payment of my hourly rate via Paypal.

            About your question, no, because we can’t observe *everywhere* to make an unqualified claim. For example, you can’t make a claim that green hair exists nowhere.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Dude, I am not your research genie. You are in a debate, and you are conceding it is over your head, which is fine. Just withdraw from the debate with honor.

            “About your question, no, because we can’t observe *everywhere* to make an unqualified claim.”

            Well, I can prove that there are no even prime numbers larger than 2 and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could not have created the universe.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: I’m not your research genie either, and we’re not in a debate. If you want to falsely claim some kind of intellectual high ground and stop commenting, go for it. I see that you’re trying to engage in a debate for some reason. I’m not interested.

            Well, I can prove that there are no even prime numbers larger than 2

            Right. I already covered proofs with limited scope.

            and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could not have created the universe.

            Whatever your argument is potentially applies to the Christian god and probably ever deity.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I see that you’re trying to engage in a debate for some reason. I’m not interested.”

            Isn’t that a way of saying you concede?

            “Whatever your argument is potentially applies to the Christian god”

            Since you don’t even know my argument, how can you say this? As a Creator of the universe, do you not see what differentiates the Christian God from the FSM? It is really easy – for one who knows basic cosmology anyway.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            Isn’t that a way of saying you concede?

            No

            Since you don’t even know my argument, how can you say this?

            Because I know why the FSM was thought up, along with the IPU, to act as absurd but equally valid replacement characters for any argument from authority invoking a deity.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            How is the FSM equally valid to the Christian God when the FSM is not timeless, spaceless, or non-material, like the Christian God is and as is required to bring time, space, and matter into existence out of nothing material? Even scholarly atheists agree that the FSM is a juvenile strawman that they would never lower themselves to discussing in any intellectual forum.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Can you prove that The FSM is not timeless, spaceless, or non-material like the Christian God is claimed to be? Can you prove that it’s not capable of bringing time, space, and matter into existence out of nothing material?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – George, you are KILLING me today! Yes, I most certainly can prove those things about the FSM:

            1. The FSM is made up of two meatballs with some spaghetti wrapped around them. Therefore, FSM is neither spaceless nor non-material. QED.

            2. Given that FSM is in space and has matter, it is also temporal within the only known universe. QED.

            Now, THAT was the easiest proof I ever did in my entire career. 🙂

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: First, that is just the visual manifestation of it’s infinite qualities that the FSM wished for people to see. Second, your aren’t able to perceive anything beyond space and time, so you can’t disprove it’s all encompassing and infinite qualities.

            Anything else?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “First, that is just the visual manifestation of it’s infinite qualities that the FSM wished for people to see.”

            So, are you saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not made of spaghetti that flies?!? 🙂 Just because you want something to be true does not make it true.

            And, if you are saying that the FSM is indistinguishable from the Christian God in being timeless, spaceless, and non-material, then welcome to theism!!! 🙂

            Which is it?!?

            Anything else? 🙂

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            So, are you saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not made of spaghetti that flies?!? 🙂 Just because you want something to be true does not make it true.

            So, are you saying that Jesus/The Christian God is not made of flesh that gets crucified? That it’s more than was perceived?

            Because you want the biblical Jesus to have existed doesn’t mean he actually existed as reported by unknown individuals decades after the events were reported to have happened.

            And, if you are saying that the FSM is indistinguishable from the
            Christian God in being timeless, spaceless, and non-material, then
            welcome to theism!!! 🙂

            No, I’m saying that any claim you make about The Christian God can be easily attributed to a Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn because they are belief claims, not knowledge. Meaning you haven’t given any proof or reason to actively believe in a god.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So, are you saying that Jesus/The Christian God is not made of flesh that gets crucified?”

            The second Person of the Trinity was not made of flesh when He brought 100 billion galaxies into existence out of nothing material. He was timeless without creation. So, that is a fail.

            “No, I’m saying that any claim you make about The Christian God can be easily attributed to a Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn because they are belief claims, not knowledge.”

            False, those are truth claims, and you are more than welcome to join us theists in believing in a timeless, spaceless, non-material God, as you claim the FSM to be. 🙂 But, you cannot have it both ways, George, without descending into absurdism. Either your FSM is timeless, spaceless, and non-material or he is not. In the latter, he is refuted as being the God Who is pointed to by cosmological science, and in the former, he is indistinguishable from the Christian God in terms of those attributes. There is no wiggle room for you here. Just admit defeat.

            “Meaning you haven’t given any proof or reason to actively believe in a god.”

            Except for current cosmology like the Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermo, positive expansion rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem. 🙂

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy:

            The second Person of the Trinity was not made of flesh when He brought
            100 billion galaxies into existence out of nothing material. He was
            timeless without creation. So, that is a fail.

            The FSM was not made of noodles and meatballs when it brought 100 billion and 1 galaxies into existence (1 better than your religion) out of nothing material. It was timeless without creation. So, that is a fail for you.

            those are truth claims

            Then they are truth claims you’ve made based on your belief, unverified and unverifiable, lacking any reason to actively believe beyond wishful thinking.

            But, you cannot have it both ways, George, without descending into absurdism.

            Exactly! I think it’s absurd that some people believe in something that could be easily attributed to a FSM. I have no interest in denying them that belief, but I don’t hide my opinions regarding those beliefs if questioned and I oppose people who use religion to subjugate or malign.

            Except for current cosmology like the Big Bang, cosmic background
            radiation, 2nd Law of Thermo, positive expansion rate of the universe,
            and BGV Theorem. 🙂

            So first, the Big Bang Theory (which is not an absolutely proven model) doesn’t validate or verify any biblical claims unless you consider them to be allegorical (as shown in the recent Noah movie). Second, I expect anybody that references the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain it and the other laws or admit that they’re only repeating a talking point. Third, expansion and BGV doesn’t account for Hawking’s “no boundary” proposal, and Vilenkin admits (when pressed) that the theory doesn’t give a proof of a beginning.

            Anything else?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice talking with you.

          • George T

            WorldGoneCrazy: Not a problem!

            I can appreciate your attempt to validate your beliefs. I look forward to hearing other attempts in the future (^_^)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “That is agnosticism, I believe – different from atheism. Which are you?”

            You don’t quite understand what agnosticism and atheism are. They’re not mutually exclusive things. Agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief. One can quite easily be both, and be an agnostic atheist. I don’t have a belief in a god (atheism) because I think it’s something that is unknowable (‘strong’ agnosticism). There’s even such a thing as “agnostic theism”.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Someone is unsure of his worldview.

            Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

            ” ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

            That is a truth claim – that there is no God. It demands evidence. Agnosticism, on the other hand, if intellectually honest (which is rare these days, but I have seen it), means that the individual has found an equal weighing of evidence between the God Hypothesis and the No God Hypothesis, and cannot decide which way to go.

            It took me 5 minutes to get a state chapter president of American Atheists to back off his atheist claim and refer to himself as an agnostic non-theist, when he presented zero evidence for the No God Hypothesis. I commended him for his intellectual honesty in doing so, which is all I am asking for here.

            George made the clear atheism claim “The funny part of it is that it’s all made up.” Then, when he could not produce evidence for his claim, he retreated to agnosticism, as so many cowardly New Atheists do these days. (We (former) Old Atheists were not so delusional.) As a spacecraft designer for 30 years, I can assure you that a person who did that in an engineering design review would be summarily dismissed and escorted off of the property.

            The New Atheist Dance gets really old, and is quite absurd:

            NA: “There is no God!”
            Theist: “Prove it.”
            NA: “You prove there is – I’m just an agnostic.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I find there’s really little practical difference between someone who says “I don’t believe in a god because I think it’s impossible to know” (which I do) and someone who says “I am certain there is no god”. (which actually very few atheists I know say. Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t go quite that far, he says “there almost certainly is no god”)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re going with a very narrow definition of atheism.

            I find there’s really little practical difference between someone who
            says “I don’t believe in a god because I think it’s impossible to know”
            (which I do) and someone who says “I am certain there is no god”.
            (which actually very few atheists I know say. Even Richard Dawkins
            doesn’t go quite that far, he says “there almost certainly is no god”)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “It took me 5 minutes to get a state chapter president of American
            Atheists to back off his atheist claim and refer to himself as an
            agnostic non-theist”

            OK, but how is “non-theist” any different from “atheist”?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Traditionally, an atheist asserts that there is no God whereas a non-theist just does not believe in God. It is where the negation is put. The first is making a truth claim, the second is telling us something about his or her psychological state. Both are fair representations of one’s worldview but usually should not be mixed. Here is a pretty good short summary of the difference (which comes down to where the “not” is placed) and also practically speaking (just take the space out):

            http://winteryknight .com/2014/12/25/is-the-definition-of-atheism-a-lack-of-belief-in-god-3/

            BTW, I like your style.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Link wont work for some reason….

            Those two words should not have different meanings. “a-” and “non-” mean the same thing as prefixes. Even going by your definitions, why can’t they be mixed? If someone says there is no god, they definitely don’t believe in one.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Just take the spaces out before the dots – sorry if I forgot to mention.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK it works now. As I suspected it might be, that’s a Christian site. I’d prefer the definition of atheism given by actual atheists.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It’s a Christian blog that links to the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is not Christian. The reason I link to WK is because he uses peer-reviewed secular journals and data for his sources. So, yes, I link to a Christian site that uses secular citations. You can click on his link to the Stanford Encyclopedia.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I really do think, though, that there’s not of real difference between someone who says there’s no god (the ‘traditional’ definition of atheism, I guess you could call it) and someone who says they don’t believe in one because it can’t be known. (agnostic atheism…which is different from the sort of agnosticism that just means someone hasn’t made up their mind yet)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I respect that position of yours, for sure. I do think that there is a difference in dealing intellectually with the two types. One of the reasons that the state chapter president of the American Atheists and I had such a delightful informal debate over lunch was because he admitted the flaw in dancing back and forth between the two views – atheism and true agnosticism: the first requires some sort of rational support in favor of the No God Hypothesis, whereas the second position (agnosticism), if genuine, would mean that such a person would be taking shots at the arguments of both theism and atheism – poking them both for weaknesses. Now, I do know people like this – one is a most brilliant tough pro-life agnostic on Live Action News – but it is a little bit rare, IMO.

            I just want to nitpick a tiny bit on one thing you said here:

            “someone who says they don’t believe in one because it can’t be known.”

            Just a tiny point, but “it can’t be known” is itself a knowledge statement, and so the sentence draws very near to a form of self-refutation. I take it you mean “can’t be known with certainty?” But, even that claim can be said to be true about anything and everything. So, we are onto a form of skepticism, I think, not that such is inconsistent with either atheism or theism. It’s just a small point I want to make. If one is roughly equally skeptical of both theism and atheism, that would seem to place them in an intellectually honest agnostic position, I think.

            So, I agree that there is some mixing going on here and that is not, in itself a bad thing. I was an atheist with pretty strong anti-Christian tendencies before becoming a Christian, but I was not an anti-theist, since I was fine with Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not skeptical of atheism, though, because, again, it’s not a belief there is no god, it’s a lack of belief in a god. To be skeptical of that would mean you’re skeptical that people really don’t believe in a god (and I have seen some people that think that) It’s not like someone is either an atheist or agnostic or a theist and only can be one of the three of those.

            It’s like the old thing about “Russell’s teapot”….if you make the claim that there’s a teapot orbiting somewhere between Earth and Mars, I don’t KNOW that that’s not true, so in that sense I’d be agnostic about it, it’s impossible for me to prove wrong in fact, but I don’t believe it. (ateapotism, I guess…lol)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’m not skeptical of atheism, though, because, again, it’s not a belief there is no god”

            That is not scholarly atheism, nor is it historical atheism.

            “it’s a lack of belief in a god.”

            That is a measure of one’s psychological state. A person could lack belief in the moon landings even when they happened. A person could lack belief in anything even if it is delusional to do so. So, that definition of atheism is an emotional blind faith sort of state of one’s mind, not a worldview that depends on truth claims.

            “It’s not like someone is either an atheist or agnostic or a theist and only can be one of the three of those.”

            One of my friends on LAN knows an atheist Baptist. No joke. In a worldview sense, that is cognitive dissonance.

            “It’s like the old thing about “Russell’s teapot””

            Here is a simple refutation of that example from Reasonable Faith:

            “A case in point is Russell’s famous teapot which circles about the sun, an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated from us. Do we need to be agnostic about it? Can we say it doesn’t exist? I think we know it doesn’t exist because it wasn’t put there by the Russian or American astronauts; and we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes. So really, we have a great deal of evidence that Russell’s teacup doesn’t exist; and since our discussion is confined to cases where we infer the non-existence of something simply on the basis of absence of evidence for it, the example is irrelevant.” — RF

            There are other good arguments, BTW, against the false claim frequently heard from atheists that “you can’t prove a negative.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “So, that definition of atheism is an emotional blind faith sort of
            state of one’s mind, not a worldview that depends on truth claims”

            No, it’s not. How is it a ‘blind faith state of mind’ to lack belief?

            “One of my friends on LAN knows an atheist Baptist. No joke. In a worldview sense, that is cognitive dissonance.”

            Well sure, but my point was really that one can easily be agnostic and an atheist, or even agnostic and a theist.

            “I think we know it doesn’t exist because it wasn’t put there by the Russian or American astronauts”

            How do you know they didn’t put it there?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “How is it a ‘blind faith state of mind’ to lack belief?”

            It is not a truth claim to lack belief in God. That is not atheism in any scholarly or historical sense. It is not what scholarly atheists talk about – their lack of belief, because they know that a person could lack belief in something even when their is ample evidence for same. And scholarly atheists are regularly dealing with evidence for God’s existence NOT the emotional state of their minds.

            “Well sure, but my point was really that one can easily be agnostic and an atheist, or even agnostic and a theist.”

            Sure. But, it seems to me that so many of the New Atheists (not claiming you are one of these, but George is) take a pot shot at theism (remarkably it is almost always Christian theism :-)) by making a clear atheistic claim (“there is no god,” “god is a myth,” etc), and then when called on it to provide evidence for their claim, they conveniently retreat into agnosticism. Then when the dust settles, they go right back to taking atheistic pot shots. Now, as was pointed out in that article I linked to, this is just completely dishonest in any intellectual sense whatsoever.

            I mean if these sorts of atheists were fair, then they would have to allow the Christian’s response “God exists because the Bible says so” to be completely valid, since at least Christians have a Book to back them up on their claim, whereas these types of atheists produce nothing to back up theirs. But, of course, these types of atheists would never allow such a defense – showing how intellectually hypocritical they are.

            “How do you know they didn’t put it there?”

            Because we have fantastic documentary evidence for both of those space programs, and there is no Russell Teapot project, nor could there have been one in Russell’s era. So, we are not making an argument from absence here, but from the incredible volume of evidence that we do have.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But I think what most of those ‘scholarly atheists’ you’re talking about are really saying is that there’s no evidence for a god, not ‘there is no god’. Or it’s what they should be saying, if they’re not. I used to refuse to call myself an atheist, because that’s what I thought it meant, that you’re saying there’s no god. But it’s really not.

            Or even look at it this way….a theist is someone who believes in a god. Therefore an atheist is the opposite; someone who does not. Whether they claim to know for sure or not.

            Also, I could still keep going with that Teapot argument…..how do you know aliens didn’t put it there, or just simply that it was someone on this planet, and we just didn’t know about it? It’s something you can’t absolutely disprove, yet it’s something most everybody couldn’t rationally believe in.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “But I think what most of those ‘scholarly atheists’ you’re talking about are really saying is that there’s no evidence for a god, not ‘there is no god’.”

            Not true. There are scholarly atheists that present evidence for the No God Hypothesis, which is the intellectually honest position to take. May I respectfully suggest, since you have been so respectful yourself, that you do a little studying up on this matter in the scholarly realm, not the popular book realm? I do not say this to be demeaning at all, but as rational truth seekers, we both have to have logically coherent reasons for adopting our worldviews.

            “I used to refuse to call myself an atheist, because that’s what I thought it meant, that you’re saying there’s no god. But it’s really not.”

            I respectfully submit that you do as I requested prior to referring to your self as an atheist. Agnostic will do, provided you take shots at atheism as well as theism.

            “Or even look at it this way….a theist is someone who believes in a god. Therefore an atheist is the opposite; someone who does not. Whether they claim to know for sure or not.”

            Please go back to the link I provided you which discusses the difference between where you put the “not” in the sentence “I do believe there is a God.” I say this with all respect, because what you are saying here is patently false in a scholarly and historical sense on atheism. I mean this kindly and not at all condescendingly.

            “how do you know aliens didn’t put it there”

            Why is it that causes atheists appeal to aliens and Stare Trek so much?!? I like the Original Series myself and grew up with it, but goodness. 🙂

            “or just simply that it was someone on this planet, and we just didn’t know about it?”

            No one else had the capability to reach LEO, and no one had that capability in Russell’s timeframe. We know these things from the well-documented history of rocketry and the equations of motion development in astrophysics.

            “It’s something you can’t absolutely disprove”

            OK, this is what we call hyper-skepticism. And, if you are intellectually honest in your hyper-skepticism, then you would be at best an agnostic, because you would be equally hyper-skeptical of atheism. You would also be hyper-skeptical of hyper-skepticism, as this is a self-refuting worldview. I strongly recommend you leave that behind, because it makes the genuine seeking of truth impossible going forward.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “then you would be at best an agnostic, because you would be equally hyper-skeptical of atheism.”

            Again, I’ll say, being agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. It’s not an either/or thing.

            I like this quote, just about sums it up…

            “The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.

            If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there
            is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not
            believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist… if he goes
            farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic… while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other.” – Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888

    • Michael C

      When did Congress have bibles printed?

      • Cady555

        They didn’t. A colonial printer overextended and printed a whole bunch of bibles. When he couldn’t sell them he petitioned Congress for years to buy them and give them to soldiers. Or buy them and give them to non soldiers. Or could they just pretty please issue a proclamation telling the people to buy his bibles.

        Congress politely but firmly told the printer to bug off. Repeatedly.

        Modern pseudo historians have turned this into “Congress printed bibles” since the 9th commandment does not apply on days ending with the letter “y”.

        • Guest

          That’s not quite true either. Here’s the actual quote:

          “Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve
          the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the
          interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in
          this country, and being satisfied of the care and accuracy in the
          execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible
          to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to
          publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.”

          The link can be found in the Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 23

          Page 572 of 917.

      • Joey

        I am sorry I did not fully finish my research and never finished my whole point posted without finishing my full thoughts because of time and got little distracted by child and work. Forgot to come back and Finnish my post.

    • Joey

      I stand corrected about bibles being printed by Congress but history implies that Congress did not have or see the right given to them or the government to ban any book of faith in a school including the bible which was in public schools till June 1963 when the court system took it from schools if it was believed by Congress that it was wrong they and only they have the right to make a law not the judicial branch there is no legal right nor the executive branch to make laws. The judicial system never had the right to take a book from public school of learning no matter what book only Congress could make that law the not President and Congress even then does not have the right to take it out because the book is part of a religious believe. it is also a book of history that even today is being proven to be acute in history of the past of a people. And to leave Greek and Roman mythology religious books and even Viking mythology it is fighting against a book that was used in american schools and a religion which has always been a part of America that for 246 year and is an intrical part of American history to remove it from schools is an attack on America and its history so that makes that ruling by the court system truly unconstitutional. And even today you find that book in the court house and it is the only book in American history that you can swear by to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So still proof that separation of church and state is not implied in the constitution or bill of rights

  • Mike Laborde

    Who created marriage? The answer is not mankind.

    • John N

      Who created gods? The answer will be exactly the same.

      • Mike Laborde

        Your answer is not an answer. Yours is an illusion. You just don’t want to answer the question, as to who created marriage. The answer to your question is; there is but one creator God.

        • John N

          Like your question was not even a question, you were just looking for confirmation. Why asking?

          Which of the thousands of gods man did create do you have in mind? Where does it show that your specific god created marriage? And does that mean that people who don’t belief in your god don’t get married? And what with people who lived long before your god came around? Were they married?

          • Mike Laborde

            Just giving you the facts. Who created the so called “many gods that you claim”? I told you who created the universe and all that is within it. No one lived before the Creator God. You can’t put the cart before the horse, no matter how hard you try to.

          • John N

            The facts? You actually have facts? Great!

            Please show us the facts which support the creation of the universe and all that is in it by any deity.

            Show us the facts you have to support it was created by your special Christian god.

            Show us the facts you have to support there was no one living before your god appeared.

            I only see facts of people imagining things all of the time, including gods. We are very good at imaginig things to explain the world around us, including all bad things that happen to us. Does it not look odd that most (probably all) of the gods worshipped by man, seem to have the same level of knowledge (or ignorance), the same sense of morality, the same strenghts and weaknesses, the same wishes and fears and even the same enemies as the people that worship them? What is your explanation?

          • Mike Laborde

            You wouldn’t accept any facts because you want no entity that is greater than you. Atheist have created in themselves little “gods” that war against their own mentality. Atheist demand that they become an oxy moron because they fight so very hard against something they don’t believe in. Wasting their time on their belief that the God of the universe and all that is within it, doesn’t exist. By doing so, atheist acknowledge the fact that there is a Supreme Creator God that they are unable to erase from the human race and from their own minds. They are like little children, kicking and screaming because they can’t get their way because they have NO PROF but continue kicking and screaming because they can’t get their way.

          • John N

            You seem to know exactly what atheists think and dream about. Do you have the ability of mindreading? In that case, you must be a god yourself.

            Anyway, you are wrong. Atheist lack belief in any gods. Just like you don’t belief in any gods, except for the one your parents believed in.

            Wouldn’t I accept the facts when you presented them? Try me. If they are convincing, I would reconsider my position.

          • Mike Laborde

            my parents didn’t know that the bible was God’s roadmap for life and eternal life which we all have. Except that some wont be in the same place. Seems to me that you are questioning your own unbelief as we all have from time to time. You can’t understand what faith does because you have none. Very easily attained. As far as you believing facts, that is impossible for you since your world is factless. and void of any kind of true love.

          • John N

            >’Seems to me that you are questioning your own unbelief as we all have from time to time … As far as you believing facts, that is impossible for you since your world is factless. and void of any kind of true love.’

            Your mindreading abilities seem to fail you. You better stop it, it makes you look foolish.

            Still, where are the facts you promised? Or do you think I need ‘faith’ in order to belief your ‘facts’? In that case, they are indeed worthless.

          • Mike Laborde

            Eye witness accounts. All you have are dreams from so called scientist. Eye witness accounts recorded by real people instead of dreamers that can’t be humbled because they believe that they are a god. I have not seen any of your so called little god people witness anything. Just dreams of what they dream about.

          • John N

            Eye witness accounts? You mst be joking! That’s about the worst kind of evidence you can get – people are not really reliable in objectively reporting what they witnessed. Ask any crime expert. Nothing compared to the repeatable observations and measurable evidence scientists prefer to use.

            But ok, show us! Put your facts on the table!

          • Mike Laborde

            So you don’t like eye witness accounts. Funny, I can say the same about your so called scientist that say that there is no God. Their “eye witness” accounts are just what you say. the worst kinds of evidence. So now you will say that there is no evidence for anything so you have hit an impas even in your own mind, you have an impas. So now what. Where is your evidence that there is no God? You as an eye witness account or your co hearts with their eye witness accounts. You know, we also have scientist that have proven that there is a God. There is even a God gene.A need for God bread into us as prof of a Creator God.

          • John N

            No, I don’t like them. They are considered to be among to lowest reliable form of evidence.

            As for your god, the problem is that there is no evidence at all. Not even eye witnesses we can trust on.

            If you claim scientists proved me wrong, please give me a reference to the scientific, peer reviewed journal where they show the evidence. This can’t be a big problem, can it?

            As for this god gene, should it exist, would it show the existence of your christian god or for all gods? How do you know? Did he put his signature on it? Or are different gods just different allelles of the same gene? Since I clearly miss that gene (or is ‘atheism’ a version of that gene as well?), is that on purpose? So many questions, so little facts.

          • Mike Laborde

            Where is your evidence? The only evidence that atheist have are eye witness accounts from dreams and visions. You can’t discount my claims. Where is YOUR evidence? I’ll tell you the answer. You have none.

          • John N

            Maybe you could start reading a book on biology first. Ignorance is not your fault, but staying deliberately ignorant would be. You’ll find out that evolution is quit well supported from scientific evidences.

            If that is not enough, check some books on geology, paleontology, chemics and physics, and you’ll even find more.

            Your claims are without evidence, so I can dismiss them without evidence. Until you come back with some to back them up, they remain just cliams – words in the wind.

          • Mike Laborde

            Sorry, but if you count the ribs on a male’s skeleton and a females skeleton you will find that the woman’s skeleton has one extra rib than the man’s skeleton. All those books you mention are dreams and visions of people not facts. You and your atheist friends have no real facts, just counterfeit facts.

          • John N

            Ok Mike, you can stop now. I get it, you really are a Poe. Even not a Christian can be this stupid.

    • BarkingDawg

      Do animal’s get married?

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Yes. Those animals we call “humans” do, sometimes. 😉

    • tyler

      people got married long, long before any mention of the god of abraham…

      • Mike Laborde

        Read Genesis and you will find that God made Eve from Adams rib and they became one flesh. long before Abraham came on the scene.

        • John N

          … thereby making Eve the first transgender man and their relation the first gay marriage. All facts, as described in the bible.

          • Claire Michael

            Wouldn’t it also just be a whole lotta incest …… :/

          • John N

            Yes, but that was not an issue back then, you know, because before the fall humans were ‘perfect’ and so it really does not count as incest. It is all in the bible. Is that not an acceptable explanation?

          • Mike Laborde

            Well now lets examine the facts. First there was Adam created by God. God put him to sleep, took a rib, by the way is missing from every human man, and created a woman from it. By the way, a woman has that missing rib that the man of today doesn’t have. Transgindered people are not a man or a woman since the deny what they were born with. Penis or virgina. But your rational leaves out the part where there is two separate but fully human, human human beings. Anyone that has common sense can see that. Trannies are just one person, denying what they were born with. Although I feel sorry for them. They need extensive help.

          • John N

            Yes let us examine the facts. Here they are:
            . The bible in its current form was written by human writers almost 2000 years ago.
            End of facts.

            So you actually belief males have one less rib than females? Did you check it yourself or do you simply believe that the bible’s authors spoke the thruth? If you miss a rib, I advice you to check with your doctor ASAP. Who knows what else you are missing? Thinking abilities might be a good candidate!

            If anyone takes a rib of a male and creates a new human out of it, the clone will be, by definition, a male. Your bible tells she calls hereself Eve, so she must be ‘denying what she was born with’, so be transgendered. Which is no shame, it happens all the time. If she/he married Adam, it is by definition a gay marriage – and by definition a incestuous one too.

            You don’t like the consequences of your own silly stories? I’m sorry for you. Not.

          • Mike Laborde

            Did you fail biology or did you even take it. The male anademy has one less rib than the female anademy. Search the skeletal pics and wording in a biology book, dictionary, encyclopedia. You will find the truth. Making up stuff about transgendered creation again. Me thinks, no, me knows you are deft of any real abilities to find truth. It doesn’t happen all of the time only by that nasty word called “CHOICE” by confusion.

          • John N

            >’The male anademy has one less rib than the female anademy’

            This can’t be real. Oh please, tell me you are a Poe.

            >’Making up stuff about transgendered creation again.’

            You’re the one making up stories about creation. I’m just pointing to the obvious consequenses. If you don’t like them, it is your problem.

            >’Me thinks, no, me knows you are deft of any real abilities to find truth’

            Keep training those mind reading abilities. Meanwhile, don’t quit your daytime job yet.

            >’It doesn’t happen all of the time only by that nasty word called “CHOICE” by confusion.’

            That does not even make sense.

          • Mike Laborde

            Just e ribs on a male and a female skeleton. Transgendered so called by you evolution is pure faintacy.

          • John N

            Oh come on Mike, did you actually ever look at a real skeleton?

            Or maybe, it is just Christian males that miss a rib. That must be it. After al, it is in your bible, so it really really REALLY must be true.

          • Mike Laborde

            If you want to be a god, buy you an island in the Pacific, move there and start out by levitating a rock, then speak a word and heal your brain. That will take a very long time to do especially when you deny biology.

          • John N

            I happened to be a biologist. Why would I deny it?

            And I don’t belief in any gods.

            By the way, did you already find your missing rib?

          • Mike Laborde

            I can say that I am a doctor all day, but If I never completed collage, grad school or have a diploma for it, I am no doctor. In which I am suggesting that you lie. But in your case, you seem to think that lying has no consequences to your action of lying. You have no prof. Where is your prof? You will also deny that you have a religion. Clue. Atheist now claim to have their own religion of Atheist want to hold anyone who disagrees with them to a different standard than what they require of others. That is hypocritical and that makes you a hypocrite. You have no prof that there is no Creator God.

          • John N

            Mike, you sound a bit nervous. Let me guess: you finally checked a basic book on biology and found out somebody was lying to you al that time, and it wasn’t me? You found out your holy book was wrong about Adam and Eve?

            Well, better get used to it, you’ll find out it is wrong about a lot of things.

            Which is of course further evidence of the non-existence of your creator god.

          • Mike Laborde

            John, let me fill you in. Never blinked an eye. But since you claim and have jumped on CNN and told everyone that you know that there is no Creator God, I am asking again, where is your proof. Then, I will answer the question for you; you have no proof. None , zilch, nada, 0. All you have is your word against a multitude of evidence that there is a Creator. Notice “A”, just one, Creator God. Your faith is being shaken right now. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. He loves you.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Can you give reason or evidence to validate belief in the Christian god? John N is functionally saying that he doesn’t see a reason to trust your bible, and several errors that give him reason to not trust it. There are many more reasons that he hasn’t mentioned.

          • Mike Laborde

            Where is your evidence that there is no Creator God? Oh, I see. You don’t have any evidence. Dogs bark at their shadows. Children are afraid of the dark. What is your excuse. Where is your evidence that there is not a creator God. Oh, you haven’t any. Oh, you haven’t any.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: The responsibility is on you to give reason for anybody to believe in your god. The burden of proof is on you.

          • Mike Laborde

            Oh, but George, you are wrong. The responsibility is on you since you call yourself a religion and I will say a religion of “Hate and disavow the Creator God. The God of the bible. There is much more evidence than just the bible, which you discount by only your words and no proof. So now it is up to you to disprove , show facts, give evidence that there is no creator God. And you will fail. Because you have no evidence.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Incorrect. I didn’t call myself a religion.

            There’s no proof or active reason to think that the Christian bible is anything more than a collection of Bronze Age writings.

            Again, the burden of proof is on you. Waiting.

          • Mike Laborde

            Ah, but you do have a religion. Look up the meaning and then start crying. No the burden of proof is on you since you came on Christian News and attacked Christianity with, there is no God and continue attacking the bible and Christians with your made up so called evidence. Made up from dreams or thoughts. You have no evidence.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: No, not one definition of religion that I read matches me.

            And no, the venue doesn’t matter. You are still making a claim that something exists. Be it Bigfoot, Nessie, or god, the burden of proof is on you.

          • Mike Laborde

            That is because you are in denial. Religion: a set of beliefs.You have them . You have beliefs. I am answering you because you opined on Christian News, so now the burden of proof is on you. Why else would an atheist oppiner comment on a Christian Site.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Can you tell us where you got that vague, incomplete definition?

            Using that, you could claim that 9/11 conspiracy theories are religions. That flat Earth theory is a religion.

          • Mike Laborde

            Sorry George but I have you again. Websters Mirriam dictionary, the last definition ie. an interest , a set of beliefs. There are three different definitions to the word religion. One usage constitutes a definition. But liberals like you have been programed to use the one you agree with , not the one that actually fits. Merry :Christ”mas.

          • George T

            So we’re now calling it “flat earth religion”. Right. Gotcha. That makes sense.

            Also, atheism is a LACK of belief. Specifically not believing in any God or deity. That’s not a set of beliefs.

            Happy Festivus to you!

          • Mike Laborde

            Atheist always run in a circle. When they are shown truth, they “say it ain’t so” and revert on tactics that they have been using for decades. I told you that you wouldn’t accept truth. It doesn’t fit your narative of “I am in command”. You only want power over people . Well , son, you have no power over anything. Not even over yourself. Merry “Christmas”. It’s been celebrated for a few thousand years now. It’s even on the calendar. God, the Creator God , is also on our money and the ten commandments are on our money. Merry “Christ”mas.

          • George T

            Theists, always falling back on hollow ridicule and a condescending tone when they can’t argue against decades old facts and truths.

            I’m waiting for you to provide something that’s true. So far I’ve been the only source.

            The truth is I have no interest in gaining power over people. I just oppose any religion trying to gain power over our government or citizens. Similar to the founders who pointedly left religion out of our governmental structure.

            You’re probably not going to believe this, but I sincerely hope that you enjoy your Festivus, Saturnalia, Christmas, or whatever makes the happiest of holidays for you and yours (^_^)

          • Mike Laborde

            Poe wittle Georgieporgie T. Can’t handle truth so tries to make others besides himself look bad. No truth in you Georgie. Only attacks like the true liberal you are. Merry “Christ”mas. And you don’t tell the truth. Your’s is a smear campaign with absolutely and positivily no truth. Celebrations have been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. What now Georgie, more confusion?

          • George T

            Poor you. Can’t reasonably counter anything I’ve mentioned, so you’re left with nothing but an argumentum ad nauseam.

          • Mike Laborde

            You still haven’t any proof that there is no God because you don’t want there to be one. The burden of proof is still on you since the beginning of this discussion, Merry “Christmas”. Happy Hannicah. May the God of the universe , the Creator of “all”, everything bless you beyond your wildest dreams . He is real. You deny at your own demise. God bless you.

          • George T

            You still haven’t any proof that there is a god. As I’m pretty sure that I’ve stated before, you’re the one making a positive claim (there is a “Bigfoot”) so you’re the one expected to validate that claim.

            I am curious about your assertion that I don’t want there to be a god. What is your reason for thinking that?

            In case you don’t reply, I wish you the happiest of holidays (^_^)

          • Mike Laborde

            You haven’t validated your claim. Everything you expose is gibberish and void of any proof . The burden of proof has been on you from the beginning of this discussion. Since you claim that there is not a Christian instead of a man made little god you have given yourself up as a fraud. Because you said that “I”, meaning you have said that you don’t want there to be any “god”. Now you have done it and made yourself a liar. Merry “Christ”mas and I love the way you say “Holly”day’s. You just can’t get away from it. Bet you bought presents too. Ha , and don’t try to deny it.

          • George T

            Soooooooo… you’ve got nothing to back up your assertions. Gotcha.

            Happy holidays (^_^)

          • Mike Laborde

            So, you did buy presents. Ha, ha. Happy solstus day, uh, happy dirt day? Come on. Give it up. You need Jesus as your Lord and Savior. You know that He Loves you.

          • George T

            Why wouldn’t I buy presents to exchange with friends and family? As Penn Jillette has pointed out in his book, every day is an atheist holiday (^_^)

            P.S. Why do you keep claiming to know my mind? …and getting it hilariously wrong.

          • Mike Laborde

            Aah, but you don’t buy them everyday. Seems like you are giving gifts on Jesus’s birthday and I have no argument with that. But I know you don’t buy and give gifts to all of your friends everyday. Keep celebrating “Christ”mas. And holidays “holy days”.

          • George T

            Yes, on Santa’s present giving day. Because people think *Christianity* when they think of fat guys wearing red outfits distributing presents. Because Jesus was all about greed and consumerism.

            BTW, why do you keep partial quoting words like I care in any way?

            Have a rollicking Festivus (^_^)

          • Mike Laborde

            Holidays= (holy” days. You just can’t get away from God. He loves you. That’s why he sent his only Son to earth to die for yours and mine , sins, that you would be saved from an eternal life of self induced punishment in a place where their won’t be any “fun” things going on.

          • George T

            Right. Nothing to back it up.

          • Mike Laborde

            Your comments have been condescending from the beginning. You still loose on this one , again.

          • George T

            Only if you approach these comments with an existing inferiority complex.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T mimic boy. I don’t feel inferior to you since you have made yourself inferior to the human race. You have made yourself an island, a little tinsey weencey god that can do nothing but attack and claim that you are being attacked. Attack with air , nothing of substance but inferior nomanclatures and inuendoe. Having no substance you mimic truth but are shallow and full of envy because you are going nowhere fast and are spinning around in circles. Nothing phases you because you have been electrocuited to a mere talking head void of substance and full of vile.

          • George T

            I never said anything about inferior feeling relating to me. Interesting that you’d make that assumption. Textual Freudian slip?

            I also never claimed to be under attack, but I think it’s obvious to anyone still reading this comment thread that you’d love to successfully attack me at some point.

            So when would you like to discuss the article? I’m tired of entertaining your wrongheaded and weak defamatory assertions.

          • Mike Laborde

            I already have success, just not in your eyes or way of thinking. Be blessed. God loves you, that is the one and only Creator God.

          • George T

            I sincerely hope that your imaginary father figure brings you peace one of these days.

          • Mike Laborde

            I have a peace that surpasses all understanding from my Father in heaven, that is why I am trying to help you find yours and eternal life with the One True God. Merry :Christ”mas.

          • George T

            Like trying to find Bigfoot. I’d rather not waste my time chasing after an imaginary father figures approval.

            Have a jolly Solstice (^_^)

          • Mike Laborde

            Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light. No one goes to the Father Creator but by Jesus Christ. He is very easy to find. All you have to do is ask Him, and He will accept you into His fold. Grace is the key and repentance is what is required. Repentance of your sins. Accept Him today. He loves you and wants you to become born again. Merry “Christ”mas. Have you bought all of your “Christ”mas presents yet. You have six days left.

          • George T

            No one goes to the creator because there is no creator. …or have you found some evidence yet?

            I’m getting tired of your vapid platitudes regarding your imaginary father figure. If you don’t have anything of substance to say I’m quitting this.

          • Mike Laborde

            Guess you have to go shopping for “Christ”mas. Buying all of those gifts for Jesus’s birthday get expensive. Accept Him today as your Lord and Savior , your life will be changed forever. And happy “Holy”days. You know, God is calling out to you everywhere. Pure substance and facts, no platitudes.

          • George T

            No reason to accept the writings of Bronze Age charlatans and mystics who apparently made up a religion like L Ron Hubbard. I know you’re trying to do something good for me, and I appreciate that. Still, I’d appreciate it more if you’d stop. Is beginning to get foolish and your efforts and intentions are astonishingly misplaced. Every post where you don’t provide evidence just validates and confirms my atheism.

            P.S. I’m guessing that you imagine me like some comic book villain shaking my fist at the screen every time you end on one of those laughable quoted well wishes. I really couldn’t possibly care less about your attempts to zing me.

          • Mike Laborde

            If you stop attacking Christianity and look around, stop demonizing those that accept Christianity, attacking them also. That way, you will not get mail that is inviting you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That’s just the way it is. We will not let God be downed without returning to the attacker with a choice of accepting God. Sorry but that’s just the way it is. We don’t get angry or even. But we will stand up for our faith. You have yours and we have ours. Merry “Christ”mas. Jesus loves you.

          • George T

            Now here’s a reality check for you… you’re choosing to see my statements as attacks. I just posted the truth of the matter as I see it.

            An analogous scenario would involve you telling me that I’m going to hell or that abortion is murder. It’s the truth of the situation as many Christians see it. They don’t realize how their opinions come across as “attacks” to people who don’t share their faith. They actually think they’re being helpful, just like I feel when I shared my truth with you.

            So anyway, I’m pretty sure you won’t think that I’m trying to help when I say that Jesus doesn’t love me because he’s been dead for centuries.

            This is me, giving you harsh knowledge of reality as a present. Merry Christmas 😉

          • Mike Laborde

            Now let me get this straight. You and I have told you before, came , clicked on this Christian News Story read it, disagreed and then proceeded to opine against the reality of a Creator God and you don’t call that an attack. You have a one way or the highway way of thinking brain. Merry “Christ”mas.

          • George T

            Correct. I wouldn’t say that you’re attacking a teenager if you share the fact that The Tooth Fairy or Santa aren’t real. I also wouldn’t call it an attack to tell me that I’m going to hell for not believing in your religion. It’s the worst sales pitch ever, but not an attack (^_^)

          • Mike Laborde

            Oh, but it is. Merry Christmas. And no, I am not a child as you suggest. Did you ever here of verbal. It’s a noun.

          • George T

            “Oh, but it is.”

            The worst sales pitch ever? Yes. An attack? No.

            “And no, I am not a child as you suggest.”

            I didn’t say, imply, or suggest that. Interesting twist on that martyr complex that so many Christians have.

          • Mike Laborde

            I sell nothing. Salvation is a free gift from God. Jesus Christ already paid the price for your salvation, all you have to do is accept it. It will be the very best thing you could ever do. Merry Christmas.

          • George T

            You can’t even give it away with a pitch like that! :-p

            The thing is, I already accepted it when I was younger. Then I realized it was a ridiculous concept when I hit junior high.

          • Mike Laborde

            So as a child you gave up on God more or less because someone said or told you that there is no God. You should rethink that decision because accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior then going back to the same old things that you used to do cancels out any positive decision on Christ. Faith requires action. Love is a product of your decision . Works without faith is dead. Merry Christmas.

          • George T

            So you’ve made an assumption about what happened to me in my youth. The only thing anyone told me was that there is a god.

            I read a book on my own called “A Brief History of Time” which taught me a lot about how the universe works. From that I realized that the bible doesn’t make any sense.

            The remainder of your comment is comprised of platitudes suitable for a keychain or prison cell wall. …so I’m ignoring those.

            Enjoy whatever holiday you decide to celebrate!

          • Mike Laborde

            So, who is the author of confusion. Someone never told you that the Holy word of God wasn’t confusion but you went to a humanist author , who probably hated God, because he wrote things in there that ran cross wise of God’s word. The author of confusion is God’s enemy, Beelzebub, the one who wanted to be God and got cast down to earth and out of heaven. Your books “platitudes” is just that , Merry Christmas.

          • George T

            No, I don’t think Stephen Hawking has ever claimed to be a humanist. He is internationally known as one of the smartest men on the planet. However, I’m not surprised that you haven’t heard of him.

            You really are just grasping at straws right now. The bible isn’t word from any god. It’s those Bronze Age scribbling that run crosswise to scientific facts.

            Are you going to trot out that old chestnut about the wisest of men being foolish next to god’s wisdom. I’m paraphrasing from memory. What is it?

          • Mike Laborde

            You came up with Stephen H. as Beliezibub. Wow. That is a stretch. You must have been dreaming of him and are confused. No, not grasping, I’m on solid ground. You have to have more faith to believe that there is no God. And I’m afraid you have the date wrong. Adam is before the Bronze age. Yes, God is the creator of Wisdom. Ask Solomon.

          • George T

            Hawking is the author of “A Brief History of Time”. You’re the one that said Hawking’s words are from Beelzebub. But they were far from confusing. They were very illuminating.

            BTW, try reading some of Bart Ehrman’s books if you want some information about the history of biblical writings. Do you really think biblical writings date back to the time that Adam would’ve existed?

          • Mike Laborde

            Just where did Hawkins get his knowledge? Answer= God. And you are the one who brought up Hawkins, you have me mixed up with some other guy. Go back and reread my posts. Merry Christmas and happy new year.

          • George T

            Incorrect. There is no god.

            Hawking learned material that generations past had figured out using the scientific method. Then he’s added more to our collective pool of knowledge using that same method.

            And no, I was having a bit of fun with you regarding authorship, but it sailed right over your head.

          • Mike Laborde

            And they got that scientific method from God who created them and all knowledge. Look back on my post, it was only you that brought up Hawking. And many who got that scientific method used it wrong in trying to used it to disprove that there is a God. Merry Christmas George and of course, not George Bailey.

          • George T

            Still no evidence provided regarding this *god* you keep talking about.

          • Mike Laborde

            Still no evidence provided by you that there is no God. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Celebrate another year that the Lord has made. Be glad and rejoice that the Savior has come. The one who was spoken of even before David’s day.

          • George T

            I’m not omniscient so I can’t authoritatively discount all potential. I have been stating my default position given the conflicting religious texts from around the world.

            So why should I believe there is a god? It doesn’t have to be your Christian god. Just say yes or no. Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

          • Mike Laborde

            Weather I say yes or no about evidence is that your position compels you to not accept any evidence since you came on Christian News and started attacking those who believe. Your acceptance of so called evidence is your downfall and gives you away. To be blunt, you don’t accept any evidence other than what atheist scientist or what the atheist religion tells you. You are pinned up in a box with no way out. Your pride condims you and are not humbled at any message of hope or forgiveness for mankind’s existence. Your message is that there is no hope for anyone. Your message causes many to commit suicide. God’s message is redemption and His Only Son gave His life for you that you would not perish and have everlasting life with Him. Your message causes death. God’s message gives life. Jesus loves you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

          • George T

            First, there is no atheist religion. Atheism is simply a statement of lacking belief in a god.

            Now, stating my belief given the evidence isn’t an attack. I just told you part of the logic for my position, but you can’t seem to provide anything for yours. You started off offering to give evidence or proofs and I haven’t seen any.

          • Mike Laborde

            Sorry George. We went over this before. Atheist have claimed to have their own religion. And you do attack God when you say that there is no God. You deny that God exist in your mind and only in your mind , not counting the billions of people who do believe, cancels out your beliefs and you don’t like it. You are being tormented in your lonely little box that you have created for yourself. No hope, no future, all you have to look forward to is death. Daily life will end shortly for you and after, darkness and gnashing of teeth, pain and suffering Eternal separation from God. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

          • George T

            Yes, we’ve gone over the fact that atheism is lacking belief in a god. It is not a set of organized beliefs in something with a supernatural basis. It’s not a religion.

            I’ve also explained that my statements of belief that there is no god are no more an attack than the assertion that I will suffer eternally (that you just made), which can be seen by a non-Christian as an attack.

            Finally, I don’t deny god as there is no god to deny. I wonder at your need for an imaginary father figure and omnipotent tyrant and despot conceived by mystics and charlatans now long dead. A very odd fixation indeed.

          • Mike Laborde

            Google “Atheist now claim that they are a religion”. The story ran about 4-5 months ago.
            Since you say that there is no God, and “deny” that there is no God, your claim gives credience to “There is a God”. Merry Christmas.

          • George T

            Couldn’t find the story you mentioned. If it’s related to a legal situation, we’ve already discussed that.

            Does the same logic giving credence apply to you when asserting that there is no Odin or Vishnu? Does that apply to saying there is no Santa? Nessie? No.

            Care to try anything else?

          • Mike Laborde

            You didn’t even try. I remember reading it. And If I remember it I know it was a story. So, you believe in Santa
            clause? Interesting. Jesus loves you and he wants you to find joy, peace and wisdom. Accept Him today and get out of your box that has nothing to offer and has no future. Merry Christmas.

          • George T

            I looked through Google’s news search back to April. If you find it, please give more details to refine the search.

            No, I don’t believe in a Santa. I’m assuming you’re being intentionally obtuse. Given our exchange so far, I can’t imagine you’re so dense that you can’t consider your logic applied to other fictitious characters.

          • Mike Laborde

            George; you’ve been gone for so long, I thought that you were out shopping for friends Christmas presents or visiting family for a Christmas get together. Well, we had ours. Prayed for one another and prayed that Jesus would continue His work in us. Prayed and celebrated Jesus birthday, gave gifts, love offerings to one another , taught our children, their children and our children great grand children about Jesus and His love for us. We had a wonderful get together to celebrate Immanuel’s birthday. Had a joyful time loving each other like God the Creator loves and cares for us. It’s such a wonderful time of the year , a peaceful time when you know that God loves you. Looking forward for Easter where we celebrate Jesus death resurrection and His coming Kingdom that will never pass away. Another time to stop and get together with family and friends to thank God for His sacrifice and His love for us. Hopefully, you will have a visitation from Him and your heart will be changed to love instead of self hatred and hatred of all sorts. When true love is absent from ones being , he only has a counterfeit love and is void of any blessings. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

          • George T

            My internet access here in The Marshall Islands is limited.

            So you either misunderstand me or your projecting your own feelings on me. I love learning and love to encourage that feeling in others. I was hoping to hear something new about Christianity from you, but all you’ve done is failed to irritate me with hollow platitudes and pointedly sectarian invocations that I really couldn’t care less about (^_^)

            I’ve also noticed that you like to pepper your comments with images of my pain, suffering, and general misery because I left The Episcopalian Church (you haven’t even mentioned your denomination). These indicate to me a very evil soul, gaining pleasure from imagining my torment. I’m happy to report that your dreams and wishes are unfulfilled. I don’t wish any wailing or gnashing of teeth on you. The thought didn’t even cross my mind until you’ve brought it up in past comments.

            In closing, I will never stop being amazed and perplexed by Christians (Lutheran?) like yourself who are obsessed with pain and death. It’s almost like a fetish.

          • Mike Laborde

            Well now, since you love encouraging others about feelings and beliefs, encourage instead of tearing down their beliefs and feelings. The irritation you feel is your spirit man telling you that Creator God wants to have fellowship with you but your protestations against His authority over your life is wrecking your Peace and the love it needs from Him, Father God that is. I did not wish the evil that has already been proficided for your life, I only relayed it to you. I am a full gospel believer and you should have discerned that but your discernment compass is way off course and out of the spiritual realm. Amazed is not the correct word, but aw struck is the correct wording with our love of Christ, not an obsession. Hope that you had a wonderful time at Christmas. Offences will come, but if you keep them to yourself they will end up harming you. In Christ is the best for your life. You would enjoy life if you entered into the fold of Gods’ love There is still hope for you.

          • George T

            I’m not tearing down anybody’s feelings or beliefs. I’m also not being shy about my own. I do enjoy my life without religion. I just wish dominionists would respect that and the 1st amendment.

            Also, a correction. My comment made no mention of any irritation. Is this another case of you wishing me ill.

            About your sect, you didn’t answer my question. The gospel is only part. Can you name a denomination? Do you follow the standard Catholic canonized bible or do you also follow gnostic works that they left out?

            Finally, you’re wrong. I meant what I said and I said what I meant regarding the Christian obsession with death.

          • Mike Laborde

            What happened George? Truth Is like that. It pierces the heart.. Jesus loves you.

          • George T

            If truth pierces the heart, you must not have a heart for my comments to pierce.

            Did you figure out which sect/denomination you follow yet?

            Also, anything relevant to the 1st amendment violation in this article?

          • Mike Laborde

            I sent you a site to join the atheist church I found for your religion. First amendment = first amendment, e, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Only truth from God’s word pierces my heart, not mans words.

          • George T

            So you have no freedom from another person imposing their religion on you? Freedom *of* religion includes freedom *from* religion.

            I don’t see any link about your insane idea of what a religion is.

            So no words pierce your heart as there is no god. Just fantasies and wishful thinking of men.

          • Mike Laborde

            It is there, you re just willfully ignoring it. I say there is God’s word that only pierces my heart since you say there is no God. No person imposing their will on me, and it does say “Freedom of Religion” not freedom from religion. No mention of freedom from religion in the constitution that was inspired by God through Godly men. The Declaration of Independence also mentions a Creator (God). So even, way back then and way, way before, even before scientist God is known. Return to Him today. He loves you. He will fill that emptiness that is inside of you with love , peace and Joy. Happy “Holly” day, happy New Year.

          • George T

            It is there, you re just willfully ignoring it.

            I’m still waiting for your evidence or proof. Think logically about this. If I really did know that there is something that would increase the joy and positive qualities in my life, why would I actively reject it? All natural evidence contradicts your holy book. The holy book contradicts itself with numerous errors and known modifications decades after the original writers died. So I have to be honest and accept that there is no reason to believe in an afterlife or deity. If you have evidence I’d love to hear it.

            I say there is God’s word that only pierces my heart since you say there is no God.

            Repetition doesn’t make it true nor does it provide the evidence I’ve been requesting.

            and it does say “Freedom of Religion” not freedom from religion. No mention of freedom from religion in the constitution that was inspired by God through Godly men.

            Did you even read what I said? Maybe your reading comprehension is lacking. SCOTUS has pointed out years ago that freedom from other religions is required for any individual to have freedom to practice the religion of their choosing.

            The Declaration of Independence also mentions a Creator (God).

            Yup. So? It’s a divorce letter sent to the leader of a nation and church (Anglican).

            So even, way back then and way, way before, even before scientist God is known.

            Right. People didn’t understand many things. They made up stories about gods to explain thunder, death, and illness before we developed a method of study and deduction to learn about reality. Now that we’re figuring out more, those gods filling gaps in our knowledge are getting smaller and smaller. For some, it’s made more sense to stop attributing the unknown to gods. Instead they admit that they don’t know, but that it’s possible to discover that knowledge in the future using this logical method.

          • Mike Laborde

            When you open your eyes and see he evidence for your religion and church then you won’t be a hypocrite just making key strokes on a computer keyboard. Seeing as you are just a troublemaker and consumed with evil you do fit the description of an atheist sent by satin. But guess what you loose and God ins, always. Mr mimmick should be your name. Yes, I will give you that name. Happy New Year, Mr. Mimmick..

          • George T

            More platitudes, still lacking reading comprehension (a.k.a. critical reading skills), and zero evidence.

            Seeing as you are just a troublemaker and consumed with evil you do fit the description of an atheist sent by satin.

            Incorrect. I am helping by correcting errors in comments. For example, your definition of an atheist is incorrect. It is a person who lacks a belief in a god or gods. Only some atheists care about cloths like satin. If you meant Satan, we don’t believe in that mythological character either.

          • Mike Laborde

            Ah, but you do believe in a god. You believe that you are a god and that your like mates are all lil gods. You even deny atheist even have their own “church” in which atheist do. Deny until the cows come home, but that still will not change the truth that God does love you and wants the best for your life here on earth and in Heaven.

          • George T

            Ah, but you do believe in a god. You believe that you are a god and that your like mates are all lil gods.

            No, I’m not Mormon (^_^)

            This is a common misconception. I am a mostly hairless primate with a more complex brain. Not anything like any concept of a god. Not even close to a Greek/Roman concept of a demi-god.

            You even deny atheist even have their own “church” in which atheist do.

            Ah! You’re thinking of the social gathering jokingly called a “church”. Many atheists, myself included, were worried about people like yourself being confused by the name. I’ve never seen one of those.

            Do you also assume that celebrities are cooked over a fire at a roast?

            but that still will not change the truth that God does love you and wants the best for your life here on earth and in Heaven.

            I’m sure Buddha, Vishnu, Horus, Shiva, Thor, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa, Odin, Jupiter/Zeus, Marduk, Ahura Mazda, Seth, Ba’al, Moander, Tiamat, Chronos, Kukulcan, Cyric, and a bevy of other fictitious deific characters care equally for you.

          • Mike Laborde

            Atheist have become attack dogs of the left , attacking Christians through the government judicial system that has become a tyrannical , unconstitutional body of emps straight from the sewers of enslavement and those who follow and agree with them are so uneducated about constitutional authority, that they are headed to a state of communism and believe that they are headed to utopia.. Atheist have become chattel of evil men out to destroy freedom and don’t know it. Platitudes, you are dishing them out one stroke at a time and are ignorant of your lack of wisdom.

          • George T

            Atheist have become attack dogs of the left , attacking Christians through the government judicial system that has become a tyrannical , unconstitutional body of emps straight from the sewers of enslavement and those who follow and agree with them are so uneducated about constitutional authority, that they are headed to a state of communism and believe that they are headed to utopia.

            Impressive, but incorrect, run on sentence. I can only see any of your statements being accurate if Christianity had a privileged position in government. It doesn’t. Because it doesn’t, you and many others are simply whining because groups like The FFRF are holding Christianity to the same standards and constitutional rights as every other religion.

            Poor Christians. The government gave you ice cream like a spoiled kid for years. Now you’re upset because other groups and religions are demanding ice cream for all of the kids or none at all.

            Platitudes, you are dishing them out one stroke at a time and are ignorant of your lack of wisdom.

            Have I? I guess explaining what an atheist is multiple times can be seen as a platitude given that you can’t understand or accept (I’m not sure which) the truth. If I’ve posted so many, I invite you to point out five.

            Also, I’m still ready and waiting for your proof or evidence of any god.

          • Mike Laborde

            All that you imply is just implying. You attack my grammer and my sentence structure because you know that I, moi, me, Michael have spoken truth and you can’t prove otherwise.

          • George T

            All that you imply is just implying.

            On the rare occasion that I’ve implied something, yes. Most of my comment are comprised of facts that you might’ve misunderstood.

            You attack my grammer and my sentence structure because you know that I, moi, me, Michael have spoken truth and you can’t prove otherwise.

            I’ve repeatedly explained the errors you’ve made in comments. I’ll admit that I have made fun of some of your errors to entertain myself. Sometimes a diversion is needed when the other person (you) refuses to listen or correct the mistakes made in discourse.

          • Mike Laborde

            Since you haven’t denied liking or disliking the fact that atheist go around attacking Christians and their religious freedoms, attacking symbols of Christianity everywhere using the force of government / lawyers with agendas, I must place you in the category of attacking God and the constitution. Thereby attacking me and my constitutional rights. That makes you an enemy of God. You can’t separate My Creator God and Michael. So you can’t remain on an admiral side of human kind. Because , there are way to many Christians in this world than atheist.
            And I have told you that I am non denominational. A Bible believing Christian, a truth believer and the truth is that Jesus does love you and is calling you right now. Accept Him today as your Lord and Savior.

          • George T

            Since you haven’t denied liking or disliking the fact that atheist go around attacking Christians and their religious freedoms, attacking symbols of Christianity everywhere using the force of government / lawyers with agendas, I must place you in the category of attacking God and the constitution.

            Must you? I’ve already explained how atheists aren’t attacking Christians by holding their religion to the same laws and restrictions as apply to other religions. It is in fact upholding The Constitution, not attacking that foundation of our nations secular government.

            Thereby attacking me and my constitutional rights.

            No. I’m granting you and your religion all the rights that any other citizen is granted, and no more.

            That makes you an enemy of God. You can’t separate My Creator God and Michael. So you can’t remain on an admiral side of human kind. Because , there are way to many Christians in this world than atheist.

            And there are more Muslims in this world than Christians. Does that mean you want their religion to have more rights than Christians?

            In the U.S. we all get equal religious rights. I’m sorry that you’re upset because you aren’t getting extra privileges.

            And I have told you that I am non denominational.

            I’m sorry, but that’s not possible. Your beliefs regarding the triune, divinity of Jesus, and various other disputed factors dictates your denomination. The only way to truly be non-denominational would be believing in a Christian god, Jesus without considering his divinity, and rejecting the bible and its many other disputed quality. I tried including a quiz to help, but this website seems to restrict comment links.

          • Mike Laborde

            Read this thoroughly, don’t miss a word. It will become marrow for your dry bones. Don’t miss a word.You are speaking double speak. Jesus loves you. Accept Him right now. He is calling to you. Become a son of God. Your life will never be the same. Joy unspeakable , Love unstoppable , everything becomes possible. No more misery. Shouts of Joy . Come, worship the King of all Kings! The Lord of all Lords! The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last! The Lion of Judah!, from everlasting to everlasting! Their is unspeakable Love in His presence. Experience His fullness, come experience everything He has for you. Faith unshakeable. Forever and forever and forever! Experience His healing. Be filled with wisdom, come now and give Him honor and adoration. These are not platitudes, this Love from Him is unspeakable, and full of wonder. Revive your broken soul. He will make you brand new.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Read this thoroughly, don’t miss a word.

            Ah! Pulling a “do as I say, not as I do”, eh?

            Since you can’t seem to address any of the questions I’ve posed, I’ve decided to compile a list. You haven’t directly addressed any of these questions while I’ve corrected or responded to yours.
            —————————-

            What is your Christian denomination/sect?

            Can you point out five platitudes from my comments?

            Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

            Why is your accusatory description of atheism a spot on match for the Mormon sect?

            Do you follow the standard Catholic canonized bible or do you also follow gnostic works that they left out?

            Do you really think biblical writings date back to the time that Adam would’ve existed?

          • Mike Laborde

            Denomination, mine+=+ non denominational, bible believing Christian, seeing as you think you know about Christians , why do you keep asking what has already been answered? Read the King James NIV, it will be very revealing to you as I figure you have read no bible with the intent to glean wisdom. Adams accounts were passed on with a fear of God to never ever leave anything out until they were written on scrolls. Holy inspired by God. So George, you never told me what denomination you grew up under. What is it?

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I keep asking because you keep giving a nonsensical answer. There is no “non-denominational” Christianity. Making up a denomination with a clear superiority bent is childish. Like claiming to be emperor of your housing community or apartment building.

            Here… I’ll help you with this. Please answer the following questions and I’ll give you a rough idea of the denomination you are closest to. Aim for yes/no replies if possible.

            1. There is one God?

            2. God (Godhead) exists as three distinct Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

            3. The Bible is free from error?

            4. Jesus is God and man?

            5. Jesus physically rose from the dead?

            6. One is saved by God’s Grace through faith in Jesus Chris?

            7. One must be a member of a specific church/organization to be saved?

            8. Salvation can only be found through Jesus Christ?

            9. God has predestined some to salvation and passes over others based only on His will?

            10. All will be saved?

            11. Once saved, always saved (Eternal Security)?

            12. Pacifism is important?

            13. Water baptism should be practiced?

            14. Infants can (or should) be baptized?

            15. Baptism saves (or regenerates, or washes away sin)?

            16. Christ is physically present in communion?

            17. Infants can receive communion?

            18. Tradition plays a part in the church?

            19. There a literal Heaven and Hell?

            20. The preferred day of worship (or Sabbath) is Sunday?

            21. People receive charismatic gifts today (tongues, prophesy)?

            22. A woman can serve as a pastor or a church minister?

            23. Infallible authority in faith is invested in a single person (or few/many people)?

            24. Only scripture should be used as a rule of faith?

          • Mike Laborde

            George; there are thousands of Independent Churches all over the world. With all of your “wisdom” I would have thought that you knew of that revelation. George; Jesus loves loves you. Accept Him today. Look up Independent churches, son. God loves you.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: You’re thinking of the “not connected to other churches” form. I’m referring to the opinion regarding the divinity of Jesus, the validity of a triune, Purgatory and Hell existing or not. These are concepts that American colonists divided communities over and sometimes killed each other for.

            So, again, understanding that your church is independent, what are your beliefs regarding the list of questions in my last comment?

          • Mike Laborde

            No, I’m thinking of what God has said. Each is branch is part o the tree. Everyone has been given a some gifts. One sews, one reaps, another prunes, etc. We are connected to God by I level of knowledge of His will. You can or cannot believe. Believing not doesn’t make you correct George. And no, colonist didn’t kill each other off because of divisions of belief. No cathlocs were here in building the colonies. They made different colonies because of land ownership. Here is your bonus question. Will you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I didn’t say that colonists killed each other off. Again, I urge you to improve your critical reading skills.

            I’ll have to take your answer to mean that you’re into a vague belief in Christianity with no consideration given to the details. That also answers my question regarding your beliefs being true or not. …no, you don’t. If that’s the case, I don’t see any reason why we should continue this conversation.

          • Mike Laborde

            George, you need to re read your previous posts. You did say killed each other. My reading and comprehension skills are OK. You must be on the sauce or on an illegal substance. Jesus loves you.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Very good. I did say that colonists *sometimes* killed each other. You dropped that word and added an *off* that can imply whole colonies wiping each other out.

          • Mike Laborde

            Non denominational. Yet, am sill praying for you that you will come to the full knowledge of your Creator and Lord Jesus Christ that you will not fail to see his goodness and His love for you. His mercies are anew everyday. You see, just having a conversation with a born again Christian is giving you peace. Jesus loves you. Imagine having fellowship with the Holiest of Holies everyday, day and night.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Non denominational.

            Given that you keep saying this instead of answering any questions regarding the triune, the divinity of Jesus, purgatory and hells existence or not… I’ve gotta assume that you’re a shallow, “going through the motions” Christian.

            Also, skipping over my accurate point that your critical reading skills need improvement and my question about your beliefs being true or not. This is why I see your posts as empty platitudes. You give the impression of a person who doesn’t consider his own faith. Just urging others to join because… that’s what you’re supposed to do.

          • Mike Laborde

            Not accepting the answer you want tells me that you don’t know the meaning of non denominational or don’t accept my answer as an answer. You just want to bash and share false claims against a denomination. Why do you keep asking these frivolous questions? Trying to convince yourself that there is no God is working and wearing heavily on your inner man. Jesus and His Spirit can help you with that because you won’t accept any help from any living human beings. Jesus is Lord; of you wether you want Him to or not.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: This is your opportunity to share the gospel of non-denominational Christianity. Why not explain your churches stance on concepts like the triune, allegorical or literal Genesis, and other disputed concepts? I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious and your missing this opportunity because your scared or paranoid.

            I’m probably not going to become a believer, but I am curious about what people believe and why.

            Also, wanting to know if you care about the things you believe being true or not isn’t a frivolous question. That is a very important quality to know about any person.

          • Mike Laborde

            You and I both know that what ever I tell you a bout the triune God or the books of the bible , you will ridicule it and make fun of it. See, I can tell by your very words and actions that you are fearful of your life now and after you pass on from this life on to the next. I care deeply about you as does Jesus. He took the sins of this world upon Him so that you could enter into eternal fellowship with Creator God, your maker and healer. He is giving you time to enter into a love with him. He loves you that much.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I have stated my intent…

            You and I both know that what ever I tell you a bout the triune God or the books of the bible , you will ridicule it and make fun of it.

            …and you’ve called me a liar. If you haven’t considered these issues, just admit it.

            I can tell by your very words and actions that you are fearful of your life

            No, you’re making incorrect assumptions based on your own motivations. I have clearly stated my reason. It’s the same reason I flew to Vanuatu to witness John Frum Day. I am fascinated by the myths and beliefs of people around the globe.

          • Mike Laborde

            George, now you are making incoherent statements and accusations That is confusion George. I am not the one confused. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. He will stop your confusion.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I’m done. At this point I have to assume that English is your second language or you’re intentionally being evasive and deceitful.

            For the record and anybody still bothering to read this thread, Mike is incapable of answering the following questions honestly…

            What are the tenets of the non-denominational church you attend?

            Can you point out five platitudes from my comments?

            Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

            Why is your accusatory description of atheism a spot on match for the Mormon sect?

            Do you follow the standard Catholic canonized bible or do you also follow gnostic works that they left out?

            Do you really think biblical writings date back to the time that Adam would’ve existed?

          • Mike Laborde

            Asked and answered. All f those questions. Not liking what the answers are by you is not a non answer. It is still an answer, that you don’t like. Jesus loves you. Accept Him today as your Lord and Savior. Surrender your life to Him.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Asked and answered.

            Incorrect

          • Mike Laborde

            Do you have allshimers George? Asked and answered. You just don’t want to accept the answers because the answers to you do not compute. Jesus loves you George. He knows yoy by name , he knows every hair upon your head, he knows all about you. He created you George. accept Him today for your sake George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Asked and answered.

            Incorrect. Apparently you didn’t read my last summary of questions.

          • Mike Laborde

            George,
            Apparently you forgot to look at all of the past posts. All the way back. It is your reading comprehension that is failing you. Did you listen to your president last night? I watched something else as I am loath of his continuous rants and continual lying. Jesus loves you George. Ask Him to take over your life, George.

          • George T

            Mke Laborde: Apparently you felt like showing us your poor reading skills again.

            I referenced my last summary of questions. You didn’t read that. Instead you shot past my recent posts looking for something to attack me with.

          • Mike Laborde

            George,
            You keep saying the same thing in err. You have no valid cause because your questions were asked and answered in previous posts. The post that you refuse to look back over. It sure is sad when some one is accused but the accuser, George, refuses to accept the answers. So, I’ll tell you again and again, asked and answered, again. Jesus loves you George. Change is so hard for you, but all things are possible with God.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Incorrect. You keep assuming you’ve answered questions that you haven’t. Try again…

            What are the tenets of the non-denominational church you attend?

            Can you point out five platitudes from my comments?

            Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

            Why is your accusatory description of atheism a spot on match for the Mormon sect?

            Do you follow the standard Catholic canonized bible or do you also follow gnostic works that they left out?

            Do you really think biblical writings date back to the time that Adam would’ve existed?

          • Mike Laborde

            George.
            Assumptions? You really need to re read all of my previous comments. Asked and answered. God is calling to you. He ill never give up on you. The day of reconing is near. Accept Jesus today

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Incorrect. You’ve avoided answering any of the questions I’ve just posted. If you have answered the questions, simply quote your answers.

          • Mike Laborde

            Hey George;
            Again and again and again, asked and answered. Give your life to Jesus today, right now as you are in danger of eternal separation and unbearable suffering in you next life after this one. God wishes that none should perish as He sent His only Son to pay for your sins.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: What are the tenets of the non-denominational church you attend?

          • Mike Laborde

            George; Asked and answered.
            Check previous posts, the answers are there. Jesus loves you George. Give your life to him, He loves you George

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I did check. You didn’t answer.

            What are the tenets of the non-denominational church you attend?

          • Mike Laborde

            I really doubt that you have gone back and read my previous post as you would have gathered the tenants of my church in everyone of those post concerning the bible and the Triune God, and the principles and precepts that He makes very evident. You don’t see them because you don’t accept them. Asked and answered. Jesus does love you , you know and he wants you to have an eternal life with Him.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I just read through them again. Still no information about tenets of your church. You maintained an evasive, hippy-dippy attitude even when I provided a list of direct questions to clarify denominational points.

            I’ve also recently suggested that you quote where you explained the tenets of your religion. In that way you’ve failed to show or actively avoided providing any knowledge of your own professed beliefs.

            So for this particular question I’ll have to assume that you haven’t considered your own beliefs at all. That you don’t really know what you believe and how your church differs or aligns with other denominations. Got it. Thanks.

            Next question: Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

          • Mike Laborde

            If you knew that tenents =core beliefs, then you would know by my posts , you would know and understand my churches’ core beliefs. “You will know them by their fruit”. So I will not elaborate the many, many core beliefs that I hold. They are too numerous to go through. Asked and answered. Jesus does love you and wants fellowship with you. Give your life to Him today.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I do know that “core beliefs” is a sufficient definition of the word “tenets”. If you want to claim that the tenets of your beliefs and your church can be known from your posts, then they are poorly formed and sometimes completely lacking in thought or consideration.

            Congratulations. You’ve done a horrible job explaining any relevant detail of your sect/denomination.

            Next question: Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

          • Mike Laborde

            George T:
            A fifth grader can read and understand my core beliefs and those of my church. Seeing as they are one and the same. Only a person that has hardened their heart against God , His Word and a Christian cannot understand those beliefs.
            Question; do you have evidence, eye witness accounts, logical reasoning as to non belief in God? Answer, you don’t have any. Jesus Loves you George. Become a slave to Him instead of a slave to sin and death.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: So, my judgmental friend, why don’t you explain the tenets of your sect/denomination? Better yet, show me how hard my heart is by quoting your own comments to clearly explain these things to horrible heathens like myself.

            Question; do you have evidence, eye witness accounts, logical reasoning as to non belief in God? Answer, you don’t have any.

            The above quote is an evasive response, but not an answer to my question.

            Question: Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

          • Mike Laborde

            George T. ;
            I only quoted what is written. You judged yourself by stating that I am judgmental when I was only relaying what scripture says about the unbelievers.
            So what are your tenets of faith? Because it takes more faith to believe that there is no God than to believe. I have told you where to find mine, where are yours?
            God sent His only Son to die on a cross for your sins that you might have eternal life with Him. He loves you so much that He died for you. Accept Him today as your Lord and Savior.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            I only quoted what is written.

            Your bible says something about 5th graders? That would partially answer one of my upcoming questions. At least eliminating the KJV as I’ve read that and never found anything about a modern K through 12 education structure mentioned.

            So what are your tenets of faith?

            There are no tenets involved. It’s simply not having a belief in a god or gods. There are several ways to reach this conclusion.

            Because it takes more faith to believe that there is no God than to believe.

            I’ve only heard this assessment from people with a religious bias or skewed perspective (but I repeat myself). It’s actually easy to see how our universe is ordered and functions through natural causes and processes utilizing the scientific method. No need to imagine a whole supernatural external structure with a deific despot lording over all of it.

            I have told you where to find mine

            Not really. So, again, I’m left with the impression that you don’t really know the details of your own beliefs at all. Thanks for continually reinforcing that by not really addressing my first question.

            Moving on…

            Question: Do you have evidence or a logical reason to believe in a god?

          • Mike Laborde

            George T;
            Asked and answered, George.
            Question: Do you have evidence that there is not a Creator God? Jesus loves you George. He is calling to you right now George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Question: Do you have evidence that there is not a Creator God?

            No. In that same way, can you disprove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn’t the supernatural creator of our universe?

            Asked and answered

            No evidence. Gotcha.

            Since you can’t answer two foundational questions about your faith (either because you don’t know how to express them, don’t know them, or are being evasive for some other reason) I see no reason to continue.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T;
            Gotchya, George. You have no evidence that their is not a God but you deny life all around you, history, science the universe, eye witness testimonies and your own inner man.
            Jesus loves you George, He knows every hair on your head, every thought that you are thinking, every word in your head before you speak it, your past and your future.
            You haven’t proved a thing and you haven’t shaken my faith. Accept Jesus today for He cares for you.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:Do you care if the things you believe are true or not?

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.; The core beliefs that I have are true George. God has given you a choice to believe or not to believe, George. But your unbelief doesn’t change the facts of God’s existence George. Give your life to Christ today, He does love you.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Amazing. You can’t even directly answer a simple question. Instead you made up a different question and answered that. …or your reading comprehension is atrocious and you really thought I was asking if your core beliefs (which you’re incapable of expressing) are true.

            Try again.

            Do you care if the things you believe are true or not?

          • Mike Laborde

            George T;
            You asked, I answered George.
            Jesus loves you George. Let Him give you freedom.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I asked. You evaded.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T;
            You asked, you didn’t accept my answer, I was forthright with you. as I am now. Accept Jesus as you will be set free from sin and death. Jesus loves you George, but you won’t ever see Him without accepting His love for you.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: It appears that you don’t understand what you’ve done. Here’s a similar question and answer scenario…

            You – George, did you do your taxes?

            George – Yes, my hair is brown.

            You – I asked about your taxes.

            George – I answered your question.

            You – No, you answered a question that I didn’t ask.

            George – You asked, I answered. Thor loves you.

            …so either you didn’t understand how you didn’t answer my question, or you understood and intentionally didn’t answer the question that I asked. I’m assuming that you’re smart enough to understand so you must be intentionally evading the question.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            Well, just got back from a vacation in the Bahamas. It was wonderful there. I thought about you there and how you could have the best time of your life if you would accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Hopefully you will do that one day and will thank me for offering you that choicest of all choices here on earth. The Cruz was wonderful and the people were great. That’s what it will be like in Heaven George. Heaven is just one announcement away. But there is only one way to get there. Gods Son , Jesus has given you that option and yes , it is and He is real. God loves you George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: I had accepted your mythology as true when I was a child. I’ve realized that it probably isn’t true. All evidence shows that it’s as real as Norse, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and many other past religions. Thanks for the offer tho.

            I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

            – Stephen Roberts

          • Mike Laborde

            George T;
            I admire that you do have “beliefs”, a religion. Seems as though that you have been searching and are still searching for the truth. As for me and my house, We will serve the Lord. No turning back as I find that there is way more evidence that he is One Creator God whom loved His creation so much that He sent His one and only Son to die for the sins of man. Yes, I do believe in the one true God, the triune God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.(Ghost). period. You would do even better if you believed upon His Son as he loves you and gave Himself a ransom for your very soul. Accept Him today. Your life will be changed and become full, full of peace, full of joy and full of His love.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            I admire that you do have “beliefs”, a religion.

            I do have beliefs, but not a religion. If you want to admire me for something I don’t have, enjoy that (^_^)

            Seems as though that you have been searching and are still searching for the truth.

            Yes, even the concept of truth has been disputed for thousands of years. As Matt Dillahunty says “I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible.” which is an effort against the systemic faults and flaws within our own brains.

            …I find that there is way more evidence that he is One Creator God whom loved His creation so much that He sent His one and only Son to die for the sins of man.

            So you believe that your god created sins and had to create a son that he arranged to be killed in order to abolish these sins that he created and was incapable of removing or abolishing any other way. Great. Congrats to you (^_^)

            Yes, I do believe in the one true God, the triune God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.(Ghost).

            Wow! You actually addressed one of my questions (*o*)

          • Mike Laborde

            George T,
            Definition , Truth- Jesus Christ. I have found Him. All truth is Jesus. He will not lie. Accept Him today

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: You’ve just given an example of a subjective truth claim.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            Look up in an early edition of Websters Dictionary, pre 1950’s, and you will find Jesus Christ as the definition of “truth Georg. Jesus loves you, George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: In the 1950’s segregation, domestic abuse, and misogyny were also seen as perfectly acceptable. None of that makes your mythology any more valid or real. It’s still a collection of mistranslated campfire stories that generations have been tricked into believing.

          • Mike Laborde

            Gorge T;
            If you would ha read my post, I said “pre” 1950’s. Now you are pulling at straws. Your analogy doesn’t equate, does not compute. Jesus loves you.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            If you would ha read my post

            No, but thanks!

            Jesus loves you.

            No, but thanks!

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            Scrolls with God’s teachings were handed down from generation to generation and were found to be of correct ages and formats by scientist and theological experts. Jesus loves you George. Look back at a pre 1950’s Websters Dictionary and you will see the definition of truth as Jesus Christ. Accept Him today.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Scrolls with God’s teachings were handed down from generation to
            generation and were found to be of correct ages and formats by scientist
            and theological experts.

            Bart Ehrman and other biblical scholars have written books addressing this false assertion.

            Look back at a pre 1950’s Websters Dictionary and you will see the definition of truth as Jesus Christ.

            Is this an appeal to tradition fallacy or appeal to authority fallacy?

          • Mike Laborde

            George;
            Pre 1950s Websters Dictionary records the definition of Jesus Christ as the truth. Assertions by Bart Ehrman doesn’t make him a truth prevayer, only a fiction writer.
            Jesus loves you George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Baseless assertions by you regarding Bart Ehrman doesn’t make your slander and empty criticism anything like truth.

            Buddha contemplates you, Mike.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T;
            I do not slander, but it is you who slanders as I didn’t slander you man Bart. It is his empty assertions that the bible is just false stories made up by people. Since he wasn’t there when the word was given to the prophets of old and was not present when the scrolls were found to be the writings of the prophets and actors of the scrolls. He can’t give an objective report on these scrolls or the bible, ie. he makes up his own mind from a bias. As do atheist do because they have heard that there is no God from people they revere. So now you have come to an impass, a blockade if you will that you again have no evidence but I have all of creation as a symbol of my beliefs and man as a being so complicated in the workmanship of his material being. So complicated that even science doesn’t know “everything” about your complicated body and how it came to be except that someone or something so emence in knowledge and power had to create from nothing the whole universe and everything that is in it and placed it into motion. I know that your boy Bart has no explination for this except to deny all of the evidence in front of his face. Jesus loves you George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            I do not slander, but it is you who slanders as I didn’t slander you man Bart.

            Ah! The classic “I know you are, but what am I” defense from Herman v Buxton (1985). You are a crafty and informed adversary. How can I ever hope to defeat such a formidable opponent!!!

            Thor hammers you, Mike.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T. ;
            The false god Thor has no power over me George. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He loves you more than you can comprehend. Accept Him today

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Marduk slew Tiamat for you! Accept the truth of the Mesopotamian religion!

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            You have the ability to believe that from Father God your creator and the lover of your soul. He gives you that choice George. I just want you to know though that there is more evidence for The Creator God, than Marduk. Never heard of that fellar. Are you sure that you didn’t get Jesus mixed up with your fellar. Jesus put sin and the enemy of your soul under his feet and has the key to hell. Jesus loves you George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Interesting observation on your part! The mythology of Babylon did apparently contribute to early Christian mythology. Qualities of Marduk can be found within the Christ story. Other religions like Zoroastrianism structure and laws were added to Judaism to create Christianity.

            Ra created you from his sweat and tears. Mike, I urge you to worship Ra!

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            The enemies of your Creator God created the mythologies of those false gods that you mentioned. Created in the minds of those who wanted power over the freedoms and resources of unbelievers. Creator God gave His one and only Son as a sacrifice for your “sins” George. Funny how you never mention “‘sin”. You know that you are a sinner, as God Himself has stated in His Holy Word George. Accept Jesus totday and He will removes the shackles that are keeping you a slave. He loves you George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            The enemies of your Creator God

            You’ve incorrectly attributed a god to me using the word “your” when there is no logical reason to assume that any god exists. Please don’t project your mythology onto me.

            created the mythologies of those false
            gods that you mentioned.

            Have you ever considered the possibility that your religion is the false creation of the enemy of the god of another religion?

            Created in the minds of those who wanted power
            over the freedoms and resources of unbelievers.

            This doesn’t apply to your religion? Ever hear of a Christian named Creflo Dollar?

            Creator God gave His one
            and only Son as a sacrifice for your “sins” George. Funny how you never
            mention “‘sin”.

            Because it’s a fake illness that Christianity claims to have a cure for. Like if I told you that you had monkeypox, and I’m the only person who has the cure. So you have to give me $100 for anti-monkeypox pills every month or you’ll die.

            You know that you are a sinner, as God Himself has
            stated in His Holy Word George.

            You mean that book that a bunch of bronze age mystics and charlatans wrote stories for? Aesop’s Fables are more consistent with their moral messages.

            Accept Jesus totday and He will removes
            the shackles that are keeping you a slave.

            Is this like sin? Another fake affliction? I’m free and happy without your mythology. But thanks anyway (^_^)

          • Mike Laborde

            Have you ever considered that your religion is way off of the mark and that whatever you preach is wrong. I have considered that God doesn’t exist but I couldn’t make myself believe it, there is too much evidence that there is a creator God, so I have no choice but to believe. As far as me following a man, you can just put that to rest. I follow the True and Living God, the Word. For in the beginning thee was God. And the Word was God. You have only words of men. Your spirit man is locked up and squelched by men.
            Jesus loves you George. You see George, I have nothing to loose. Not all things are “good”, so I choose to follow the Wisdom of a Creator God. There are consequences for every action, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I choose good as opposed to not good reaction. Accept Christ today.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Have you ever considered that your religion is way off of the mark and that whatever you preach is wrong.

            This is so funny! You apparently can’t grasp the concept of no religion. I don’t have anything to preach. I don’t have a religion (^_^)

            I have considered that God doesn’t exist but I couldn’t make myself
            believe it, there is too much evidence that there is a creator God, so I
            have no choice but to believe.

            That’s not what I asked you earlier. Have you considered that you’re following a false religion?

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            You are obviously oblivious to your religion that you have. Just because you don’t acknowledge that you have a religion doesn’t mean that you don’t. and George, you do. Your religious buddies over in Europe have acknowledged that atheist “do ” have religion.
            Jesus loves you George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Incorrect. I’m aware of how you wish to classify my lack of belief. Currently you can’t wrap your mind around my not believing in any god(s). To compensate you’re trying to redefine my thoughts in a way that allows you to understand and compare my life to your religious devotion. You’re doing it wrong (^_^)

            Anat slew Mot to free you and Hadad. Accept El, the supreme god of Canaanite polytheism!!!

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.;
            You define your religion every time that you say that God doesn’t exist. Seeing that as you quote your religions’ encounters with man made entities of Anat and Hadad, El. I have a real belief in a real God, George as you believe in downing the Creator God and His Word for life’s living and dying. As for me, I have not religion as you do George. Jesus loves you. He died for you. That’s how much he loves you. Some people create many gods George as you have.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: Your religion is also man made. Many passages being borrowed from other, older religions. The religions I have named had believers just as devoted as you.

            So, have you ever considered the possibility that a different religion is true, and your religion is the false creation of the true gods enemy?

            John Frum will bring cargo ships for you some day. I’ve personally met Chief Isaac Wan and he is a devoted believer. Mike, accept the truth of Cargo Cults!!!

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            Now George, it is written that Gods Word was inspired by God Himself. There was no other belief until evil men created other “god” in their own minds by themselves with no inspiration but their own. Which God has already said that “man is continuously thinking evil in his heart (mind). So how can a man of his own fruition write of Love/Good if Love and Good only comes from Creator God.? Answer, he, man can’t. There is but One Creator God that has a Son, Jesus Christ, which left His Holy Spirit , the comforter for us. George, I believe in the One and only living God and George, He loves you more than you will ever know or understand. Accept Him tonight. Before it’s too late.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde:

            Now George, it is written that Gods Word was inspired by God Himself.

            Well there’s some circular logic! Not everything that has been written is true. What benefit would a charlatan or conman have by claiming that his writings come from a divine source? Perhaps… oh, let’s think… maybe a source of authority that Bronze Age people wouldn’t be able to question or invalidate?

            There was no other belief until evil men created other “god” in their own minds by themselves with no inspiration but their own.

            There are religions (Egyptian, Babylonian, various Asian, etc.) that predate Christianity and Judaism. So Christianity was also a creation of men, evil or otherwise.

            Which God has already said that “man is continuously thinking evil in
            his heart (mind). So how can a man of his own fruition write of
            Love/Good if Love and Good only comes from Creator God.?

            Because that assertion is wrong and not from a god, Christian or other.

            George, I believe in the One and only living God

            Yes, I’ve noticed. Your belief and faith in no way validate or make it fact. It is a specious assertion on your part with no evidence or logic to back it up.

          • Mike Laborde

            George T.
            The difference is, wait for it, is that the Bible is inspired by the very Being that created you. Gods word, the Bible is the only book that is not corrupted by God Jesus loves you George.

          • George T

            Mike Laborde: You’re free to believe that. I support your right to whatever fantasy you wish as long as it doesn’t violate the laws of this nation (^_^)

            The Tooth Fairy gave money for you! Worship The Tooth Fairy!!!

          • Mike Laborde

            And those before him got there knowledge from God. Yes, there is a God and He loves you. Merry CHRISTMAS.

          • George T

            I’m still not seeing any reason to believe in your god, or any god actually.

          • John N

            Mike, I’m afraid you are wrong again. You are making the bold assumptions here – claiming gods exists against all evidence. It is up to you to ‘proof’ any gods exist, that your version of your god exists, and that he or she is worthy of worshipping.

            So I’m awaitig your ‘multitude of evidence’.

            Oh and please, I do not consider a 2000-year old book of unknown origin as reliable evidence.

            By the way (and this is becoming painfull), found your missing rib already?

  • BarkingDawg

    Take the poster down.

    It’s a Clerk’s office, not a church.

  • Claire Michael

    Public space …. Soooo no there shouldn’t be any religeous ‘warnings’. If people could stop thinking the bible was the constitution that’d be great.

  • Patrick Van Der Ven

    The poster needs to come down simple as that. The Clerk is abusing his position as an employee of the state by placing a narrow minded religious view of marriage which is inconsistent with that of the constitution of the USA. It violates the religious views of many people who believe that same sex marriage is between two consenting adults, and it is attempt to foist the religious opinion on Kiowa county hence the establishment of a state religion.

  • Lucid

    Just got word the poster was removed yesterday. Love it when ignorant assholes are rolled over by the constitution.

  • Joey

    I stand corrected about bibles being printed by Congress. But our history implies that Congress did not have or see the right given to them or the government to ban any book of faith in a school including the bible. Which was in public schools untill June 1962. When the court system took it from schools. If it was believed by the first Congress and our founding father that this book was not to be allowed in schools. Congress was the only one with the right to make that law and they passed to the states to raise their kids in school but not what books where allowed. And by the judicial system taking a book from school that it was wrong. For only Congress only has the right to make laws have the right to make a law not the judicial branch there is no legal right nor the executive branch to make laws. The judicial system never had the right to take a book from public school of learning no matter what book only Congress could make that law not President or the judicial system have that right. Congress even then does not have the right to take it out because of the book being a part of a religious believe. it is also a book of history that even today is being proven to be acute in history of the past of a people. And to leave Greek and Roman mythology religious books and even Viking mythology. Is fighting against a faith in america a book that was used in american schools and a religion which has always been a part of America that for 246 year and is an intrical part of American history to remove it from schools is an attack on America and its history so that makes that ruling by the court system truly unconstitutional. And even today you find that book in the court house and it is the only book in American history that you can swear by to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So still proof that separation of church and state is not implied in the constitution or bill of rights all of our greatest President’s have used the holy bible to lead them in the fight against injustice in American George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan just to name a few. And if that was not enough we have non presidential people like Betty Ross and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King jr and many others. It is an very big part of American history and even throughout all of American history has been a part of it by Congress and states who supported its use in America and became a part of the faith of Christian’s in America so became a part of our religious faith. To ban the Bible and its teaching and to take God from off of monuments in America and the ten commanents is to deny a big part of what made America great in the first place. To forget our history and why we separated from the old world and became a nation in the first place. Is the gravest of crimes.

  • Duncan Roy

    here’s some issues for FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION to tackle

    Halal certified food in School canteens
    Muslim only prayer rooms in Schools and government buildings
    Muslim noisy calls to prayer at 6 am (imposition of religion, views and noise on public space)
    Muslim segregation of public facilities like swimming pools

    can anyone go on their website and present some cases in their community and fill in their form and make a record of it? this group needs to be challenged on their perceived anti-Chrisitian bias

  • Alien & Stranger

    Those who preach “tolerance” are actually intolerant and demand compromise.
    Same-sex “marriage” is a new construct and a parody of marriage. SSM campaigners said that Christians wouldn’t be affected by its legalisation, yet we are seeing more and more that indeed Christians are being affected because they are being dictated to and not allowed their freedom of opinion, even losing theirs jobs, being sued, etc., for upholding traditional heterosexual marriage. Furthermore, children are being indoctrinated to accept sexual perversion as normal. The media have contributed to the early sexualisation of children, who are now exposed to sexual images everywhere – on TV, in newspapers and magazines, in music videos, and even in children’s books.