Atheist Group Convinces Virginia Town to Cancel Field Trip to Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter

CHRISTIANBURG, Va. — A prominent professing atheist organization has convinced the parks and recreation department of a Virginia town to cancel an upcoming field trip to Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter and Creation Museum in Kentucky by asserting that the trip is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently sent a letter to the director of the Christianburg Parks and Recreation Department after “concerned residents” contacted the organization about the trip, planned for April 3.

It contended that since the trip was organized by the city, it violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” FFRF also stated that the trip wrongfully excluded residents in Christianburg who are not Christian.

“While organizing and encouraging citizens to attend family-friendly recreation is a laudable goal, advertising and organizing a trip to a Christian ministry constitutes government endorsement of religion and alienates those Christianburg residents who are not Christian and who are non-religious,” attorney Andrew Seidel asserted.

“It is a fundamental principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the government cannot in any way promote, advance or otherwise endorse religion,” he wrote. “Advertising and organizing such an event sends the message that residents are expected to support such religious events.”

FFRF told the department that citizens may organize the trip on their own, but the government must “refrain from holding religious events or holding events that benefit religious organizations.”

On Feb. 7, an attorney for the city responded with a one paragraph letter advising that the trip had been cancelled.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Please be advised that the trip has been cancelled and will be removed from the town of Christiansburg’s website,” wrote attorney Theresa Fontana of Guynn & Waddell, P.C.

FFRF applauded the cancellation of the trip, slamming the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum as “Christian-themed hoaxes that no one should fall for.”

This is not the first time that FFRF has expressed objection to government-affiliated trips to Ham’s ministry. As previously reported, last May, the organization sent letters to officials with Brookville High School in Dayton, Ohio, Jackson Independent School District in Kentucky, and the Big Beaver Falls School District in Pennsylvania to urge cancellation of trips to the Creation Museum.

Ham told Christian News Network in a statement at that time that he doesn’t believe it is illegal for public schools to visit as long as it is done objectively.

Ham

“If public schools were bringing students here and their teachers were saying, ‘THIS interpretation is the only truth that you should personally accept,’ then that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution,” he said.

“However, if students come here in an objective fashion and teachers show them our first-class exhibits and present our group’s interpretation of the origin of man, then the field trip is fine as an exceptional and voluntary educational/cultural experience.”

The essay “The Myth of Church-State Separation,” written by David Steinberg of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, outlines, “Rather than enacting the Establishment Clause to mandate a separation of church and state, the framers adopted the clause to protect divergent state practices—including state establishment of religion, which continued in several states when the Establishment Clause was enacted.”

Steinberg also notes that both before and after the Establishment Clause was written, the federal government was involved with numerous religious endeavors.

“A review of early American history demonstrates that the framers did not intend a separation of church and state,” he says. “The federal government appointed and compensated chaplains and priests, authorized legislative prayers, issued Thanksgiving proclamations, and endorsed many other measures intended to support religions.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Noah is all Americans’ noble ancestor. Every American should visit here.

    • johndoe

      No way to prove that statement

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It is true. Americans behave like Noah’s descendants.

    • antifasciste

      Grace, that sounds like an incredible waste of available vacation time. Rather go to a museum of natural history….Is Ken Ham giving you a commission?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        No. Not everyone lives for money like modern secular Americans and their mental slaves do. You guys should not sacrifice children for money when you have Christian legacy from the start. Shame. I wish I could visit the Ark. I write in Christian news-sites so that I won’t be bullied by the American pervs in the future. It’s ridiculous that mankind should be bullied by the Americans for not-supporting homosexuality. Secular West is mentally ill this century by having lost Christianity. You Westerners are not good if you are not Christian. Go visit the Noah’s Ark and wake up and come back human.

    • Roy Hobs

      Grace — explain to me how the 3 primary races all come from one family. How do you get black men from white parents………or, how do you get yellow men from black parents……how do you get white men from black parents. How does this happen?

      • MARINE73

        Roy, there is only one race, the human race. Peel away our skin and we all look the same underneath. Man was created by God in the Garden of Eden which was located in the area surrounding Israel and as the population grew, migrated north, south, east and west. Over time, people took on characteristics of others living in the same areas, influenced by dominant physical traits, temperatures and survival of the fittest. I recommend you read “The Genesis Record, ” written by a scientist, Dr. Henry Morris. He was an atheist turned Christian as he researched history.

        • Roy Hobs

          Over time, people took on characteristics of others living in the same areas, influenced by dominant physical traits

          Impossible. Where did Cain’s in-laws come from?

          • antifasciste

            Citing an allegory as scientifically meaningful? Not really applicable.

          • Roy Hobs

            This is a Christian site….have you noticed?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            When you say the Races are not equal, how do you mean?

          • Roy Hobs

            Greetings Royce…..I see you like books. For your library: March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp. Tracing our Ancestors by Frederick Haberman. Who is Esau-Edom by Charles Weisman.
            A must have — “He Offered Himself; or Priestly Sacrificial Atonement” by Malcolm Lavender. Lavender can be reached at lavendersnewtestament dot com
            Peace

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yeah, I like books. Now I just need to find the time to read them! That and stuff like Twitter, FB, and others and ruined my mind to the point of where I find it difficult anymore to read anything of any length.

            I’ll try to check those out. What about my question though?

          • Roy Hobs

            For those who have ears to hear —
            Google Arnold Kennedy at Israel Elect and read “One Blood”.

        • Michael C

          Roy Hobs ties his racist, white nationalism to his Christianity and, in his own words, likes to “troll religious sites” to spread his opinions about race and Jewish people.

          On this very website, he has stated that he believes that “diversity is white genocide.”

          His comment history is filled with this type of stuff (and much, much worse) like;

          “Blacks are not us. They are something else. Doesn’t mean I hate them… I just don’t want to live with them.”

          “We need a mass awakening to the Jewish Problem. Which is our number 1 problem.”

          • Roy Hobs

            Triggered. Amazing a sodomite would care about my ‘racial’ beliefs.

          • Michael C

            What does “triggered” mean.

          • Roy Hobs

            Ironic! A sodomite atheist gets “up votes” on a Christian site!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            The answer to your question is genetics. It’s really quite simple and quite easy to see how “3 primary races” came from one set of parents and the rest of what you state. Not difficult at all.

            Try raising and breeding chickens. You’ll learn fast!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not ironic at all. Just look at who upvoted him. I do hope what he says isn’t true.

          • Amos Moses

            ” likes to “troll religious sites” to spread his opinions about race”

            seems to be a description of your activities also ……….

          • Roy Hobs

            Context is everything. If you were an honest man, you would have included the ENTIRE comment. I stand by my comments in their appropriate CONTEXT.
            I spent most of my adult life in the Pacific Northwest. North Idaho specifically. I then moved to Atlanta Georgia. I stand by my comment — ‘blacks are not us’. “us” as in the white race. We are different. We do things differently. How about Rap music as just one example.
            I don’t hate non-white races. I just prefer to fellowship with my own. I have black, Mexican and Asian friends. But they are not close friends. We just don’t relate on the same level.
            Btw…..I moved back to the Pacific Northwest. Why? Because one day my wife got caught in cross fire from blacks running away from the police. Every day around us people were being robbed, car jacked and their home invaded. I moved to the PNW to protect my family. The crime in the PNW doesn’t compare to the crime in places like Atlanta etc. Call me a racist if you prefer. I prefer to call myself someone who has a brain and cares for his family and is willing to protect that family.
            Context is everything.
            As to the Jewish Question………….it is important to state that I do not believe the “jews” have any relation to the 12 Tribes of Israel. The jews are imposters — they are the synagogue of satan which Jesus describes in Revelation 2:9.
            Henry Ford had a problem with the jews as well. You might want to educate yourself and read “The International Jew” by Henry Ford. For starters. Martin Luther had words for the imposters as well.
            Context.

        • WhiteGhetto

          Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer. A learned man to be sure, but “The Genesis Record” has been widely discredit as a work of scholarship.

      • antifasciste

        Differences of skin tones are attributable to human evolution.

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Today’s white people need colored people’s help to control their homosexual inclination this century. It’s easy; stop looking at naked bodies. Non-West will return the favor to the West on giving everyone the Bibles and modern life and longevity. White people need Christianity to stay moral.

      • Steven Thompson

        The same way you get St. Bernards and chihuahuas from tamed wolves, basically — gradually over many generations. You don’t have two white parents producing a black child; you have children differing slightly from their parents, and over many generations (as families and tribes move apart and become somewhat isolated from one another) some genes become more common in some populations and rarer in others, and people start looking noticeably different. It’s been noted that Marco Polo, travelling from Italy to China over land, would have noticed that the Chinese looked different from Italians — but there would have been no point in his journey where people in one town looked very different from the people in the last town. But when you travel over oceans and don’t see people until you reach the shore, you do notice that the people in one port often look strikingly different from the people in the last port; “races” are just the local populations at the end of long sea voyages. The same thing happens over time as well as space: children don’t look much different from their parents, or from each other, but great-to-the-hundredth grandchildren can look strikingly variant from their distant grandparents, and from each other.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Noah’s sons got separated. Most Americans look like Iranians to me. You guys are all distant brothers and sisters. Romans chapter 5 – 6.

    • antifasciste

      That whole “global flood” story is an allegory intended to make a moral point, not scientific fact.

      • Amos Moses

        Nope ………. the evidence that is wrong continues to mount …..

        • antifasciste

          If there was an actual global flood, how did kangaroos get to Australia? Backstroke?

          • Amos Moses

            your assumption is that they had to swim ……..

          • antifasciste

            The amazing aquaroos must have also let wombats, platypuses and koalas hitch a ride.

          • Amos Moses

            again …. more assumption on your part ………

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Prove it!! There’s plenty of “science” that provides evidence for a global flood. But I don’t suppose you really wanna look into it, do you?

          • antifasciste

            Please share this science of which you speak.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Please go educate and inform yourself. A simple Google search will provide you with a plethora of sources.

          • antifasciste

            My dissertation and other published work in geology and anthropology highlight the clear difficulties and misinterpretations of the “science” of a global flood theory, but communication with you brings to mind 2 Timothy 23-24.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. That is truly funny because my communication with you, including this last post of yours, brings to mind Matt. 7:3-4.

          • antifasciste

            That is a good point, and perhaps one of my flaws. Believe it or not, I do know it is not my duty or place to belabor what I may perceive as intellectual differences.

          • Rex O’Fender

            In what scientific journals were they published? What scientific degrees do you hold?

          • Ed Collins

            No it won’t . There is NO evidence of a global flood. The only confirmation you will get from google will be radical christian sites trying to keep the lie alive.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for publicly displaying the utter ignorance and steadfast determination of some who choose to live in Denial and keep their head buried in the sand.

            And thank you for once again publicly displaying the typical Liberal regurgitation gruel with the line “The only confirmation you will get from google will be radical christian sites trying to keep the lie alive.”

            I say “thank you” because it just goes to show that all the Liberals have is character assassination, personal attacks, ad hominem, and putting labels on things they don’t agree with. Like “Homophobe” when “irrational fear” has nothing to do with it. Or “Radical” when it’s a basic truth that was held, and probably still is, by the vast majority of folks for 6000yrs.

            All you’re doing is exposing your Denial before all to see. The Truth is that there IS evidence for a global flood and there IS good Science to show that. And, moreover, the Science is showing the veracity of Scripture more and more and more with each passing year.

            One stark evidence of that is the Ultrasound Machine. Yet oodles of people, perhaps even you, still deny that an Abortion is killing a HUMAN BABY.

            And there is all the proof one needs to see how powerful Denial can be.

            I hope you wake up to Reality some day and get saved.

          • wolftimber

            There is only evidence of LOCAL REGION floods, and to someone trapped in one small area seeing nothing but water everywhere would THINK the whole world was flooded, yet 10 or 20 miles away beyond what he could see over the horizon the picture changes just like you can have a huge storm, tornado and flood in one area and d drive 50 miles away and it’s sunny and nice, if you lived 1000 years ago, didn’t have instant communication and was confined to that storm area you’d think everywhere was like that.

          • wolftimber

            and can you picture a 600 year old man building a WOOD ship by himself larger than the Queen Mary, which ship building experts have stated could not possibly hold together and float without breaking apart from the motion of waves due to length, and then somehow this 600 year old man was able to get top the North pole to grab a male and female polar bear (how DID he determine in all that fur which was which???) and then down to Africa for a couple of lions, tigers, down to Australia for kangaroos, mountain goats, and then he saved gnats, mosquitos, fireants, scorpions, deadly poisonous snakes, fleas, ticks! can ya imagine???

      • Jason Todd

        Unfortunately, there is evidence to suggest a great flood.

        • antifasciste

          Can you cite your evidence?

          • Jason Todd

            I fortunately don’t need to prove anything to you. You came here to create doubt.

          • antifasciste

            Doubt leads to discovery, which can lead to metanoia then koinonia.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The fossils of water life everywhere and the land formation.

          • Dmc1184

            water fossils are at the tops of mountains….because the top of mountains used to be on the sea floor ya moron

          • Tristan Finley Collins

            Dmc1184 … Its called Plate Tectonics. The Alps have sea life fossils at their peek. The middle is African rock and the foundation is European rock… Because plate tectonics.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Fossils indicate the fast speed of fossilization, not gradual. The tops of the mountains were covered by the oceans very fast and then came up again.

          • WhiteGhetto

            HUH LOL. Wow there really are people this brainwashed. The tops of the highest peaks as they are today were not submerged in some great flood. Stunning stupidity.

          • Rex O’Fender

            Why haven’t you published your findings and collected your Nobel prize?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s a common knowledge. Nothing special. Why do you guys always attack Christians in a Christian news site?

          • MarkSebree

            Wrong, as usual. Fossilization usually indicates fairly rapid burial in an anaerobic environment, which usually inhibits bacterial growth and predation by scavengers. This sort of burial is easier in the shallow seas where most shellfish and corals live and on dry land. Also, there are a number of shellfish which anchor themselves in the sand itself, which increases the likelihood of avoiding scavengers.

            Fossilization itself is usually a slow process. For limestones, it occurs over millennia as the remains of the shellfish accumulate and are compacted. This results in an increase in pressure which presses the shells together, crushing them and leaving impressions in the surrounding rocks. The heat as the layers of rock are buried deeper also changes the rocks chemical composition, which changes what type of rock it is.

            As far as why these deeply buried rocks end up at the top of mountains, that is also easily explained. Plate tectonics. There are a number of major tectonic plates moving around the earth, very slowly by human measurements. Sometimes, they crash into one another. When that happens, the land buckles. This buckling causes earthquakes (which are also caused by other things) and forms mountains. The rock has to go somewhere, after all, and “up” provides the least resistance. This is what forms the Himalayas (India subcontinent crashing into the Asian continent), the Alps (African continent crashing into the European continent), and the Rockies and Andes (North and South American continents crashing into the Pacific plate).

            Look closely at the layers of rocks in the mountains. When any sort of deposition of silt, sand, soil, or magma happens, it tends to try to reach the lowest level, and the flattest, most horizontal surface that it can. This is because of gravity. However, most of the mountainous rock layers that you see are not horizontal, but rather at an angle, sometimes a very steep angle. Therefore, the mountain could not have formed by deposition and erosion, but rather had to be pushed upwards by some great force. Like two tectonic plates. As the rock gets pushed together, they slip over and under each other, some being pushed upwards, and some downwards. The rock getting pushed upwards becomes the mountains. And since a great deal of rock is pushed up, layers that were previously deeply buried are often forced towards the surface. Which means that long buried rock containing fossilized sea life can be brought to the surface.

            I doubt that you will accept, believe, or even acknowledge any of these facts. You are certainly free to research them yourself.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Fossilization is massively sea life alone and happened quickly; some fish were about to eat their prey and got fossilized. You are only imagining that it took long time.

          • johndoe

            Nope. It takes millions of years to fossilize. The earth isn’t 6000 y/o

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They don’t have a perfect model; all the numbers are their wild imaginations. It’s highly possible Earth is 6,000 years old. Things look old when they are finished.

          • johndoe

            There’s zero possibility of the earth being 6000 yrs old. None.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God can do anything. There is zero possiblity that nothingness and time caused everything.

          • johndoe

            Wrong as usual

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read the Creator’s Book. AI will prove you to be wrong.

          • johndoe

            My parents created me

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Your parents did not create anyone. They did not abort you because Christian Church told them to let you live. You don’t even respect your own parents; why do you start talking about them suddenly? If you had truly respected your parents, you’d have acknowledged their Creator God instead of attacking the Christians in a Christian site.

          • johndoe

            I haven’t attacked you. My parents did create me. No supernatural beings needed.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Humans never create other humans. God formed you in your mother’s womb(Psalm 139), and the Church told your prents to raise you well. Why are you so up against the Church whose shelter your parents were protected under? I just don’t understand secular Americans. Stop hating the Church. Be more moderate in evil-doing.

          • johndoe

            Nope. My parents created me. They each donated 23 pairs of chromosomes.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            That’s not creation. They created nothing. Besides, you are a lot more than your genes.

          • johndoe

            Sure it is. Your genes decide your entire makeup, not a supernatural being

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. It’s just a map. Entities need materials. God designed all and made it come into a being. Robots will mock you.

          • johndoe

            Nope

          • WhiteGhetto

            LOL it was Jesus’s magical father.

          • MarkSebree

            Scientists have extremely good models with multiple independent checks depending on the suspected age of the specimen. It is impossible for the Earth to be only 6,000 years old, or even the human species for that matter, since artifacts and fossils far older have been found.

            And things usually look new when they are finished, not old.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, the numbers are mere speculations. Nothing can be measured accurately beyond a few thousand years except for distance. Scientists have no clue why Earth only has abundandant liquid water and from where it came from. They are just giving you made-up stories regarding origin and age. The Holy Bible is more believable.

          • MarkSebree

            While the numbers are best estimates, they are not “mere speculation”. Using multiple techniques on the same evidence can and does reduce the margin for error. While they may not be able to reach the exact day or year, which is what I am assuming that you are looking for, they can get reasonably close to the year or millennia. That is why such results usually include a margin of error, which is a measure of how far off they could be.

            Actually, scientists have a very good idea why Earth has liquid water, and where it came from. The reason why is because the Earth formed in the orbital zone where it was not so hot that water evaporated, and not so cold that it frozen on a permanent basis. We also have an atmospheric pressure which allows liquid water to remain in the liquid state.

            As far as why the Earth has abundant water, you need to understand that Sol is a second generation star. That means that the nebula from which our sun and planets formed contained signifiant quantities of the elements between Aluminum and Iron, which includes quite a bit Oxygen. Oxygen combines easily with many elements, and forms tight bonds with Hydrogen. As the nebula coalesced into a protostar, planetesimals formed as well out of the dust. They grew in size and coalesced into larger and larger bodies. And these bodies grew in size, their gravity grew, which allowed them to pull more material in . When our sun finally ignited, the new solar winds blew much of the dust away, but the planetesimals and planetoids were still left, these continued to crash into the planets, adding to their mass.

            The early Earth was very, very hot, and took a couple hundred thousand years to cool enough for liquid water to remain on the surface. Since water is a light compound, it would have tended to float to the surface of the molten earth, and evaporate into the new planet’s atmosphere. The surface was also peppered with the left over planetoids and planetesimals that I mentioned previously, some of which included water ices. This added to the amount of water available. As the planet cooled, the water vapor started condensing out of the atmosphere and accumulating on the surface, which in turn added the cooling of the surface.

            These facts are quite well established in the appropriate science.

            Since your mythology relies on the supernatural and on some forms of magic, I find it quite unbelievable. Science can and is tested and checked by people other than the original one to propose and idea, and these people come from all belief systems. They come up with the same answers based on the same or similar data, and are able to reach the same conclusions. If they don’t, the results are challenged along with why the results are being challenged, and the original researchers either improve the explanation, provide additional data, possibly gathered later, to support their original premise, or withdraw the explanation and for to come up with a new one. That peer review process is why scientific explanations are so strong, and why science continues to improve. Science encourages intelligently questioning results, religion discourages intelligent questions.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It doesn’t explain that nothingness causes all things. The possibility is still zero. You are wrong in your very basic premise. Scientific theories continue to change, but God’s Word never changes because it is the truth. God created everything.

          • MarkSebree

            You cannot defend yourself, so you change the subject. The topic under discussion was fossilization, not cosmology. Do try to stay on topic.

            You claimed that scientists do not know why the Earth has so much water on its surface. I explained what scientists do know on the subject, which does explain why the Earth has so much water. Now you change the subject again to the formation of the universe. You keep trying to change the subject because you cannot defend yourself in an intelligent and objective fashion when confronted with the facts.

            “Scientific theories continue to change”

            That is because they are honest. Scientists constantly test theories to see if they remain applicable when new data emerges. If the new data calls the theory into question, the data is rechecked for accuracy. If there is still problems, the theory is modified to encompass the new data, limited to exclude the new data and a new theory proposed that accounts for it, or the old theory is scrapped and a new theory is proposed which accounts for the old data and the new data, and makes predictions for future data found. That is why science is and will remain strong and applicable. It is adaptable to our changing knowledge base. Particularly strong theories like the Theory of Evolution have withstood many tests and challenges to its premises, and survived.

            Science remains applicable to everyone no matter what their religious beliefs because it is objective and not dependent on a person’s beliefs to remain accurate. That is why scientists get the same results to their experiments no matter what their religious beliefs are.

            “God’s Word never changes because it is the truth.”

            Except when it isn’t. The fact that your religion is unchanging and cannot adapt when new facts and knowledge comes to light is a reason to distrust it. There are quite a number of factually incorrect statements made in your book of mythology. For example, the existence of a “Great Flood that covered the world” or rabbits chew their cud.

            Your mythology is only the “truth” to those that believe that it is the “truth”. That makes it subjective in nature, just like every other religion. Your mythology is not “the truth” to those that do not follow your beliefs.

            “God created everything.”

            Logically impossible since that implies that god created himself.

            It is far more likely that men created your deity to explain what they did not understand, and then to control others by controlling their thinking. A figment of people’s imagination cannot create anything.

          • MarkSebree

            Not quite millions. Under IDEAL conditions, it may only take a couple thousand years. The general minimum standard from what I have read is more like 10,000 years, while higher numbers more likely.

          • RavenSkye Walden

            And you are here copping out on giving answers because you have none. You could just say “I dont know” and be adult about it.

          • Jason Todd

            Still not JoeMyGod.

            Blocked.

        • Jerussha

          Oh, yeah? The story is ridiculous like all of the other fairy tails in the bible. The bible is not a history book. Use your brain and think about it.

          • Jason Todd

            1) Tales.

            2) You are right. The Bible is more than a history book. It’s also a book of prophecy.

            3) Think about this: God has made His presence known to me on a very personal level. That trumps anything that you say to me about God.

          • wolftimber

            Then what you are admitting is everything and everyone just simply runs a pre-laid out SCRIPT like a long movie, already pre-ordained exactly what happens every step of the way through the whole thing, that 5 year old kid crushed under a train by “accident” wasn’t an accident at all, it was already pre-scripted to happen per the “prophesies”, those 100,000 dead victims from the ground moving a little under the ocean causing a tsunami while the oh so invisible one stood by and did NOTHING were going bye bye anyway no matter what, because it was all pre-scripted.

          • Jason Todd

            You have no clue what you are babbling about. Read the Bible and get one.

          • WhiteGhetto

            Well case closed.

          • wolftimber

            It only has some loosely accurate geographical type stuff in it, but no surprise since all fiction is based on reality in one form or another to make it believable, that’s why the old Star Trek was so believable even though it was complete fiction and filmed before we even landed on the moon!
            They used sand and rocks for other planets and they looked real, same for orbiting planets seen on the viewscreen, looked like you were really in space looking down at a planet even though it was totally fake.

        • wolftimber

          Even IF there was a big flood it doesn’t mean anything, and certainly doesn’t mean what your book claims- the naive primitive writers of that thing wrote down what they interpreted the only way they could, they had NO IDEA about science, astronomy, other plants, what CAUSES rain, thunder, lightning or anything else. the planet has always been geologically active, everything from massive earthquakes and floods, to wild fires, continental movement, huge meteor strikes- Arizona, Gulf of Mexico and many places, climate changes resulting in ice age, pole shifts, volcanic eruptions and more are all part of the planet’s ongoing history and always will be.

          Greenland was once forested, as proven by the petrified wood Admiral Peary and his men discovered around 1898, now it has 2 MILES thick ice on it, and it changed cold quickly enough those trees went from living to being preserved enough from rotting to turn into petrified wood stumps.
          A large flood would be just one of a long line of repeated natural disasters.

          The super volcano under Yellowstone has erupted before several times and the geology proves it, it’s well overdue to erupt again, and it WILL just like Mt St Helens did, but attributing any of this stuff to a god, gods or whatever is ridiculous!

          • Jason Todd

            Yawn.

      • Jason Todd

        By the way, why are you here?

        • antifasciste

          Why am I here? Where ever I go, there I am.

          • Jason Todd

            You are blocked. That’s where you are.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Don’t just block the harassers. Flag them and report to Heather.

          • Jason Todd

            Thing is, there are people like him who don’t come in here to learn anything, just create confusion and doubt. Much like the devil they serve.

            I have had it with them. Flagging them is good, blocking them on sight is better.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes, you’re correct in why they come here as evidenced by their comments. But here’s the thing with blocking them, it only prevents you from seeing their comments and from them replying to you. They still can harass others.

            Flagging them on here notified Heather and she’ll delete the comment and then if they are repeat offenders, she’ll block them permanently so they can’t bother anyone.

          • Rex O’Fender

            You can’t defend your beliefs. Got it.

          • Jason Todd

            Blocked.

          • Tom Reddington

            Atheists don’t believe in your ridiculous Satan either. Educate yourself, your ignorance is on display.

          • Jason Todd

            *Pats you on head*

            Of course. Now go out and play. The grown-ups are talking.

            Blocked.

          • Mari Tatlow Steed

            Yes, heaven forbid you actually have your beliefs questioned. Must not be much of a faith if you’d rather flag and block people instead of defend it or offer proof for your assertions.

          • Jason Todd

            I don’t need to defend it. That’s not why this site exists.

            You should try JoeMyGod.

            Blocked.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The marks of the univeral flood is all around on Planet Earth. The moral point for today’s mankind is not to submit to the rich bored American pervs in the 21st century.

        • Dmc1184

          there are no marks indicating a global flood
          it never happened

          • wolftimber

            Only LOCAL and regional flooding, such as happened 15,000 years ago in Washington when a glacial lake held in place by a massive ice dam broke free and all that water washed down valleys hundreds of miles away leaving proof of that event.
            To a human standing around when that happened, they would have thought the world was ending, 500 square miles of water in that lake all coming down the valleys!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The marine life fossils. It’s everywhere. Planet Earth did have a global flood.

          • MarkSebree

            No, it did not. Most parts of the earth were under water at one point or another, but there were no global flood. If you check, the fossils are of different ages and time periods. Plate tectonics can force previously shallow seas up above sea level, and warm periods can melt polar ice caps, raising sea levels, which can drown land near it. Both of these, however, are usually long processes taking hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, the scholars are making up the numbers at their will. It’s like today’s media’s poll – unreliable. Different observations prove much younger Earth. The planet having gone through a universal flood several thusands years ago explains a lot of things about our Earth. Fossilization rather happened quickly, not gradually. What looks millions of years can be made within weeks such as Mt. Helena. The global flood changed the Earth’s ground surface and most probably the atmosphere as well.

          • MarkSebree

            “No, the scholars are making up the numbers at their will. ”

            No, scientists do not “make up numbers”. That is part of the reason for the peer review process, to prevent made up numbers from being taken as fact.

            “It’s like today’s media’s poll – unreliable.”

            no, the numbers derived by scientists are highly reliable since they have been checked and rechecked many times over the years using updated tools and techniques by other scientists, including non-Christian scientists, and the same answers have been consistent.

            “Different observations prove much younger Earth.”

            Those would be observations by people who make up numbers, not by scientists. Scientists have shown that the Earth is far older than you are willing to acknowledge or believe.

            “The planet having gone through a universal flood several thusands years ago explains a lot of things about our Earth. ”

            Sorry to counter your ignorance, but this planet has never undergone a “universal flood”, particularly during the existence of hominids, much less homo sapiens.

            ” Fossilization rather happened quickly, not gradually.”

            No, by its nature, fossilization almost always happens gradually, over ten of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

            “What looks millions of years can be made within weeks such as Mt. Helena.”

            Which is why scientists use independent markers to verify the age of anything. They use geological layering and isotope decay rates of multiple isotopes, among other methods. The geological layering alone disproves the claim that there was a “universal flood”.

            “The global flood changed the Earth’s ground surface and most probably the atmosphere as well.”

            What “global flood”? There never was one, and certainly was never one since human beings evolved some 50,000 – 100,000 years ago. What’s more, anything that changed the atmosphere would have affected the rocks, animal life, and plant life of the time period. That is the reason why we can infer what the atmospheric composition was millions to billions of years ago. We KNOW that there was very little to no free oxygen in the atmosphere until after plant life mutated to absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen, and even then it took hundreds of millions of years for the oceans and atmosphere to finish changing their composition. And we know this by comparing the rocks from before that change, about 3.5 – 4 billion years ago, to the rocks during and after the change.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yours is just a groundless theory. Visit Ken Ham’s Ark. That’s what this news is all about.

          • WhiteGhetto

            Yeah visit a tourist attraction for all the details..ALL of them.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Secular Westerners are making money either by showing God’s creation or Christians’ products in the land such as grand church buildings. What you utterly lack is gratitude. The greedy perish with their money. Read the Holy Bible and find your creation purpose.

          • MarkSebree

            Actually, my states are not groundless since they are grounded in science and objective evidence.

            I am not interested in visiting and wasting money on a shyster, dominionist, anti-science, anti-reality huckster like Mr Ham. I would rather visit a Natural History museum. They deal in facts, not fantasy.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. You should hear Mr. Ken Ham to find out the truth. Why are you here in a Christian site anyway? If you are here to bully Christians, it proves that you need to read the Holy Bible and visit Mr. Ken Ham’s Ark.

          • MarkSebree

            “You are wrong.”

            No, I am quite correct. That is why you cannot actually show me that I am wrong.

            “You should hear Mr. Ken Ham to find out the truth.”

            What makes you think that I have not heard Mr. Ham? I know that he is ignorant, a liar, has no scientific knowledge, is uninterested in the truth, and only wants to fool people into believing his mythology.

            I have a better grasp of the truth than Mr. Ham ever will.

            “Why are you here in a Christian site anyway?”

            Because the site posted an article dealing with the Separation of Church and State, and the actions and overreach of the government to try to promote a specific religion, Christianity usually in the USA, over other religions.

            “If you are here to bully Christians, ”

            No, I am here to educate the ignorant like you, and to correct their misconceptions. If confronting reality, being asked to defend your claims objectively, learning what real science and scientific knowledge is, and showing people what the real world is happens to be a form of “bullying” to you, then you have an awful low bar for what is bullying.

            “it proves that you need to read the Holy Bible”

            I have read it. I was chaplain’s aide in the Boy Scouts. I went to a parochial high school. That is why I do not believe it. It is no different from any other book of mythology.

            “visit Mr. Ken Ham’s Ark.”

            I do not want to waste my time or money, and I do not want to give him any money. I feel that even if it was free it would be too expensive because it tries to dissuade people from learning the fact and good science. It tries to make people more ignorant and pull them away from the real world. He tries to claim that the Flintstones were reality.

  • Nidalap

    A field trip to the local mosque to learn about Islam probably would have passed muster though…

    • Radix

      You better believe it. All in the name of “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Somehow these people just can’t make themselves include Christianity under their “diversity” umbrella. I think they are what’s known as “hypocrites.”

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Secular Westerners are too immoral to include Christianity. They like Eastern religions because those do not condemn Western depravity and they don’t know much about Islam and Judaism.

        • Tom Reddington

          Unfounded and libelous.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s true. Why do you Westerners scron and bash and attack Christianity – your only sane conscience and the only good and true religion on Planet Earth – while leaving others alone in recent decades unless you prefer to live in immoral sins? Too much entertainment for too many decades for you. Wake up and start living like men just as your forefathers did. Racists are better than pervs. Racists leave others alone but pervs militantly and willfully corrupt global children.

          • DeaconDee

            “Racists leave others alone but pervs militantly and willfully corrupt global children.” ~ Did you comment on the wrong article? This isn’t about the Catholic Church.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Catholics are merciful people. At least they are supposed to be that way. White people alone are called racist if they just withdraw from other kind of people, but others who stay with themselves never get bashed by anyone. This is a gross injustice against the white people.

          • Mari Tatlow Steed

            “Merciful people” don’t stand by like blinded sheep while their religious hierarchy continues to cover up and obstruct prosecution and justice of crimes committed against their own women and people. “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”

            Apologia is not an attractive look for anyone, whether it concerns racism or defending crimes perpetrated in the name of religion.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, the Catholic system does have a problem. Their doctrines have serious flaws in the light of the Holy Scriptures as well. Fix things one by one. Immoral secular culture is a poison, whatever wrongs the churches did or are doing. It’s wrong for singling out a group of people when all others are similar in proportion.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            If you mean the scandals of the Catholic priests, nowadays fathers, teachers, officers, and even doctors… And no one is surprised if any type of celebs get caught. You’ve been totally outdated for a long time if you just attack the Catholic priests.

          • DeaconDee

            I have attacked no one. The Catholic Church has perpetrated child molestation on a global level for centuries -moving priest from Parrish to Parrish , and often to other countries to avoid detection and arrest. Despite all of its promise to clean up its act, the church continues to be caught trying to cover for these priests, and in doing so, has made itself as guilty as they are. There is no legitimate comparison between the scale of the crimes committed by the largest, longest running, criminal enterprise the world has ever known and those of single dad.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Catholic Church have rescued billions of people as well, like no other group of people did except for the Protestant churches. Primitive pagans did not think slavery or pedophilia was wrong. Nowadays the predetors are in homes, schools, hospitals, police department, government offices, and everywhere. It’s wrong for you to single out the Catholic Church. Gay West makes things hellish for the entire mankind.

          • DeaconDee

            Those predators do not receive protection and relocation services from their employers, and the Catholic Church mired millions of people in poverty with archaic rules on birth control. Mother Teresa was a fraud who wouldn’t provide the dying under her care with so much as an aspirin because of her obsession with the Church’s teachings on the spiritual value of suffering. Add 1500 years of persecution of Jews, forced conversions , and a whole host of other crimes and what you actually have is a worldwide crime syndicate that would make John Gotti turn over in his grave with jealousy.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You only know partial. The Catholics did numerous great things; they brought a Christian message, literacy, charity, and longevity. Don’t be so resentful.

          • DeaconDee

            Yes, they brought the Christian message with a sword, “charity” in exchange for conversion, and longevity for the Papal rulers. You need a history lesson.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. World’s authorities massacred the freely-converted Christians everywhere. Americans don’t know the world history. Natives abused their own people as well. Freedom and literacy were brought by Christian missionaries.

          • WhiteGhetto

            LOL, wow…just wow. “Christianity – your only sane conscience and the only good and true religion on Planet Earth”. What incredible sanctimony.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You Westerners are a spoiled species because you had Christianity with you all the time. So unfair. Now you guys are attacking Christianity so that you could support your mentally-ill depravity and enslave mankind with homosexuality. God will punish Sodom all over again. This is the summary history of Western Civilization. Read the Book of Isaiah and Revelation. Repent of your sin to get saved and get back to your sanity. Stop bashing your white Christian forefathers who were superior than you. Read the Holy Bible, especially the Gospel of John, in order to find life. Freedom was established by the Reformers to live out the Word of God as it is.

      • james blue

        Google or use the search engine of your choice “FFRF islam” you will see that they go after Islam too.

      • Kate Karwowska

        If you read the article, and comprehended it, you would know that FFRF had no problem with them going as individuals. It was the fact that it was arranged by and for a government agency.

        • Jason Todd

          Which agency would that be?

          • MarkSebree

            Christianburg Parks and Recreation. It is stated near the beginning of the article.

    • meamsane

      No doubt!!

      • Kate Karwowska

        No. MUCH doubt.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Only in your blindness. When was the last time you heard anything on the news about a big ruckus being made over what a muslim did? The fact is people are AFRAID of the muslims and that’s why they keep their mouths shut.

          Christians on the other hand are easy targets because most folks know that Christians will turn the other cheek and aren’t violent.

          And I’d be just about willing to be the farm that the proof in that is the time you spend on this CHRISTIAN site versus the amount of time you spend harassing muslims over their beliefs and what they’re doing.

          Ewwwww, did I sense just a touch of hypocrisy coming out in you??? I bet that had to hurt a bit!!

          • Kate Karwowska

            No pain here at all, I’m an equal opportunity disbeliever. But you’d best call a waaaaaahmbulance for all that “persecution” you xtians always feel. Just remember – you disbelieve all other “religions” so you and I are not dissimilar. You just believe in one more “god” than do I. And, xtians “turn the other cheek and aren’t violent”? Best do some research on that one.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No waaaaahmbulance needed at all. For every one of your fiery darts gets swatted down for the empty rhetoric that it is and we get another blessing at every attempt you make. So bring it on!! LOL I’ll take all the blessings you can send my way!!

            And btw, the term is “Christian”. Now I know you can’t stand to type the name of Christ because it’s self-condemning and reminds you every time you type it or see it that you’ve got eternal torment waiting for you. That’s understandable. Thanks for proving it.

            No, are and I are VERY dissimilar. First, to your point, I disbelieve those other religions are the Truth and I know they’re lies and I do NOT go to the other sites to harass them. Big difference there.

            Nice attempt at deception and distraction though. However, it didn’t escape my attention that you failed to address the point.

            And no, it’s not that I just believe in one more god than you do. I believe in The God. The ONLY God.

            I also don’t need to do any research on CHRISTians turning the other cheek. See it and do it all the time. Maybe you should do some research on that one.

            How about you start with the video of 18, or was it 21?, CHRISTians that are led out by muslims to be beheaded solely because they’re CHRISTians who would not deny their faith.

            And there once again is the irony. You persecute the very people who would save your life from those who would do the same to you. Given the chance they’d behead you, after making you a sex slave for awhile, just as easily as they do Christians. And the height of the irony is that y’all get to spend Eternity in the same Lake of Fire together.

            Chew on that one for awhile. While you can because it’s gonna be hard to chew on anything but your tongue when you’re gnashing your teeth for all Eternity.

          • Kate Karwowska

            You state ” I disbelieve those other religions are the Truth and I know they’re lies” How do you know that? How do you know you didn’t pick the wrong “god”? Because you read it in a book? Because someone told you? Because you “feel him” in your heart? Religion is based on geography. If you had been born in the Middle East, you would undoubtedly believe in that “god”. Why do xtians, jews, and muslims all believe in the same “god of Abraham” and yet they “interpret” that “god” in very different ways?

            Think about this, won’t you? If there really were one “true god”, why are there SO many different religions that all believe THEIR “god” is that one “true god?

            Finally – thanks for the laughs today! You’re quite amusing :-).

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for your parting line. I don’t need to cast my pearls before swine now. Usually I go about answering questions as they’re asked so I appreciate you letting me know that you aren’t seriously asking questions to get answers because you seek the truth.

            And thanks for publicly displaying your utter ignorance as well. “Religion is based on geography.”‘; yeah right!! A little sect of Believers in one itsy bitsy teeny weeny place has spread ALL over the globe. Sheesh. Why do you folks persist is such public displays of ignorance?

            “you would undoubtedly believe”. More ignorance and another display of faux omniscience. It’s only “undoubtable” in YOUR deluded mind according to your own self-deluded god-complex.

            “Think about this, won’t you? If there really were one “true god”, why are there SO many different religions that all believe THEIR “god” is that one “true god?”

            Oh, I’ve thought about it. But one doesn’t really have to guess. They just have to have an open mind, eyes to see, and ears to hear.

            So you just yuck it up while you can. Enjoy your little laughs and mockery while you can. I appreciate the blessings and I know without a doubt that there’s coming a day when you’ll laugh no more, your mockery will stop, you’ll bend your knee and bow before the very Christ you ignored, rejected, mocked, scorned, and blasphemed. And then you’ll spend ALL Eternity in torment where you will have a VERY LONG time to think about how foolish you were as well has replaying this conversation over and over and over and over…

          • Mari Tatlow Steed

            I believe the word you’re looking for is “Paulist,” not “Christian.” Other than a unified tie to one form or another of the Old Testament, most people I’ve met who identify as “Christian” have very little in common with the teachings of Jesus. Instead, they live by the mores expressed by Paul, whose interpretation of Jesus didn’t come until some 200 years after Jesus’ death.

          • Marshall P

            You’re a btch and an assho/e. You sound like some fat hideous old lesbian.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, your belief would be wrong. I said what I said and I meant what I said.

            However, that said, I can understand why you’d be confused. Your comments reveal a complete and utter ignorance of what the Bible is. You choose to accept the Bible for what you say is the “teachings of Jesus” and then reject the rest as some interpretation of Jesus by Paul that came 200yrs later when, in FACT, Paul was probably converted around 30yrs after the death of Jesus.

            More importantly, if you actually knew what the Word of God says, you would know there is NO room for any difference between Jesus and the words of Paul because the words of Paul are the very God-breathed words of the Word.

            So, when you couple that with “most people I’ve met who identify as “Christian” have very little in common with the teachings of Jesus” it’s quite easy to see you’ve made the fundamental, and perhaps most often, mistake of creating a jesus in your own image according to your own will and ways instead of surrendering as a slave to Jesus for His will and His ways.

          • Bryan Elliott

            I love it when people, tiredly and banal, trot out ‘truth hurts, doesn’t it?’

            Ah, no. It *doesn’t hurt*, so it must not be the truth, eh? Projection of that degree probably is probably painful, though. Probably in the rectal area. :^D
            Yes, we’d best call that waaaaaaahmbulance stat! Either that or some men in white coats with a tranquilizer gun!

    • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

      Are you kidding?! If the city government organized a trip to the Mosque, it would have made Fox News, and the “Good Christians” would have stormed City Hall with pitchforks!

      • wolftimber

        Exactly! just like the massive protests, including death threats phoned in and more over a so called 9/11 mosque, it was nothing more than a small mosque that had been at that location 3 blocks away for YEARS wanting to build larger on property they bought and owned!

      • calduncan

        The pothead opinion. Worthless.

        • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

          You’re on drugs? Is that why you have such a low opinion of yourself? Then maybe you need to seek help.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      And your evidence for this belief is…?

    • james blue

      Arghhhh…I forgot this site doesn’t allow links.

      So if you google or use the search engine of your choice “FFRF islam” you will see that they go after Islam too.

      • Earl Eakin

        If they revered facts, they wouldn’t be believers.

    • Jen

      Exactly!!

    • Jerussha

      No it would not have. You poor persecuted Christians. If you can’t shove your religion down everyone’s throats you are being persecuted. Ohh, but it hurts so good..

    • Kate Karwowska

      You would be incorrect in that assumption.

  • johndoe

    This is the same guy that posted about humans fighting giants and dinosaurs gladiator style…LOL! This is no museum. It’s a circus freak show!

    • Delectable

      Histrionics are for children.

      • johndoe

        Then they’re right up Ken Ham’s alley.

    • Sharon Taylor Amadio

      And John Doe is a fake name. 😂

      • johndoe

        Just the Doe part. I’ve had xtians on threaten to dox me

  • Fred Cox

    Ironic that a town with that name would ‘bow’ to another ‘god’…

    • Croquet Player

      The town was actually named for one of the early settlers, a William Christian. But your point is well made. Yeah, it is ironic.

    • Jen

      Right!!! I’m amazed the stupid FFRF people ain’t all over that and demanding the town to be re named. These people need to get over themselves!!

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Ssshhhhh!! Don’t give ’em any ideas!

      • Jerussha

        Yeah, we are so stupid that we won another one. Keep pushing and see how far it gets you

        • Jen

          Ha.. jokes on you actually… You may be “winning” here in Satan’s world, but when OUR Lord and Savior Jesus comes back you will be on the losing side if you continue to reject Him. And yes, I say OUR Lord because if you like it or not he is Lord over all and sadly alot of people will hear the words ” I never knew you, away from me you evildoers” Matthew 7:23.

          • FHRITP

            Jen, without Christianity would you be a more moral person, or a less moral person. My guess is less. Am I right?

          • wolftimber

            Oh I’m quaking in my boots in FEAR that the oh so invisible magical man is going to swoop down from the sky and squash me!!!
            That worked with the dumb peasant sheeple 2000 years ago- they were kept living in FEAR, subservient, and more importantly- paying MONEY into this system that guarantees them eternal paradise!

            I think marx said it best:

            Marx considered the contributions of religion over the centuries to be unimportant and irrelevant to the future of humanity. He argued that religious belief had been invented as a reaction against the suffering and injustice of the world. In marx’s view, the poor and oppressed were the original creators of religion, and they used it as a way to reassure themselves that they would have a better life in the future, after death. Thus, it served as a kind of “opium,” or a way to escape the harsh realities of the world.

            Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
            Over time, however, religion came to be used by the ruling classes as a way to keep people obedient, by promising supernatural rewards in exchange for submission on earth. Thus, marx argued that religion – originally intended as an escape from suffering – had been turned into a cause of suffering.
            Furthermore, in his view, atheistic philosophy had liberated human beings from suppressing their natural potential and allowed for people to realize that they, rather than any supernatural force that required obedience, were the masters of reality.

            Unfortunately, the god apologists totally overlook marx’s views on religion and focus instead on him and “communism” or “socialism” as if either was relevant to the views on religion!, in reality, what Marx stated above about religion is absolutely, profoundly true and correct- religion has become the sigh of the oppressed creature, the opium of the hopeless masses, all kept in check, subservient and obedient by the ruling classes and church in exchange for rewards of eternal life after they die, thus they are willing to suffer 70 or 80 years of hell blindly believing the bullchit and donating huge sums of their meager annual incomes to a corrupt church that sits on billions of dollars worth of fine art as the vatican does, and for a pie-in-the-sky fantasy the church propagated on the simpleton peasants.
            Marx lived in Russia and was involved with communist and socialist causes, so what? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson- founding fathers of the United States both owned and sold slaves and worked them on their plantations, was that of any importantance to their views and creating the constitution, bill of rights etc?

            Do we today condemn George Washington because he happened to own slaves in the 1700s? Of course not, therefore it stands to reason we can agree with a mans’ opinions and statements regardless of anything else about their childhood, life, their career, political affiliation, country of residence etc etc without agreeing with or supporting these other aspects of them.

            The same as we do not support George Washingtons’ slaves running his plantation for him in the 1700s, we do not support Mr Marx’s Russian govt as it existed years ago either.

  • Reason2012

    The only thing the Constitution says is that Congress shall pass no LAWS respecting an establishment of religion. So it’s a lie to claim this was a violation of the Constitution. And notice it’s atheists who want to force the government and everyone else to bow down to their beliefs while pretending no one can be forced to bow down to beliefs.

    • WhiteGhetto

      Atheists don’t have any religious beliefs to bow before.

      • Reason2012

        Sure they do:
        – Nature is all there is (belief)
        – Life comes from non-life (belief)
        – Everything “just happened” on its own (belief)
        – Information and the ability for it to be decoded, and the ability for it to be acted upon to build legs, brains, hearts, eyes, and so on, all “just happened”
        – Nothing created the universe – it just happened on its own (belief)

        And they bow down to it with their lives – the countless hours they spend defending it and countless hours they spend attacking all contrary beliefs.

        • Jerussha

          You are so wrong. All of those things you mentioned are not religious beliefs. You Christians know all about attacking contrary beliefs. Anyone who doesn’t believe as you do will burn in hell for eternity and you think you deserve to have your beliefs taught in public schools. Don’t worry about other people’s kids and send your own to Sunday school for indoctrination.
          .

        • Charles R. Ingrao

          This is the most ludicrous post, I have seen. Remember your God, according to his biography, is a child murdering, genocidal psychopathic deity.

        • Hawk

          Atheists have one thing in common – a lack of belief in god(s). Everything else, including everything you posted, is incorrect.

          – Nature is all there is (belief)

          Not necessarily. There are atheists who believe in UFOs, aliens, fairies, magic, ESP, life after death, and so forth. The only thing that any of these things can’t require is some sort of deity.

          – Life comes from non-life (belief)

          No, in general, we don’t know how life started. We just don’t assume that because we don’t know, “goddidit” is a good answer. Perhaps life came from another universe? Or perhaps life (and the universe) has always existed. We don’t know. We suspect that life came from non-life, but there is no proof of that at this point. But all evidence seems to point in that direction. However, until you can prove that a god exists, AND that it is YOUR specific god, we simply reject your claim that life came from your god.

          Oh, and on that note, where did your god come from? If he was always here…why couldn’t the universe always have been here? It saves a step.

          – Everything “just happened” on its own (belief)

          Nope. You misunderstand science, first of all. And secondly, magic and other explanations, which do not require a god, are not precluded. Some atheists may believe in them. I don’t, but that’s me. That’s not all atheists. There is no “atheist bible”. There are no “required atheist beliefs” beyond a simple lack of belief in god(s).


          Information and the ability for it to be decoded, and the ability for
          it to be acted upon to build legs, brains, hearts, eyes, and so on, all
          “just happened”

          Again you misunderstand science, this time evolution. Yes, chance has a part to play, but it is hardly “random”. It is subject to the pressures of natural selection over time. Pick up a book and actually learn about it, instead of repeating what you have been told by other Christians.

          – Nothing created the universe – it just happened on its own (belief)

          Wrong again. We don’t know how the universe came into being. Perhaps it has always been here. Perhaps it never was created. Perhaps creation, with regard to the universe, is a nonsensical question. Just as most Christians say “Where did god come from?” is nonsensical.

          It isn’t bad to say, “I don’t know.” It is intellectually honest. And just because we don’t know today, doesn’t mean that we won’t know tomorrow, or in ten years, or 100 years, or 1,000 years, or more. It just means we don’t know…*now*.

          Back 200BC, we didn’t know how electricity worked, what caused disease, and so many other things. But we know these things today. We used to claim that these were the acts of god(s), or demons. But that has changed. Now, either we learned things and replaced ignorance with knowledge…or the god(s) stopped doing those things as we investigated them.

          Again, atheists have no dogma. They have no required beliefs. They may, or may not, accept evolution, the big bang theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, or any number of other things. They may think that all of these things are cause by tiny, invisible leprechauns, or aliens, or who knows what. All that is required is a lack of belief in god(s).

          But, when it comes down to it, I find it hard to believe that you find that difficult to grasp. Even if I accepted your deity, with over 40,000 different denominations of Christianity in the world, each believing slightly different interpretations of what is required to get to heaven, how would I know which one is the “true and correct” version? They can’t *all* be right. Is it the Catholics? The Jehovah’s Witnesses? The Mormons? The 7th Day Adventists? The Southern Baptists? The Quakers? Or some other denomination? And why? Why is YOUR denomination, and its specific interpretation of the Bible the correct one, as opposed to all the others? It seems to me that until you can figure out a “correct” interpretation between all of the Christians…you don’t have much of an argument for converting anyone.

          • Reason2012

            Not necessarily. There are atheists who believe in UFOs, aliens, fairies, magic, ESP, life after death, and so forth. The only thing that any of these things can’t require is some sort of deity.

            So magic is part of “nature – no supernatural”?
            So life after death is part of “nature – no supernatural”?
            Fairies are part of “nature – no supernatural”?

            Please show these natural phenomenon existing in nature.

            So an atheist that believes in magic? An atheist that beliefs in fairies?

            As I said: atheism is it’s own belief beyond just rejecting God.
            Thank you for proving the point.

          • Reason2012

            No, in general, we don’t know how life started. We just don’t assume that because we don’t know, “goddidit” is a good answer.

            They don’t claim to not know – they claim it just happened on its own. “Nothingdidit” is not an answer.

          • Rex O’Fender

            Admitting when you don’t know is called honesty. Something by which you are apparently unencumbered.

          • Reason2012

            No, they claim “it just happened on it’s own”, which is not the same as “we don’t know”. The the only part they claim to not know is how “it happened on its own” – but they’re claiming it’s a fact it “happened on it’s own”.

          • Reason2012

            Again you misunderstand science, this time evolution. Yes, chance has a part to play, but it is hardly “random”. It is subject to the pressures of natural selection over time.

            Please show the scientific claim of information coming about on it’s own over time. Since you claim that’s science you should be able to show such a thing.

            No, information is proof of an intelligence that created it – let alone created a mechanism to decode that information – let alone create the mechanism to them act on that information and do what it says to do.

            Pick up a book and actually learn about it, instead of repeating what you have been told by other Christians.

            Belief in God has nothing to do with the above. Your ad hominem only shows you know you lost the argument.

          • Reason2012

            Wrong again. We don’t know how the universe came into being. Perhaps it has always been here.

            So you’re admitting they don’t know – that the big bang is not science but just another belief instead – exactly the point.

            Back 200BC, we didn’t know how electricity worked, what caused disease, and so many other things.

            Back in 200 BC and beyond, the Bible had many scientific facts that scientists did not figure out even until the 1800’s, even things about disease and the blood. That alone leaves us without excuse.

            Again, atheists have no dogma.

            Sure they do – attacking belief in God, which they clearly hate. They spend hours doing it daily, just like the posters here. That’s dogma, friend.

            But, when it comes down to it, I find it hard to believe that you find that difficult to grasp. Even if I accepted your deity, with over 40,000 different denominations of Christianity in the world, each believing slightly different interpretations of what is required to get to heaven, how would I know which one is the “true and correct” version?

            Existence of false versions of any specific truth would not make the original truth any less true – illogical to claim it does.

            They can’t *all* be right. Is it the Catholics?

            Exactly right – even many believers think they can all be right, and they do not get it. Catholicism teaches this lie.

            Want to know what will leave all of us, myself included, without excuse as to this great question you ask? :

            The Bible is the only ‘religious’ book that dares to make prophecies, several hundred that have come true after the fact of them being written down, even up to thousands of years later.

            Although it is not a science textbook, there are dozens of scientific facts in the Bible that scientists didn’t and couldn’t figure out until hundreds and thousands of years later.

            All religious texts were written in one lifetime by one person – the Bible was written over 3,500 years through 40 people.

            The grave of all false religions’ prophets has their bones – the grave of Christ is empty.

            You can_kill thousands in the name of a false religion and people of that country will bend over backwards to help you build a church where you did it. You dare mention Christ, hand out a tract, and you’re met with the utmost hatred.

            People who profess faith in Christ have major changes instantly from the inside out that they were unable to overcome over a lifetime.

            And lastly, it’s our responsibility to check God’s Word for ourselves, not just take the word for it of ANY church or pastor. God will lead us to His truth – unless we are determined to be deceived by not checking for ourselves. Vast majority of catholics, for example, never really read the Bible -they just take the word for it of the “fathers” on Sunday as if that will leave them without excuse before God – as if it won’t be their fault.

            1 Corinthians 2:10-16 “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

            Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

            For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

            It won’t really make people believe who need to reject the truth of God, but we know all we need to know – but the world seeks to keep us blind to the truth of God. When we face Him, it won’t work to say “well how was I supposed to know?” We know all we need to know and will be without excuse when we face God.

            Thank you for bringing up these points. Please re-consider.

          • wolftimber

            The big bang is called a theory and it’s backed up by visual EVIDENCE proven by science and peer-reviewed studies, it doesn’t take a rocket science to figure out that a bunch of objects all moving from a central point in every direction started moving out that way from an explosion, just like a car bomb blowing up send the hood, doors and pieces flying in all directions and you can easily tell from WHERE those pieces started moving FROM just following their path.

          • Reason2012

            No, theories start with something that actually happens, not the other way around.

            Objects fall to the ground: observable, verifiable, testable. Now a theory is created as to HOW that might be happening. Right or wrong: that’s science.

            Diseases spread: observable, verifiable, testable. Now a theory is created as to HOW that might be happening. Right or wrong: that’s science.

            Matter affects matter: observable, verifiable, testable. Now a theory is created as to HOW that might be happening. Right or wrong: that’s science.

            A universe being created by a big bang? A made up story, and they give reason to believe in it and pass those reasons off as evidence, and skip to the theory part hoping no one notices it’s not observable, repeatable or verifiable that a universe can be created by a big bang. Anti-science.

            And consider: they claim the universe is over 14 BILLION years old. How long have they “recorded” the movement of every single star / planet / moon in existence? Even if all of them were accurately recorded for 200 years (they weren’t), that would be like looking at the Earth’s orbit for 0.5 seconds out of one full year, and pretending the Earth is going in one direction only when instead it’s going in an ellipse to come about full circle, which would be impossible to determine in 0.5 seconds, let alone even for weeks of observing the Earth’s movement..

            Even basic math teaches the fallacy of extrapolation -but big bang promoters throw extrapolation out the window after the most drastic violation of it known to mankind and hope no one notices.

          • Kate Karwowska

            Thank you Hawk! I don’t have the time or willpower to continue “debating” these people. They’re good for a laugh, but it gets a little repetitive, boring, and, well, a little sad, too. Such delusions. I mean, invisible sky people? Really? Ah well.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Well done!!

        • FHRITP

          “And they bow down to it with their lives…” Nice try but WRONG!! Redefining words as you go, such as “bow,” to conveniently fit your argument while certainly a Christian thing to do, is pathetic let alone fallacious.

        • Randy Wanat

          The only thing you can say about atheists as a whole is that they don’t believe in any gods. Just like the only thing you can say about Christians as a whole is that they believe in Jehoveh/Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit. Anything else is assumptions based on certain individuals.

          Do you care if the things you say are actually true?

          • Reason2012

            The only thing you can say about atheists as a whole is that they don’t believe in any gods

            You’re leaving out how, “not believing in any god”, they instead believe “nothing did it” and “it just happened” and insisting that be the legal worldview.

            When’s the last time anyone saw life come from non-life?
            When’s the last time anyone saw a universe get created from nothing?
            When’s the last time you saw laws of nature that are reliable come from nothing?

            Quite a supernatural set of beliefs you’ve got there, even if it doesn’t come from any “god”. A set of beliefs you’re trying to force on every else and their kids as you seek to censor and legally shut down any opposing viewpoints in the public square, where only your viewpoint is promoted there.

            Either no beliefs about the origin of the universe, origin of life and/or origin of the biological diversity of life can be allowed in the public square, or let other beliefs in. Can’t have it both ways, which is where the position you hold is hypocritical: demanding no beliefs be taught in the public square, while your beliefs are the ones being legally shoved down everyone else’s throats.

          • wolftimber

            “When’s the last time anyone saw life come from non-life?”

            Who created your creator then?

            When was the last time someone was completely dead, shreaded, like a worker getting caught in a tree limb grinder or jet engine, and then buried or cremated- just came back to life by family and all PRAYING for them?
            When was the last time a cremated body came back to life?

          • Reason2012

            So you admit no one saw life come from non-life, but you have no problem taking it on faith, and calling that faith SCIENCE, just because they said it happened. Thank you for proving my point.

            So do you believe something can exist for an eternity and not require a creator? Then so do I: it’s called God.

            Do you instead believe nothing can create something? Welcome to the realm of the supernatural.

            You have your beliefs, I have mine – but the topic is science, and neither of our beliefs get to be passed off as science. But atheists have managed to get theirs into all the classrooms under the deception of it being science -the greatest con in the existence of the human race. And kids are indoctrinated into believing their mythology as being science when it’s anti-science.

          • Rex O’Fender

            If life cannot come from non-life, where did your god come from? Is he not alive? It is very simple. If god does not need a creator, neither does the universe. If the universe requires a creator, so does god. This cannot be resolved. Trying to is the very definition of special pleading.

          • Reason2012

            If life cannot come from non-life, where did your god come from?

            I’m not the one calling my belief science, which is the difference between my beliefs and theirs: they ARE demanding their beliefs are science, so I call them out on it.

            So since they are saying it’s science that life can come from non-life, ask them to show this observable, repeatable, verifiable claim, rather than just reasons to believe in it.

            Now, if you’re talking about the realm of beliefs and world-views, in my worldview, the supernatural exists, and hence it’s logical to have a supernatural belief in such a worldview, specifically that God is eternal.

            But in the worldview of the supernatural does not exist, then it’s illogical to rely on the supernatural like:

            – life can come from non-life
            – building blocks of life are eternal
            – nothing created something

            and so on.

          • Rex O’Fender

            Why do you think the supernatural is required for those things? Odd, since no supernatural event has ever been documented. We do know that life can arise abiotically, it has been demonstrated in the laboratory to be possible. I don’t know what your other two assertions mean. You simply cannot dodge the first cause. You are making a special exception for the answer your want–the definition of Special Pleading. Why should I take your word about science over the consensus of experts–you know, people that have earned degrees and dedicated their lives to actually learning things, not vague suppositions with no support. You disregard scientific knowledge because you find it inconvenient, but when you need modern medicine, I bet you don’t reject science then.

        • WhiteGhetto

          ” willful ignorance you seem determined to stay blinded by”. And you dare even use the word “reason”. LOL

    • Jerussha

      As long as Christians have their way and no one else does, that makes them happy. If tax dollars are used to promote something like this, that is a violation. The FFRF has a very good track record and great attorneys who know the constitution inside and out. This ain’t their first rodeo…

      • Reason2012

        No, it’s the Constitution that needs to have it’s way here in America. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say what you wish would happen: the censoring of Christianity everywhere except where those who hate it give their permission.

        Meanwhile schools continue to teach _islam and FFRF does just about nothing, which shows it’s really not about atheists, but anti-Christian, pro-islam movement instead.

        • Jerussha

          How many years times do you see these words in our Constitution:
          God, Christian, Christ, Jesus, bible? Our forefathers were escaping religious persecution and wanted a democracy not a theocracy. And btw, what public schools are teaching islam? If the FFRF had a complaint about that they would go after that too. Don’t be a puppet

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            The answer to your question is twice. Both times inferred.

          • Randy Wanat

            None of those words are in the constitution. It mentions religion twice, but noneof the other terms are used.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for publicly displaying your ignorance of the Constitution as so many others have and been proven wrong. I suggest you go read the Constitution again. And be sure to read ALL of it.

          • Randy Wanat

            Other than as part of the conventional way of formally referring to the year? That is not the content of the constitution. If that’s how desperate you are to connect your religion to the government, that’s pretty unfortunate for you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Typical Denial. That’s how desperate you are to connect you atheism to the government. That’s pretty unfortunate for you.

            Btw, not that it’ll make any difference but for anyone else who might see this and actually have a functioning open mind, if one does their research and study they’ll find out it wasn’t “conventional” at all at the time but was specifically done for the very reason you don’t wish to admit.

          • Jerussha

            You sure sound like you have an open mind. You believe what you believe because someone told it was true and someone told them it was true and someone told them it was true etc. etc. Believe what you want. You will anyway. I will not believe what I want.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your faux omniscience and self-deluded god-complex fails you just like it does everyone else who chooses to exercise such nonsense. You have NO clue why I believe what I do but that’s the typical Liberal ploy. Just pain someone with the broad brush as you see them.

            I won’t bother taking the time to enumerate why I believe what I do but I can assure you it’s NOT what I’d “want” to believe.

            And the Truth is you DO believe what you want because you have no other Final Authority to surrender to (for now) but yourself.

          • WhiteGhetto

            Wow typical cultist reply. 1) Lame attempt to use your logical against you. Complete irrationality. 2) Throw back of your put down. 3) Lay claim to being opened minded when it’s painfully obvious they are now.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Is that the best you can do too?? So you come on here to publicly display your ignorance and Liberal, probably atheistic bigotry too. Congratulations!

            There was nothing lame about my “attempt” to use logic. It wasn’t an “attempt” at all. The fact that you are evidently too ignorant to comprehend it doesn’t negate the logic. The fact you find it “completely irrational” only proves you’re completely delusional and I hope you seek some help for it. I guess you should be happy that this country no longer locks the mentally-ill up to keep them safe. Hopefully you got someone that can keep an eye out for ya.

            That’s wasn’t a throwback of my put down because I didn’t do a put down. Simply stated the truth.

            And, oh yeah, we can all see how open-minded you and they are! LOL

            Now, if ya decide to open your mouth again, I hope you can do better than that. The very fact that you think that reply is “cultist” speaks volumes and shows just how close-minded and bigoted you are. Had you taken a nano-second to actually heed what I wrote you would find it wasn’t “conventional” at all. Just as I said!!!!!!!!

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            So thanks again!! Your publicly display of hypocrisy is just about as obvious as your public display of close-minded bigotry and avatar.

          • wolftimber

            “inferred” is NOT the same as naming! the phrase: “Endowed by THEIR CREATOR” is whatever the people want it to mean, if they believe in a flying spaghetti monster or Santa Claus then it applies, nowhere in the document does it state “god” or “jesus” any more than it mentions santa claus.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ok, you just keep telling yourself that and stay in your Denial. As I’ve said before and will say again – Denial is a powerful force. And you just proved it again.

            “CREATOR” is whatever the people want it to mean, if they believe in a flying spaghetti monster or Santa Claus then it applies,”

            First off, we were talking about the Constitution and NOT the DOI. Which you quoted from. Duh!

            Then you say, “nowhere in the document does it state “god” or “jesus” any more than it mentions santa claus.” AFTER quoting the DOI with the very word “God” in it and therefore defining “Creator”.

            Then you mention “our lord” (when it’s really “our Lord” as not being there when it IS in the Constitution which the conversation was about.

            So obviously you have a very hard time tracking and that’s really gotta be the worst case of deception and distraction I’ve ever seen. So you really do need more practice.

            But you have just earned yourself the “Oh not again!” award. Here’s your prize:

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • freespeechfan

            Ah grasshopper….you haven’t actually read the Constitution or Bill of Rights, have you? Go. Go now. Read them. Only the word Creator is used, and only once. There is no mention whatsoever of any religion. None. Zip. Nada. Had they wanted a Christian nation, don’t you think they might have slipped in a Jesus here or there? A Bible mention…something? They did not, wisely, knowing the dangers of theocracy. Seriously, where are people getting their educations if they don’t have even a glancing familiarity with the governing documents?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why do you people persist in your public displays of such ignorance? I do appreciate you completely discrediting yourself for all to see though. Saves me a lot of time, grasshopper.

            The word “Creator” is not in the Constitution at all.

            The Constitution mentions all religions.

            The writers not only didn’t just “slip” Jesus into the Constitution, He was intentionally with forethought added to it.

            Seriously, where are people getting their educations if they don’t have even a glancing familiarity with the governing documents?

            Sheesh!!! SMH. I’ll leave it there before I say something I really shouldn’t.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Why do you people persist in your public displays of such ignorance?”

            Okay, Royce, you got us. We’re all too stupid to live. Because you’re so much smarter than all of us, please cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that mentions Jesus, so that we can be enlightened too. We bow to your guidance and vastly superior intellect.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try. As I’ve repeatedly said: Go read the Constitution for yourself. Maybe then you’ll learn something. If you are truly to stupid to read and understand then you’re not really worth the time nor would you understand it if I quoted it here for you.

            It’s in Black & White either way so you request is nonsensical. Other than the obvious sarcasm which is quite understandable.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so it’s not in there. You retract your statement. Got it. Thanks.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. You are funny. I’ll give ya that. Of course, it’s always funny to me when the spiritually-dead make fools of themselves and persist on public displays of ignorance with their typical Liberal regurgitated pablum.

            You ain’t got squat and you just made that abundantly obvious. Thanks!

            Like I said, if you’re too stupid to read and understand English in black & white on the actual Constitution, you’d surely be too stupid to read and understand it if I cut & pasted in here! Duh!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Give me a break. You could have settled this a week ago simply by posting the words you’re alleging exist. You were asked NUMEROUS times by numerous people to do so, but you haven’t. You were also told by just as many people that the burden of proof is on the proponent.

            Despite this, and despite being given ample time to comply, you have shown no evidence whatsoever. Meaning it doesn’t exist.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Give me a break. You could have settled this a week ago simply by READING the actual Constitution where the words I said DO exist.

            That’s right bucko, you and all your other spiritually-dead trolls can continue to ask until the cows come home. I don’t kowtow to your requests or demands.

            And, since you ain’t figured it out yet, Truth doesn’t depend on the numbers or even majority. Maybe someday you LIberals will get that thru your thick skulls.

            And you continued denial doesn’t change one iota the existence of anything. It DOES exist.

            And here’s the really laughable part that I must thank you for, once AGAIN you’ve publicly displayed that you’re a deluded individual who wilfully has chosen to live in Denial and reject the Truth. Just like the numbskull I replied to a few minutes ago who thinks that the Constitution is a secular document despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

            And THAT is EXACTLY why those of us who have eyes to see understand this very simple TRUTH that you do NOT:

            “if you’re too stupid to read and understand English in black & white on the actual Constitution, you’d surely be too stupid to read and understand it if I cut & pasted in here! Duh!!!”

            So the only thing that doesn’t exist is Truth/Reality in your world. Thank you for once again giving me the opportunity to point that out.,

          • Jerussha

            You are wrong. The answer is 0

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. Not wrong. Denial doesn’t count for Truth. God, Christ, Jesus is clearly stated in the Constitution. Your denying that won’t change the fact it is.

          • MarkSebree

            Where? Article and paragraph please. If in the Amendments, then the Amendment, and in applicable, the section and paragraph.

            By the way, the Declaration of Independence is not the US Constitution.

            You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ever watch Bill O’Reilly when he gives the “Word of the Day”? If so, you’ll be familiar with “Go look it up. If someone gives you the answers you don’t learn anything and you don’t remember it.”

            I know full well that the DOI isn’t the Constitution. That’s why I was the guy who pointed out to someone below a few days ago that “Creator” is not in the Constitution but rather the DOI.

            You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either. The words are right there in Black & white and they’ve NEVER been erased.

            So thank you for showing who really has NO credibility because you’re absolutely right – it is SO easy to show your absolutely wrong and your claims are provably false.

          • MarkSebree

            If “God, Christ, Jesus is [sic] clearly stated in the Constitution”, then you should be able to point to the exact places. You have not shown that I am wrong, or that my claims are false. In fact, all I did was ask you to substantiate your claim, and you are dodging and running away.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I can. And btw, the correct word is “is”. God, Jesus, Christ are one in the same.

            I’m not dodging and running away of anything. And actually, it is YOU who made the claim with “You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either.”

            So, since it’s so easy, go and do it. As I’ve repeated said, it’s right there in Black & White. I’m not spoonfeeding you squat because people don’t learn anything from that. Just as I also said on here before.

          • MarkSebree

            “I can.”

            Then do so.

            “And btw, the correct word is “is”. God, Jesus, Christ are one in the same.”

            Then you should only be using one name, not three. As you have them written, they are three names, and thus the correct form of the verb is the plural.

            “‘m not dodging and running away of anything. And actually, it is YOU who made the claim with “You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either.

            So, since it’s so easy, go and do it. As I’ve repeated said, it’s right there in Black & White. I’m not spoonfeeding you squat because people don’t learn anything from that. Just as I also said on here before.”

            Fine. It is only possible to show a negative in this case because the solution space is finite and small. None of the words “god”, “Jesus”, “Christ” or any other deity are mention in the US Constitution or in any of its amendments. No specific religion is mentioned in the US Constitution. The only mentioned of religion in the US Constitution are restrictions on the government, and those mentions are generic and apply equally to all religions. The complete transcript of the US Constitution can be found at www dot archives dot gov.

            The real burden of proof is actually on you. You have made the affirmative claim that the US Constitution “clearly states” or references your deities.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Evidently, you have a little problem with tracking and remembering what I previously said so let me repeat myself:

            Ever watch Bill O’Reilly when he gives the “Word of the Day”? If so, you’ll be familiar with “Go look it up. If someone gives you the answers you don’t learn anything and you don’t remember it.”

            “Then you should only be using one name, not three. As you have them written, they are three names, and thus the correct form of the verb is the plural.”

            Your Biblical ignorance does not dictate the use of the English language.

            “None of the words “god”, “Jesus”, “Christ” or any other deity are mention in the US Constitution or in any of its amendments. No specific religion is mentioned in the US Constitution.”

            Wrong.

            Thank you for posting the website address for all to go to. I appreciate that. I actually went there and I appreciate you proving yourself wrong.

            It’s right there on that very site you gave in black & white, MUCH APPRECIATED!!

            Oh, and btw, I further REALLY appreciate just how blind the spiritually-dead can be.

          • MarkSebree

            “Ever watch Bill O’Reilly when he gives the “Word of the Day”? If so, you’ll be familiar with “Go look it up. If someone gives you the answers you don’t learn anything and you don’t remember it.””

            No, I do not watch Bill O’Reilly, or any similar show. And I have looked it up. I have read through the US Constitution and its Amendments numerous times. Your claim is unsupported.

            “Thank you for posting the website address for all to go to. I appreciate that. I actually went there and I appreciate you proving yourself wrong.”

            Actually, that site proves that you are the one that is wrong.

            “It’s right there on that very site you gave in black & white, MUCH APPRECIATED!!”

            Then state the Article or Amendment, Section, and paragraph. You made the positive assertion, so you need to support it. Or do I need to post the entire text of the US Constitution to show that you are wrong? Nobody else sees what you claim is there.

            You are the only one that is showing himself to be blind. Or more likely, dishonest.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “No, I do not watch Bill O’Reilly, or any similar show. And I have looked it up. I have read through the US Constitution and its Amendments numerous times. Your claim is unsupported.”

            Well, maybe you should. Might learn something. And thanks for showing that you’re just as blind as the other yahoo’s on here who deny what’s right there in black & white.

            “Actually, that site proves that you are the one that is wrong.”

            Nope. Just proves your either outright lying, too ignorant to read, or so steeped in your own delusion and denial that you can’t see what’s right before your very eyes. But hey, take comfort. There have been many others who were in the same boat and ALL have been proven wrong as well. So you’re not alone.

            “Then state the Article or Amendment, Section, and paragraph. You made the positive assertion, so you need to support it. Or do I need to post the entire text of the US Constitution to show that you are wrong? Nobody else sees what you claim is there.”

            I don’t need prove squat to you. As I’ve repeated said here, you people can’t read black & white right before your eyes so cutting and pasting it here isn’t gonna help you!

            You wanna post the “entire Constitution” to show me I’m wrong – have at buddy. I look forward to seeing you prove yourself a Liar and deceptive in public. Just as you did with your false statement that nobody else sees it. Others most certainly have.

            “You are the only one that is showing himself to be blind. Or more likely, dishonest.”

            Take a chainsaw to that Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket and maybe you’ll see better and not be so blind.

          • MarkSebree

            Sorry, but I am not the one that is blind. Unlike you, I do not need talk show hosts to learn things. I can research the subject on my own. And despite your claims, I am extremely literate, honest, grounded in reality, not in denial, and I can easily see what is in front of me.

            You have not proven me wrong. You have been committing logical fallacies right an left. You have been trying to shift the burden of proof, probably because you cannot support your claims. You have been engaging in ad hominems for the same reason. You have also engaged in a few more logical fallacies.

            Unlike you, I am not delusional. I cannot see what is not there.

            You have made the assertion that the USA Constitution contains multiple references to “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christ” in its text. That is a positive assertion, and you have been challenged to support your claims. You have not even been asked to post the exact text, just the location of it. You have refused to do so repeatedly. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are a liar. You cannot support your claims, and thus you have been defeated.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You’re sorry, alright. And you are blind – spiritually-blind.

            If you’re so doggone literate, honest, and grounded in reality, then STOP telling lies and do the honest thing – cite the WHOLE Constitution right here so everyone can see you’re lying!!

            And now you lie openly. I never made the assertion that the USA Constitution contains ‘multiple references to “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christ” in its text. Anyone can go back and see exactly what I said. Nice attempt at the typical Liberal tactic of Distraction & Diversion.

            ” You have refused to do so repeatedly. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are a liar. You cannot support your claims, and thus you have been defeated.”

            ROTFLMBO!!!! So you think that’s a reasonable conclusion? LOL When what I’ve said and maintained all along is 1) Go read the Constitution yourself, and 2) It would do me NO good whatsoever to actually copy & paste it here because it would still be in Black & White which you EVIDENTLY can NOT read!! LOL

            I have supported my claims and you have NOT. Because you CAN’T!! The B&W text proves you wrong EVERY time!!!!!!!!! LOL

            Defeated? Ha ha ha LOLOLOLOLOL It’s easy to see who’s been defeated. YOU and all the others who can’t read and understand plain English! LOL

          • MarkSebree

            “You’re sorry, alright. And you are blind – spiritually-blind.”

            Actually, I see very clearly. I removed the blinders that you wear decades ago.

            “If you’re so doggone literate, honest, and grounded in reality, then STOP telling lies and do the honest thing – cite the WHOLE Constitution right here so everyone can see you’re lying!!”

            I have not been telling any lies. And I have cited the entire Constitution and shown everyone that you have been lying.

            “And now you lie openly. I never made the assertion that the USA Constitution contains ‘multiple references to “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christ” in its text. Anyone can go back and see exactly what I said. Nice attempt at the typical Liberal tactic of Distraction & Diversion.”

            Actually, I have been telling the truth all along. It is usually a Conservative tactic to Distract and Divert the conversation, since you have been the one that has been engaging in that tactic, not me.

            As far as when you claimed that the US Constitution contained multiple references to “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christ” in the text, you should really review your own posting history before making such a challenge. Its child’s play to show that you are lying again.

            Feb. 20, 2017 3:52Pm in reply to Jerussha’s question to Reason 2012 “How many years times do you see these words in our Constitution: God, Christian, Christ, Jesus, bible?”
            “The answer to your question is twice. Both times inferred. Perhaps that’s why you worded your question the way you did. Nonetheless, it’s there. Jesus is God and Jesus is Lord!”

            Feb 23, 2017 7:15PM again in reply to Jerussha, this time in reply to you.
            “God, Christ, Jesus is clearly stated in the Constitution.”

            Additionally, you have repeated claimed that people were “wrong” when they pointed out that the words “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christ” where not in the US Constitution. Since you claimed that people were wrong for stating this, you are effectively claiming that these words are in the US Constitution.

            You have been trying to distract people from seeing that you have nothing to support your case by insulting them and trying to shift the burden of proof. You have also been trying to divert people from the main topic of this subsided, which is that you have made a claim about something that is written in the text of the US Constitution, and you refuse to substantiate it.

            “ROTFLMBO!!!! So you think that’s a reasonable conclusion? LOL When what I’ve said and maintained all along is 1) Go read the Constitution yourself, and 2) It would do me NO good whatsoever to actually copy & paste it here because it would still be in Black & White which you EVIDENTLY can NOT read!! LOL”

            Actually, it is a reasonable conclusion since you have not been able to support any of your assertions. As I said before, I have read the US Constitution through multiple times, and your claims are not supported. And if you look back through the thread, you were never asked to copy and paste anything. You were asked to cite the location in the Constitution which supported your claims. However, Copying and Pasting with the location that the quote is from is also valid means by which you can support your claims.

            The only person that cannot seem to read here is you, since you seem to be seeing things in the US Constitution that nobody else does.

            “I have supported my claims and you have NOT. Because you CAN’T!! The B&W text proves you wrong EVERY time!!!!!!!!! LOL”

            Actually, you have not supported your claims at all. You have resorted to a number of logical fallacies in order to avoid doing so. However, unlike you, I have not made any positive assertions that actually need supporting. And the “B&W text” shows that you are the one that is wrong every time.

            “Defeated? Ha ha ha LOLOLOLOLOL It’s easy to see who’s been defeated. YOU and all the others who can’t read and understand plain English! LOL”

            Well, since you cannot seem to read and understand plain English, you have indeed been defeated.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Actually, I see very clearly. I removed the blinders that you wear decades ago.”

            Your continued lies tell otherwise.

            “I have not been telling any lies. And I have cited the entire Constitution and shown everyone that you have been lying.”

            Once again you openly show your lies. Anyone can go to the site YOU provided and see for themselves you lied.

            “Actually, I have been telling the truth all along. It is usually a Conservative tactic to Distract and Divert the conversation, since you have been the one that has been engaging in that tactic, not me.”

            Thanks for proving my point and making my case for me. You can add Denial to the list now too.

            “Feb. 20, 2017 3:52Pm in reply to Jerussha’s question to Reason 2012 “How many years times do you see these words in our Constitution: God, Christian, Christ, Jesus, bible?”
            “The answer to your question is twice. Both times inferred. Perhaps that’s why you worded your question the way you did. Nonetheless, it’s there. Jesus is God and Jesus is Lord!””

            Thanks again for proving my case for me.

            “Feb 23, 2017 7:15PM again in reply to Jerussha, this time in reply to you. “God, Christ, Jesus is clearly stated in the Constitution.”

            Thanks again for proving my case for me and for continuing to show your blindness.

            “Additionally, you have repeated claimed that people were “wrong” when they pointed out that the words “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christ” where not in the US Constitution. Since you claimed that people were wrong for stating this, you are effectively claiming that these words are in the US Constitution.”

            There’s that deception and distraction again with your “effectively claiming” erroneous and faulty perception.

            “You have been trying to distract people”

            There’s your faux omniscience and false accusations surfacing again.

            “Actually, it is a reasonable conclusion since you have not been able to support any of your assertions.”

            Actually it’s NOT and, not only did I support my assertions with are true, but you proved it as well by your last posting of the Constitution where you evidently purposely with intent omitted the very part of the Constitution which proves my case and proves you’d rather deceive that be honest after touting how honest you are. Making all of your claims laughable. But not surprising.

            “The only person that cannot seem to read here is you, since you seem to be seeing things in the US Constitution that nobody else does.”

            Your inability to see what’s right in front of your eyes is your problem not mine. As I’ve repeated said, anyone can go to the site YOU provided and see your dishonesty now. One only has to compare what you posted with what the Constitution actually says. 🙂

            “However, unlike you, I have not made any positive assertions that actually need supporting. And the “B&W text” shows that you are the one that is wrong every time.”

            Wrong and wrong. You made the positive assertion when you posted your INCOMPLETE paste of the actual text and the B&W text shows that you are the one that is wrong!!

            “Well, since you cannot seem to read and understand plain English, you have indeed been defeated.”

            There’s that Giant Sequoia Tree again. No need for my address (though it’s very easy to find), you only have to look in the mirror. That sentence pertains directly to you.

          • MarkSebree

            For good measure, here is the text of the US Constitution, across multiple posts.

            PREAMBLE – ATICLE II

            We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

            Article. I.

            Section. 1.

            All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

            Section. 2.

            The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

            No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

            Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

            When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

            The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

            Section. 3.

            The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

            Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

            No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

            The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

            The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

            The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

            Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

            Section. 4.

            The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

            The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

            Section. 5.

            Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

            Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

            Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

            Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

            Section. 6.

            The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

            No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

            Section. 7.

            All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

            Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

            Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

            Section. 8.

            The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

            To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

            To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

            To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

            To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

            To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

            To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

            To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

            To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

            To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

            To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

            To provide and maintain a Navy;

            To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

            To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

            To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

            Section. 9.

            The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

            The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

            No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

            No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

            No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

            No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

            No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

            No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

            Section. 10.

            No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

            No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

            No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

            Article. II.

            Section. 1.

            The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

            Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

            The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

            The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

            No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

            In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

            The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

            Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

            Section. 2.

            The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

            He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

            The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

            Section. 3.

            He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

            Section. 4.

            The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

          • MarkSebree

            US Constitution: ARTICLE III – Article VIII (minus signatures)

            Article III.

            Section. 1.

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

            Article. IV.

            Section. 1.

            Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

            Section. 2.

            The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

            A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

            No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

            Section. 3.

            New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

            The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

            Section. 4.

            The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

            Article. V.

            The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

            Article. VI.

            All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

            This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

            The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

            Article. VII.

            The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

            The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for showing and proving that it is YOU that is dishonest and most likely a Liar because I doubt VERY much that you accidentally just happened to leave out the one section of the Constitution that PROVES you wrong!!

            See folks, go read this section for yourself and then you will see how dishonest and deceiving these Deceivers are.

          • MarkSebree

            Yes, you are dishonest and a deceiver. I have shown that I am honest. I have left out nothing of the text of the US Constitution. I stated at the top that I did not include the signatories, and that is because they are not relevant.

            The only person that is dishonest here is you. You have not been able to show anywhere in the text of the US Constitution where the words “God”, “Christ”, or “Jesus” are mentioned.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Actually you’ve proved and continue to prove by that very statement that it is YOU who is dishonest and a deceiver. YOU are the one who posted the INCOMPLETE Constitution with the obvious intent to deceive by leaving out the VERY part of the Constitution that PROVES you wrong.

            “I stated at the top that I did not include the signatories, and that is because they are not relevant.”

            More deception and distraction!! You and I both know that the signatures are NOT the only thing you left out. Again, anyone can go look for themselves now and you will be revealed for exactly who you are.

            “The only person that is dishonest here is you. You have not been able to show anywhere in the text of the US Constitution where the words “God”, “Christ”, or “Jesus” are mentioned.”

            More deception and distraction. Unfortunately for you, you quoted my exactly words previous stated and when one goes and reads the Constitution you slide-of-hand will be revealed.

          • MarkSebree

            US Constitution AMENDMENTS 1 thru 10 (The Bill of Rights)

            The U.S. Bill of Rights

            The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

            Congress of the United States

            begun and held at the City of New-York, on

            Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

            THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

            RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

            ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

            Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

            Amendment I

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

            Amendment II

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            Amendment III

            No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

            Amendment IV

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

            Amendment V

            No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

            Amendment VI

            In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

            Amendment VII

            In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

            Amendment VIII

            Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

            Amendment IX

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Amendment X

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          • MarkSebree

            US Constitution: AMENDMENTS 11 – 27

            AMENDMENT XI

            Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

            Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

            AMENDMENT XII

            Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

            Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment. The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. –]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

            AMENDMENT XIII

            Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

            Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

            Section 1.

            Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            Section 2.

            Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            AMENDMENT XIV

            Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

            Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

            Section 1.

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Section 2.

            Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

            Section 3.

            No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

            Section 4.

            The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

            Section 5.

            The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

            *Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

            AMENDMENT XV

            Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

            Section 1.

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

            Section 2.

            The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            AMENDMENT XVI

            Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

            Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

            The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

            AMENDMENT XVII

            Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

            Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

            The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

            When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

            This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

            AMENDMENT XVIII

            Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

            Section 1.

            After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

            Section 2.

            The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            Section 3.

            This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

            AMENDMENT XIX

            Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

            Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            AMENDMENT XX

            Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

            Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

            Section 1.

            The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

            Section 2.

            The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

            Section 3.

            If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

            Section 4.

            The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

            Section 5.

            Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

            Section 6.

            This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

            AMENDMENT XXI

            Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

            Section 1.

            The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

            Section 2.

            The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

            Section 3.

            This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

            AMENDMENT XXII

            Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

            Section 1.

            No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

            Section 2.

            This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

            AMENDMENT XXIII

            Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

            Section 1.

            The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

            A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

            Section 2.

            The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            AMENDMENT XXIV

            Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

            Section 1.

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

            Section 2.

            The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            AMENDMENT XXV

            Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

            Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

            Section 1.

            In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

            Section 2.

            Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

            Section 3.

            Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

            Section 4.

            Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

            Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

            AMENDMENT XXVI

            Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

            Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

            Section 1.

            The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

            Section 2.

            The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            AMENDMENT XXVII

            Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

            No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Still waiting for that article and section number.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I gotta better idea. Why don’t you try holding your breath instead.

            Maybe then you won’t be so doggone lazy and actually try to go educate yourself without having to be spoonfed.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Not my burden. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. That’s how it works. That’s how it always works.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. You guys really need to come up with some new lines! LOL

            Same old regurgitated pablum. Problem is, I don’t swallow it. So stay in Denial and in the Dark and be a fool. See if I care.

            That’s how it works. That’s how it always works.

            Ahhh, poor wittle boy doesn’t get to make the rules. Darn.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            He’s right, and he’s not picking on religion in what he says. The person who makes a claim is to provide the evidence. That is burden of proof.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Says you. Which I don’t hold much for. But since you said it, ok, go prove there is no God and go prove that it’s not on the Constitution because it is!!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, Royce. You know this, too.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Then prove your claim. And your faux omniscience fails you again.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I didn’t make one. You did.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            So you are not claiming that Jesus is not mentioned in the Constitution? Great! Glad we agree that He is.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            As I suspected. You are a troll.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Is that the best ya can do? Typical Liberal retort. LOL

            Thank you again for the public display of Liberalism at its best and sheer ignorance of what a Troll actually is! As I said before, this is a CHRISTIAN site. I am a Christian who subscribes to this site.

            YOU are the God-hating, Christ-rejecting troll who comes to the CHRISTIAN site to harass CHRISTIANS which is by very definition a TROLL!!!

            “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.”

            NOTE the words “extraneous”, “off-topic” “community”.

            Thank you for giving me an opportunity to expose you for who you are.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I’m not a Liberal, Royce. I think this is your whole problem. You tell people what they think rather than ask them. Your guesses are very poor, so you should probably stop doing that.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck – it’s probably a duck.

            And, once again, you’ve missed that I really could care less what you think about what my problem is! LOL

            But hey, thanks for reminding me of what I forgot to mention in your last post. You just demonstrated it again.

            It’s what Jesus would call a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket. Others might just call it blatant hypocrisy.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            So you attack others without any knowledge of them, and disregard any criticism that comes your way. Where I come from that’s called a closed mind. Are you proud of it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            There’s that typical Liberal speak again. I haven’t “attacked” anyone.

            Is that all ya got? That the best ya can do? No need to answer. You’ve already demonstrated plenty of times that it is.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I think you know that’s the case. You’re certainly hearing it from enough people.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for publicly displaying your delusion again. I’ve stated my “case” clearly.

            And thank you for showing your Liberal worldview again. Too bad you don’t understand that objective Truth is not dependant on popular opinion or numbers. SMH…

          • Jenny Ondioline

            When you “SMH” as often as you do, maybe you should consider that you need to educate yourself a bit more and stop the knee-jerk hatred of the people you are calling “Liberals” – who often aren’t liberals.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Maybe you should realize that the spiritually-dead trolls should stop telling the Born Again, children of God who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit what they should do.

            Maybe you should consider that you are in NO position to give a Born Again child of God who’s indwelt with the Holy Spirit any advice on how to educate themselves.

            Maybe you should realize what real hatred is – like that you just displayed – and stop preaching your message of lies and hate to Born Again children of God because we aren’t buying it.

            Maybe you should stop trolling Christian pages and doing your father, Satan’s, bidding just as God said you would and do. But you probably won’t.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You can call them whatever names you like. You don’t know any of them, spiritually or otherwise.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, I see more of the peanut gallery showed up to chime in. And I do know them. Jesus said you shall know them by what comes outta their mouths and a tree is known by its fruit.

            You trolls are all the same. Psychology today knows you too:

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • WhiteGhetto

            “God, Christ, Jesus is clearly stated in the Constitution.” WHERE? If it does not use those words it’s not there!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh sheesh, another ignorant, lazy, cretin with an anti-Jesus avatar that proves their either uneducated and don’t understand how to read and understand simple English or to much of a God-hater and too fearful to actually go look for the Truth for fear of what they’ll find.

            Thank you. I appreciate you showing that to everyone!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I just went looking. He is right. No mention of Jesus or Christ in the Constitution. That’s a lot of names you just called somebody for stating the truth. I wonder how many names you will call me now for pointing this out.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, ya better go look again because it’s right there in black & white. Well, let’s see, since you just told a lie what name do you think fits? Whattaya call someone who tells lies openly in public? I’m guessing you’re not blind since you seem to have no problem in choosing to come here and repeatedly and regularly repeat your lies and other nonsense.

            All you pointed out is that you either are knowingly and intentionally lying in order to deceive or simply ignorant and have no grasp at all on the English language.

            It’s right there in the Constitution and every single Signer of the Constitution publicly and permanently acknowledged that Jesus Christ IS Lord.

            Thanks for proving the Word of God true by saying the exact same thing that many have said here before on this very sight (and others) and been proven wrong. It only goes to prove Eph. 2:1-3 true and that y’all are being led around by Satan like a dog on a leash. Just regurgitating the same old lines over and over and over again. All the while making fools of yourselves.

          • WhiteGhetto

            “It’s right there in the Constitution and every single Signer of the Constitution publicly and permanently acknowledged that Jesus Christ IS Lord.” WHERE in the actual text of U.S. Constitution does one find this recognition of Jesus Christ as LORD? WHERE in the official text?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes, it IS there!! Right there in Black & White.

            So repeat your lie because it’s all you’ve got.

            Thank you for once AGAIN publicly displaying your ignorance, deliberate attempt to deceive and lie about the Truth. Every time you folks deny reality that can be seen by anyone with two functioning eyes and a brain only goes to completely discredit yourselves and your atheism.

            MUCH APPRECIATED!!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I think if you weren’t outright lying, you would simply quote where it says anything about Jesus.

            Didn’t do that, did you?

            I wonder why. Oh well, it gave you an opportunity to call me lots of names. As Jesus would do.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Think what you like.

            No need to wonder. I stated specifically why. And you have NO clue what Jesus would do. You’ve demonstrated that repeatedly.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You aren’t Jesus. You should learn that first and foremost.
            I repeat, if Jesus is mentioned in the constitution, prove it. If you fail to do so, I submit that you are trolling.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually, if you had a clue what it means to be a Christian you’d understand how wrong you are. I am in Christ Jesus and I’m being conformed more and more everyday to His very image. I am also an Ambassador of Jesus Christ. Got any idea what it means to be an Ambassador?

            Ah, so now you do make a claim. Now, go and prove that!

            As for being a troll. That’s just ignorant and laughable on it’s face. Evidently I need to remind you that this is a CHRISTIAN site to which I am subscribed and follow. You, my dear, are the God-hating, Jesus-rejecting troll who comes here to do your father, Satan’s, bidding.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Actually, you don’t know yourself what it means to be one. You measure Christianity in terms of the things you hate, such as homosexuality. That’s not how you define a Christian, that’s totally the No True Scotsman fallacy in action. You don’t get to determine how “Christian” a person is. And it’s arrogant for you to make that kind of claim.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I suggest you go back up and read the edit I made while you were being so quick to send another meaningless and idiotic retort.

            Thanks again for publicly displaying your delusional faux omniscience and typical Liberal tactics of which I’ve enumerated many times above.

            And what’s really arrogant is for an Unbeliever to think for a nano-second that you somehow can define what it means to be a Christian! LOL

          • WhiteGhetto

            There is NO TRUTH in your bronze age pathetic blood soaked fantasy story’s none! You can home trailer that to you kids but most have woken up and want nothing to do with your god.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, but there IS. It’s ALL Truth. And you prove it with your venomous rants.

            Thank you.

            “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”

            That word “inspired” literally means “God-breathed”. That word “all”, well, that literally means ALL!!

        • Mari Tatlow Steed

          Schools teach the history of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and more as a regular feature of World Cultures/History. That’s not the same as teaching religious doctrine or proselytizing. The only active proselytizing I’ve ever seen in public schools has been from Christians.

          Sadly, schools seem to be phasing out critical thinking as part of curricula, which goes a great way toward explaining the ignorance of your post.

          • Reason2012

            Search public school islam and read all about school trips to mosques where they are taught all about islam and even made to dress up in_islamic clothing.

            And read all about how FFRF does nothing.

            And please cite where schools teach about salvation through Christ, let alone trips to churches where they’re dressing up as nuns and priests.

            There aren’t any.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Randy Wanat

            The mosque incident was addressed super fast, before it made sense for anybody to get involved.

            However, how many public schools in America have had Bibleman do assembly programs during school time, or had teachers or coaches participate in prayers (if not lead them) during school events, or had explicitly religious texts and/or images on the walls or official letterhead or website or facebook page, or ten commandments in front of the building, or…I think you get the picture.

            It’s about opportunity. There are very few Muslims in America, and schools have very little contact with anything Islamic. Christianity, on the other hand, is fairly ubiquitous and enjoys a position of privilege, being excused for legal indiscretions that, were it Islam instead of Christianity, the community would absolutely lose their minds.

            Don’t insult anybody’s intelligence by supposing otherwise.

          • Reason2012

            It’s about opportunity. There are very few Muslims in America, and schools have very little contact with anything Islamic. Christianity, on the other hand, is fairly ubiquitous and enjoys a position of privilege

            Presto. Atheist activists not only do nothing when_islam is taught in public schools, and kids are brought to mosques on field trips, taught about salvation through allah, and made to dress like muslims, some like you actually defend the practice.

            Thank you for proving my point.

          • Mari Tatlow Steed

            So I did a search and aside from Christian-slanted faux news sites like this, the only mention I could find of Islam-themed field trips were, as I said, under the auspices of World Cultures/History studies. All were to museums. Given that historical or UNESCO heritage sites like Petra or Mecca would be outside most HS budgets, I would imagine museums or local mosques would be the only other choice. And I don’t see any mention of teens being hog-tied or forced against their will to participate in these trips.

            My children were exposed to the religious culture of many peoples during their HS years, including synagogues, mosques, museums, churches, and even bible study groups (outside school). Oddly enough, neither became indoctrinated to Islam, or any other faith, for that matter. Because it wasn’t indoctrination being offered – merely the chance to learn about other cultures.

            But then again, I specifically sent them to public schools so they wouldn’t be indoctrinated in one faith and could make that decision on their own as adults. If I’d wanted them to be brainwashed, I would have chosen a private religious school.

          • freespeechfan

            Nonsense. I despise all religions, and would find school visits to mosques with kids parading around in burkas just as appalling as a church visit. So would FFRF. It simply does not happen. Where on earth do you get your information?

        • Jason Hughes

          Perhaps you should look a little further into the Constitution. Article 3 states that you and I don’t get to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court gets to interpret it as to what the Founders meant. And they have done so, several times. Despite the fact that all but one or two Justices in the history of the Supreme Court identify as being Christian, they have come down on the side of secularism. Not because of their faith but in spite of it.
          Why on earth would an atheist be pro-Islam?? Please tell me which public school proselytizes Islam and FFRF will (and has) put a stop to it. We don’t believe in any god or gods and that ALL religions are equally ridiculous. But if we appear to be anti-Christian, it is because Christians in the US are notorious for thumbing their noses at the Constitution. Christian Privilege, pure and simple.

          • Reason2012

            Article 3 states that you and I don’t get to interpret the Constitution.

            Words mean what they say.

            So you want to pretend “Congress shall make no laws … prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means they CAN make laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof? No, it means Congress shall make no laws prohibiting free exercise of religion. Nothing to interpret.

            So how is it free exercise of religion can be illegal?

            And aren’t atheist activists interpreting it every time they try to say “it’s a violation of the Constitution for you to do that!” So only atheists can “interpret” the Constitution?

            Good question: why ARE you pro-islam and not out there going after all the public school field trips to mosques where they are then taught about_islam’s version of salvation and dressed up as_muslims.

            Please cite your posts denouncing this when it happens and continues to happen.

            You’d be the first to show such posts every time I call out atheist activists on it.

          • wolftimber

            “Free EXCERSIZE” absolutely does not mean the TAXPAYERS pay for it in public schools!
            Also, since the issue was brought up, in this case to the attorney, the fact the attorney directed the school to remove the referecnecs from it’s web site and the event proves even attorneys know how to read and interpret the LAWS.

          • Reason2012

            The vast majority of taxpayers are Christian.
            Please cite your posts denouncing taxpayers paying for field trips to mosques, where kids are taught salvation through allah and even dress up in muslim garbs. Seems you don’t seem to mind when it’s for_islam.

          • wolftimber

            “Vast majority” huh?

            Hardly, and the numbers have been dropping as more and more get fed up with the whole thing:

            US Christians numbers ‘decline sharply’, poll finds
            12 May 2015

            The number of Americans who identify
            as Christian has fallen nearly eight percentage points in only seven years, according to a new survey.

            Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans identified as Christian in 2014 – down from 78% in 2007.

            In the same period, Americans identifying as having no religion grew from 16% to 23%.

            Fifty-six million Americans do not observe any religion, the second largest community after Evangelicals. ”

            Theres 321 million people in the USA, 56 million observe NO religion, and they pay taxes too.

          • Reason2012

            Still waiting for you to cite your posts denouncing taxpayers paying for field trips to mosques, where kids are taught salvation through allah and even dress up in muslim garbs. Seems you don’t seem to mind when it’s for_islam.

            Since you can’t, we now see you’re really a pro-muslim, anti-Christian activist masquerading as an atheist.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, we only mind when it’s actually happening.

          • freespeechfan

            Evidence, evidence, evidence. A post on Breitbart is not evidence. Were such visits actually happening on the public dime, FFRF would have a field day with it.

          • WhiteGhetto

            You’re making the claim. You provide the evidence.

          • freespeechfan

            You do not get to push your religion, no matter what flavor, in any public venue paid for by all Americans. Private property you can worship Cthulhu for all anyone cares, but our public institutions serve all. I repeat, you do not get to push your religion on me or anyone else when tax dollars are involved.

          • MarkSebree

            I would like to make one addendum to your statements, which are mostly correct to my knowledge.

            He cannot get EXCLUSIVE use of public property or public institutions to promote his beliefs. He cannot use the government to advance his religion, nor can he use public officials to do so. If he, as a private citizen, wants to stand on a public street corner, or in a public park and preach to the passing masses and make a nuisance of himself, he is free to do that as long as he follows the law. Nobody has to listen to him, however, and the people are free to heckle him and tell him what they think of him and his preaching.

          • Reason2012

            Calling “free exercise” “pushing” doesn’t make it so.
            Search on public school islam. Now, please cite your posts that address islam being taught in public schools, field trips being taken to mosque, kids being taught salvation through allah and the seven pillars of islam, and kids dressing up as muslims. “Atheist” activists never do when I call them on it, which shows they’re not really atheists but pro-islam anti-Christian activists instead.

          • MarkSebree

            “Calling “free exercise” “pushing” doesn’t make it so.”

            And claiming that something in school is “voluntary” when teachers and other students ridicule and bully those that do try to opt out does not make it voluntary either.

            When public school authority figures (principals, teachers, coaches, etc.) endorse, lead, or otherwise show favoritism or disparagement towards a religion or denomination in front of the students, that is not an example of “free exercise”. That is an example of pushing their religious beliefs.

            There is NOTHING that is stopping the children from praying, following their own beliefs, starting and belonging to religious clubs that follow the same rules as all other school clubs, or reading copies of religious texts on their own time. This includes during lunch, study periods, free periods, before and between classes, etc.

            A field trip to a mosque is not necessarily promoting that religion, especially if trips to other places of worship are included in the semester. It is about giving the children a little knowledge about religions other than there own. Most of the children have been to Christian services of one flavor or another most of their lives, but they have not been exposed to any other religions. It can also involve learning about the culture and modes of dress often associated with the religion.

            You could stand learning something about Islam as well. There are only Five Pillars of Islam, not seven.

            And atheist and civil rights organizations have called schools on these trips from time to time. You just do not hear about it much.

            Since you asked for a cite, here is an article that specifically answers your question, and contains links to a number of relevant cases.
            http://www dot patheos dot com/blogs/freethoughtnow/answering-fox-news-why-doesnt-ffrf-ever-go-after-islam-or-other-religions/

            Your delusions do not make atheists match what you think that they are. Atheists who are involved in church/state separation issues are as against Muslims using the government to push their beliefs onto the people as they are against Christians doing so. However, in the USA, Muslims do not have the numbers or control of the government which is necessary to impose their beliefs onto public school children, or on the general public. Christians do have those numbers, and they have a long history of doing so in the USA.

          • Reason2012

            And claiming that something in school is “voluntary” when teachers and other students ridicule and bully those that do try to opt out does not make it voluntary either.

            Thank you for admitting people can opt out, hence no one’s being “forced”.

            Please prove people are bulled for opting out. Documented cases please, not just empty claims.

            And those claims do not equate to bullying all Christians into censoring their beliefs instead. Hypocrisy.

            When public school authority figures (principals, teachers, coaches, etc.) endorse, lead, or otherwise show favoritism or disparagement towards a religion or denomination in front of the students, that is not an example of “free exercise”. That is an example of pushing their religious beliefs.

            And yet you cannot cite any of your complaining for all the trips taken to mosques, kids taught salvation through allah and the seven pillars, kids dressing up as muslims, so your claims about caring that public school authority figures endorse religions is false. Your only issue is Christianity, not religions, as you can’t show you care that islam and field trips to mosques take place. In fact, later in your post, you show your complete support for islam being taught in schools, which exposes your claim to be an atheist as false.

            There is NOTHING that is stopping the children from praying

            Pointing out that people are given SOME free exercise of religion does not excuse the fact you’re seeking to violate the Constitution and only give them that freedom when people that hate it give their permission.

            A field trip to a mosque is not necessarily promoting that religion, especially if trips to other places of worship are included in the semester.

            Thank you for proving my point by making excuses for public figures of authority promoting islam, using taxpayer money to take kids to mosques, dress up as muslims, and larn all about salvation through islam.

            As I said, “atheist” activists that pretend to care about “relgiion” are deceivers who only care if it’s Christianity while they defend islam being promoted instead, making excuses like it’s just harmless “giving kids knowledge” – except when it’s Christianity and now activists rage.

            My point exactly.

            At least be honest and dont pretend to be an atheist when instead you’re an islamic anti-Christian activist instead. An actual atheist would be just as active as shutting down islam and you do quite the opposite.

            Take care.

          • WhiteGhetto

            Again, you are the one who keeps raising the “public schools islam” thing and insisting that others dig up evidence to support your position. YOU need to bolster your claim with proof. And so far you’ve produced none! NONE!

          • WhiteGhetto

            Who said “So how is it free exercise of religion can be illegal?”. All the FFRF is trying to accomplish is insuring that it’s not done with public resources. Worship all the heavenly boogey men you want. You can’t use tax payer funds, or tax paid fund resources to do it.

        • Rita Clement

          Please provide a source that there are public schools teaching Islam.

      • Jason Todd

        The FFRF are anti-Christian bigots, hypocritical to their very core. If their aim was true, they would be screaming about Dearborn, MI and attempts to implement sharia law in the US.

        Their absolute silence reveals their true agenda and shows why they must be stopped. Period.

        • Randy Wanat

          Prove that the government of Dearborn, MI, is attempting to supplant its American-style local laws with Sharia. Note: a high concentration of Muslims is not evidence.

          • Jason Todd

            You missed the conjunction, “and.”

            Two mutually exclusive clauses.

            Try again.

          • Randy Wanat

            The separate clauses were not clear contextually. Why should the FFRF complain about Dearborn, MI? Where is Sharia law being used to supplant the American style of government within America? Provide evidence to support anything you are claiming, or admit you’re just repeating baseless lies intended to elicit emotional responses from people who are unlikely to factcheck when what you say agrees with their pre-existing biases and prejudices.

          • Jason Todd

            So why are you defending the FFRF? A simple Google search will reveal the open teaching of Islam in public schools, the push for Sharia law in Irving, TX (former home of “Clock Boy”) and, yes, Dearborn.

            You and I both know good and well if it was Christianity instead of Islam the FFRF, ACLU and probably Americans United for the Persecution of Christians would be on them like white on rice.

          • freespeechfan

            Absolute hogwash. FFRF spends its considerable capital fighting the most important and egregious violations of separation, and in our country that means primarily Christian. Show actual evidence of Sharia law being pushed anywhere in the USA and I guarantee you FFRF would be all over it like a duck on a junebug. They would welcome the opportunity. Just show the evidence. Evidence, people, not hyperbolic fear-mongering.

          • MarkSebree

            Well, to be fair, pretty much all they have is hyperbolic fear mongering. They almost never have very much evidence to support their positions, especially objective evidence. And on the few, rare occasions when they can produce evidence, it is usually overwhelmed by the mountains of objective counter evidence.

          • Jason Todd

            LOLOLOL

          • Kate Karwowska

            Exactly. Muslims have lived in Dearborn for many, many years and have not and are not trying to implement “Sharia Law”. Hamtramck also has a large Muslim population – their city council is Muslim-majority – and it works just fine. I think Jason is thinking about xtian “sharia” that they are trying – and succeeding – to implement all over the US.

    • Jerussha

      How hypocritical of you to say that. Christians have always believed that they are right and everyone else is wrong and if you don’t believe as they do you will burn in hell. They try to push their ridiculous religious beliefs o everyone because that is what the biblessing tells them they must do. I was raised in a pentacostal fundamentalist holy roller church and I have heard it all. I finally decided to use my common sense and question everything and now I am free of the shackles of religion. Try iy. Stop believing everything you are told and THINK

      • Reason2012

        How hypocritical of you to say that. Christians have always believed that they are right and everyone else is wrong and if you don’t believe as they do you will burn in hell.

        No, we believe God / Jesus Christ, who said this – we’re not the ones who said it.

        And if we believe it’s true, you think it would be good to say nothing and let people end up there without warning them about it so they can have a chance of avoiding God’s judgment? That would be evil to say nothing. It makes sens that we warn others rather than remain silent.

        They try to push their ridiculous religious beliefs o everyone because that is what the biblessing tells them they must do.

        Can’t make anyone believe anything. Can only give the information and leave it up to them. And yet atheists are the ones suing people left and right to force their own beliefs on America: the belief of “nothing did it” – that’s the only hypocrisy here.

        I was raised in a pentacostal fundamentalist holy roller church and I have heard it all. I finally decided to use my common sense and question everything and now I am free of the shackles of religion. Try iy. Stop believing everything you are told and THINK

        We’re supposed to question. And the answers are in God’s Word. Pretending “nothing did it” or “life came from non-life” or “information just happened” or “the universe just happened” and so on is not common sense or thinking – it’s willful ignorance.

        Although not meant to be a science book, to ignore the many scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before the human race discovered them will also leave us without excuse before God pretending “well how was I supposed to know?!”

        To also ignore the hundreds of prophecies that came true even thousands of years after they were written will also leave us without excuse.

        The only thing we “free” ourselves to do is to sin all we want because we don’t want to stop. But one way or the other we’ll stop sinning: either on our own and attain everlasting life, or when we face God and face the_hell we demanded to receive because we refused to stop when we had the chance.

        Please think again. May God bless!

        • premolicious

          Funny how one can beat the odds, actually come into existence into this universe, and then …. believe such ridiculous myths. Bravo to you.

          “We’re supposed to question.” How ironic, coming from someone so obviously unquestionably indoctrinated by some antiquated fairy tale that some adult told him/her about.

          **And can you try to just read your last paragraph, imagine yourself from an outside perspective and not understand how crazy it sounds? Just read it out loud.**

          It’s certainly OK to question the origin of our existence, since science hasn’t discovered everything yet, and, in fact, may never due to the limitations of humanity. But to go from, “hey, I guess we really don’t know how this all happened yet” to “oh hey, I guess it was God and he sent his son to be sacrificed and then reborn and blah blah blah…” it’s … insane.

          Today’s religion is tomorrow’s literary entertainment, indeed. And the nonsense you babble about one religion (out of thousands) is quite entertaining. Enjoy!

          • Reason2012

            Funny how one can beat the odds, actually come into existence into this universe, and then …. believe such ridiculous myths. Bravo to you.

            I’m not the one that believes the myth “everything just happened” or the myth of populations of fish becoming human beings over generations if you just “give it enough time” (via amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals and so on).

            “We’re supposed to question.” How ironic, coming from someone so obviously unquestionably indoctrinated by some antiquated fairy tale that some adult told him/her about.

            I didn’t believe well into adulthood. And when I did come to faith I was expecting my faith to be a fad and I looked for all questions people like you asked – turned out the answers were always not what we were told they were and were not what people said the Bible said. A huge percentage of believers never believed until adulthood – which shatters your need to pretend the only reason people believe is because they were taught it as they grew up.

            **And can you try to just read your last paragraph, imagine yourself from an outside perspective and not understand how crazy it sounds? Just read it out loud.**

            Of course it sounds crazy. But the point is to believe it and NOT warn people would be outright evil.

            And the Bible pointed this very thing out as well.

            1 Corinthians 1:18-31 “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
            I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
            For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
            Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
            But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

            Imagine yourself from an outside perspective on what you believe:
            the universe, all matter and energy, the very reliable laws of nature, all just happened.
            Life just happened from non-life (but never again – only when we can’t verify it so we must believe it – we’re not even smart enough to get chemicals to come together to create life).
            Information and the ability for it to be decoded and then furthermore acted upon to build organic machines just happened.

            Willful ignorance, friend. It’s why we’ll be without excuse when we face God.

            It’s certainly OK to question the origin of our existence, since science hasn’t discovered everything yet,

            The topic is beyond the scope of science – life coming from non-life, information just coming about on it’s own, fish to makind evolution: it’s all anti-science. Science is limited to things that actually happen, not made up mythological fish to mankind beliefs atheists have made up and can only give reasons to believe in it.

            Today’s religion is tomorrow’s literary entertainment, indeed. And the nonsense you babble about one religion (out of thousands) is quite entertaining. Enjoy!

            False religions do not make God’s truth any less true.

            And many scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before scientists discovered them leave us without excuse.

            Prophecies that have come true thousands of years after they were written down leave us without excuse.

            The best evidence you could ask for is the hate you clearly have towards the topic of God. I would listen to it – if you didn’t believe you wouldn’t waste a moment of your time on the subject. Before I believed, I never did.

            Please think again.

          • Rex O’Fender

            It childhood indoctrination the only reason people believe? No, and no one said it was. But it is by far the main reason. Prophecy? You must be joking. No one knows who wrote the bible or when. Before you tell me how wrong all of science is, and how correct you are, could you tell me what papers you have had published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and what your credentials are in the area?

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        And so now you spend your time coming to Christian sites to do your father, Satan’s, bidding – just like God says in that Bible you love to trash. Oh but isn’t the irony almost palatable!

        • Randy Wanat

          You mean, palpable?

          Anyway, would you rather be left to read and repeat falsehoods, or have those falsehoods corrected? Do you care if the things you say are actually true, or do you just want to believe what you want to believe and say things without regard for the facts?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, I actually mean palatable but palpable works too.

            Anyway, would you rather be left to read and repeat falsehoods, or have those falsehoods corrected? Do you care if the things you say are actually true, or do you just want to believe what you want to believe and say things without regard for the facts?

      • wolftimber

        That’s all why they nearly wiped out the Native American Indians and kidnapped blacks in Africa for slaves, the common theme throughout was they were seen as “godless sub humans” and it was a methodist minister who led an army to the camp of a known peaceful tribe of American Indians and ordered his troops to fire on and kill every one there, unarmed women, children, even infants were beaten, sliced, thrown on the snow. And in case anyone thinks John Chivington’s actions were isolated- the rest o fthe facts are he and his troops cut off various body parts from their victims to take home as souvenirs, when they arrived back home the good christians CHEERED and celebrated the mass murder that became known as the Sand Creek massacre, and there were many more like it as well as forced migration across the country to the American version of the Nazi work camps caleld “reservations” where the survivors of that long winter march were forced to CONVERT.

    • Guzzman

      You omitted critical information – so you are the one who is lying. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people “liberty” without “due process.” Since then, as cases arose, the U.S. Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to all divisions and subdivisions of government, extending it well beyond Congress.

      Thus, the First Amendment, including the Establishment Clause, now covers actions by Federal, state, and local governments. As the law stands, Federal, state, and local governments are required to remain neutral on matters of religion.

      • Reason2012

        False. It’s cannot be illegal for the free exercise of religion. Schools are free to go on such trops or NOT go on such trips. You isntead want a fascist government that censors all beliefs but your own – the belief of “nothing did it”.

        Then why is it ok that government is not neutral on your religion of “nothing did it” or “life came from non-life”? You continue to contradict yourself

        • wolftimber

          NOT when tax dollars are involved in ANY way.

          • Reason2012

            Still waiting for you to cite this from the Constitution.

            Still waiting for you to cite your posts denouncing taxpayers paying for field trips to mosques, where kids are taught salvation through allah and even dress up in muslim garbs. Seems you don’t seem to mind when it’s for_islam, which really shows everyone else you’re not an atheist, but an_islam activist.

        • Guzzman

          You are profoundly confused. I specifically referred to the Establishment Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause. A city government cannot lawfully sponsor a trip to a religiously-themed park promoting a specific religious belief.

          The Supreme Court has made clear that “the touchstone of the Establishment Clause is ‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’ [McCreary County v. ACLU], 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).

          So any government act that violates religious neutrality, such as promoting trips to an evangelical Christian park whose purpose it is to prosyletize, would be deemed an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

          • Rex O’Fender

            UnReasonabale2012 thinks that basic science are tenets of religion. Ironic, when millions of theists, including xians, accept the foundational understanding of biology. I’m still waiting to hear why he has not yet submitted his research and collected his Nobel prize.

          • Reason2012

            Still waiting for you to cite where it says it’s legal to censor Christianity by all government employees, which would nullify the First Amendment. You only make the claim and never cite it.

            Still waiting for you to cite your posts denouncing how kids are going on field trips to mosques, taught about salvation through allah and the seven pillars, dressed up as muslims.

          • Guzzman

            I already quoted an often-cited Supreme Court ruling which reflects established law. Here it is yet again for the legally impaired reader: “The touchstone of the Establishment Clause is ‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.'”[McCreary County v. ACLU], 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).

            Is there something about government neutrality towards religion that you do not grasp? Must I break it down for you, perhaps take it down to a third, or perhaps second grade reading level? Your choice.

    • Frederic Henning

      Wrong, dude! Atheists have NO FUCKING BELIEFS. That is why we are also called “non-believers”, a moniker to which I subscribe. It’s the religious nuts who think they are right and that everybody should think the same. NOT.

      • Reason2012

        Sure you do: you believe nothing did it – that nature is all there is. That’s a belief, unless you can prove it’s not.

    • wolftimber

      “it’s atheists who want to force the government and everyone else to bow down to their beliefs ”

      Poor babe! pretty ironic who the minions of one one the most violent religions in the world, the one that it’s minions MASS MURDERED entire tribes of non christian Native American Indians, including unarmed women, children and even infants- who refused to CONVERT!
      Those who were forced to convert were forced to take on “good christian names” like David, Charles, forbade from holding their traditional ceremonies, speak in their native language, dress in traditional attire, and males had to cut their hair short.
      That story was repeated around the world, culture after culture was bullied, threatened and murdered if they didn’t convert, and poor little you are upset because people don’t think the SECULAR GOVERNMENT we all pay for should be involved with, promote ONE religion RELIGION or pay for it!

      Tell you what, when we start TAXING churches for full value as the for profit businesses they really are, then maybe you get a say on the matter of where funds are used!
      Forget that we have AMERICAN “refugees” who are homeless, sleeping in ther car if they have one, in make-shift camps where the police remove them, who don’t get free HEATERS in the winter like this site wants to send overseas!
      You forget those currently homeless American refugees once paid taxes and because they paid taxes is why your multi million dollar McChurches almost always planted on the most valuable city real estate around- pay ZERO taxes of any kind!

      • Reason2012

        Poor babe! pretty ironic who the minions of one one the most violent religions in the world, the one that it’s minions MASS MURDERED entire tribes of non christian Native American Indians, including unarmed women, children and even infants- who refused to CONVERT!

        There are always going to be people doing evil in the name of God – but by_killing others, they prove they were still on their way to_hell, and not really following God.

        Even Jesus pointed out to His apostles that they would be_killed by people thinking they were doing God’s will.

        John 16:2-3 “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.”

        Government should not pass laws to promote any belief system including yours of “nothing did it” or “it just happened”, which is where your hypocrisy is exposed.

        • wolftimber

          Meanwhile this god stood by and did absolutely NOTHING! zip, zero!

          • Reason2012

            God “stood by and did nothing” except offer a way out before he passed judgment on the world and it perished in the flood. Except He did do something: He offered a way out and that way out was rejected and mocked, until it was too late, the same that is happening today. He allows people to reject Him and wax more and more wicked – but no one will escape His judgment, myself included.

            Luke 17:26-30 “[Jesus said]And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

            Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”

    • wolftimber

      START HERE and look for where all those millions suckers donate goes to:

      The lavish homes of American archbishops

      Records reveal that 10 of the country’s top church leaders live in residences worth more than $1 million.

      By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor
      A CNN investigation found that at least 10 of the 34 active archbishops in the United States live in buildings worth more than $1 million, according to church and government records.

      That’s not counting hundreds of retired and active Catholic bishops in smaller cities, some of whom live equally large.

      Among archbishops, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York leads the pack with this 15,000-square-foot mansion on Madison Avenue, in one of the priciest corridors of Manhattan.
      Vanderbilt Appraisal Company, a New York firm hired by CNN to estimate the building’s value, said it’s worth at least $30 million. Dolan shares the neo-Gothic mansion, which is reportedly filled with thick red carpets and priceless antiques.

      Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George lives in a pretty fancy crib, too.
      This mansion has 19 chimneys and sits on 1.7 acres of prime real estate in Chicago’s ritzy Gold Coast neighborhood. It’s worth $14.3 million “as is,” but the property could fetch far more, appraisers told CNN.

      According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property.
      New York City alone loses $627 million in annual property tax revenue due to 9,500 churches being tax-exempt, according to a July 2011 analysis by New York’s nonpartisan Independent Budget Office.

      Independent Budget Office of the City of New York, “City’s Multitude of Property Tax Exemptions Add Up to a Wealth of Revenue Foregone,” July 15, 2011

      $627 MILLION a year lost in NYC alone, that’s on average $66,000 for each church, those annual feed the poor “thanksgiving” turkey dinners followed a month later with the leftovers at Xmas sure aren’t worth $66,000

      Sure, they send money, billions a year in aid and more to the poor… LIVING IN AFRICA AND OVERSEAS- not even the very AMERICAN taxpayers who made it so they could enjoy the privilege of being tax EXEMPT in the first place!

      • Reason2012

        The lavish homes of American archbishops

        Catholicism is anti-Christ deceptive religion, including the pope, and even atheists can spot it. The facts you point out are just more proof of it.

        • wolftimber

          they are christians

          • Reason2012

            Most professing Christians are going to end up in_hell, according to Christ.

            Matthew 7:21-23 “[Jesus said] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
            Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

            So I guess it depends on what you mean by a “Christian”. A catholicism, which violates God’s Word in many ways and teaches all catholics to do so, are proving they’re not Christians in spite of their claims to be. In fact they identify as catholics.

  • Reason2012

    Google public school islam and read about growing number of cases of field trips to mosques where students are even then taught all about their beliefs and even dress up as muslims. Yes, here in America. These “atheists” have no problem with this, which shows they’re not really atheists, but instead pro_islam enemies of America.

    • meamsane

      It seems that Atheism and Islam have a number of things in common!

      • Amos Moses

        all heresies eventually converge …………

    • james blue

      google or use the search engine of your choice “FFRF islam” you will see that they go after Islam too.

  • meamsane

    Atheists have to rely on rogue SC opinions rather than historical evidence of what the Establishment Clause really means which is directly related to the free exercise clause.

    • President P. Grabber

      Are you a constitutional scholar?

      • meamsane

        Are you?

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          You hit the nail on the head. The atheists love to herald SCOTUS as some great and wonderful authority UNTIL it rules against them. Then they have no credibility. The same goes with any other “expert” or “institution” they tout.

          It only goes to prove that it is themselves and themselves alone that they choose to have as their final authority.

          The really comical thing is to watch them tapdance when you point out that they would’ve supported Blacks not being fully human, Women not getting to vote or hold certain public offices, etc. because SCOTUS said so. LOL

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know what “the atheists” say but if the Supreme Court ruled against me, I would accept that I had lost. I would be angry, and probably depressed, and I would disagree vehemently, but I would accept the fact that I lost, because THERE IS NO OTHER SANE BELIEF TO HOLD.

            What would you have me do? Pretend that I hadn’t lost, and then go around the country wondering why people weren’t comporting themselves as if I had won? That would be delusional.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            And you don’t even see the contradiction in what you wrote.

            Quite to the contrary, there is VERY much another sane belief to hold. Regardless of how much you scream otherwise or vehemently deny.

            But hey, thanks for publicly displaying that. And thanks for admitting that had you had your way and things been left up to you, the country would still have Blacks that aren’t considered human, women not voting nor holding certain public offices, no interracial marriage, etc. Much appreciated!!

            Now ya know folks why I say you shouldn’t play this guy’s game.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, do you believe that the Atlanta Falcons should have held a victory parade after the Super Bowl? And the fact that they didn’t means that they’re happy the Patriots won?

            Because that’s the false dichotomy you’re setting up here. It’s like you can’t conceive of a third option even though it’s glaringly obvious.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, that’s a false dichotomy that you’re setting up to keep from having to admit you lied and refuse to accept the Truth. The only thing glaringly obvious is your delusion and rebellion.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s like…you’re not even on the same planet…

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I understand. More like a living man talking to a dead man though.

            But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit…Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things…For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:7-20)

            “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2nd Cor. 6:14)

          • Spirit Plumber

            OK, why don’t you post the bits of Constitution that you are referring to then?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why don’t you read thru the posts and you’ll find your answer.

          • Spirit Plumber

            I did. Haven’t found it. Wouldn’t ask otherwise. It’s more efficient if you just post them.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            True, it might be more efficient but then you wouldn’t learn. Always better when one has to look to find the answer instead of getting the answer given to them. You won’t forget it that way.

    • Guzzman

      You’ve got it backwards – it was the historical writings of the Founders that led the Supreme Court to institute the separation of religion and government. The undeniable intent of the Founders in writing the Constitution was to separate religion and government – it gives government no grant of authority over religious matters. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”, wrote authoritative declarations that the Constitution and the First Amendment safeguard a “separation between religion and government” (Madison, 1820).

      The religious clauses of the First Amendment, acting together have the effect of “building a wall of separation between Church and State” according to Thomas Jefferson. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Supreme Court argued that Jefferson’s writings concerning a wall of separation between church and state “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”

  • HpO

    I can say what I’m about to say even though it’s my belief that Ken Ham’s young-earth creationism stuff doesn’t come close to the truth of Genesis 1, 2 and 3, John 1 and Colossians 1. Further simple, plain and uncomplicated understanding of these prophetic and gospel truths is required, needless to say.

    Anyway, what I want to say is, Freedom From Religion Foundation is right. And Ken Ham is also right. And that’s the problem with this constant and never-ending fight over the interpretation and application of the Establishment Clause. In American jurisprudence, both sides can’t be right, and that both sides being right always means one has to end up losing. It’s Ken Ham’s turn to count his loss this time. (I mean he needs those $$$ from visitors, are you kidding?) Next time, who knows? He did, though, win many times before, let’s not forget, like when …

    “Several weeks ago [2014], Nye thought it’d be a fine idea to debate a well-known creationist and founder of the Creation Museum, Ken Ham. On debate points and grasp of reality, [Bill] Nye absolutely won the debate. But ultimately, Ham was the real winner. Not only did the debate send the loud but unspoken message that creationism was worthy of equal time with science but, it turns out, the debate was a huge money-maker for Ham’s ridiculous museum — inside which it’s okay to instruct children that the universe is 6,000 years old and that humans rode on the backs of tamed, domesticated dinosaurs. The debate also helped to raise much-needed funds to greenlight ‘Ark Park,’ a theme park based around the fable of Noah’s Ark. … And now, with Neil deGrasse Tyson’s reboot of the Cosmos miniseries airing every Sunday night on Fox, Ham and his organization believe they deserve equal time on television in order to balance the visibility of the purely scientific documentary series. It’s possible that this would’ve occurred irrespective of whether Nye had debated Ham, but clearly the success of the debate for Ham and his ministry has emboldened them to do more.” (Huffington Post, 03/25/2014, updated May 25, 2014)

  • Becky

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1

    Should they keep students from going outside to study the sky and earth? After all, this, too, is in scripture.

    • Steven Thompson

      The Earth and sky are in a lot of creation stories; just going outside is not particularly more an argument in favor of Genesis 1 than it is in favor of Odin and his brothers making the world from the gigantic corpse of Ymir.

      • wolftimber

        Native American Indians have loads of stories and legends surrounding their ideas on all of this, most of the legends involve animals, such as the crow bringing daylight to the people by flying off to the horizon and eventually bringing back a ball of daylight and giving it to the people.

    • Mari Tatlow Steed

      And if we believed the tales of Bronze Age sheepherders, we’d believe he did it in six days. Thankfully, most of us have evolved beyond the need for fairytales to soothe our fears of the “outside.”

      • wolftimber

        Back then they believed comets were bad omens and thunder was the gods’ anger, now of course thanks to SCIENCE we know exactly what causes thunder/lightning, meteorites and comets.

  • sammy13

    It is a field trip to a site that has a display of an arc rooted in ancient history. I cannot believe that this town, or any town would cave to the atheist group. By doing so, they promote the religion of ‘no G-d’. And that is what Satan wants.

    • Ed Collins

      The ‘ark’ is a fairy story with no basis in reality – the same as Jesus and the bible. One bit of actual ‘scientific’ proof from you people would convince me to change my mind.

    • FHRITP

      The town didn’t “cave to [an] atheist group. The town determined that promoting such a trip is unconstitutioal. How is this not clear to you?? What are you, 14 years old?

    • wolftimber

      They did not “cave” to anything but the LAW of the land, and the attorney knew the law and acted accordingly. If the town doesn’t like the law of the land let them part from the union and form their own country
      Also, nothign says individuals can’t arrange for and go on their own field trip to see that myth side show, just don’t expect the Govt and the rest of us to foot the bill for it.

      there is no ancient history of a mythical wood ship larger than the Queen Mary that a 600 year old man built!

  • Governmental Deception

    Atheist truly sicken me they are the most selfish inconsiderate losers. ( Not all some have a few marbles left and don’t believe in stripping others of their rights to practice but these low life skanks who do may karma find you and find you fast.

    • FHRITP

      Christianity sickens me.

      • Governmental Deception

        people who have no higher power are why we have a society of losers. Indoctrination works well on weak minds. Who wan’t Christianity when those who don’t prefer to screw everything in sight, swing both ways, can’t stay married, have no morals nor values, yeah that’s your typical trendy liberals , which sickens anybody seeing this Country favoring everything NOT Americana. Move to Iraq, N. Korea it should suite you well over there.

        • FHRITP

          The higher the percentage of Christians in a country, the more violent and amoral, because the people hide behind it and use it as an excuse. This includes Brazil, the U.S., Russia, Mexico, etc. More atheistic countries like Denmark, Sweden, etc. have significantly lower rates of violence. The data is easily found via a 30 second Goggle search. See for yourself if you don’t believe me.

        • WhiteGhetto

          “Indoctrination works well on weak minds.” LOL LOL Indeed

    • DonH

      How very Christian of you.

      • Governmental Deception

        who said I was a christian I didn’t.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    How long will the English illiterate and the Constitutionally ignorant prevail in this country? Answer: As long as the English illiterate, Constitutionally ignorant, and COWARDLY hold public office and continue to vote for those who will.

    • FHRITP

      “English illiterate??” Um, haven’t met anyone from England here who can’t read and/or write. Surely you mean “illiterate.” “Constitutionally ignorant??” Um, pathetic. It’s “offices.” Shakespeare you ain’t!!

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Thank for showing all ya got. Now, wasn’t that edifying. No, I meant what I said., English illiterate. As in Ignorant of the English language in written form. And yes, Constitutionally ignorant. I meant that too. And yes, you’re correct. It is pathetic that so many are so Constitutionally ignorant. Especially when they love to throw around the word Constitution like it was free money.

        And thanks for the attempt to hit me with your little fiery dart. To bad for you I had the shield of faith at the ready and swatted it down like a fly. I do appreciate they blessing though.

        Here’s a little piece of wisdom for you that I suggest you ponder for awhile:

        A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

        “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

        • FHRITP

          “No, I meant what I ‘said.'” You didn’t say anything son, you “stated” or “wrote.” Learn the difference between “say” and “write.”

          It’s obvious you meant what you stated. Your statements were still poorly crafted and erroneous.

          A wiser man once stated, “That which I see in others (such as illiteracy and ignorance) reflect what I see in myself.” Perhaps ponder that before admonishing others for being the same way you ARE!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. First off, I’m not your “son”. Learn the English language. I’m quite satisfied with the Daddy I had.

            Secondly, no, I meant just what I said. Learn the English language. When one writes something they are saying something! Duh!!

            You can characterize my statements however you wish but that is nothing more than your opinion. I crafted them just fine in my opinion and there was NOTHING erroneous about them.

            Your faux omniscience only goes to show your lack of wisdom. But hey, thanks for either showing your ignorance or hypocrisy!

            Now feel completely free to go and practice what you preach. LOL

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    If Americans are not allowed to keep the Ten Commandments in their land, it means the USA is just another nation that suffers from tyranny by atheism or paganisms. Whether or not to be able to keep the Ten Commandments is the test of human freedom. The West’s implementing of support of abortion and homosexuality for all make the people break the 6th and 7th commandments. The West needs Judeo-Christian values for morality and freedom.

    • WhiteGhetto

      “tyranny by atheism or paganisms”. Wow.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Non-christian Americans are suffering from boredom and don’t know what to do with their spare time; that’s why they bully Christians instead of colored people this century.

    • wolftimber

      those are YOUR 10 commandments for you minions to follow, not the rest of us, they don’t belong on public grounds they belong in your CHURCH and on church property.
      The so called commandments were hijacked from the much older Egyptian book of the dead, not even an original thought, same with hijacking pagan celebrations like Yule festival which celebrated the “rebirth” of the SUN and the growing season with the days getting longer towards spring.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. The Westerners need the Ten Commandments because unbelieving Westerners force mankind to support infanticide and abnormal immorality. Westerners never give up the slave owners’ mentality unless they convert to Christianity. Egyptians are Noah’s descendants, too. Only the Hebrews recorded everything accurately. No one has anything profound like what the Hebrews have.

        Secular Americans hijacked the USA to make it a Sodom though the nation’s creators intended it to be a happy Christian nation. You guys are being punished with childlessness and foreigners will possess the land. Wake up. Money and power is nothing when you don’t have proper descendants. USA will be a laughing stock for generations. So stop the slavery by homosexuality now. The world should not serve the bored well-fed perv Americans; give mankind some break.

        • wolftimber

          so says a delusional who actually believes an invisible santa claus who
          loves them and “died” for them, but who didnt REALLY die if it popped
          back out of the grave 3 days later, a secret “saviour” who “saves”
          them… from his own father and himself LOL!!
          Priceless!
          We need your “10 commandments” the way we need smallpox

    • wolftimber

      Where does it say you cant put that junk on YOUR OWN land? we just don’t want it put up on state COURTHOUSES, SECULAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS or PARKS, feel free to plant crosses and commandment stones all over the land YOU own, put it all over your house and front lawn if you want, just don’t expect me to PAY for this subversive mind rot!

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The Westerners need reminders of Christianity everywhere they live. Non-christian Westerners are altogether immoral and support infanticide and hurt children by prohibiting morality. The West needs Christianity to stay moral and civilized. Liberals are well-dressed barbarians. Childless people should never become judges because they don’t care about the future or the children, unless they are Christian. You guys have only porn stories and nude statues as your originals and nothing else, apart from Christianity.

        • wolftimber

          so says a delusional who actually believes an invisible santa claus who loves them and “died” for them, but who didnt REALLY die if it popped back out of the grave 3 days later, a secret “saviour” who “saves” them… from his own father and himself LOL!!
          Priceless!

  • tatoo

    A school is supposed to teach science, not stupidity.

    • Delectable

      Childless people’s opinions about children are worthless.

      • Chris

        Why?

      • FHRITP

        Yeah, why is that? I’m trying to learn here.

  • Andrea Felts

    If you don’t want to attend for whatever reason then do not sign up to go. Also if you feel like you may be left out of the activities then create an one that you would like to be a apart of. Because hello we all have rights to rather if we are Christians or not.

    • Trilemma

      Everyone has rights whether they are Christians or not but a public school funded trip to the Ark Encounter is not one of them.

    • FHRITP

      Andrea likely only uses the “If you don’t want to attend, don’t sign up” type excuse when it conveniently suits her. If it doesn’t conveniently suit her, she doesn’t use it. Andrea, instead of bouncing back and forth between using whatever argument is handy, please be consistent especially if you have children. Try only to use sound arguments.

  • RavenSkye Walden

    FFRF is not an “aetheist” group, there are many good Christians that also believe in seperation of church and state. You just use that to try to damage others.

  • Tom Reddington

    Not only is it a US Constitutional violation, it is a violation of educational practice. Teaching ‘The Controversy’ is nothing but teaching ignorance.

  • Jerussha

    I am a proud member of FFRF and I am so grated that they work so diligently to protect our 1st Amendment. This creation of Ken Hams is nothing but a farce and I hope he falls flat on his face.
    .

    • FHRITP

      A proud member?? Most people take pride in overcoming difficulties and reaching goals themselves, not for easily filing out a membership form. You being proud of your membership in the FFRF is as shallow as somebody being proud to be a member of the KKK. Please accomplish a worthy goal and be proud of that.

    • Marshall P

      Proud of belonging to a hate group?

      Well, that’s your choice.

      • MarkSebree

        What hate groups do you think he belongs to? He has not indicated that he belongs to any hate group in his posts.

    • FHRITP

      Jerussha? Jerussha? Where did he/she go?

  • Charles R. Ingrao

    Who would send a child to an exhibit that glorifies the greatest act of genocide, and basically a demented fairy tale?

  • Paul Neimoyer

    Freedom from Religion Foundation isn’t made up of atheists. It’s made up of folks who don’t want some else’s religion proselytized at them.

  • Mari Tatlow Steed

    FFRF is not an “atheist group.” They’re an organization that strives to uphold the separation between church and State, as outlined in the establishment clause of the First Amendment. They take no position on religion or its practice except as it affects taxpayer and government-funded institutions and spaces (such as public schools) where no religion (of any kind) should be endorsed.

    Its membership is comprised of both people of faith and of no faith. At least be accurate in your reporting.

    • Marshall P

      Yeah, let’s be accurate. They’re a hate group.

      • MarkSebree

        No, they are not. The FFRF does not meet the definition of a “hate group”.

      • Mari Tatlow Steed

        Riiight. That’s why they’re listed as one by SPLC, right? Oh wait…they’re not. You really need to up your game, Marshall. And quit stalking my comments.

        • Marshall P

          Your comment history is open. You hate Christians. Trying to pretend “I care about the Constitution” is just sugarcoating your hate.

          You atheists have committed the worst genocides in history. Ironically, you call yourselves “humanists.” You’re the worst killers in history.

          • Mari Tatlow Steed

            No, I don’t hate Christians. Or anyone, for that matter. I do hate that many religions have created unfortunate individuals like you.

          • Marshall P

            America is full of Christians. If you hate us so much, sell your trailer and move to a nice atheist country like North Korea.

            The irony of people like you talking of how “tolerant” and “inclusive” you are. What a joke.

  • Mike AQ

    Fake christians whining they can’t steal tax money to support their cult. Waah waah waah.

  • Thing 3

    If you keep religion in your homes and houses of worship and if you feel confident in your beliefs, you do not feel the need to foist religion on others or bring myths into public schools and foist them on the other parents’ children. Once a government supports religion, it must engage in persecutions and holy wars to maintain its ideology.

    I do not believe what you say above about the Founders. Most were Deists. But even if what you say were true, it would not alter the fact that religion does not belong in government.

    Our government must remain secular. We are a free country; we can choose to believe or choose not believe. That is the way it should be and you should not need to use taxpayer dollars to bolster your numbers and boost your confidence in the authenticity of your beliefs. If you truly believe what you say you believe, then believing will be enough.

  • George Mandom

    Why is it so hard to understand the separation of church and state? Practice your religion in your own time and with your own money. Stop using state and federal funds for your religion. Its that simple.

    • Reason2012

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

      Laws that allow people free exercise of religion only where those who hate it give their permission is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States of America.

      And no law was passed forcing them to go on this trip. so the establishment clause was not violated.

      Where is this “separation of church and state” in the Constitution that allows people who hate Christianity to make it illegal to have freedom of exercise except where those who hate it give their permission? Please cite /quote the exact place.

      • wolftimber

        “And no law was passed forcing them to go on this trip.”

        HOWEVER, public funds ala a public school’s resources, school buses paid for by the school district, and teachers salaried by the school district too would be used- THERE’S the violation

        • Reason2012

          Where’s that in the Constitution? Where does it say “if taxpayer money is used to go on a trip that in any way has Christianity..” in the Constitution?

          And where’s your outrage against all the “public funds” “school buses paid for by the school district” and “teachers alaried by the school district” going to mosques, being taught slavation through allah, and dressing up as muslims? Please cite those post from you.

          So much for pretending to care about such things in general, and really just being a pro-islam, anti-Christian activist.

          • wolftimber

            Separation of church and state, look it up

      • Trilemma

        Cancelling this field trip did not violate anyone’s right to free exercise of religion. Passing a law that would fund such field trips is a violation of the establishment clause.

        • Reason2012

          It wasn’t just cancelling one field trip. It’s legally banning any and all such field trips that have anything to do with Christianity – that’s a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment of free exercise of religion, how no law shall be passed prohibiting it.

          Christian seek people to be able to have the right to NOT go or the right to go – freedom. Atheist activists seek to enforce their fascism that NO one has the right to go.

          And meanwhile search public school islam and read all about schools in growing number teaching about islam, salvation through allah, the pillars of islam, and even taking field trips. And supposed atheist activists don’t do anything about it, which really shows they’re not atheists, but pro-islam activists.

      • wolftimber

        Anyone is free to go there on their own, just don’t expect the govt to pay for your trip

    • wolftimber

      I think we should start taxing churches as for-profit businesses, they rake in war chests full of cash, have their mega million dollar McChurches full of silver, gold, marble, stained glass, carved wood, valuable artifacts (even the Vatican sits on a pricess art collection) and they always seem to occupy the most valuable corner real estate in cities like NYC with these massive stone buildings where office space rents for hundreds of dollars a square FOOT! while they pay ZERO in taxes and all the other property owners near them have to pay higher taxes to make up for it, and then see that money go out of our country and over to AFRICA and Somalia instead of helping AMERICANS whose higher taxes are making it so they ARE tax exempt!

  • Reason2012

    Search on public school islam and read all about public school trips to mosques where kids are taught about salvation through_islam, are dressed up in_islam clothing, and how FFRF and “atheists acitivists” hardly ever say a word about it.

    It proves FFRF and atheist activists are instead really anti-Christian pro-islam activists.

  • Randy Wanat

    If the government were organizing a trip to a mosque, you can bet all these constitutionally ignorant folks would be howling about separation of church and state instead of bastardizing the first mendment when it comes to favoring their own religion.

  • Guzzman

    No government entity can lawfully be in the business of advancing or promoting religion. Ark Encounter is a proselytizing tool used by Ken Ham to promote his Christian fundamentalist version of history and science – he said so himself.

    Offering a government-sponsored trip that involves religious proselytizing is blatantly unconstitutional.

    • Reason2012

      No government entity can lawfully be in the business of advancing or promoting religion.

      Please cite the law that makes that free exercise of religion illegal.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        There isn’t one, nor is anyone talking about one.

        But government endorsement of religion is prohibited by the First Amendment and applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • Reason2012

    And yet call out these self-proclaimed “atheist activists” asking them to cite their posts denouncing the growing number of schools that use taxpayer money to take kids to mosques, be taught salvation through allah, and dress up as muslims. And when you see they don’t speak out about such things, you see how they’re really anti-Christian, pro-islam activists pretending to be atheists.

    • wolftimber

      so far you haven’t cited even ONE Public School doing that and make all kinds of silly claims! it’s up to YOU to prove your case, you made the claims post the actual links or News media broadcasts showing it, also, IF what you even claim ever happened, you should report it directly to the FFRF for action, they can’t monitor everything that happens daily across 50 states, it takes people bringing it to their attention

    • wolftimber

      “Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet
      the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for
      the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? please click here to send a heater to a refugee family”

      How come you aren’t clicking to send a heater to an AMERICAN refugee family living in their car or down by the river in makeshift cardboard boxes? here we have 20,000 American Veterans homeless and you people are mailing money, food, clothing and aid OVERSEAS to muslim countries happy to BOMB us and who cheered on 9/11

      I seriously think the IRS should be investigating these churches and start taxing them as businesses!

  • danoFL

    If the town had organized a trip to a Muslim shrine, how would you feel? Would you still be offended that it was canceled?

  • nnmns

    Ham’s waste of taxpayer dollars surely offends a lot of Christians, too. Far from all Christians are taken in by the fable of the Biblical flood. No municipality should waste their money or resources exposing citizens to that nonsense.

  • Laurie Comings Turner

    As a resident of Christiansburg I’m surprised my community leaders thought this was appropriate. Thank you FFRF for reminding them of the division between church and state.

  • johndoe

    At it again, the hate group Fanatical Foes of Religious Freedom. Way too cowardly to oppose Muslims.

    • Mari Tatlow Steed

      Guessing you missed the 2014 case in VA, where FFRF objected to a professor at a publicly-funded college. FFRF sent a letter in October 2014 asking Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) in Annandale, Va., to investigate Professor Daoud Nassimi’s class, which is described as an objective investigation of Islam “in its historical, religious, and political dimensions.”

      Instead, “this class has been used to proselytize students and advance belief in the existence of a god in an attempt to prove religious belief correct,” wrote Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott and Legal Fellow Katherine Paige. An audio recording and PowerPoint slides from a lecture on the existence of god obtained by FFRF show that Nassimi’s class is “a one-sided monologue by a government-paid employee whose agenda is to show the truth of religion – namely, the existence of a god.”

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ Escape from Egypt

    So, if the Freedom From Religion Foundation opposes the use of any religious material, in any activities, in the U.S. public schools, then what does it endorse as “good material” for the U.S. public schools? Only Scientism-based material? Studies, lessons, and discussions done only through the lens of Philosophical Naturalism? The endorsement of only Methological Naturalism-based ideas like The Theory of Evolution? What?

    I ask this question because, if the U.S. government is supposed to be completely neutral in the matter of religion, without qualification, then, by its own rule, it cannot take a position in favor of religion or against it, in any way. And I do not see how the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s strategy of purging all “religion-based material” from the U.S. public schools and leaving a vacuum for decidedly non-religious material (i.e. Scientism, Naturalism, etc.) to take its place in the U.S. public schools is in harmony with the idea that the U.S. government is supposed to be completely neutral in the matter of religion, without qualification.

    If anything, the Freedom From Religion Foundation seems to be doing just this: advancing their atheistic bias and what it entails, under the guise of “enforcing the Separation of Church and State”.

    • wolftimber

      science is not a religion or belief, it is observational and includes experiments that can be consistantly replicated by others and proven to be factual, for example, we know wood burns in fire and water freezes and turns to ice and expands at around 32ºF and there is no one who can do an experiment with either substance and disprove that fact. The same way science can measure the exact distance from earth to the moon to the fraction of an inch at any given moment, that is because due to science there is a mirror on the moon’s surface and using that and other instruments the distance is determined hardly any differently than measuring a room for carpets.
      It is aldo due to SCIENCE that we have microscopes that can see individual atoms making up material, it is due to science that the silly notion of old that sperm was fully formed babies in miniature, and that the woman was responsible for the gender of a baby, it was SCIENCE discovered the causes of disease and sickness was bacteria and virus particles the eye cant see, it was SCIENCE that put to rest the notion that the sun was some kind of god or magical entity and that the entire universe revolved around earth at it’s center as the CHURCH taught.
      We now know that the earth is but an insignificant, however unique “grain of sand” in a vast sea of uncountable trillions of “grains of sands” and that the sun is nothing more that a large sphere of burning gases and radioactive materials.

      A secular govt supports SCIENCE, since it is provable, peer reviewed, and replicatable, thus the govt supports SCIENCE studies in public schools, and the FFRF would of course support SCIENCE classes in schools as well.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ Escape from Egypt

        wolftimber (@wolftimber:disqus)

        First and foremost, I have to note that you really didn’t address the substance of my original post on this comment thread.

        To the contrary of doing so, you have ignored it and you have purposely “begged the question”, thrice, in the matters at hand, here, in order to allow yourself to just cut to forcibly pushing common atheist talking points, by “talking past me”, in a deliberate, artificial, forced way.

        – – – – – – – – – –

        wolftimber said: “science is not […]”

        Hold on. I’m going to have to stop you right there.

        In my original post on this comment thread, I was not speaking about Science. To the contrary of speaking about Science, I was speaking about things like Scientism, Philosophical Naturalism and, by extension, Methodological Naturalism, and other such things.

        I did so because the substance of such things, at their core, are not scientific. To the contrary of being scientific, they are non-provable, presupposed philosophies, which are masquerading as Science. Yet, even so, Atheists love to push these things, since they are the philosophical beliefs–yes, beliefs–which form the foundation of many (most?–I don’t know.) Atheists’ Atheism.

        In contrast, you are “begging the question”, in this matter, by ignoring what my original post on this comment thread said, on this matter, simply presupposing that your notion of Science is the true definition of “Science”, and working from there.

        In light of this, what I said in my original post on this comment thread remains valid, sound, and not addressed, in this respect.

        – – – – – – – – – –

        wolftimber said: “[…] the FFRF would of course support SCIENCE classes in schools as well.”

        How do you know that the Freedom From Religion Foundation supports teaching real Science, as opposed to teaching things like Scientism, Philosophical Naturalism and, by extension, Methodological Naturalism, and other such things, in the classrooms of the U.S. public schools? For instance, have you read a statement from them, where they clearly define and delineate what they want to be taught in the classrooms of the U.S. public schools? Or do you work for them and, thus, know, from personal experience, what they stand for (I wouldn’t be surprised, since it seems that lots of atheists have the Christian News Network on their “watch list”)?

        – – – – – – – – – –

        wolftimber said: “A secular govt […]”

        Hold on. Again, I’m going to have to stop you right there.

        Do you not agree that, in the matter of how it handles religion, the U.S. government must be strictly neutral? And do you believe that Secularism should be official, positive position of the U.S. government, which it should enforce?

        If your answer to these questions is “Yes.”, then I must ask: How are you not being hypocritical, when you speak out about preserving “the Separation of Church and State”, in the name of “preserving equality, under U.S. law”? Moreover, how are you not advocating Atheistic Socialism, in the realm of how the U.S. government should handle religion?

        As I already indicated: The U.S. government cannot be truly neutral in the matter of how it handles religion in the U.S., if it takes any official, positive position on the matter of religion. This is the case because, if it takes an official, positive position on the matter of religion, then it has only two choices:

        • Endorse and, thus, advocate and enforce the substance of religion, in some way (i.e. establish an official, government-run church of some sort).

        • Endorse and, thus, advocate and enforce the substance of non-religion, in some way (i.e. establish a purely secular government).

        • .Illustration: One can ask, “Does YHVH (or God) exist?”

        Now, logically speaking, there are only two answers to this question.

        • One answer is, “God does not exist.”

        • The other answer is, “God does exist.”

        “I don’t know.” [Logically speaking, this answer is not a real answer, for you cannot affirm and deny that YHVH (or God) exists, at the same time.]

        Thus, there are only two positions that one could take on this matter.

        Likewise, there are only two official, positive positions that the U.S. government can take on religion: officially affirm it and advocate it, in some positive way, or officially deny it and work against it, in some positive way.

        For this reason, if the U.S. government is supposed to be neutral towards the matter of how to handle religion (which it should be), then it cannot be either religious or secular, in nature. It just has to be silent, and that is it, on this matter. And, conversely, it has to, by its silence on this matter, delegate how to handle this matter to the U.S. people, in a reasonable way.

        So, in light of this, you can see (and should have seen) why I brought up this point, in my original post on this comment thread.

        In contrast, you are “begging the question” in this matter, by ignoring what my original post on this comment thread said, on this matter, simply presupposing your notion that the U.S. government is (and should be) a “secular” government”, and working from there.

        In light of this, what I said in my original post on this comment thread remains valid, sound, and not addressed, in this respect.

        – – – – – – – – – –

        Now, can we get to the substance of my original post on this comment thread, or are you determined to continually dodge it, by continually “begging the question”, here, in some way?

        If you are just going to try to continually dodge it, by continually “begging the question”, here, in some way, then I will not consider myself obligated to respond to you. That seems fair to me.

        • Chris

          Please define Scientism.

          Philosophical naturalism is defined as the position that nature is all there is. Please provide a citation for anyone suggesting this be taught in schools.

          Methodological naturalism, on the other hand is the heart of the scientific method.

        • Chris

          “Now, logically speaking, there are only two answers to this question.

          • One answer is, “God does not exist.”

          • The other answer is, “God does exist.””

          Incorrect. To pleade ignorance is certainly a third option. A fourth option is to plead apathy.

          “• “I don’t know.” [Logically speaking, this answer is not a real answer, for you cannot affirm and deny that YHVH (or God) exists, at the same time.]”

          Pleading ignorance has NOTHING to do with simultaneously affirming and denying anything. If I say that I don’t know if any other intelligent life exists in the universe I am not saying that there is and denying it at the same time. I am saying I do not know.

          Ignorance is defined by Merriam-Webster as “lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.” Not exactly the same as how you defined it is it?

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ Escape from Egypt

            @ Chris (@BoskMaster:disqus)

            Chris
            said: “Incorrect. To pleade [sic] ignorance is certainly a third
            option. A fourth option is to plead apathy.”

            /Looks at this answer again. Wow. Just, wow.

            Logically
            speaking, there is no way that you can make not knowing YHVH (or God)
            exists, being ignorant of if YHVH (or God) exists, being apathetic
            towards if YHVH (or God) exists, or any such thing another positive
            position in this issue, without affirming that both affirming and
            denying that YHVH (or God) exists, in some form, is a possible position
            to take. After all, that is what doing these things amount to: an
            attempt to both affirm and deny that YHVH (or God) exists, in some way.

            If
            you believe otherwise, then I defy you to explain how these things do
            not amount to attempting to both affirm and deny that YHVH (or God)
            exists, in some way, when you “boil this issue down”.

            But, as of
            right now, you are dancing around this point, and you are attempting to
            appeal to ambiguous things as counterexamples to what I have asserted
            here. And, in doing so, you are not thinking things through, at best,
            and you are being intellectually dishonest, at worst.

            Now, as I indicated to wolftimber,
            I am not going to play your games, or the games of any other atheist
            here, who wishes to play contrarian (that is what atheists do here). To
            the contrary of doing so, I will only respond to replies, which I feel
            merit a response.

          • Chris

            “Logically speaking, there is no way that you can make not knowing YHVH (or God) exists, being ignorant of if YHVH (or God) exists, being apathetic towards if YHVH (or God) exists, or any such thing another positive position in this issue, without affirming that both affirming and denying that YHVH (or God) exists, in some form, is a possible position to take.”

            Why? If I say that I do not know if a mountain higher than everest exists I am NOT claiming that it exists and doesn’t. I am merely claiming ignorance on the issue. Additionally I could also claim that I am apathetic on the issue.

            The same is true of God.

            “After all, that is what doing these things amount to: an attempt to both affirm and deny that YHVH (or God) exists, in some way.”

            Incorrect. Quote one dictionary which agrees with your statement.

            “Case in point: As some people have said, the self-professed, “professional” Agnostic is the lazy man’s version of Atheism.”

            Irrelevant. The two terms mean different things. Atheism deals with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge.

            “If you believe otherwise, then I defy you to explain how these things do not amount to attempting to both affirm and deny that YHVH (or God) exists, in some way, when you “boil this issue down”.”

            A claim to ignorance or apathy of an issue simply does not mean you both affirm and simultaneously deny the existence of something. So unless you are inventing the meaning of words your statement is meaningless.

            “But, as of right now, you are dancing around this point, and you are attempting to appeal to ambiguous things as counterexamples to what I have asserted here, a tactic which is essentially an appeal to ambiguity. And, in doing so, you are not thinking things through, at best, and you are being intellectually dishonest, at worst.”

            Once again please quote a dictionary which agrees with your definition of these words. Additionally if I was using ambiguity I wouldn’t be giving the meaning of the words.

            “Now, as I indicated to wolftimber, I am not going to play your games, or the games of any other Atheist, here, who wishes to play contrarian (that is what Atheists do here).”

            I am not an atheist and, since a contrarian is one who opposes another you fit that description as well.

            “To the contrary of doing so, I will only respond to replies, which I feel merit a response.”

            Then provide a quote from a dictionary which supports your definition of both the words ‘ignorance’ and ‘apathy’. Otherwise you are redefining words.

          • Earl Eakin

            The presence or absence of a deity is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a deity who responds to the supplications of simians floating on a grain of sand. Theism is the belief that there is not only a god, but also, that god can be persuaded by the performance of certain rituals. If there is a god who doesn’t respond, then that god has given us pure science. If there is a god who meddles with the laws of physics (by creating miracles), then those miracles should be statistically obvious. However, it appears that humans have longer life spans in locations where there is better scientific healthcare, not where there is more prayer. God does not work in mysterious ways, God works in statistically predictable ways. It just seems mysterious anecdotally. Those who pray and live can attribute their survival to their deity, and advertise their success, while those who pray and die cannot. Thus the statistics appear to be skewed in favor of the actions of a theist god when in reality, it’s just coincidence. And usually science because ambulances take people to hospitals, not churches.

          • Chris

            “Theism is the belief that there is not only
            a god, but also, that god can be persuaded by the performance of
            certain rituals.”

            Correct but not necessarily respond in a recognizable way.

            “If there is a god who doesn’t respond, then that god
            has given us pure science.”

            If God exists and doesn’t respond then He didn’t give us anything.

            “If there is a god who meddles with the laws
            of physics (by creating miracles), then those miracles should be
            statistically obvious.”

            Depending upon how such miracles are done. For example if God exists but wants to make His miracles look like coincidences then such miracles should meddle with anything.

            “However, it appears that humans have longer life
            spans in locations where there is better scientific healthcare, not
            where there is more prayer. God does not work in mysterious ways, God
            works in statistically predictable ways.”

            I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you’re getting at here.

            “It just seems mysterious
            anecdotally. Those who pray and live can attribute their survival to
            their deity, and advertise their success, while those who pray and die
            cannot.”

            No. They may attribute their survival to God but they may be wrong. Or correct. Depending upon the facts of the matter.

            “Thus the statistics appear to be skewed in favor of the actions
            of a theist god when in reality, it’s just coincidence. And usually
            science because ambulances take people to hospitals, not churches.”

            If you’re arguing that many people attribute their ‘miracles’ to what is, in fact, the work of science I couldn’t agree more.

          • Chris

            “Theism is the belief that there is not only a god, but also, that god can be persuaded by the performance of certain rituals.”

            I think you are confusing ‘theism’ – belief in the existence of a deity or deities – with monotheism – belief in the existence of only one deity.

            There are a number of options in theism besides monotheism. For example deism, dualism, and so on.

    • Earl Eakin

      Scientific observation is repeatable.

  • Earl Eakin

    That boat cost so much it only proves that Noah was a 1%er. Not that it will float anyway lol. What a crock of ignorance. I’m a member of FFRF and I’m thrilled that they are drawing a line between democracy and theocracy.

    • AustinRocks

      Wow, “thrilled” at bashing Christians.

      Get a life.

      • Earl Eakin

        Straw Man Fallacy.

    • Reason2012

      Public school money is being used to send kids to mosques, learn all about salvation through allah and the seven pillars, and even dress up as muslim. Search public school islam to read all about growing number of cases. So please cite your posts denouncing this. Of course you will not, which shows you’re not really an atheist, but a pro-islam activist using atheism to attack Christianity. Just wanted to make sure others were aware of what’s really going on.

      • Earl Eakin

        Atheism is a rejection of theism of every form. But you don’t have to be atheist to support separation of church and state. Theocracy is fantastic when it’s your religion in charge. It sucks for everyone else. I’m sure we don’t want each other’s religion being forced on us and our kids. So you keep yours and I’ll keep mine and we’ll both keep them out of our schools and government. Contrary to popular belief, FFRF objects to Islam being taught in public schools. It just doesn’t happen that often in the Bible belt. Islam is a statistical blip compared to the dominant cultural superstition. When you see it happen, though, send an email to FFRF and they’ll help you defend your community and country against theocracy of any kind. Don’t worry, I send them money, so I got your back on this.

      • FHRITP

        I’m anti-Islam. I “reason” that the actions of other schools is irrelevant as to whether public school trips to the Ark should not be allowed. I believe they should not be allowed. Do you?

  • Earl Eakin

    Christian ladies, I hereby invoke 1 Timothy 2:12. Please refrain from further comments in deference to the Lord. This subject is for the men to decide. If you don’t like it, complain to God. It ain’t my rule. I’m just following it.

  • Earl Eakin

    How do you sink Ken Ham’s ark? Put it in water. $102 million and we’re supposed to believe that this proves that one dude built one like it without a lumber mill and power tools? And then he rounded up kangaroos, pandas and kiwi birds to put on it? If anything, this monstrosity proves that believers are idiots. However, their IQ does support the theory that certain people among us did indeed descend from inbreeding. I guess that’s why they put this ridiculous hunk of junk in Kentucky. Really, have some self respect, people.

    • FHRITP

      Indeed, you act like an immature FFRF member which is to state you act just like many Christians, ie. to those who don’t agree with you, you respond with insults. Really, have some self respect, Earl and please do atheists a favor and stay off our side.

      • Earl Eakin

        Oh yeah, like I built a monstrosity in Kentucky glorifying the boating adventures of a pious and incestuous family. As it has been said, if it’s okay to correct someone when they say 2+2=5, then it’s also okay to correct someone when they say some guy built a giant boat and put two of every animal on it. Noah’s Ark is a children’s make-believe story. It is indeed embarrassing for an adult to believe such claptrap. And it’s perfectly fine to proclaim that.

        • FHRITP

          Nice use of the strawman fallacy. At issue is NOT Earl ‘correct[ing] [others]. At issue is EARL’s immature, disrespectful attitude toward those who don’t agree with him, Earl’s use of ad hominem attacks. It’s NOT perfectly fine to issue ad hominem attacks.

        • FHRITP

          Incidently what do you mean it’s embarrassing for an adult to believe such a story? Embarrassing for whom? Surely Earl doesn’t take it upon hisself to act like a deity by deciding for others what reactions they will have, such as embarrassment. Yet surely Earl’s level of self respect is high enough that Earl feels no personal embarrassment regardless of the reactions of strangers. Since neither scenario seems to make much sense, I disagree it’s perfectly fine to proclaim that.

  • UnaGeiger

    The USA is a secular state, meaning Church and State are separate. Period.
    Any religion and the use thereof is like a penis, don’t show it in public and don’t shove it down my throat. Simple. What you think about how we came to pass, is your own thing. If you need to believe in Creationism, so be it, but do it in private in your own home. Let’s face it SCIENCE can disprove about almost anything that has been written in the Bible, beginning with the flat Earth, to the age of the Earth and the big flood.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      Thank you for publicly displaying your utter ignorance. At least you’re in good company with your fellow trolls on here.

      Now, let’s deal with some FACTS!

      1) The USA is NOT a secular state. Obviously your either to ignorant or lazy to look at a dictionary so let me help you:

      Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

      Now, let’s look at our founding documents., Staring with the DOI the recognition that rights come from our Creator and “Nature’s God”. THAT is hardly an attitude that has no religious or spiritual basis!! Duh!

      Now let’s go to the Constitution. The very first amendment is given to promote the freedom to exercise religion and to prohibit Congress from curtailing that. Again,m THAT is hardly an attitude that has no religious or spiritual basis!! Duh! Also, every single Signer of the Constitution publicly and permanently acknowledged that Jesus Christ IS Lord. d THAT is hardly an attitude that has no religious or spiritual basis!! Duh!

      Secondly, thanks for showing your complete lack of manners and utter disrespect for your fellow man. You come to a CHRISTIAN page and have the audacity to say, “If you need to believe in Creationism, so be it, but do it in private in your own home.”!!!

      All you’ve done is show how uncouth and downright rude you and the other God-hating trolls are. This is the CHRISTIAN Post page. NOT Atheists Int’l.

      We Christians don’t have to wonder what the atheists, LGBTQABCXYZs, and other God-haters would say to a Christian who came to one of their sites just to “confront lies and stop privilege” or “give you guys an opposing viewpoint”! No, in truth you are here because you are doing hou father’s bidding. Eph. 2:1-4.

      Fact is you trolls don’t even have the common decency to know that you don’t go into somebody’s home and start ragging on them about how they live!!

      But I reckon that’s what I get for thinking that even atheists might’ve learned some manners. Oh, you’ll come back with “the internet is public” or some other such excuse to continue your rude and loutish behavior, as evidenced by the very choice of your crude language in the post, but that doesn’t get around the fact they are intentionally trolling a CHRISTIAN page. NO getting around that.

      I’d love to hear from all the Homofascist, Atheist, God-hating trolls, how much time do you spend trolling muslim sites and harassing them? Or is your hatred focused solely on the One True God and His true children?

      The fact is if Atheists REALLY believed there was no God they would be living it up, getting every ounce of self-gratification and hedonistic pleasure they could.

      Third, no, you can choose to live in your fantasy world and Denial to the cows come home. That’s your choice but, NO, one day you WILL face the FACT that Science it did not and CAN NOT disprove A SINGLE THING that has been written in the Bible. Not the flat Earth (and, in fact, it was the Bible who spoke of the Earth being round BEFORE Science ever did – way before!! But why would anyone expect a narrow-minded – err, make that CLOSE-MINDED, bigoted cretin to know that.), nor the age of the Earth nor the big flood.

      In FACT, those who are intellectually honest KNOW that Science can NOT prove any of those things because they KNOW what Scientists are teaching today are NOT facts. They are interpretations of observations!!

      Don’t miss that!! Scientists are NOT teaching facts but rather interpretations of observations. And those interpretations come from a Starting Point based on their Worldview. It is absolutely imperative to understand this in order to use critical thinking when evaluating what they are saying.

      Buty hey, in addition to showing your ignorance I wanna thank you for putting your heart on public display as well.

      “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.” (Matt. 15:18)

      “The good man out of the good [fn]treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from [fn]that which fills his heart.” (Luke 6:45)

      • WhiteGhetto

        You cut and paste a lot.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Well, actually most of that I wrote without C&P but, yes, I do when I can. No use in wasting time with the likes of you who only come here to harass – as evidenced by that very comment. There is nothing in it that’s edifying.

          Besides, the same old regurgitated gruel continues to be spewed from the various mouths who curse God and come here to show it. So they get the same VERY old TRUTH given back to them. C&P just saves me the time to do it.

          Thank you.

          • WhiteGhetto

            OH come on you seem to delight in this.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not at all. I’d much rather come and read the article and perhaps have some discussion with fellow Believers than constantly have to refute you and your ilk’s lies.

            But hey, thanks for showing that your since of discernment and judgment is as off as everything else you’ve been saying.

          • MarkSebree

            “I’d much rather come and read the article and perhaps have some discussion with fellow Believers than constantly have to refute you and your ilk’s lies.”

            So you would rather have an echo chamber where everyone thinks like you do than to actually have to think and defend your ideas and claims to people who have different experiences and who believe differently than you do. You have not shown that anyone who disagrees with you is actually lying, and you are have been trying to avoid supporting the claims that you make, especially when those claims of yours are obvious lies.

            “But hey, thanks for showing that your since of discernment and judgment is as off as everything else you’ve been saying.”

            Since everything that WhiteGhetto has been saying has been spot on and accurate, that means that his discernment and judgement have been spot on and accurate as well. Thus, you have given him a compliment.

            You, however, have not shown much discernment, objectivity, or judgement at all. You dodge questions. You refuse to support your own claims. You try to shift the burden of proof after you have made positive assertions. You engage in all manner of logical fallacies in your hubris. You CLAIM that you are right, but you cannot SHOW that you are right. That is why your claims fail.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “So you would rather have…”

            No. Note there is no Question Mark at the end of your false conclusion drawn from your delusional faux omniscience.

            “especially when those claims of yours are obvious lies.”

            Only in your deluded mind. I’ve told no lies.

            “Since everything that WhiteGhetto has been saying has been spot on…”

            Only in your deluded, reprobate mind.

            “You, however, have not shown…”

            Only in your deluded mind. Thank you for publicly displaying your blindness.

            “You refuse to support your own claims.”

            Wrong. I’ve stated fact and sources.

            My claims have not only not failed they stand proven today and one day there will be NO doubt in even your mind.

          • WhiteGhetto

            Incredible mendacity and a poor propagandist too. You have repeatedly made claims with out evidence. In fact you’ve done so and then demanded that others provide the evidence to support your laughable contentions

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Incredible mendacity and a poor propagandist too. You have repeatedly made claims with out evidence. In fact you’ve done so and then demanded that others provide the evidence to support your laughable contentions

          • WhiteGhetto

            As I said previous. You enjoy cutting and pasting. Just like a child.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually, that wasn’t child-like at all. But I wouldn’t expect you to see that. Nor the Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket as PROVEN by repeating your own words back to you in a most fitting way.

            But hey, thanks for showing your best and that all ya got is empty rhetoric. Typical Liberal bankrupt blather and bloviating.

            The only thing laughable is the continued Denial expressed by that which is, and has been, so easily proven to be false by the very black & white letters printed on the page.

      • zeddicuskotor

        Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant any authority to anything supernatural. That makes it a secular document. Instead, its power is derived by the people.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Wrong. The Constitution was built on the foundation of the DOI which clearly states that the natural rights of People are inalienable and come from the Creator.

          John Adams, one of our key Founding Fathers, said ” Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

          Adams, who also wrote the Constitution of Massachusetts, was instrumental in the U.S Constitution and it was, in fact, his MA Constitution that was used as a pattern for the U.S. Constitution.

          Now, if you still have any doubts as to whether the U.S. Constitution is a secular document, I suggest you go read the MA Constitution. That should remove any doubt you have. That is if you have any reasoning abilities

          Or you could just go back up and read what I wrote before you spewed your regurgitated blather which only served to publicly display your ignorance of Historical facts and God-hating bigotry.

          • zeddicuskotor

            And yet nowhere in the constitution does it grant authority to anything supernatural. It specifically grants power to the people.

            You should try reading it sometime.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            What an ignorant statement. Thank you. I swear you folks never cease to amaze me. Not only do you say completely stupid stuff like that but you actually post it for anyone else to see it!!

            Evidently you have never heard of or at the very least have no concept of “Delegated Powers”. Duh!!!

            Ya know what, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to suck up air that could be put to better use and yet you do. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically say that a clergyman has the right to pronounce a man and woman as husband and wife but they do.

            I could go on but, hey, I’ll stop there and just say you’ve earned yourself another:

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • zeddicuskotor

            “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

            Nowhere is anything supernatural mentioned. Instead, the power is derived by the people. That makes it a secular document.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            How many of those do you want to gather??

            I could talk to you about the language used there but your obviously too self-deluded and entrenched in Denial for that to do any good.

            So, for the sake of anyone else reading this, I’ll just say this. Take note of the typical Liberal weapon of distraction. Look above at all the EVIDENCE that I specifically listed for the Constitution NOT being a “secular document”.

            Does citing the very definition of “secular” matter to the infantile cretins who wilfully reject objective Truth? No!

            How about referencing the very statements by a Founding Father and major influence on the drafting of the Constitution? No!

            How about actually reading the Constitution and seeing the evidence that every single Signer of the Constitution acknowledged Jesus as Lord? NO!

            So what do we make of their persistent, repeated, public displays of ignorance and downright Denial? Only that this IS who you’re dealing with. A group of people that have given themselves over to a reprobate mind where all manner of reason and eye-witnessed evidence is simply rejected.

            And there you have it.

          • zeddicuskotor

            What your failure is about is confusing the term secular. Christians can be secularists and create a secular government. Not everyone wants to live in a theocracy.

            The ironic and hilarious thing about your incoherent rambling is how historically illiterate it is. Since there is another American constitution that does invoke the supernatural.

            The Confederate States of America’s Constitution.

            “We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

            Thank Zombie Jesus that the CSA lost. Secular governance is clearly better than a theocracy.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Thanks. “Christians can be secularists”. LOL

            Thanks for publicly displaying once again that language has no meaning to a Liberal. Nevermind what the Dictionary says. Nevermind what the meaning of a word has been for decades or even centuries. Just make it mean what you want it to.

            So I’m not gonna waste my time once AGAIN explaining what “secular” means nor “theocracy” for that matter. I’ll just simply say that no Christian I know of wants a Theocracy either. At least not until Jesus comes back.

            The ironic and hilarious thing about your incoherent rambling is how historically illiterate it is.

            Now, hopefully your little blasphemy will end this discussion.

          • zeddicuskotor

            So which preamble do you like the best? USA or CSA?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I actually like the CSA better but it doesn’t matter because they both say the same thing.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Thanks for agreeing with slavers.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Typical Liberal regurgitated puke. That the best ya got? Wait, don’t answer that. We already know the answer. You’ve shown it time after time again.

            Thanks for the blessing!

          • zeddicuskotor

            You just approved the CSA constitution.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No dimwit, don’t be such an ignoramus. I just approved of the wording of the Preamble for which you put. That’s all. And like I said, our current Constitution says the same thing.

            Can ya at least try to use a little intelligence if you’re gonna attempt to put words in my mouth?

          • zeddicuskotor

            Approve the preamble and you approve of the intentions and principals of those that wrote it, which were slavers.

            Thanks for showcasing to everyone how evil you are.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, you’re quite welcome. I’ll take that characterization in the context of the source it came from. LOL

            Everyone can see just what a shining light of Goodness and Holiness and Righteousness you are! LOL

          • zeddicuskotor

            The source comes from slavers, one that you endorsed.

            Shame.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. The “source” I referred to was YOU!! So you’re a slaver? Who wudda thunk. You just earned yourself another:

            ‘Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.’ – Plato

            And thank for showing what you think of our Founding Fathers. Like George Washington for example.

          • MarkSebree

            “A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato”

            Well, you certainly have been proving yourself to be a fool, and you have been removing all doubt of that with each of your posts. You are showing that you are nowhere close to being wise.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            There’s that Giant Sequoia Tree again. Can’t find a chainsaw? Here, let me define fool for you:

            “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psa. 14:1, 53:1)

            “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1st Cor. 1:18)

            Now, come on back and talk about what a fool is again because I’ve got a whole slew of Proverbs just waiting to share with you. LOVE the opportunity to shine my light on your foolishness when I can.

          • MarkSebree

            “There’s that Giant Sequoia Tree again. Can’t find a chainsaw? ”

            Oh, I can find a chainsaw, but since I have no idea where you live, I cannot remove that Sequoia from your eyes.

            “Here, let me define fool for you:
            “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psa. 14:1, 53:1)
            “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1st Cor. 1:18)

            Now, come on back and talk about what a fool is again because I’ve got a whole slew of Proverbs just waiting to share with you. LOVE the opportunity to shine my light on your foolishness when I can.”

            Yes, I am familiar with these verses. And unlike you, I understand their intent. They are to keep the bleating sheep from listening to those who are wiser, better educated, and more reasoned thinkers who are also not bound by your beliefs. They are to keep the sheep from thinking for themselves, and possibly realizing what a con job and scam they have submitted themselves to. It is to keep the sheep from realizing what fools they really are, and to keep the conmen who reap the profits of their belief in the money and the easy life.

            Here are some more quotes about fools for you. Given how much a fool you are, you should be able to relate to them.

            “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain – and most fools do.”
            Benjamin Franklin

            “A fool and his money are soon elected.”
            Will Rogers (and describes our current President, unfortunately)

            “Any man is liable to err, only a fool persists in error.”
            Marcus Tullius Cicero

            “Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool.”
            Charles Simmons

            “It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own.”
            Marcus Tullius Cicero

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Here’s another and much better Proverb than those you gave:

            “There is a way which seems right to a man,
            But its end is the way of death.” Proverbs 14:12

            Thanks for showing the authorities you get your wisdom from. That speaks as well as anything to your ” to those who are wiser, better educated, and more reasoned thinkers”.

            No thanks. I’ll stick with God!!

    • Darren H

      Flagged.
      Take your vulgarity to the saloon, it doesn’t belong here.

      • WhiteGhetto

        Yes how dare he offer facts! Ruffian