Atheist Activist Group Sues to Remove Cross From Pennsylvania County Seal

Seal-compressed (1)ALLENTOWN, Pa. — A prominent professing atheist group has filed a federal lawsuit in an effort to have a cross removed from the seal of a Pennsylvania county.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed the legal challenge on Monday and is seeking a declaration that its inclusion on the county seal is unconstitutional.

“Lehigh County is not a Christian county, it should be equally welcoming to all its citizens regardless of their religion or their reject of religion,” said Co-Founder Annie Laurie Gaylor in a statement.

According to the suit, in November 2014, FFRF sent a letter to County Executive Thomas Muller over the matter but received no response. It then sent another letter in January 2015, and soon afterward, the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners decided not to cave to FFRF’s demands.

Members of the public also contacted the board to express their support for retaining the cross on the seal, and commissioners voted unanimously to have the county solicitor respond to FFRF to outline that the cross would remain.

It believed that the cross was included to honor the first settlers in Lehigh County, who were Christian.

“It is the position of Lehigh County that the presence of the cross on the seal among all the other items of historical significance has the secular purpose of recognizing the history of the county,” the reply stated. “As such it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Accordingly, the county is not planning on removing the cross from the seal.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But the four plaintiffs in the case, Stephen Meholic, David Simpson, John Berry and Candace Winkler, who are all members of FFRF, state that the image is offensive and suggests that residents who are not Christian are inferior.

“As a resident of Lehigh County, Mr. Meholic has been subjected to viewing the seal, which he finds offensive,” the complaint reads.

“Mr. Simpson would like Lehigh County to recognize the diversity of the Lehigh County population in the 21st Century and remove the Latin cross from the county seal,” it states.

“Ms. Winkler opposes the inclusion of a Latin cross on the seal and feels excluded from her community by the county’s use of this Christian symbol,” the suit asserts.

FFRF says that complainants have seen the symbol both on the county flag and on official correspondence.

“The display of the Latin cross by Lehigh County has the primary effect of both advancing religion and expressing Defendant’s preference for Christianity above all other religions and nonreligion,” its complaint asserts.

The atheist activist group would like for the district court to declare that the cross violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and to place an injunction against its inclusion in the county seal.

The Pennsylvania Pastors Network has expressed its support for the cross, stating that FFRF’s opposition is “not only a hostility toward Christianity, but also gross ignorance of our nation’s founding documents.”

“[L]et us not forget the religious character of our origin,” American statesman Daniel Webster also declared during his famous “Plymouth Oration” in 1820, less than 50 years after the nation’s founding. “Our fathers were brought hither for their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political or literary.”


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
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Cross is the symbol of Americans’ Christian salvation. Most American fathers lived and died Christian. They respected Christianity even if they were non-believers. The historic marks should be remained. Secular Western nations, the former Christendom, is the only region who attack their ancestors’ good conscience and joys and hopes and beliefs because secularists hate Christianity very much. Erasing off Christianity’s contributions from the history of the Western civilization is as hard as erasing off the evidences of the hand of God from the cells and stars. American atheists should be shipped off to Russia. Russia is a Christendom for 1,000 years that survived atheism’s brutal reign. Today’s unbelieving Americans are acting like the Soviets rather than the Allies of WW2 era.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    These New atheists are such colossal pansies, in need of safe spaces here and there, and an embarrassment to those of us who claimed atheism when it was done so for true tolerance and for the purpose of truth-seeking and philosophical inquiry. We NEVER would have had a hissy fit over crosses and monuments – it’s like the New Atheists cannot handle anything reminding them of another worldview but their own. Not very “tolerant” or “open-minded” or “free thinking” at all.

    Now, when I tell people I used to be an atheist, and their eyes get wide, I have to quickly add “No, no, not a New Atheist. We Old Atheists actually believed in tolerance and did not evangelize our atheism.”

    New Atheism really comes off as a sort of blind faith religious cult.

    • Some Guy

      If it wasn’t for “New Atheist pansies”, we’d still be forcing the bible and creationism on students in public schools. You have to stick to your principles on the petty stuff if you ever hope to prevent the important stuff. Atheists aren’t suing churches to prevent worship, they are only suing the government when it acts as if it’s a church.

      • Amos Moses

        “Atheists aren’t suing churches to prevent worship, they are only suing the government when it acts as if it’s a church.”

        No ……. they are trying to make the government their church and their god …….

        • sangrita

          Atheists don’t require a church or a god, and the government doesn’t fulfill that role for them.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes ……….. it does ………. they want to be told what to do ………..

          • sangrita

            Source please.

          • Amos Moses

            Daily living ……… they all, to a man, demand that the law be followed ….. everyone has a god …….. it is either the God of the bible, the rules of other men, or their own bellies ………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yeah, why do we have to be such pains and demand that everyone obey the law?

          • Amos Moses

            That is their god ……… their god is whose law they obey ……… and it is either other men …. or the government of other men …. or their bellies …….

          • The Last Trump

            Well, well, well!
            So
            it’s sangrita now, is it?
            😉

            “Ron” got the axe huh?
            Shocker.

            Hee, hee!
            The obsession continues…..

            Did you miss me, Muffin? 🙂

          • sangrita

            Source please.

        • Some Guy

          Neutrality toward religion is not anti-religious or a religion in itself. Churches are still in every neighborhood, religious non-profits can still do what they want, and private Christian schools can teach whatever you want. You can’t have religious freedom unless the government stays out of religion completely.

    • sangrita

      Maybe we just woke up. We accepted “In God We Trust” on our money because we never knew different. Then we learned that it was never there in the first place until 1957. So we spoke up. There is no “old atheism/new atheism”. It’s all atheism.

  • ComeOnPeople!

    My problem here is that should you remove Christian symbols from our court houses, money and seals for the sake of atheists …. are you not then favoring their symbol which is that there is no GOD? Our nation was founded upon the beliefs and principles of the Bible. Should we remove those lingering symbols of the truth of our founding and replace them with nothing… we will continue towards ungodliness and destruction. Blessed are the people who’s GOD is YAHWEH .

    • Jalapeno

      What..do you think they’re going to start putting in symbols saying “GOD DOESN’T EXIST” or something?

      • Becky

        The government isn’t solely prohibited from preferring one religion above another, or religion above no religion. It’s also prohibited from preferring no religion above religion. I don’t know why that’s so hard for you lot to comprehend.

        • Jalapeno

          “It’s also prohibited from preferring no religion above religion.”

          It’s not preferring “no religion”. It’s keeping religion away from the government itself.

          Do religious people need their religion on everything in order to follow their religion, or can there be some things that aren’t validating it?

          • Becky

            Double standard is it?

            In answer to your question…as far as Christianity is concerned, it’s only natural. For example, our courts display and uphold God’s laws (eg Ten Commandments Monument), because this nation was/is rooted in Christianity, even many of our laws (eg murder, theft, rape, incest, etc) are based on God’s laws. You’re fine with removing a cross because of its religious implication…should we also remove the law against murder because it’s in the Ten Commandments?

          • Jalapeno

            ‘You’re fine with removing a cross because of its religious implication…should we also remove the law against murder because it’s in the Ten Commandments?’

            We have an actual reason for the law.

            “In answer to your question…as far as Christianity is concerned, it’s only natural. ”

            To..need constant validation of your views?

          • Becky

            If that’s the case, why remove a Ten Commandment monument from a courthouse? Christians don’t need validation. This is a Christian nation and, just like many of our laws reveal our Christianity, a courthouse with a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments reveal that, too.

          • Jalapeno

            The ten commandments have no legal power at all.

            Why would we put them up? Just to make people feel better and push to see how far we can portray religion with government buildings?

          • Becky

            A Christian upholds God’s laws first and foremost. Some of our laws represent God’s laws…they’re what our country upholds and stands for…it’s the foundation. Why remove the foundation? Does it bother you that some of the laws you obey are God’s laws?

          • Jalapeno

            “Does it bother you that some of the laws you obey are God’s laws?”

            Does it bother you that some of the laws you obey date back to far before the Bible?

          • Becky

            You answer my question first.

          • Jalapeno

            It IS an answer. Pretty much a “why in the world would it”?

            We don’t follow the biblical commandments…otherwise all 10 commandments would be illegal. Some things have been pretty universally condemned throughout history..I don’t care that some people want to attribute it exclusively to the Bible.

          • Becky

            That’s ludicrous. I’ll tell you why. The lot of you are bothered by a cross…a pagan symbol at that…however, the crux of the matter is that the lot of you know that the LeHigh citizens consider it a symbol of Christianity. Now, you know full well that Christians believe, and rightly so, that God’s laws are written within some of our laws (again, like murder). You’d rather tell yourself that you don’t follow God’s laws, even when you clearly have to, because you know that there’s no way that all the FFRF’s of the nation could ever remove God’s laws, such as murder, from our laws. That’s why the lot of you go after these cases…the citizens believe it’s to do with Christianity. You have to obey some of God’s laws whether you like it or not.

          • Jalapeno

            “The lot of you are bothered by a cross”

            No..people are bothered by government promoting religious icons.

            “Now, you know full well that Christians believe, and rightly so, that God’s laws are written within some of our laws (again, like murder).”

            You mean…they think that their religion came up with the laws. Big difference.

            “You’d rather tell yourself that you don’t follow God’s laws, even when you clearly have to, because you know that there’s no way that all the FFRF’s of the nation could ever remove God’s laws, such as murder, from our laws. ”

            I don’t follow Gods laws. I follow our civil laws…You do know most of the Ten Commandments aren’t actually illegal..right?

          • Becky

            A lot of rubbish, pepper.

            Tell me which of God’s laws are also illegal in the US. Go.

          • Jalapeno

            If our laws are based on the bible..why are so many of the ten commandments NOT illegal?

          • Becky

            I gave you a little assignment…how ’bout that first.

          • Jalapeno

            Do I need to list the commandments for you? Okay.

            1- ‘No other gods before me’…Directly conflicts with the first amendment, definitely not a civil law.

            2- Graven images…definitely not a law.

            3- Taking the name of the Lord in vain. Not even close to being illegal.

            4- Sabbath day…not illegal

            5- Honor thy father and thy mother? Not a law.

            6- Not killing. There’s one for you.

            7- Adultery. Not illegal.

            8- Stealing. There’s two.

            9 – False witness? Not illegal.

            10- Coveting… not illegal.

            So, two of the Ten Commandments are actually reflected in the legal system.

          • Becky

            Thank you, pepper. Firstly, your previous comment…”No..people are bothered by government promoting religious icons.”

            It’s all about what Christians say, think and do when it concerns the government is it? Well, Christians promote that our laws are from the Ten Commandments, yet the FFRF knows they can’t do anything about it really. That’s sheer hypocrisy on their part and neither is it the first time they’ve proven that. Obviously, it’s not about protecting the USC, or anyone’s rights.

            Secondly, as far as your assignment is concerned…
            Adultery is illegal is some states.
            False witness is also illegal…it’s also known as perjury and directly tied to the third commandment.
            There’s also incest, bestiality, etc. It’s not in the Ten Commandments, per se, nevertheless they’re written in God’s laws.

            Gotta go to Uni for now…chat later maybe.

          • Jalapeno

            “Adultery is illegal is some states.”

            …So..it’s not a part of all of our laws? Fancy that.

            “it’s also known as perjury ”

            Only in a court of law. You can go up and lie about your neighbours as much as you want as long as you’re not in court.

            So..why aren’t ALL of the Commandments 100% prohibited in our society? Why is the FIRST commandment directly in conflict with the FIRST amendment?

            “Christians promote that our laws are from the Ten Commandments, yet the FFRF knows they can’t do anything about it really”

            ..They can’t do anything about people believing that the Bible was the original source of all laws? Yeah, of course not.

          • Becky

            Whether it’s in one state or in the courthouses they’re still part of our laws…US laws…that you, too, must obey. I didn’t say all of the commandments were kept by the US (that would be awesome tho!).

            Exactly what part of the first amendment is in direct conflict with the first commandment?

            You misunderstood my comment…”Christians promote that our laws are from the Ten Commandments, yet the FFRF knows they can’t do anything about it really”. I wasn’t talking about their beliefs. I meant that FFRF can’t remove God’s laws from US laws, like they want to remove everything Christian from everything government. Believe it or not, God’s laws are government promoted, perhaps not all, but definitely many, which is why we see the Ten Commandments in courthouses, even US judges recite an oath, whilst their hand rests upon the holy bible, that ends with “So help me God”.

          • Jalapeno

            ” I wasn’t talking about their beliefs. I meant that FFRF can’t remove God’s laws from US laws,”

            We don’t have any valid religious laws in the government…we have laws that happen to be the same as some religious laws. Big difference.

            “whilst their hand rests upon the holy bible, that ends with “So help me God”.”

            Yeah..it makes sense when the judges belief is Christianity. Not all judges do that.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            5. Honor the father and mother… this does not have to be in our laws. It is a nature law that decent humans understand and keep. Children who dishonor their parents in any society are shunned and looked down upon.

            6. In our laws

            7. in our laws as grounds for any divorce

            8. in our laws because well duh

            9. in our laws. Anyone who bares false witness in our courts and is found out , is charged with perjury.

            10. Not in our laws but was given to keep people from being ungrateful for what they themselves had. This is just something good parents all teach little Bobby and Susie so little Bobby and Susie don’t grow up thinking the world owes them . To bad it’s not in our laws maybe we’d have more people working and less people sitting on there butts thinking they deserve everything the hard working man has.

          • Jalapeno

            ” this does not have to be in our laws”

            Okay..so not illegal.

            “in our laws as grounds for any divorce’

            Being grounds for divorce is not the same as being illegal.

            “Anyone who bares false witness in our courts and is found out”

            Key point….IN COURTS. I don’t remember the Bible specifying that you can lie as long as you’re not doing it in a court of law.

            “Not in our laws but was given to keep people from being ungrateful for what they themselves had”

            Ah yes, I forgot how many of the commandments weren’t actually COMMANDMENTS. How funny, eh?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Illegal,… something that is prohibited or not authorized by law.

            5. Honor your parents is indeed in our laws actually. I was wrong. Look up incorrigibility.

            6. In the law as illegal .

            7. As to adultery ? In 21 states, cheating in a marriage is still against the law, punishable by a fine or even jail time. Look it up.

            8. In the law as illegal.

            9. To bearing false witness in a court of law is a felony. The ten commandments where also laws which where used to Govern the people. Should a person come before a Judge of that day and bear false witness, it was an offense & was prohibited or not authorized by law to do so. Another words it’s illegal. “Illegal,… something that is prohibited or not authorized by law.”

            10. Coveting …The word translated covet usually refers to selfish desire or lust and thus speaks directly to the heart’s innermost INTENTIONS , which, even if unacknowledged by ourselves, is always revealed before God: “Your Father who sees in secret”. Therefore only GOD who sees could indeed be Judge for covertness unless it manifests itself into actions which can be tried in our court system. We cannot see the intents of the heart , only GOD knows the heart.
            This again cannot be made illegal unless it manifests itself openly. One may have a strong desire for something which is not theirs but it only becomes illegal when they take it by force such as rape. One may lust after a mans wife & not be in trouble with the law but if one allows that desire to grow into action & rapes his neighbors wife , then his coveting has manifest outwardly and become illegal. This is why we should “Walk in the Spirit, not fulfill the lust of the flesh”. Again in the bible this law was illegal only when it manifested itself openly.

            GOD’s laws were given to govern the people, to set HIS people apart from those who lie, cheat, steal, murder, who are unfaithful to their spouses, dishonor their parents, sacrifice their children …etc etc…. the list is endless. Americas laws also set our nation apart because many indeed are the same as those in the bible but as righteous laws are being destroyed by perverted & corrupted Judges , we are becoming a land filled with unrighteousness & corruption . A land that has lost it’s moral compass. And just as Israel had corrupt Judges who perverted GOD’s laws and received the judgement of GOD … SO SHALL AMERICA.

          • Jalapeno

            Saying that SOME of the Commandments are in the law, typically only in very SELECT situations does not in any way validate the idea that they are the basis of our laws.

            Adultery isn’t illegal in most places, you can lie in almost all situations, not honouring your parents is NOT illegal…

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Nope sorry in 21 states adultery is still illegal but I’m sure in this new perverse age that soon those states will drop that law as the others have.

            No you cannot lie in court it is illegal.

            Nope sorry wrong again there are laws in place that make it illegal for a child to be continually disobedient which could land them in corrections . It is called incorrigibility, look it up.

          • Jalapeno

            So..you’re saying that SOME of the commandments are illegal in SOME places in SOME situations..therefore our laws are based on them?

            Questionable, at best.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Nope I’m answering your original statement. Our country was indeed founded upon Godly principles using the bible. Just because a country moves away from it’s original principles does not give us the right to deny that it once stood upon those principles. To do so is to speak lies and change historical facts. I may not agree with things but I will not deny history or lie to sure up my position , which is what many are doing these days. Truth is truth wether it is acknowledged or not.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            According to the Bible, those are not the ten commandments.

            The old testament has 613 commandments. Of the 613, the Bible only calls one group of them the ten commandments.

            Your list is form Exodus 20. The list the Bible calls the ten commandments were given to Moses in Exodus 34. Here is the list the Bible ITSELF calls the ten commandments ( don’t believe me? look it up for yourself Exodus 34:1-28):

            1. “You shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”

            2. “You shall not make for yourself any gods of cast metal.”

            3. “You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread.”

            4. “Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest.”

            5. “You shall observe the Feast of Weeks… and the Feast of Ingathering.”

            6. “Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.”

            7. “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened.”

            8. “Or let the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover remain until the morning.”

            9. “The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God.”

            10. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

            Exodus 34:28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he twrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

          • Frank Dorka

            One out of five ain’t bad???

          • ComeOnPeople!

            The laws of the 10 commandments which are between people are all in our laws. The ones pertaining to GOD and serving HIM are not… because America wanted men to be free from state ran religion and put freedom in our laws to choose what we believe and be free to excersize our faith without fear of state run religion throwing us in prisons or slaughtering us like England did.

          • Jalapeno

            Oh..you mean that we aren’t actually obligated to follow the ten commandments because we have OTHER standards for what we expect of people in this country?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No I am saying that yes there are laws that our land has that are the same as those in the bible which pertain to people’s behaviors towards other people but when it comes to the commandments in the bible which speak of having no other GOD but Yahweh , no idols, keeping Sabbath or any commands which have to do with worship… those are not in our laws.

          • Jalapeno

            Once we get to a point that the laws that we actually have on the books aren’t identical to the biblical laws, and to a point that the laws are in common with many other belief systems (some of which outdate the bible)…the claim that they are a basis for our laws starts to be more and more of a wish.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No sorry do you home work and study American history. Not wishful & to deny the truth of what our country was founded upon and the actual founders themselves is to stick your head in the sand and believe all the lies the media throws your way.

          • Jalapeno

            Many of the founding fathers were considered Deists, not Christians.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            A scant list… Anglicanism … John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge. Presbyterianism …. Richard Stockton , Rev. John Witherspoon. Congregationalism … John Adams & Samuel Adams. Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed. Three Founders—Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania—were of Roman Catholic heritage.

          • sangrita

            Religion icons don’t belong on things relating to government. Church and state have to remain separate for the good of both.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            The spirit of antichrist is disobedience . Therefore those who hate GOD’s laws and refuse to follow them are not of GOD but of their father the devil.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Do you have a daughter? Will you sell her to me so she can be my slave? Don’t worry, it’s OK because it’s one of god’s laws.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            When you study that law and what it actually provided please come back and talk to me.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            This is what the Bible says about it:

            When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

            Do you think this is moral? Yes or no?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Exodus 21:7-11 And if a man sell his daughter to be a MAIDSERVANT, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath BETROTHED her to himself, then shall he let her be REDEEMED: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have NO POWER. seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have BETROTHED her unto his son, he shall DEAL with her after the MANNER of DAUGHTERS. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall SHE GO OUT FREE without money.

            The chief purpose contemplated for buying a female slave was so that she could become the wife of either the buyer or the buyer’s son (Exod. 21:8-9). As wife, she became the social equal of the slaveholder, and the purchase functioned much like the giving of a dowry. Indeed, she is even called a “wife” by the regulation (Exod. 21:10). Moreover, if the buyer failed to treat the female slave with all the rights due an ordinary wife, he was required to set her free. “She shall go out without debt, without payment of money” (Exod. 21:11).

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “The chief purpose contemplated for buying a female slave …”

            It DOESN’T matter why the female was sold as a slave, the fact is it is immoral to sell her into slavery.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            To save a child from starvation & sell them to those who have means to feed them upon labor is being a servant . That is not abuse but loving parents who don’t wish to see their children die, therefore they become servants that they might live and even marry into families that have land and provisions . It’s a means of help unlike the history of slavery in America.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Slavery in America isn’t the issue here, slavery in the Bible is the topic.

            Is it moral to own another person as property ( the Bible says it is OK)? Yes or no?

            Is it moral to beat someone you own as property to death provided they don’t die too fast? The Bible says it’s OK.

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

            “To save a child from starvation ”

            According to the new testament, that isn’t an issue:

            2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            You are using a very bad translation of the Hebrew and not only that taking verses out of there context. In the Hebrew this is a servant or bondservant. In context you will see instructions on kidnaping, instructions on when men argue and strike one another and so forth. The instruction then goes on to when this involves a servant. Just as with the instructions for non servants… if the servant dies then the person who they are indentured to who struck them so that they died is found guilty & punished. As in much of the Bible, God’s word in Exodus did not abolish the existing social and economic order, but instructed God’s people how to live with justice and compassion in their present circumstances.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “In the Hebrew this is a servant or bondservant”

            That applied only to male Hebrew slaves owned by other Hebrews. The bible specifically says Hebrew male slaves are to be freed after 6 years of service:

            f you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. (Exodus 21:2-4)

            Foreign slaves remained slaves for life:

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

            Slaves can be beaten to death & there are no consequences to the owner if the slave doesn’t die from the beating for a day or two:

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

            “God’s word in Exodus did not abolish the existing social and economic order, but instructed God’s people how to live with justice and compassion in their present circumstances.”

            And in the new testament, slavery is also condoned, and Christians can own other Christians as slaves:

            Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )

            Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Again verses out of context, poor translation of Hebrew and Greek and little understanding of the historical content. You are 2,000 years removed from what you are quoting and yet you refuse to consult material that would show you the truth of the matter. I wash my hands of this because there is no sense trying to so light to someone who chooses to remain in the dark. Go study the Hebrew text, the Greek manuscripts , the culture and history of Israel.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Do you read Hebrew and Greek? Do you have any original documents for the books of the Bible?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I am a student of the word of GOD yes and can look at the Hebrew and have some knowledge of Greek. Even without any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek you have a world of information at your fingertips and can easily look into the Hebrew or the Greek yourself. Yet you refuse because it will destroy your position . You chose to remain as you are, quoting very liberal translations , out of context , with no allowance given to culture or history.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “I am a student of the word of GOD”

            Or, to be honest, you are a student of what you BELIEVE is the word of god.

            ” yes and can look at the Hebrew and have some knowledge of Greek. ”

            Finbe. When did you examine the original documents that the Bible ( as we know it) were copied from?

            “Even without any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek you have a world of information at your fingertips and can easily look into the Hebrew or the Greek yourself. ”

            I could. But with no evidence for any god, why should I waste my time studying a book that can only be considered a collection of fables, myths, and immoral laws?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No one has originals all are copies of copies. Yet if one knows the culture of Israel and the fear to change one word or add one word to the Instructions given to them then one has very little doubt that the Hebrew manuscripts we do have are false or changed. Now as to the Greek that is questionable yet these are only an account of the Messiah of Israel coming which was already spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures and the rest of the Greek is mere letters written back to people to help them understand the Hebrew Scriptures.

            You don’t wish to waste your time in study of your CREATOR of which you do not believe and yet you waste much time with those who believe in your CREATOR…. hmmmm I find that quite absurd .

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “No one has originals, all are copies of copies. ”

            Correct. So any claim that the Bible is the word of god can be discarded, particularly when it hasn’t been proven that god exists.

            We also don’t know who any of the authors are, and none of the gospels were written by actual witnesses of the events they are transcribing. The gospels are written by people getting the stories that were passed on orally from other people, and none were written by contemporaries of Jesus.

            “You don’t wish to waste your time in study of your CREATOR of which you do not believe”

            Why would anyone study something they don’t believe in?

            ” and yet you waste much time with those who believe in your CREATOR.”

            Sure, because when these believers take their beliefs out of their homes and places of worship and work to have their beliefs used when enacting laws and legislation, when they want their beliefs taught as facts in public schools, when they think they can use their beliefs to ignore the laws of the land, when their business ( organized religions are a business) gets special tax concessions because they are religious -based, their beliefs become a cause for concern among non-believers.

            ” hmmmm I find that quite absurd .”

            I find it absurd that anyone with religious beliefs thinks their beliefs should have some special status that places them beyond criticism, ridcule, or mockery.

            I find it absurd that anyone would believe we are all born as sinners because a man made from dust & a woman made from one of his ribs ( according to Genesis 2, Genesis 1 has a different story) ate a forbidden fruit because a talking serpent convinced them to eat a forbidden fruit.

            I find it absurd that anyone would believe that although we are born as sinners, our sins can be erased if we believe a demigod born of a virgin ( just like many other demigods of myth) died ( temporarily) and was restored to life and we worship this zombie demigod.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            So those who do not believe in righteous laws should be allowed to enact laws which conform to their ideals and beliefs??? hmmmm . Forget though shall not murder, steal or lie in court because we humans have it all figured out and don’t need our mean ole Creator dictating to us what HE says is right or wrong.

            As to your assumptions… First off man fell because he disobeyed GOD’s righteous instructions. Not only was he warned before hand but he had every other tree in the garden to enjoy. But man was made with a free will for which to choose to love and obey or to hate and disobey. WHY? Because love once forced is no longer love.

            As to sin which by the way is transgressing GOD’s instructions… Sin can be redeemed yes but only when a man accepts the sacrifice offered on his behalf. GOD is not a man , HE is a spirit which does not have flesh or bones… because HE loved your sorry them HE manifested HIMSELF in the flesh and felt pain and went threw death … all so you would have a way back to HIM. You cannot come before a HOLY GOD steeped in filth and so HE suffered to offer you a way to clean yourself up and enjoy HIS presence. But hey if you don’t want to be loved, to be made free, to enjoy peace… then don’t accept what HE did or why HE did it. You loss….

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “So those who do not believe in righteous laws should be allowed to enact laws which conform to their ideals and beliefs???”

            No, people who believe the laws of an unproven god are a good reason to enact those laws should be prevented from using that as the basis for those laws.

            For example, here are some of the laws of the Bible’s god:

            Kill Homosexuals Leviticus 20:13

            Death for Hitting Your Parent Exodus 21:15
            Death for Cursing Parents Proverbs 20:20 & Leviticus 20:9
            Death for Adultery Leviticus 20:10

            Death to Followers of Other Religions Exodus 22:19 & Deuteronomy 13:13-19 & Deuteronomy 13:7-12 & Deuteronomy 17:2-5

            Kill Nonbelievers 2 Chronicles 15:12-13

            Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night Deuteronomy 22:20-21

            Kill People for Working on the Sabbath Exodus 31:12-15

            Do you agree with these laws? Do you consider these to be righteous laws?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I agree with those instructions based on context and true interpretation of the Hebrew. I disagree with any of the bible when it is removed from it’s context and interpreted from a greco-roman mindset, 2,000 years removed from the Hebrew culture and meaning.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “I agree with those instructions based on context and true interpretation of the Hebrew.”

            So you think it is right to kill someone just because they are a homosexual?

            You think it is right to kill a woman because she was not a virgin on her wedding night?

            To kill someone because they worship a different god?

            To kill a child because that child cursed or struck their parent?

            You think it’s right to buy & sell people as property?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “First off man fell because he disobeyed GOD’s righteous instructions. Not only was he warned before hand but he had every other tree in the garden to enjoy.”

            A ridiculous story.

            First, it can’t be shown to have happened.

            Second, according to the story itself, eating the forbidden fruit would give them the knowledge of good and evil ( right and wrong).

            This means they would have no way of knowing it would be wrong to disobey god until AFTER they had eaten the fruit. Then after eating it, god decides that everyone who will ever exist must be punished for the sin ( even though they couldn’t know they were sinning) of Adam & Eve.

            “But man was made with a free will”

            Not according to the Bible. The Bible says not everyone has free will and in some cases god steps in and removes a person’s free will. This means we are( according to the Bible) simply toys for god to play with as he chooses.

            “As to sin which by the way is transgressing GOD’s instructions”

            Yes, that is the definition of sin. But unless you first prove the god actually exists, then prove what that god’s laws are, the word sin is meaningless.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Back at you… You must prove you have no CREATOR and that you do not need to be held to what you were created for. I have my proof because HIS word is written upon my heart and HIS SPIRIT dwells within. I have seen what the natural eye could not see, witnessed healing that man said could not be happen, felt a love so powerful that it’s beyond description, been able to speak a language I had not learned, touched someone HE said to touch and days later found out the were healed of a very dangerous illness I had no knowledge of. I need no proof because HE who works inside of me is the prove. I believe not because of men but because HE is my constant friend in times of trouble. I believe because I know HIM not off of the pages of the bible but in relationship. A jeweler knows true gold because he studies the real deal & has handled it personally daily …. he can spot fools gold without blinking an eye. He does not need a book or anyone to instruct him because his life work has been to know true gold.

            I cannot convince you of the CREATOR or HIS ways because the carnal minded man cannot receive the things of the Spirit. Only those who truly desire HIS presence will ever find the proof they are looking for.
            And believe me anyone who has a relationship with their CREATOR knows they are far from being a toy in HIS hands but something beautiful… made to love GOD and be loved by HIM. HE will not force HIMself on anyone, nor can any who wish to follow another way remain in HIS presence for HE is holy. Anything that draws you away from HIM is deception and one day regardless if you choose HIM and HIS TRUTH… you will bow at HIS feet and confess that you got it wrong… that HE is your LORD, your CREATOR and the KING of glory.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Back at you… You must prove you have no CREATOR and that you do not need to be held to what you were created for. ”

            WRONG. I have never claimed there is no creator, so I have no need to prove there is no creator.

            Apparently you are a child & don’t know what the burden of proof means.

            Burden of proof: The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.

            ” I have my proof because HIS word is written upon my heart and HIS SPIRIT dwells within”

            That isn’t proof, that is personal anecdote.

            If it cannot be examined, verified & tested, it is not proof.

            “A jeweler knows true gold because he studies the real deal & has handled it personally daily .”

            Bad example, since a person can show that gold exists. So far, no one has presented any evidence that a god exists.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            So far no one has proved that GOD does not exist.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Correct. And no one has proved Odin, Zeus, Shiva, leprechauns, dragons, pixies, Osiris, or centaurs do not exist.

            Do you believe Odin, Zeus, Shiva, leprechauns, dragons, pixies, Osiris, or centaurs exist?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Sure , I even believe in Satans Claws (santa) … I believe that when humans chose not to worship their CREATOR as GOD … that they will worship themselves as gods, create gods to worship or worship the enemy of their souls as god.

            A. YAHWEH
            B. yourself
            C. created gods
            D. a FALLEN angel

            I simply choose A whereas you choose B,C,D or maybe all of the above.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “HE manifested HIMSELF in the flesh and felt pain and went threw death (Death of that body not of GOD) … ”

            Prove it.

            And according to the Bible, it wasn’t much of a sacrifice. A few hours of pain, a temporary death, and an eternity ruling in heaven…. along with the threat of eternal punishment if we don’t believe this & worship him.

            Prometheus made a much greater sacrifice. According to that story, he stole the secret of fire from the gods & gave it to us to make our lives easier. As punishment, he spends eternity chained to a rock having his liver eaten out by a large bird. BUT we don’t have to believe this and face no punishment for not believing.

            It’s true that the story of Jesus and the story of Prometheus cannot be proven to have happened…. but we DO have fire.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Prove HE never came in the flesh or died to make you free.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I’ve never claimed that didn’t happen, so I have no need to prove it didn’t happen.

            But I’ll tell you what… if you prove leprechauns don’t exist, I will prove that never happened.

            You seem to think it did happen, go ahead & prove it.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            And you seem to believe anything and anything other then truth. So no back at you… I believe & have no need to prove anything, my belief is based on faith… it is you who has no faith in the GOD who created you so it is you who needs to prove or disprove that HE exists .

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “And you seem to believe anything and anything other then truth.”

            I believe a lot of things. What I don’t believe are fantastic claims for which there is no evidence.

            “I believe & have no need to prove anything, my belief is based on faith”

            And that’s fine, for you. Faith is defined as a belief that is not based on proof.

            “it is you who has no faith in the GOD who created you”

            Faith is a stupid reason to believe something.

            ” so it is you who needs to prove or disprove that HE exists .”

            Wrong again. I have neither claimed god exists nor claimed god doesn’t exist. This means I have nothing to prove or disprove.

            You have said you believe because you have faith. That’s fine if you’re happy with settling for that. But if you want to convince others to believe as you do, you have to present more than your faith it’s true.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            “Wrong again. I have neither claimed god exists nor claimed god doesn’t exist. This means I have nothing to prove or disprove.”

            Therefore you are a mere object which has not the ability to reason.

            I not only have faith but also study historical data and side with the scientists who do not hold to the evolution theory . Believe it or not , not all science agrees with evolution.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Therefore you are a mere object which has not the ability to reason.”

            In fact, it is my reason which is keeping me from accepting god’s existence on faith.

            “I not only have faith but also study historical data and side with the scientists who do not hold to the evolution theory . Believe it or not , not all science agrees with evolution.”

            And since much of science has NOTHING to do with evolution, that isn’t surprising.

            But there are no scientists that have disproved the theory of evolution.

            In any case, even if ( for the sake of argument) we accepted that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. we are no closer to proving god exists.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Nor are we any closer to proving HE does not.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            It isn’t up to others to disprove a claim, it’s up to the person making the claim to prove their claim… IF they want others to accept the claim as valid.

            It’s the same thing in a court of law. It isn’t up to the defendant on trial to prove they are innocent … it’s the job of the prosecution to prove they are guilty.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Therefore proof your claim that there is no GOD

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Why are you lying? I have never claimed there is no god.

            I have said I don’t believe a god exists because I have seen no evidence for a god. I COULD be wrong, and you can prove me wrong by presenting evidence that proves god exists.

            Go ahead.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            OK let me explain since you have not studied the bible or biblical history … The slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery you think of today – in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

            “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

            Obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor. In early Europe you had a form of this called an Indentured Servant.

            Although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable – up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man’s slave,or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to “pamper his slave”.

            The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is false. Yet because voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “OK let me explain since you have not studied the bible or biblical history … The slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery you think of today – in which people are captured and sold as slaves.”

            OK let me explain since you have not studied the bible or biblical history … The slavery described in the Old Testament is talking about owning people as property. This property can be passed down to your children as a permanent inheritance.

            Do you think this is moral? Yes or no?

            “Although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable – up to death of the offending party. ”

            Slavery is owning another human being as property. How the slave ( your property) is treated isn’t the issue.

            And the Bible says you can beat your slave to death without consequences if the slave doesn’t die from their wounds too quickly.

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-2)

            “Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man’s slave,or return an escaped slave. ”

            So what? Slavery is owning another human being as property. Are you saying it is OK to own slaves as long as you don’t make them work on the Sabbath ( by the way, that applied only to Hebrew slaves), it’s OK to own slaves as long as you don’t slander them, it’s OK to have your own slaves and have sex with them but you can’t have sex with another man’s slave?

            Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            “A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to “pamper his slave”.

            That applied only to MALE Hebrew slaves owned by other Hebrews. Foreign slaves remained slaves for life ( as did any children they had as slaves), female Hebrew slaves remained slaves for life, as did any children they had as slaves.

            Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            “The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is false. ”

            I didn’t say encourages, I said condones. Since ( according to the Bible) it is condoned by god, it means god approves of it.

            Leviticus 25:44 “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.”

            condones slavery

            Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

            condones slavery

            1 Peter 2:18 You who are slaves must submit to your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you—not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.

            condones slavery

            Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )

            condones slavery

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Again you have no concept of what they are referring to because all you are using for your bases is what you know of Americans history of slavery. This is not slavery like Americas history. This is indentured servants who would have nothing had they not been sold for labor. They where sold so as to keep them alive just as many where in Early Europe . Also many where taken after conquest because they would not make it after loosing everything threw conquest. It’s not America… it’s Israel and it’s 2,000. years ago. To understand scriptures about slavery in the bible you must have a knowledge of Hebrew, the Israelites, culture from that time period and customs.

            The GOD of the scriptures is a JUST GOD and HIS laws are just. He gave them always to bless the people and draw them back into fellowship with their CREATOR. Any stranger who wished to be a part of Israel was welcome but was to keep the same laws as the native born Israelites . Slaves did not remain slaves after their debt was paid but many desired to remain with the household. This was called a love slave because although they were free to go , they chose to remain.

            Study history from that time period, land and people.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Again you have no concept of what they are referring to because all you are using for your bases is what you know of Americans history of slavery. ”

            I am talking about owning another human being as property, which is the Bible’s meaning for slave.

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-45

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

            “The GOD of the scriptures is a JUST GOD ”

            Is it moral to punish a person for the actions of someone else?

          • tatoo

            Do you do you eat pork? Check out Leviticus

          • Becky

            No. I don’t eat pork. It’s unclean.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Does it bother you that some of the laws you obey are God’s laws?”

            To prove they are god’s laws you must first prove god exists.

            Go ahead.

          • George T

            “I have never seen anyone prove that there is not a God”
            -Richard Dawkins

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Do you believe it is right or wrong to murder someone? How about steal from someone or speak lies about them in a court of law? Those are all on Americas government buildings because they are good righteous laws and they all are straight out of the bible. There is nothing wrong with displaying the morals and principles of which you founded a nation upon. Read your history and quotes from the founding fathers of this nation.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Don’t forget the commandments about buying and selling slaves, and the one about selling your daughter into slavery.

            Oh, and don’t forget to kill people working on the Sabbath day ( Saturday). It’s one of the commandments.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Again you have very little knowledge not only of the commandments in the bible but also history and GOD’s people.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Do you think the commandments I mentioned are moral? Yes or no?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I believe yes they are moral based upon their true meaning and not the American slavery meaning of which you have subscribed them to.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “I believe yes they are moral based upon their true meaning and not the American slavery meaning of which you have subscribed them to.”

            American slavery doesn’t enter into it, I am talking about what the Bible says about slavery. So you think it IS moral to own another human being as property.

            Here’s what the Bible says about owning another human being as property:

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-45

            When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the Hebrew men are. Exodus 21:7

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

          • Frank Dorka

            Display them…just not on property paid for by ALL the people, OKAY???

          • ComeOnPeople!

            The bible says that as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be when HE returns. YUP!!!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “This is a Christian nation and, just like many of our laws reveal our Christianity, a courthouse with a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments reveal that, too.”

            There are 613 commandments, not just ten. They are from the old testament, which mnakes them Hebrew commandments, not Christian commandments

          • Frank Dorka

            This is not a Christian nation, you need to get your history from somewhere besides the pulpit. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Payne and others said so. Who told you otherwise?

          • Becky

            The framers of the constitution perpetually revealed their faith at the closing of the document…

            “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth”

            Did you get that? “Year of our Lord”. That’s the language of Christian men.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So the framers of the Constitution were Christians. Does that make this country a “Christian nation”? I don’t think so, but like I’ve said before to someone else, we might have different ideas of what those words really mean. (In my opinion, a nation of mostly Christians is NOT the same thing as a Christian nation.)

            A good number of those Founding Fathers were deists and such, by the way. I’d bet if someone were posting on sites like this today with some of the same views they had, there would probably be a lot of people here declaring them to be “not true Christians” or something like that. Jefferson especially.

            I don’t think just the use of “Year of our Lord” really proves anything by itself, either. People still use “A.D”, Anno Domini, today, that doesn’t make them Christians necessarily.

          • sangrita

            Exactly. And look at Christmas – not difficult to find non-Christians who celebrate THAT either…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’d be one of those myself.

          • Guzzman

            AD (Anno Domini—“in the year of our Lord”) with its English translation, was customary for formal documents of the time – both secular and religious documents. The “our Lord” clause is not even part of the official legal Constitution. The official Constitution’s text ends just before these extra words of attestation—extra words that in fact were not ratified by various state conventions in 1787-88.

            Nothing follows from “our Lord” except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our European heritage. The European dating system is infused with pagan artifacts that, if taken seriously, lead to similarly silly conclusions. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin its sessions on the first AD (Anno Domini—“in the year of our Lord”) with its English translation, was customary for formal documents of the time – both secular and religious documents. The “our Lord” clause is not even part of the official legal Constitution. The official Constitution’s text ends just before these extra words of attestation—extra words that in fact were not ratified by various state conventions in 1787-88.
            Nothing follows from “our Lord” except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our European heritage. The European dating system is infused with pagan artifacts that, if taken seriously, lead to similarly silly conclusions. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin its sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)?Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)?

          • tatoo

            Since when has a court upheld an adultry case, a case against honoring your father and mother, a case against worshipping graven images, etc? I must have missed something. All religions and no religion condemn murder, except in the bible.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “For example, our courts display and uphold God’s laws (eg Ten Commandments Monument), ”

            The Bible actually has 613 commandments, not just ten. And almost NONE of the 613 commandemnts are enforced by law.

            ” many of our laws (eg murder, theft, rape, incest, etc) are based on God’s laws.”

            According to the Bible, all the things you listed ( murder, theft, rape, incest) are permitted by god at some times, and in some cases are demanded by god.

            “.should we also remove the law against murder because it’s in the Ten Commandments?”

            The law against murder is a good law because it’s a good law, not because it happens to be one of the commandments.

            By the way, you should read your Bible.

            There are 613 commandments. The Bible only calls one group of them “the ten commandments”, and the commandment against murder isn’t one of the ten.

          • Bob Johnson

            “The Bible only calls one group of them “the ten commandments”

            Actually, the Bible contains two sets of the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. And as you might suspect, they are slightly different lists.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            There are 613 commandments in the old testament.

            There are ten commandments presented in Exodus 20.

            But the only set the Bible itself calls the “ten commandments” is the list in Exodus 34. The term “ten commandments” does not appear in Exodus 20.

            The list from Exodus 20 is some of the remaining 603 commandments not called the ten commandments in the Bible.

          • Bob Johnson

            You seem to have an admirer. At least someone else is posting with your same name and a private account. (see above and 8 hours later.)

          • C_Alan_Nault

            It looks like a Christian being dishonest & bearing false witness.

            Not surprising, so many Christians are hypocrites and unfamiliar with what the Bible says, they only know what their pastor tells them.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Jalapeno

            Jalapeno said: ” ‘It’s also prohibited from preferring no religion above religion.’

            It’s not preferring ‘no religion’. It’s keeping religion away from the government itself.”

            Nope. If the U.S. government must take a position on religious matters, then it can take only two possible positions: enforce the substance of religion in some way (create a state religion in some way) or enforce the substance of non-religion in some way (enforce Secularism). There is no third alternative, which is not self-contradictory in nature.

            So, how can the U.S. government be truly neutral in the matter of how religion is handled in the U.S.? By, quite obviously, not taking position on religious matters in the first place and delegating how they are handled to individuals, in individual situations. And I believe that this is how the Founding Fathers of the U.S. handled this matter and this explains how the Founding Fathers incorporated their religious practices into how they handled governmental business, without officially endorsing their religious beliefs as members of the U.S. government.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not a third option…I’m referring to secularism.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Jalapeno

            Jalapeno said: “It’s not a third option…I’m referring to secularism.”

            There is no way for Secularism to positively and unequivocally distinguish itself from the substance of religion, apart from positively basing itself on the substance of non-religion. As I said:

            EscapetheDarkness said: “If the U.S. government must take a position on religious matters, then it can take only two possible positions: enforce the substance of religion in some way (create a state religion in some way) or enforce the substance of non-religion in some way (enforce Secularism). There is no third alternative, which is not self-contradictory in nature.”

          • Jalapeno

            “apart from positively basing itself on the substance of non-religion.”

            ..Yes. That’s kind of what “secular” is.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Jalapeno

            Jalapeno said:

            ” ‘apart from positively basing itself on the substance of non-religion.’

            ..Yes. That’s kind of what ‘secular’ is.”

            Thank you for this admission. You’d be surprised over the fact that many activist atheists seem unable to admit this simple point, since it supports what I am saying here.

            At least you are honest enough to admit it.

          • Jalapeno

            That’s literally what secular is.

            The absence of religious beliefs having an impact on it…That’s not the same as saying that no religion exists or that religions are wrong.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Atheism is indeed a belief system. Therefore the belief that there is no GOD is a religion.

          • Bob Johnson

            Atheism is not the same thing as secular.

            If atheism is a belief system, then indeed the government can not proclaim that there is no God. The government must limit itself to non-religious activities which meet the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971). Many activities fall under the secular banner, some of these activities have a religious history. While murder is one of the Ten Commandments, it also serves a secular purpose and does not advance a particular religion.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Funny because most of your officials who are running for office or even the President of the United States always say they are of this faith or that faith. So no wrong, most of the Government proclaims a religion of some sorts. I actually cannot recall those who ran for office who declared themselves to be an atheist . Most use GOD to win themselves a ticket but don’t serve HIM once they win. Also our history is filled with Presidents who quoted the word of GOD and ascribed to different denominations of the Christian faith.

          • Bob Johnson

            Indeed that is one of the many ironies of our government. John Kennedy could run for the office of President as a Roman Catholic, yet when he was in office he could not rule to the detriment of the Protestant church.

            This I suppose is why most politicians find it impossible to enact some of their campaign promises.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            No, atheism is simply a statement of what one does NOT believe. You’re twisting the definition in ways that would amaze even cirque du soleil performers.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Is a potato , tree or a rock an atheist?

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            I wouldn’t know, I haven’t spoken to any. Have you?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            If an Atheist is not willing to do hard reasoning, well, then, they can take their place alongside the tree, the rock, and the potato. Either you are human and can reason to make a claim of whether there is or is not a GOD and use such reasoning to prove your belief in such or you are like an object or an animal . Actual nature is far better off then the poor atheist … for the word of GOD states that nature declare the CREATOR. Maybe the atheist could learn a thing or two from a rock.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            I’ve done the hard reasoning, which is why atheism is my conclusion. There’s no evidence to base your belief system on, so I have no use for it. But go ahead, convert your potatoes, I’m sure they’ll find your lack of reason convincing.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            If you can reason and BELIEVE there is no GOD then you are indeed religious and you have less evidence for your belief then a person who believes there is a Creator.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Wrong. I DON’T believe. Big difference there. I never said that I believe there is no god, I said I don’t believe in any gods. Stick to converting potatoes, at least they can’t argue back and point out your flawed reasoning and lack of logic.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            My point…

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Your point is that you’re wrong?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            My point is that you unlike the potato believe in something and can reason. If you do not believe such then you fall foul of the aphorism coined by one of your own, Christopher Hitchens, who said: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. I agree entirely and his advice applies not just to Christians but also to those who claim to be atheists.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            So, yes, you’re point is that you’re wrong. Again, a statement of disbelief is not a statement of belief, it’s the opposite.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            So do you believe there is no god? Can you think? Can you reason? There is no such thing as a statement which cannot be backed up with what you think or what you reason. If you can make a statement and yet not think or use reason then you may as well join the unknowing, unable to reason potato or rock.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            “So do you believe there is no god?”
            Your phrasing of the question is weird and terrible. No, I do not believe there are any gods.

            “Can you think? Can you reason?”
            Yes, and yes.

            “There is no such thing as a statement which cannot be backed up with what you think or what you reason.”
            Sure there is. They’re called lies. For example: I have an invisible flying dragon in my garage. That statement is not backed up with what I actually think or reason.

            Stick to converting potatoes, at least they can’t argue back and point out your flawed reasoning and lack of logic.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Your dragon in your garage is just as viable as your belief that there is no GOD.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Why do you insist on trying to make disbelief the same thing as belief? They are opposites. Until you can agree to the very basic definitions used in the common language with which we’re attempting to communicate, there is no point in further discourse. Seriously, stick to converting potatoes, since you can’t even comprehend basic English.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            dis·be·lief

            Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

            Lack of faith in something.

            synonyms: atheism, NONBELIEF, UNBELIEF, godlessness, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism

            Thus defined… Now go play with your dragon in your garage and I shall continue to try to give light to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. I cannot help one who by disbeliefs definition is UNABLE, REFUSES to accept something which is true , LACKS faith and cannot accept that their disbelief is actually a belief in their own vanity and knowledge and a refusal to accept their CREATORS instructions. Thus it has been since the beginning… men go there own way and say there is no GOD because should they ACCEPT truth they must obey and oh how wicked men and women hate to obey , just as a rebellious child which will not harken to their father and becomes a shame to his household.

            Oh I understand your twisting of words and your blindness oh to well.
            WHY? Because I study your CREATORS words , history and know human nature.

            Carry on…

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Oh, good, you can read a dictionary. Now, let’s work on context. Disbelief, when used to mean the “inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real” is for when you say something like, “Laura shook her head in disbelief.”

            And the synonyms here would be: incredulity, astonishment, amazement, surprise, incredulousness

            However, when used to mean a “lack of faith in something” is for when you say something like, “Atheists will burn in hell for their disbelief,” or, “In the film, religious faith and disbelief are interwoven.”

            And the synonyms here would be: atheism, nonbelief, unbelief, godlessness, irreligion, agnosticism

            See how much difference a little context makes?

            Be The Potato.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I disbelieve there is a sun.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Typical of religious people…

            Be The Potato.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Typical of nonreligious people , they cannot reason or understand. They make claims of no GOD yet having no proof of such yet try to make you prove your claim that their is a GOD. They hold a double standard and are unstable in all their ways. They fail to see the forest for the trees and in this case they take a statement such as I disbelieve there is a sun and fail to see the pun intended.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Typical of religious people, setting up a strawman to attack, since you can’t back up your own claims. I’ve made no such “claims of no GOD”, I’ve simply cited the lack of evidence for your claim that there is any such god being. You made the claim, pony up some evidence. Otherwise, I see no reason to grant your claim any credit. And there is no pun — apparently you don’t know how those work either.

            Be The Potato.

        • Gary Metzger

          It’s not preferring Christianity. It’s merely reflecting the Christian origins of the settlers who settled Lehigh Country. Your side is way off base on this one in trying to assert it’s preferring one religion over another.

        • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

          @ Becky

          Becky said: “It’s also prohibited from preferring no religion above religion. I don’t know why that’s so hard for you lot to comprehend.”

          Correct. I agree. And the U.S. government officially enforcing the absence of religion in the U.S. public square could be reasonably interpreted as the U.S. government favoring the substance of non-religion.

          Having said that, Jalapeno is incapable of understanding this because he(?) has a pro-Atheism confirmation bias, which assumes that a lack of belief in any deity (and religion) is a logically neutral, default position that everyone operates from, as opposed to being another biased position which is merely the counterpart to a belief in some deity (and religion).

        • tatoo

          That may be true, which means that they would then have to put all the religions symbols on the logo, including a Bahomet and a big A. It may get a little crowded, but it will be constitutional.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        If there is no symbol sole because those who say there is no GOD got there way and had it removed then why would they even need anything put back up. No symbol via atheists is their symbol . There is no GOD therefore nothing to represent HIM.

        • Jalapeno

          Uhm.. Yeah that’s kind of my point.

    • Stupid Atheist

      “…you now then favoring their symbol which is that there is no GOD?…”

      What might the no-God-symbol be…?

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Oh there are many symbols for satanism like the one you have chosen for your picture but atheist have no symbols because well duh they have no god of which they pay tribute to . No god therefore no symbols and to prove there belief system is correct… remove all tributes to the GOD they say does not exist .

        • Stupid Atheist

          “No god therefore no symbols”

          So help me out: Are you taking back your assertion that there IS a no-god symbol…?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No I am affirming such… everywhere that atheists throw a tantrum to have a tribute to GOD removed , there stands their symbol in it’s place… no god… nothingness . They have replaced what gives tribute to GOD with what stands for their god… nothing. Their belief system being favored over another. Whether you believe in GOD or not … you have a belief system.

          • Stupid Atheist

            Are you asserting that the absence of a symbol is itself a symbol…?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A symbol of a lack of symbolism perhaps?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No I am saying that when a person who BELIEVES there is no GOD fights to have a symbol removed which declares there is a GOD and the courts grant their belief and remove the symbol which declares there is a GOD… BY default they are accepting & favoring the symbol of the atheist over the symbol of the Christian.

    • A3Kr0n

      Our nation was founded on the Constitution, not the Bible. What symbol are you referring to when you say “their symbol”? Has an atheist suggested that some other symbol replace the cross on the seal? Atheists want all people represented by our government regardless of their religion, or lack of religion.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        No atheists want only their belief represented … which is there is no god. When you remove all symbols you are indeed favoring the atheistic view and disfavoring the Christian view. And sorry but no … our values, our songs & national anthem, our currency , our schools , our prayers before meetings, our hands placed upon bibles before hearings… the list is endless… All were because we founded our country upon the principles and laws within the pages of the bible. Go look at quotes from Jefferson, Washington , etc etc…. You do not know your own history.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “When you remove all symbols you are indeed favoring the atheistic view and disfavoring the Christian view. ”

          When you have only the Christian symbol you are showing favor to the Christian religion.

          If they leave the cross on, they should also be required to include every symbol for every other religion.

          • Frank Dorka

            Yes, include them all…or nothing. If there is no god can someone be ungodly?

            Look, you are able to stick your symbols anywhere you please…except when it comes to our secular government. Maybe that is too much to ask of a Christian?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No you are leaving in place what America valued for most of it’s existence up until the last for years.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            How many of America’s founding fathers were Christians?

          • George T

            All of them.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            You don’t know your American history.

            Thomas Jefferson: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

            “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”

            “The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous.”

            “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”

            “It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist.”

            “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

            “If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your [John Adams’] exclamation on that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it’.”

            “Christian creeds and doctrines, the clergy’s own fatal inventions, through all the ages has made of Christendom a slaughterhouse, and divided it into sects of inextinguishable hatred for one another.”

            John Adams: ““How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?”

            James Madison: “During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

            Benjamin Franklin: “I conceive, then, that the Infinite has created many beings or gods vastly superior to man.”

            “It may be these created gods are immortals; or it may be that after many ages, they are changed, and others supply their places.”

            “As to Jesus of Nazareth, […] I have…some Doubts as to his Divinity. […] I see no harm, however, in its being believed […] I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers…with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure….”

            Abraham Lincoln: “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”

            Want me to continue?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Anglicanism … John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge. Presbyterianism …. Richard Stockton , Rev. John Witherspoon. Congregationalism … John Adams & Samuel Adams. Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed. Three Founders—Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania—were of Roman Catholic heritage.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I have already given names and their religious sects. Please read my posts.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      “My problem here is that should you remove Christian symbols from our court houses, money and seals for the sake of atheists …. are you now then favoring their symbol which is that there is no GOD?”

      No. You’re taking no position on God one way or another. You’re not putting up any symbol, pro or anti God.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        No… NO symbol states a belief system just as much as a symbol does. Ambulance are you chasing me again ahahaha

        • Ambulance Chaser

          It does? So literally everywhere that there is no symbol, that’s promoting atheism? Like, say, a church pew? Is a church pew promoting atheism because it doesn’t have crosses all over it?

          • Bob Johnson

            And what about when I’m in the cafeteria with my plain, white, coffee mug – is that a symbol of the non-God of Atheism?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Nope wrong everywhere that atheist throw a tantrum to have a tribute to GOD removed , there stands their symbol in it’s place… no god. They have replaced what gives tribute to GOD with what stands for their god… nothing. Their belief system being favored over another. Whether you believe in GOD or not … you have a belief system.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so what would neutral look like then?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            If you declare your belief that there is no GOD you are an atheist… not neutral . Neutral in its very meaning means you are in the middle and believes there might or might not be. Just as a car goes no where in neutral because it is neither in drive or reverse so to someone who is neutral would not fight to take away a symbol of which they neither agree or disagree.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m not talking about individuals. I’m talking about the government. What would a government that is neutral on religion look like?

    • Some Guy

      are you now then favoring their symbol which is that there is no GOD?

      What you are experiencing is a loss of privilege; a privilege which violated the First Amendment. Being neutral toward religion is not being anti-religious. We also don’t allow electioneering at polling places; do you consider that anti-Republican? No. That’s being neutral and staying out of it for the sake of freedom.

      Our nation was founded upon the beliefs and principles of the Bible.

      The first four commandments violate the First Amendment. Be careful about arguing this point, because our country was also founded with legal slavery and women having substantially less rights. Perhaps these are the biblical principles you are thinking of?

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Do please explain why for all our many years as a nation, we just now have decided to remove any and every tribute we gave to GOD upon our court houses, monuments, prayers, our currency and our anthems??? Could it be that our nation no longer wishes to adhere to righteous laws but unrighteous ones? Could it be that this nation is turning it’s back on righteous laws so that it can follow after the lusts of the heart? I believe America once desired righteous laws, to be set apart from other nations and America was blessed but America over the years has turned it’s back on laws which Govern people in righteousness and favored perversions and corruptions instead. To be honest there really is no reason for the commandments to be displayed anymore in our court houses for our judges and legal system no longer follow these laws. We now have perversions as the rule of law and an anything goes society which has lost it’s moral compass.

    • C_Alan_Nault

      “are you now then favoring their symbol ”

      Which symbol would that be?

      “Our nation was founded upon the beliefs and principles of the Bible.”

      No, it wasn’t. There are 613 commandments in the old testament ( several are about buying, selling, and treatment of slaves). How many of these commandments were enshrined in the constitution?

      How many of the 613 commandments are enforced by the justice system?

      • ComeOnPeople!

        You do not understand the laws of the bible or you would know that of those 613 … some pertain to only the priests , some to judges, some only in the land of Israel, some only to women, some to children, some only to men, some only to the Kings of Israel, etc etc…. As to slaves… in every culture there has been some form of slavery… the commandments you are speaking of pertain to what you would be understood today as an indentured servant or other times spoils of war. When countries conquered there were women and children left without provision . All laws in regard to slavery in the bible were there so that the poor or displaced would be treated better then how the heathen nations treated them.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “You do not understand the laws of the bible or you would know that of those 613 … some pertain to only the priests , some to judges, some only in the land of Israel, some only to women, some to children, some only to men, some only to the Kings of Israel, etc etc…”

          Sure. And some involve sins of commission and some involve sins of omission.

          My point ( which your reply didn’t address) is that of the 613 commandments, the Bible only calls one set of ten ( the ten commandments”, and it is the ones from Exodus 34, not the ones from Exodus 20.

          “As to slaves… in every culture there has been some form of slavery… the commandments you are speaking of pertain to what you would be understood today as an indentured servant or other times spoils of war. When countries conquered there were women and children left without provision . All laws in regard to slavery in the bible were there so that the poor or displaced would be treated better then how the heathen nations treated them.”

          The indentured servants you refer to applied only to Hebrew males… they were released on their 7th year of service. It didn’t apply to Hebrew females or non-Hebrews, these people remained slaves for life.

          Slavery is owning a human being as property.

          Do you think owning another human as property is moral? Yes or no?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No sorry but there are many many other commandments in the Torah and they are called such.

            You still don’t have a concept of what the bible is referring to in regard to slavery because your understanding is only that of American history .

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “You still don’t have a concept of what the bible is referring to in regard to slavery because your understanding is only that of American history .”

            Here’s what the Bible says about slavery:

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-45

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

            Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5

            Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 1 Timothy 6:1-2

            What parts of these passages do you think I have no concept of?

            In what circumstances is it moral to own another human being as property?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            The version you are using is not interpreting the Hebrew correctly. The Hebrew word literally is servant not slave.Reading your verses in context also reveals the true meaning and that these are poor who need food and shelter therefore they are bought to become servants and work for food and shelter. Study history and also the Hebrew words which are being translated . Your view will change unless you are unwilling to learn or see what is true.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Call them servants rather than slaves if you want, the fact is the Bible says this about them:

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

            When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (Exodus 21:7)

            … slaves can be freed, servants don’t have to be freed.

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 )

            …. if you can beat them to death (because they are your property) without any repercussions if they don’t die for a day or two, does it matter if you call them a slave or servant? The point is the Bible says they are your property.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No sense going over this again and again because you do not understand what indentured servants are or the interpretation of a servant in the bible. You are using the word slave and this is not what the Hebrew means. Also you are speaking of what you know rather then going back thousands of years into that culture and that people’s laws and statues. Therefore you cannot understand servitude and why a JUST GOD made these provisions .

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “you do not understand what indentured servants are or the interpretation of a servant in the bible.”

            You do not understand that indentured servant applied only to male Hebrew slaves owned by other Hebrews.

            “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.” Exodus 21:2-4

            Foreign slaves remained slaves for life:

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

            “You are using the word slave and this is not what the Hebrew means. ”

            According to what the Bible says :

            “You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. ”

            “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. ”

            “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.”

            “Also you are speaking of what you know rather then going back thousands of years into that culture and that people’s laws and statues. ”

            The point is those laws and statutes are immoral, yet the Bible ( supposedly the word of god & a book for moral guidance) condones slavery in both testaments.

            So, god ( according to the Bible) passed down specific laws on what can & cannot be eaten, how beards and hair is to be trimmed, what sort of clothing can be worn, a long list of people who are to be killed for various reasons … BUT when it comes to slavery, that’s OK with god.

            “Therefore you cannot understand servitude and why a JUST GOD made these provisions .”

            Explain how it can be moral to own another human being as property.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Go study what an indentured servant is. Why they were bought and, not pulled out separate from the context. Study the Character of GOD and then you will realize that your interpretation is false.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Go study what the Bible says about owning people as property.

            “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.”

            “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.”

          • ComeOnPeople!

            The translation is servant. In context and with many other scriptures which pertain to servants you see a clear picture of the GOD of the Israelites not allowing them to mistreat those in their service. Read the scriptures above and below what you just quoted. Use a good translation that shows you the Hebrew word and it’s definition.

            In the striking a servant verse you keep quoting you will find that this is not just a man hitting another for no reason. This is about men having a quarrel and coming to blows… then it comes to the same situation with a servant. If a servant and the master of that house come to blows in a quarrel and the servant dies then the master of that house will be guilty just as with other men but if the servant lives for a time and then passes no one is found guilty . WHY? Because they both fought but the intent was not to kill it just came to blows. It’s called common sense or being fare in a matter. In context it’s not about someone just killing another man because he is a servant, it’s about two men quarreling and it turns into a fight. Just like in America… You have police who although they have the right to keep the peace… they do not have the right to just shoot a man because they are arguing .Should he shoot the man to kill him that police officer would be found guilty. Now should the police officer and that man start to fight, it’s a different story if the police officer fires his gun. It’s a different story because the intent was to protect himself not to kill the man he fought with.

            As to the other scripture … of course they would remain with them as servants because they have no inheritance . A person who has been a product or war, poverty or becomes indebted for any other reason… would have no mean by which to survive in a foreign land. They would have no inheritance. You would have the Israelites to cast them away like the heathens did all around them but GOD’s instructions were given to preserve their lives. Study history and the other verses on servants and you will see that the GOD of Israel wanted HIS people to not act like the nations around them in regard to servants. HIS instructions were given so that servants would not only be treated fairly but provided for and not cast out without a means to provide for themselves. We are not talking about modern day America where a poor person can get a card to buy food with and have their rent paid for by others… We are talking about 2,000 years ago. No food stamps, no government assistance, no freebies. You either had an inheritance to live off of or you worked for those who did and should someone take you in you became indebted to them because you ate their food, used their shelter. A servant became a part of the inheritance of those who had taken them in. WHY? Because without being kept within the family as an inheritance they would have been cast out to fend for themselves once the elder of that household died. Many pagans had servants but had no righteous laws by which to treat them. Servants where killed , abused and cast out to die but not so with Israel.

            OK enough. Comment but I’m done beating this dead horse.

  • awareoftruth

    There is no higher name than Jesus. Satan can not stand up under the authority of Jesus’s name. The cross, or any reminder of light isn’t only offensive to Satan; it can not be tolerated by him or any dark force. It’s no wonder evil is threatened at just the thought or slightest image of the cross. Spiritual warfare is behind every lawsuit brought by this organization.

  • Robert

    The bibles new trstament does not teach a seperation of church and state it teachs different rolls that each should follow. This is what happens when we look to the us constitution for guidance rather than the bible. CHRISTIANS such as lutherans originaly CAME TO THE USA. So they could freely practice their understanding of christianity .they did not come to be seperated from christianity in any way shape or form..

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Separation of church and state does not mean anyone can’t “freely practice their understanding of Christianity,” or any other religion for that matter. I don’t know where you got that idea from, but it’s wrong.

      • Robert

        I said seperation of church in state is not taught in scripture.. seperation of church and state is anti christian calming no God or any God no religion or any rellgion i s as good as any others not true .
        Jesus is God over all..be those that like the constitution believe it or not. .

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “I said seperation of church in state is not taught in scripture.. seperation of church and state is anti christian”

          Okay. So what?

      • The Last Trump

        Wrong. Yes you can.
        Or at least you could.
        Back when Bizarro AmeriKa was actually thriving, prosperous and free.
        Not so much this tyrannical monster today. 🙁

    • Some Guy

      You can still freely practice your Christianity, you just can’t use tax-payer money to fund it. I guess I missed the part where the bible talks about decorating government seals with crosses as necessary for worship.

  • Guzzman

    A Christian cross prominently featured on a county government seal is blatantly, recklessly, wildly unconstitutional. There is no legal justification for such a flagrant governmental endorsement of religion.

    The excuse that the cross represents the original Christian settlers of the area is completely bogus. The original inhabitants of the land were the Lenape tribe of native Americans. Christian settlers swindled the natives out of a million acres or more by committing fraud. It’s a shameful history of lying and cheating that resulted in driving native tribes off of land they occupied for thousands of years.

    • Amos Moses

      And they should darn well amend the Pennsylvania constitution to remove its mention of God ………… HOW DARE THEY …………………

      Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

      • Guzzman

        You raise an excellent point about the Pennsylvania Constitution. In Section 3 it states “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.” Lehigh County’s inclusion of a Christian cross in its official county seal would appear to give preference to the religion of Christianity, in clear violation of the state constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution.

        • Amos Moses

          And yet it mentions GOD ………….

      • TheKingOfRhye

        “And they should darn well amend the Pennsylvania constitution to remove its mention of God”

        I agree.

  • Steven

    Mr. Meholic has been subjected to viewing
    Sounds like SJW Mr. Meholic needs to check his estrogen levels. Seems like they’re a little high.

    “Lehigh County is not a Christian county…
    I’ll go a step further and say the United States is no longer a Christian country. Yes…there are pockets of decent Christians out there, but for the most part, with what I see, the country has gone the way of debauchery and self importance.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “I’ll go a step further and say the United States is no longer a Christian country.”

      It never was, because in my opinion at least, a country mainly populated by Christians is not necessarily the same thing as a “Christian country.” I don’t know, maybe I’m just playing with semantics here, but I think you can’t call a country with freedom of religion a Christian country or a Muslim country or a Jewish country or so on and so forth.

      • The Last Trump

        Documented history of overwhelming historical fact would clearly disagree.
        A little hard to keep trying to spin that yarn. Yet how you do try!
        Thank goodness for libraries and unbiased sources, eh folks!

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Yeah, those unbiased sources I don’t see you citing, thank goodness for those….

      • Steven

        It never was
        Sure it was! If we use 1960 as an endpoint, everything about the country supported Christianity; the foundational documents, school system, architecture, landmarks, churches, court procedures, political ceremonies (swearing in), moral precedent, etc…etc…etc…

        you can’t call a country with freedom of religion…
        Actually, Christianity is the only religion that supports a freedom of religion. It is also the only tested system that supports and individual’s freedom; keeping in mind there has to be a reference for moral and ethical fortitude.

        From what I recollect about history, the freedom of religion was the right to practice one’s belief; just as long as it didn’t violate the core premise of the country a frame built over Christianity.

        The only, real, argument you could have is that the style of government is more Romanesque (Christianity doesn’t outline an earth based government); although, internal procedures are were supported and influenced by Christianity.

        In the end, your opinion is seriously trumped by too much historical data, personal dialogs, writings, and practices.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Well, you’re probably right in a way; maybe the country is, after all, becoming or has became less influenced by Christianity, in general. I suspect you’d view that as a much worse state of affairs than I do.

          How would a religion support freedom of religion, anyway? I mean , the Bible doesn’t seem to be big on it….”no other gods before me” and that sort of thing. I notice you mentioned swearing in; how does that not support Christianity now? People still, the vast majority at that, get sworn in on a Bible. The examples of someone doing something different are few and far between. (Keith Ellison, and I remember some folks were raising a stink about that)

          • Steven

            How would a religion support freedom of religion, anyway?
            When the religion doesn’t establish a system of governance. Ahem…hint…hint…NOT Islam.

            no other gods before me
            Sidestepping the theological significance of the first commandment in the Bible–most non-believers fail to see their misuse–let’s just consider what is being established, in a general sense.

            This is a powerful statement; even for the non-believer. It creates an idea of unity and loyalty. If we consider what’s happening to the country now (Islam, Satanism, native Americans and their gods, naturalism, etc…), one can easily see the frailty of a system when other ideologies are introduced. Anarchy! The simple but accurate phrase: A nation divided cannot stand.

            how does that not support Christianity now?
            It doesn’t! I fully recognize the country is no longer a Christian nation–as Obama so elegantly proposed. Please reread my above post.

            People still, the vast majority at that, get sworn in on a Bible.
            Yeah…I’m not sure at the accuracy of your statement. What I understand is that the swearing in was to establish one’s honesty against something (God) of a pure nature. By allowing people to choose Allah, Buddha, or self, you remove the singular unifying character of objectivity. But I digress.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “If we consider what’s happening to the country now (Islam, Satanism,
            native Americans and their gods, naturalism, etc…), one can easily see
            the frailty of a system when other ideologies are introduced.”

            Wait a minute now….all those other religions (and naturalism, is that even a religion?) are still tiny minorities in this country compared to Christianity. Muslims make up less than 1% of the population. How are “native Americans and their gods” something that is happening NOW, anyway? That’s been around for quite a long time, before any Christians were around, obviously. I don’t know what percentage of Native American still follow their old religions, but I’m pretty sure it’s not all, there’s gotta be at least some Christians and other faiths in there. And Satanism? I don’t think there are any readily available figures on that, but I’d bet if you took all the members of the Church of Satan and all the other organized Satanist groups out there, it wouldn’t even begin to approach the numbers of Muslims.

            You’re talking about freedom of religion….apparently it doesn’t mean the same thing to you that it does to me. You’d want everybody that takes office or gets sworn in for whatever reason to swear on a Bible, no matter what their actual religion is, or even if they don’t have one? I’d rather have people being sworn in with something that has meaning to THEM. I’m an atheist; what would I even want to swear on a Bible and/or swear to God for? It just does not have the meaning to me that it would to a Christian.

          • Steven

            Wait a minute now….[to the end]
            You just jumped the shark!

            from you
            How would a religion support freedom of religion, anyway? I mean , the Bible doesn’t seem to be big on it….”no other gods before me” and that sort of thing.

            I was attempting to establish the nature behind a divided nation. Using examples was a form of reference; not an invitation to go into other tangents.

            You are disrespecting the nature of the dialog by changing the intent of what my point was. I’m not interested in continuing too far from the main idea.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Perhaps I did go off on a tangent, I often do that, just the way my mind works I guess! lol

            You’re using examples as a form of reference….fine, but I’m not just going to accept them as right automatically, and if I happen to think they’re not valid, I’ll say so and tell you why I think that.

            That thing about the oaths just really got my attention, I guess. Sorry if you consider it going even further off on that tangent, but you said ”
            the swearing in was to establish one’s honesty against something (God) of a pure nature.” Yeah, that’s fine and dandy for people who believe in God (that particular God at that), but what if someone believes in a different god or no god at all and doesn’t consider the God of the Bible as something “of a pure nature”? Or, think of it this way, what if the situation was reversed, what if you had to take an oath on the Koran, or something?

          • Steven

            Yeah, that’s fine and dandy for people who believe in God
            But this can also apply to someone that doesn’t believe in the Christian God.

            I don’t know if I can explain it clearly–I’m only on my first cup of coffee–However, the nature of abiding by and accepting the nature of a position is different than believing in it.

            If we can agree that objective truth exists, then we can establish a principle in which you tell the truth as if there is no other option; that God knows your thoughts and that your attempted lie is not hidden in darkness.

            Of course, for a Christian, this will be accurate, but for a non-believer, it would be like saying tell the truth as if you can’t hide it.

            but what if someone believes
            Another simple way to think of it: For example, you may work with someone on a project and have a different idea of how to do it. You may not agree or like it but he is the lead, so you follow his example because you understand the intention of it all.

            what if you had to take an oath on the Koran
            Well…then…you could just lie your head off. The Qur’an permits lying. After all, Allah is the greatest of deceivers.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “For example, you may work with someone on a project and have a different idea of how to do it. You may not agree or like it but he is the lead, so you follow his example because you understand the intention of it all.”

            Sure, probably most of us have been in that situation some time or another. I know I have, I’ve had a supervisor at work tell me to do something a certain way, and I thought I knew a better way to do it, but did it the way I was told anyway….most likely either just because the person was my boss, or even because the way he told me to do that thing was actually the official, proper procedure, you know.

            Still, that’s different from what we’ve been talking about. I actually believed in the existence of my supervisors. Kind of hard not to, in that case. (though I have had some that I wished didn’t exist…lol)

            My example about swearing on the Koran wasn’t really about the Koran or Muslims in particular, I just said “the Koran or something” to refer to any other holy book of another religion.

        • Some Guy

          From what I recollect about history, the freedom of religion was the right to practice one’s belief; just as long as it didn’t violate the core premise of the country a frame built over Christianity.

          The First Amendment puts the prohibition of government establishment of religion before freedom of religion. It’s because both are necessary for freedom of religion.

          • Steven

            I think I understand what you are saying. Albeit a little confusing.

            The prohibition of the government is a historical reflection of Europe and the Catholic church and the mess that created. The freedom to exercise one’s religion is the takeaway of what my post intends. There needed to be a boundary as to what is acceptable.

            Otherwise, would’ve prevented something like Sharia law or animal sacrifices? Just to name a few differences. There would’ve had to been a reasonable criteria of right and wrong and proper conduct to prevent other religions from exacting their own form of worship. And seeing that the entire country was in lockstep to Christianity, it only makes sense that Christianity was the basis for freedoms, liberty, right, wrong, and neighborly conduct.

          • Some Guy

            And seeing that the entire country was in lockstep to Christianity, it only makes sense that Christianity was the basis for freedoms, liberty, right, wrong, and neighborly conduct.

            The entire country was not in lockstep to Christianity. Have you ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? Many of the founders were not Christian. Christianity certainly had an influence, but it was not the basis for our country. Most of our laws were borrowed from Europe. Most of those were obvious, or came from elsewhere.

            Your implication is that morals come from God or Christianity, and that’s not true. There are plenty of good reasons to not allow rape, murder, theft, etc. Christianity gives advice on how to discipline slaves; it took empathy and secular reasoning to end slavery. Christianity tells us that men should lead, and women follow. It took secular reasoning to grant women equal rights. Just like interracial marriage and the LGBT issues of today, Christianity constantly plays moral catch-up with society.

            What’s REALLY flawed about the assumption of absolute morality is how inconsistent they are. That’s because everybody is justifying their subjective morals with an ambiguous source. Is it rape if you are married? Depends on the denomination. Do gays deserve death or abusive “conversion therapy”? Depends on the denomination. Do you shun family members that go to another church? Can you get a blood transfusion to save your life? Should you not “spare the rod”? Depends.

          • Steven

            The entire country was not in lockstep to Christianity.
            Well not literally. Only a moron would think I meant 100% of the country. Heck! Even all of Israel at it’s height wasn’t entirely on board with God. But I guess I was thinking about all the Christian indicators throughout the entire country.

            Jefferson Bible
            Yes

            but it was not the basis for our country.
            But why such a Christian presence than?

            Your implication is that…
            Yeah…that’s a deep subject and I’m not prepared to spend that much time on it.

            What’s REALLY flawed
            Again…big topic…has been debated by many already. I’m sure you can find better counter arguments than I can provide.

          • Some Guy

            Well not literally. Only a moron would think I meant 100% of the country.

            I don’t even mean the vast majority. The famous “wall of separation” came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. This letter reassured them of the separation between church and state. It was cited by the Supreme Court as evidence of the intention of the First Amendment. Many Christians were rightfully concerned about a government founded on any religion.

            But why such a Christian presence than?

            Because there are a lot of Christians. Would you argue that America was founded on the basis of being white, due to the overwhelming presence of white people?

            Yeah…that’s a deep subject and I’m not prepared to spend that much time on it.

            My basic argument is that there is a reasonable explanation for the essential laws of society. In general, we have debated laws from a perspective of reason and not from the bible. If the only reason for the existence of the law is the bible, it won’t be upheld in court. We saw that with same-sex marriage.

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Check his estrogen levels? Well, not only are you a bigot, but you’ve also outed yourself as a misogynist, Steven. Why do you hate women so much?

      • Steven

        Well, not only are you a bigot
        No! You’re the bigot. I only made a distinction between men and women,

        But your SJW intellect can’t understand natural logic. You’re not going to find a politically correct safe space with me. Sorry, if that’s too much, maybe you should take a moment and fetch your tissues.

        And no! I love women and respect them for their abilities, intelligence and natural purpose. But unlike you, I recognize that women aren’t men and men aren’t women.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          No, you made a derogatory reference to femininity based on the idea of someone complaining about something you find to be trivial, that’s not natural logic, it’s textbook misogyny.

          • Steven

            No! I was being derogatory towards Mr. Meholic’s masculinity. In reality, you’re the one doing disservice to women, who are the backbone, strength, and emotional growth in a family.

            I reasoned that historically–not this progressive gender neutral society–women were known to be the nurturers; more emotionally reactionary and less passive.

            We (men and women) have always lightheartedly made references towards each other’s opposite. Women joking about women with masculinity and men with femininity.

            Again, maybe you need your safe space, now. I hope you have your tissues.

            something you find to be trivial
            And you don’t find “…has been subjected to viewing the seal…” trivial. If you don’t, you are a true SJW and need to check your meds.

            textbook misogyny
            Here’s your textbook misogyny:

            tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            If you’re being derogatory towards Mr. Meholic’s masculinity, then by definition you are in reality denigrating femininity in general, which is misogynist.

          • Steven

            I’m bored with this argument.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Because you’re unable to defend your bigotry without resorting to even more egregious ad hominem attacks. Instead of digging yourself in deeper, just admit that you’re wrong.

          • Steven

            I’m right!

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            You’re right? Where? Prove it.

            Ah, the old schoolyard retort of “I know you are, but what am I?” If that’s the highest level of discourse you’re capable of, then yes, you’re right in that this argument has gotten boring. You’re simply not even worth trying to reason with.

          • Steven

            Ah, the old schoolyard retort of “I know you are, but what am I?”
            Yep!
            Hey! But have a good day anyways. 🙂

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            If it weren’t for people like you, causing those of us who are actually sane and reasonable to lose all hope in humanity, maybe I’d actually be able to have a good day.

  • Amos Moses

    Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ……….

    • Steven

      Stop that! You’re being reasonable. Don’t you know by now that this current generation has no idea what those statements mean?

      • Amos Moses

        OOOOPS…… my faux pas …… what a silly thought …………..

    • sangrita

      “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon
      the Christian Religion.” 1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States

      • Amos Moses

        But EVERY STATE constituion mentions GOD ……………..

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          You’ve read every state’s constitution? In their entirety?

          You may be correct, but in very limited context, perhaps… for example, Virginia’s constitution only mentions God once under Article II, Section 7, as a purely optional part of the oath or affirmation, the “so help me God” phrase is tacked onto the end of the oath.

          However, the US Constitution doesn’t mention God at all, and that document trumps all of the state constitutions. You lose, Moses, our government is secular.

          • Amos Moses

            “You’ve read every state’s constitution? ”

            Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ..

            Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..

            Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…

            Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…

            California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
            grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

            Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .

            Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy …

            Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .

            Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty … establish this
            Constitution…

            Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…

            Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance . establish this Constitution

            Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ..

            Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

            Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ..

            Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings … establish this Constitution

            Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution.

            Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…

            Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ..

            Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity … and imploring His aid and direction

            Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty…

            Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We…the people of Massachusetts,
            acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe…in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction …

            Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom … establish this Constitution

            Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings

            Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

            Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ..establish this Constitution ..

            Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..

            Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution

            Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . establish this Constitution ..

            New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience .

            New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

            New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

            New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings .

            North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

            North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…

            Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
            Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ..

            Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty … establish this

            Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be securein the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences .

            Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

            Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

            South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution

            South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish this

            Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…

            Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God

            Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution .

            Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to … enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man …

            Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI … Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator . can be directed only by Reason … and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other…

            Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution .

            West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .

            Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

            Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties … establish this Constitution .

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            My point still stands, the US Constitution doesn’t mention God at all, and that document trumps all of the state constitutions. You lose, Moses, our government is secular.

          • Amos Moses

            So what ……….. and no it is not secular …………. it is satanic …..

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            “So what”
            Great comeback. Very convincing. #sarcasm

            And yes, it is secular. No, it’s not satanic. What would even make you think that? You argue that we’re a Christian nation, but somehow satanic, in the same breath… are you even trying, or do you just spout random contrarian nonsense?

          • Amos Moses

            It is satanic ……….

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            How so?

          • Amos Moses

            Obama Admin Admits It Sent $400 Million to Iran to Release American Prisoners

            Outright lawlessness ……………….

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            How is that satanic?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He probably thinks secular MEANS Satanic.

            Actually, if we DID have Satanists running the government, it would probably become even MORE secular than it is now.

          • Amos Moses

            TRANS ACTION: OBAMA TO END SINGLE-SEX BATHROOMS ON FEDERAL PROPERTY…

            More lawlessness ………..

          • Amos Moses

            “the US Constitution doesn’t mention God at all”

            But the DOI DOES ………….. “endowed by our Creator” …………….

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Yes, the DOI mentions it. However, the DOI is not a statement of law, it is simply a statement which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states, and no longer under British rule.

            On the other hand, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America and does NOT mention God at all, and that document trumps the DOI and all of the state constitutions. You lose, Moses, our government is secular.

      • Amos Moses

        The Treaty of Tripoli is not good evidence and is often misused…………

        “that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.”

      • Amos Moses

        Justice David Josiah Brewer (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226): “This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus … (recited) that ‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered’ …

        “The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 … and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided ‘that they be not against the true Christian faith’ … The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606 … commenced the grant in these words: ‘… in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness …’ Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony … in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.

        “The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: ‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith … a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia’ … The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: ‘… And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union … there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God … to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess … of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us.’

        “In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: ‘… no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of … their religious profession and worship …’

        “Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. … And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor’ … These declarations … reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          “The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through
          a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable
          citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize
          through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government
          to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or
          oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and
          religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.”

          — Justice Clark (SCOTUS), delivering the majority opinion in Abington Town School District v. Schempp (1963)

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Looks like a plus sign to me. t

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            A plus sign “+” has equal length intersecting bars, so no, Not_C_Alan_Nault, the cross on the seal does not look like a plus sign (note the longer bit coming out of the bottom of the seal). Nice try, though, Not_C_Alan_Nault. You fail at math and logic.

      • Steven

        On top of what @ravenbrook:disqus Amos Moses wrote, You can’t take something out of its original purpose and transplant it into something it wasn’t intended to address.

        Remember why the treaty was created in the first place, and the lengths John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had to go in order to find a solution to the problem with the Islamic nations.

        The statement you quote is not false in any sense, however, it only addresses the government which gets its foundation from the Roman empire. Christianity does NOT establish a government. However! Christianity is what the framers used to navigate the details as to what constitutes liberty, freedom, justice, right and wrong.

        • sangrita

          “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith. ” – Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”, 1776.

          “… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802

          “We have abundant reason to rejoice, that, in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age, & in this
          land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.” – George Washington, Letter to the members of The New Church in Baltimore, January 1793

          • Steven

            I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. None of the quotes you posted absolve the idea of a Christian sentiment. Are you just posting quotes without considering their purpose?

            Thomas Jefferson’s letter to a Baptist church? That was a reassurance that a particular Christian denomination would not be endorsed; not that Christianity wouldn’t be recognized. In fact! It was Thomas Jefferson who started holding Christian church service in the Capital building.

            And with your George Washington quote: Does it say gods plural or God. Think about it.

            The reasonable sentiment would be that they were establishing a protection; so that what happened with the Catholic church in Europe wouldn’t happen to the United States.

          • Guzzman

            The real story about Jefferson is that the Danbury Baptist Association had written to him when he first assumed the presidency in 1801, expressing their concern about their religious freedoms. At the time, the Baptists were being persecuted because they did not belong to the Congregationalist church, the state-established church in Connecticut.

            Jefferson realized that a complete separation of church and state did not exist yet at the state level – the First Amendment only prohibited the Federal government from establishing or otherwise promoting religion. He was offering them hope that at some future time all state-established religions would be abolished. That didn’t occur until 1833.

            Also, Jefferson had nothing to do with starting church services in the House chamber of the Capitol. Jefferson was in no position of authority to tell the House how to use their own chamber. Jefferson was in the Executive Branch, and the separation of powers precluded him from telling the House how to use their otherwise empty chamber on Sundays. He played no role in setting up or approving the arrangement. The fact that he did attend these social functions and religious services as a PRIVATE CITIZEN says nothing about the principle of separating religion and government. The actions of a private citizen (even of a government official) are in no way “official” acts supported or endorsed by government.

          • Steven

            Also, Jefferson had nothing to do with starting church services
            I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification. My only excuse is that sometimes I start typing without checking the details. But yes! You are absolutely correct. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t responsible for starting church services in the Capital. However, I do believe you are taking some interpretive liberties when expounding on your argument with phrases like: realized that, offering hope, religions…abolished; especially when compared to what he actually wrote (without cherry-picking).

            Your position on services in the Capital building is somewhat disingenuous also when considering the context of this article and the position I’m making. If this were to happen (Christian church services in the Capital) in this generation, I would dare say a lot of people’s heads would explode.

            My main point is this: (from above)
            However! Christianity is what the framers used to navigate the details as to what constitutes liberty, freedom, justice, right and wrong.

            Nothing in your post precludes the notion that Christianity was integral to the development and spirit behind the government.

          • Guzzman

            You make an amusing point – church services in the House Chamber would be scandalous in this day and age. If you want to learn about the card playing, gambling, concerts, and party atmosphere of the House chamber on Sundays, just read the diaries of Margaret Bayard Smith. Again, none of this speaks to constitutional principles. This was a unique circumstance in our nation’s history when the Federal government relocated to an undeveloped tract of land with very little infrastructure. Naturally, unusual arrangements were struck to accommodate the social and religious needs of all of those displaced individuals. Even in this day and age with developed case law that mandates governmental neutrality towards religion, we have government facilities that would otherwise be empty, being rented to religious congregations who cannot yet afford their own buildings. That doesn’t wreck the Constitution, and it certainly doesn’t mean that government is establishing religion or that churches get to take over our government.

            You claim the framers of the Constitution used Christianity to develop “the spirit behind the government.” If the Constitution is based on Christian principles, why did the men who wrote it, advocated and explained its meaning to the people during the ratification debates fail to say so? We have the Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to explain each provision of the Constitution. In those essays they explain the origin of many of those provisions and there is not a SINGLE reference to the Bible or to Christian theology. Given that the Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the provisions of the Constitution to a predominately Christian populace, it would certainly have helped their cause to cite biblical support for those ideas; they could not, because none exists.

            If the Constitution is brimming with Christian principles then why, for more than a century after the Constitution was ratified, were attempts made over and over again by Christian groups such as the National Reform Association to add a “Christian nation” amendment to that document. Seems redundant, doesn’t it, that if the Constitution was already chock-full of Christian principles, why would Christians keep trying to add Christian ideas and language to it? The conservative Christian position from the very start was that the Constitution was a “godless document” that would bring down God’s wrath upon us all.

          • Steven

            If you want to learn…
            Yeah…I have too much to do right now. But did you know that once Israel left Egypt, they didn’t do what God wanted them to do, and that at different times, they were worshiping other gods?

            You’re talking about human nature, which secularism dangerously follows. This, by the way, is the hardest point to make with unbelievers. They always look at man’s actions and then make false analogies about what Christianity means.

            government relocated to an undeveloped tract of land with very little infrastructure.
            And immediately, Christian churches started popping up all over the country. Not Buddhist temples, Mosques or great halls of philosophical debates…but churches…Christian.

            developed case law that mandates governmental neutrality towards religion
            With their hand on the Christian Bible, they repeated: I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

            If the Constitution is based on Christian principles, why did the men…
            Isn’t this what I said? “However! Christianity is what the framers used to navigate the details as to what constitutes liberty, freedom, justice, right and wrong.

            John Jay:
            “Mercy and grace and favor did come by Jesus Christ. By conveying the Bible to people we certainly do them a most interesting act of kindness.” [and]
            “The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow. The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God…[continues]…

            James Madison:
            “We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” [and]
            “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”

            Thomas Jefferson
            “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

            If the Constitution is brimming with Christian principles
            Did I say this?

            Declaration of Independence
            …which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them,…

            Constitution
            …secure the blessings of liberty…
            Blessings from whom?

            I don’t know; I can’t think of any secular nation where there was such a Christian presence. Must be a fluke

            But I guess I got confused with all the Christian churches that popped up in all the cities around the country; the Christian Bible that was printed for the schools; all the missionary work that emanated from the country; the way court systems used the Christian Bible to swear in people; the words “So help me God” at the end of the military oath; countless quotes that our founders used to indicate the Christian God; The uncountable references and prayers given in the name of the Christian God; The ten commandment monuments that used to be in front of courts; The reference to God in the preamble of the Constitution…

            Remember the Constitution starts by saying “We the people” NOT I Thomas Jefferson or I James Madison, etc…

          • Guzzman

            You make much of oaths, but “So help me God” is not in the Constitution’s oath for government office. No mention is made of swearing on the Bible either. As to court testimony and oaths, all citizens have a right to just “affirm” that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I can quote the Constitution on that if you like.

            No gods, bibles, or anything else religious is ever required. This is addressed in the Constitution where it forbids “religious tests.” When I took my oath of office I was simply asked, “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will defend and protect the Constitution?” No bibles or “so help me gods” were involved.

            Also, it is very doubtful that George Washington added words to the official Constitutional oath that he himself played a role in constructing. If you get a chance, google “So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded” (History News Network).

            Just so you know, that James Madison quote about the Ten Commandments is a total fake. The Jefferson quote is highly suspicious. Do you have a source for that? Also, the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution as you claim, or anywhere else for that matter. Why do you think Christian groups from the very start complained that the Constitution was a “godless document”?

          • Steven

            You make much of oaths
            No, I made much of many different things. I just breezed over the oath. Are you saying this didn’t happen?

            You spend a lot of time avoiding many of my points and my initial position, which is not a governmental establishment but the spirit behind it. Please reread. I’ve already stated elsewhere that the government has a Romanesque feel to it.

            However! Christianity is what the framers used to navigate the details as to what constitutes liberty, freedom, justice, right and wrong.

            That is my point. Countries like North Korea and China are good examples of secularism.

            Whenever you go off track with “the Constitution doesn’t say this” or “I don’t have to do that,” you are, in essence, establishing a straw-man argument.

            so help me God
            Another straw man. Read that part again. Because that statement came out of my mouth when I joined the military in 1985.

            Just so you know,
            Just read up on some docs. I have some Madison documents I’ve been intending to read; just haven’t had the time. And yes! I hate finding quotes that are false.

            However! The country wasn’t founded on only certain statements from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Are you going to tell me that our understanding of a historical narrative rests on only those two? What about the other 150 plus framers?

            If we consider everything about the beginning–minus the fake quotes floating around the Internet–your arguments do little to absolve the nature of the country’s beginning. And everything about it that supports a Christian spirit.

            the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S.
            ..secure the blessings of liberty…
            Again, blessings from whom?
            I thought you would have made that connection. My bad.

            Why do you think Christian groups
            I don’t know. Maybe because it wasn’t made to be a Christian document.

            Do you understand that I’m talking about the spirit of the country and not written law. I’ll say it again: Christianity does not contain anything to establish laws; It provides moral fortitude. And every time the country attacks that idea, it needs to create more laws to handle the anarchist nature of secularism that flourishes.

          • Guzzman

            You wrote, “Christianity does not contain anything to establish laws; It provides moral fortitude.” But Christians are trying like crazy to infuse government with their religion. Thousands of complaints are filed every year against government representatives (e.g., public school principals, state legislators, city council members, law enforcement officials) who abuse their positions to promote their personal religious beliefs. The vast majority of these complaints are resolved before going to court. Just this year, law enforcement officials were blocked from putting Christian cross decals on their vehicles, a state legislature was prevented from naming the Bible the official state book, county courthouses were told to take down 10 Commandments displays, and so forth.

            And now we have the case of a county government that is just fine with prominently featuring a Christian cross on its official county government seal. Such a government act is blatantly unconstitutional. There is no legal justification for such a flagrant governmental endorsement of religion.

            If this is your idea of providing “moral fortitude”, then those who wish to uphold the Constitution don’t want any part of it.

          • Steven

            But Christians are…
            You’re going off on a tangent now. I could spend hours, days, weeks, etc…demonstrating how your idea of society is in direct relation to what we see in the world today; and how infusing proper Christian principles into the world could fix it. But that goes beyond the scope and time I have available.

            Let’s just say from my world-view: whenever you see evil in the world, debauchery, broken families, self-centered behavior, indifference to pain and suffering, etc…Remember! That is the world opposing what God intended.

            I have a big day, so, thanks for the dialog and have a nice weekend. Hope and pray that all your fighting against God finally leads you to the truth. Kind of like Paul; without the temporary blindness thing, though.

            Tchau

          • Guzzman

            Thank you for the discussion. You misconstrue my intent. I have no interest in “fighting against God” as you say. I came to this sight because the article directly related to government taking sides on a religious matter. Government has no grant of authority under the Constitution to do that. I am fighting to uphold the Constitution.

            “Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.”
            – Ronald Reagan, Speech to Temple Hillel and Community Leaders in Valley Stream (October 26, 1984)

          • George T

            Get Jesus in your heart

          • C_Alan_Nault

            ^^^ another dishonest post from a lying Christian impersonating me.

          • getstryker

            I series of excellent responses . . . it was a pleasure to read them. – Thank you and God Bless you and yours.

          • Steven

            Thanks! And God bless.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Countries like North Korea and China are good examples of secularism.”

            No, they’re not. China, yes, now it is. North Korea, no, definitely not. North Korea is an atheist state. That’s completely different from a secular state, which is where neither one particular religion, nor the lack of one, is officially encouraged, or discouraged. Like, say, the US….

            I suppose you could certainly, as you have been doing, argue that the US was founded in the “spirit of Christianity”, there’s probably good arguments both for and against that. (I think that means different things to different people, for one thing) That doesn’t mean, though, that we’re not a secular country.

          • Steven

            Both China and North Korea fall under this. Not only now but for the longest time. If you’re going to disagree with me, please make sure your point of view is supported by a proper definition. not this postmodernist crap.

            [Secularism]
            n.
            1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
            2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

            [Securalist]
            adj.
            1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
            2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
            3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

            there’s probably good arguments both for and against
            FOR? Most definitely. AGAINST? spurious

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How about this definition…..

            Secular state: a concept in secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I thought you loved Jesus?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            ^^^ another post from a lying Christian imposter.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “None of the quotes you posted absolve the idea of a Christian sentiment. ”

            And the fact is the Constitution nowhere mentions Christ, Jesus, or Christianity.

          • Steven

            Dude! This has been gone over. Let it go, man. Next story please.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            If you want to move onto the next story you need to visit another web page. This story is the one being discussed here.

    • Some Guy

      Then came the Fourteenth Amendment which made the bill of rights also apply to states.

    • getstryker

      Acknowledgement of the Almighty God of the Bible is found in ALL 50 state constitutions.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        “Acknowledgement of the Almighty God of the Bible is found in ALL 50 state constitutions.”

        Do they state the god of the Bible? Or like the money do they just use the word god?

        • getstryker

          The Preamble of all 50 State Constitutions contain terms like “God” (capital ‘G’), Almighty God,
          Supreme Ruler of the Universe, Providence of God, Devine Guidance, Creator, Supreme Being, Sovereign Ruler of the Universe, the Great Legislator of the Universe, Almighty God the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, Author of Existence, etc., – an open acknowledgement that the legislators of each state recognized and sought
          blessings from the ‘Judeo-Christian God of the Bible’.

          There are NO states established on the teachings of Hindu, Islamic or pagan, etc. gods.- NONE!

          These state constitutions date from the founding of the nation in 1776, long before ‘political correctness’ played any part in the perversion and re-writing of America’s real history. Christians did NOT re-write history . . . they MADE history.

          Seems that the folks who created the ‘States’ have agreed and established that this IS a Christian Nation based on faith and guidance in and from the precepts taught by the Christian God of the Bible.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            And NONE of the Constitutions you mentioned use the words Christ, Christian, or Jesus Christ.

            Going from the use of the word god & claiming they mean Jesus is a leap of logic.

            The fact they used a generic title ( god) and don’t mention Christ is significant.

            A better argument (using those documents) would be that America was founded as a Jewish nation.

          • getstryker

            You deny the obvious? . . . You question the 50 distinctly clear references to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible written into each and every state constitution long before ‘political correctness’ would have eliminated those words? Really? Is that simply your willful ignorance, your anti-Christian bias or is it just stupidity on your part?

            You insist that the lack of any reference to ‘Jesus Christ, Christ or Christian’ is a fatal flaw in identifying ‘WHO’ the myriad of legislators in the various states are actually referring to when they penned these Preambles several hundred years ago. Who pray tell, were they requesting blessing and guidance from if not THE one and only ‘Almighty God’ with all his easily identifying titles? These men had NO problem knowing or acknowledging exactly whom they were honoring and seeking favor from in both word and deed.

            If this is the extent of your biblical knowledge, understanding and spiritual discernment, then you and I have NOTHING to discuss beyond this point. Good Day sir.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            You deny the obvious? . . . You ignore the fact that the 50 state constitutions do not mention Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christians or Christianity? You ignore the fact that the word god is generic and could be referring to any of the numerous deities people have believed in?

            Show me the word Christ or Christians in any of these constitutions… until you are able to do that, the claim the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles is laughable.

            How many of the Bible’s 613 commandments are part of the law of the US?

            “Who pray tell, were they requesting blessing and guidance from if not THE one and only ‘Almighty God'”

            That question could be relevant if you can prove a god exists then prove it is the only god, then [prove it is almighty. ( according to what the Bible says, the Bible’s god isn’t almighty)

            Here’s a tip: if you are going to claim a god exists & want to convince others your claim is valid you first have to clearly define the god then present evidence for the god.

          • getstryker

            What part of ‘NOTHING’ do you not understand?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            What part of “Christ or Christianity isn’t mentioned in any of these constitutions” do you not understand?

            All that is mentioned is a god. Even if it could be proved that they refer to the god of the Bible, the fact Christianity isn’t mentioned means the most you can prove is that the writers of these constitutions were Jewish.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha . . . I have seen ‘willful ignorance’ from most all of those that hold biases against Christianity and believers . . . but this is ‘stupidity on steroids!’
            Don’t bother responding – I’m thru with you. PERIOD!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Hahahaha . . . I have seen ‘willful ignorance’ from most all of those that hold belief in Christianity but this is ‘stupidity on steroids!’

            You forgot to point out where Christ or Christianity is mentioned in any of those constitutions.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            The proof is in the mens lives who wrote these Constitutions , who most were practicing a form of Christianity in America. Not to mention that upon elections almost every politician claims some form of Christianity to bring in votes. Why? Because America was and still is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles. Although that is shifting it is still a fact that is undebatable in history and in statistics. Quickly we are becoming an obama-nation so what you claim may soon be a reality but until America totally moves away from her roots , the fact remains of her founding.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Nope. The country is founded on the principles in the Constitution. Can you point out the part of the Constitution that mentions Jesus, Christ, or Christianity?

  • Gary Metzger

    It’s about time the FFRF was sued for harassment, and for wasting taxpayer money. They can’t win this one, because it’s about the HISTORY of the country, not advancing one religion over another. If the founders of the county were Jewish, I’d have no objection whatsoever if there was a Jewish symbol on the seal. FFRF is bigoted against Christianity, and it’s about time they learn to practice the tolerance they preach.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What are the elements of a cause of action for harassment?

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Neutrality is not bigotry, and the FFRF does not solely target Christianity. They address many other cases of Jewish and Muslim violations as well (which you’d know if you did any research before spouting off ignorant commentary), it’s just that there’s so many more violations committed by Christians that they overshadow all of the others.

      A history of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America does not make it right, so it still needs to be corrected.

    • Some Guy

      Luckily, the purpose of a county government is to serve the people living there, not celebrate it’s religious heritage. Churches and private citizens are free to celebrate that heritage on their own.

      • Gary Metzger

        The information on the County Seal IS a celebration of the heritage and agriculture of the founding settlers. It’s entirely appropriate, and there is no way this seal will be changed to suit a bunch of atheistic kill-joys.

        • Some Guy

          The seal is something that is meant to be a representation of the county and it’s residents. Imagine if the county was founded by a KKK member, and there was a blood drop cross on the seal. Would you want that as a representation of you? What about a star and crescent? Think about the message that it sends.

          Even as a Christian, you ought to be offended. All county business carries this religious marking, as though all that business (shady or not) is “God-approved”. It sure seems like a vain use of the symbol.

  • Becky

    The cross is a pagan symbol.

    • sangrita

      Even when Christ is hanging on it?

      • The Last Trump

        Yeah, didn’t you know the Romans crucified lots of folks?
        It’s just history, Muffin.

        • sangrita

          It’s only your savior, Ham Sandwich.

          • The Last Trump

            Mmmm. Yummy!

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Appropriated by Christianity and universally recognized as the symbol of Christianity. Got a problem with that? Take it up with the Christians. 😉

      • Becky

        It doesn’t matter who appropriated or recognizes it as such. God Almighty commanded not to make any graven images…of anything. Its origins (pagan) isn’t dismissed by God. There are plenty of biblical examples of God telling his people that.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          If your god indeed “commanded to not make/worship any graven images…of anything”, then why do all of your churches do it anyway? If the cross is truly that offensive to your god, stop using it.

  • Nidalap

    Nice to see folks not automatically caving to the anti-Christian movement! 🙂

  • DoorknobHead

    It is not so much that religion is a huge embarrassment to humankind, but it is that a particular group of religious people will use the presence of that symbol to discriminate against others that only see it as an ancient torture and killing device used upon long dead but real living human beings (unlike the historicity and reality constrained non-existent Jesus fella which was never put upon a cross — due to his non existence) in an age where the state openly killed and tortured people to show there was no limit to how far they would push their authority. Religions discriminate against others and abuse authority whenever they are free to do so because their religion is always the “true” religion, no matter what that religion or branch of a religion that might be. The religious will not be putting atheists and others upon roman crosses any time soon (except in the Middle East), but they will discriminate perniciously against others – a small pin prick at a time, and sometime a small cut here and there, and either openly, in in the back of their mind justify their discrimination because of what that symbol represents to them. It would be a best practice to remove the cross because that is better for all, and not just for some, than to leave the symbol there. If it is a case of wanting to show the history of the area, then surely there could be a symbol employed that would more fairly represent a nation concerned with liberty and justice for all in a land that protects minority views from majority transgressions.

  • tatoo

    The arrogant city council will lose and have to pay big bucks to FFRF! As usual.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    The FFRF will be gone soon. Three top executives are being investigated for crimes against kids