Atheist Activist Group Sues Trump Over Order Allowing Electioneering From Pulpit

MADISON, Wisc. — A prominent professing atheist organization has filed suit against President Donald Trump over his religious freedom executive order, which directs the IRS not to enforce the federal Johnson Amendment, a law passed in 1954 that prohibits electioneering (favoring or disfavoring any political candidate) from the pulpit.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserts that Trump’s order is unfair because it only applies to religious nonprofits and not secular organizations.

“Trump is communicating to churches that his administration will not enforce the Johnson Amendment,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “The IRS needs clear direction that it must enforce the law equally.”

As previously reported, Trump signed the order on Thursday—the National Day of Prayer—in the White House rose garden in front of a diverse interfaith audience including evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Orthodox, Muslims and Sikhs.

“No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors,” he declared during his speech. “America has a rich tradition of social change beginning in our pews and our pulpits. … [And] we must never infringe on the noble tradition of change from the church and progress from the pew.”

“Under my administration, free speech does not end at the steps of a cathedral or synagogue, or any other house of worship,” Trump proclaimed. “We are giving churches their voices back. We are giving them back in the highest form.”

However, FFRF says that Trump lacks the constitutional authority to “selectively veto a legitimate statute” signed into law more than 50 years ago, and asserts that the president is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that his order is not applied equally to both religious and secular groups.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The intended policy of selective non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions against churches and other religious organizations was designed and intended for the purpose of advancing the interests of churches and religious organizations above the interests of similarly situated nonreligious organizations, by allowing the former to engage in electioneering activities while the latter cannot,” its lawsuit contends.

The group also argues that the order chills FFRF’s First Amendment right to free speech while allowing religious entities to speak freely during election season.

It therefore is asking that the court declare Trump’s executive order unconstitutional, being a violation of the Take Care Clause requiring that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” as well as an ultra vires act flouting the separation of powers.

The U.S. Department of Justice is vowing to defend the order, however, which it believes to be in line with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

“We will vigorously defend the order and the exercise of religious freedom in America,” spokesman Ian Prior told the Chicago Tribune on Friday.

According to historical documents, Election Day sermons were common in early America, beginning in the days of the Puritans and continuing after the official founding of the nation.

“The ancient advice dictated to Moses, by the priest of Midian, and approved of God, is admirably calculated, civil fathers, for your direction on this occasion. Tis a significant compendium of the qualifications of the persons whom you ought to favor with your suffrages: ‘Thou shalt provide out of all the people, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, and hating covetousness, and place such over them,'” Gad Hitchcock preached in 1774, pointing to Exodus 18:21.

“[A]bove all, suffer me to remind you that you act for God, and under his inspection, by whose providence this trust is committed to you, and that you must one day give an account to Him whose eyes are as a flame of fire, of the motives of your conduct,” he declared.


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. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • libertynottyranny

    The mental gymnastics & twisted logic these”atheist” groups go through to stake their claims is truly dizzying. Their madness only trumped by the judges that give heed to their schizophrenic arguments & double-speak.

    It is getting so difficult to hold back venom from these idiots, but alas vengeance belongs to the LORD. So, we must suffer these fools a little while longer. Please…return Lord Jesus, return!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      So you think it’s okay for a president to direct his agencies not to enforce the law?

      • Amos Moses

        all law is SELECTIVELY enforced ……….. so nothing new there ………..

      • libertynottyranny

        You mean like the previous president & the immigration laws? oh that’s right, you were hoppin mad that he refused to uphold those laws…

        Go sell crazy someplace else.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          That in no way answers my question.

          • libertynottyranny

            That is b/c your hypocritical “question” doesn’t deserve one.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So I can only assume, then, that you believe that Trump was right to order the Treasury Department not to enforce the law.

          • libertynottyranny

            Oh I’m sure you could assume more than that. You can assume whatever you want.

            No president is above the law & the supreme law of the land is the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence. But presidents (& the courts & congress) have been walking all over them for quite some time now (& save all your legal wrangling about SCOTUS rulings, rulings that violate the very conscience of the law they swore to uphold – they only twist the dictum “a nation of laws, not men” into “a nation of men, not laws”).

            & none has violated the law more so than the previous president – at least not in recent memory. But you & yours walked lock step w/ him in lawlessness. So, if you feel at all uncomfortable now, don’t come looking to me for sympathy.

            Whereas you may think you can “legislate” your version of “utopia”, while you place the shackles of immorality & legal ligaments about the necks of mankind, I see w/ clarity where this nation is headed as it continues its assault on life, liberty of conscience, justice, & the laws of nature’s Creator. No mortal man (or president or court or nation) can stand up to His judgement. But “good luck” trying – I only lament for all the people of good will that will be brought down w/ you & your beloved court rulings.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If “no president is above the law,” then I can only assume you disagree with Trump’s executive order, requiring the IRS not to enforce the law. Is that correct?

          • Sharon_at_home

            I think that his question deserves a better answer than saying that the previous president didn’t uphold the immigration laws either? That’s just saying do you agree with this situation? and answer is there is another situation that happened before! Which doesn’t give an answer to his question to you, Libertynottyrany. He just asked if you supported having laws ignored not if there was another situation.
            I also don’t understand how it is a hypercritical question… AC never puts any question out that isn’t a valid question like that. And it’s a simple question that only really needed a Yes I agree with it, or No I don’t.
            Is there a reason why you can’t answer the question?
            And before you expect me to be “this”, I am a Christian but I don’t agree with it when Christians are rude about the sinners of this world. If you want to be like that it should be done in private. Do you know why? Because Jesus wants us to love everyone and for our lights to shine because we are Christians (and are supposed to be good people). He wouldn’t want a Christian to be so vocal about others’ sins in such a rude way.
            So I wouldn’t call for Jesus’ return to be too quickly, because you should change your attitude before he does.
            Jesus pointed out that we are all sinners, so why do your sin and their sin mean any different. To God they are all sins. Yes some are worse than others but they all can be repented and forgiven – and forgotten by God. There is no one who is guaranteed to not turn to God right to the end of their lives. God chooses who is called by their hearts which we can’t know.
            So should I find out what your other sins are and start to be rude to you about them? My mother would say “Tit for tat”. And yet you say revenge is the Lord’s as if by being rude to someone isn’t convicting them of their sin before Jesus does. Do you think that the Lord will look at your sin any differently than anyone else who sins. You are only forgiven for the sins you know about – and now you know this is being sinful, you’ll need to repent and not be rude about others’ sins any more.
            But of course that would mean I am convicting you of your sin too wouldn’t it, although I truly meant it as advice and explanation.
            To be honest, I am annoyed with how many supposed Christians act because it reflects on those of us that don’t think Jesus would want us to do be that way.
            Only once did he get angry with anyone (the money changers in the church) and that was from a prophecy that Jesus had to fulfill.
            As a Christian I try to reflect our Lord Jesus Christ in my every action. Sometimes it isn’t easy either, but I try continuously to behave the way he would/did. I’m human, so I know I will fail, but I still try even after I fail.
            This is what my Pastor has taught me from the Word of God about what He wanted Christians to behave like.
            BTW talking that way about any sinner will not bring them to Jesus, and if anything at all, it would push them away from it. How will you bring them to Jesus with that attitude?
            I hope this makes you think.

          • libertynottyranny

            I didn’t say I couldn’t answer his question, I said I wouldn’t. But you were all to eager to pounce on me w/ your criticism (based on your unfounded claims) to distinguish between the two.

            As to Christ’s return, I’m going to stick w/ sooner is better than later – regardless of how you judge me. My only righteousness is in Christ (in my flesh dwells no good thing) & I’m tired of the struggle here in the swamp. So yes, return Lord Jesus, return.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Then if you could answer why exactly didn’t you? The way you prevaricated around the subject I didn’t think you were interested in answering but were only interested in being critical or rude. And BTW you still haven’t answered if you agree with a president that tells their staff to not obey a law. It’s actually a simple yes or no is all you need to say. So you answered the question and it didn’t ask for an explanation, so you aren’t expected (lol) to give an explanation.

            As far as you being tired of the struggle here in the swamp, be careful. The Lord told us not to be weary unto the end. The end times are coming but God knows the best time to begin each thing that is supposed to happen first. You will recognize each prophecy and can get excited when it’s closer than ever. I pray you will find the peace and joy that comes with believing in Jesus accepting him into your heart. If you are in a trial, ask God to help and it won’t last too long, and he will bless you for going to him and for believing that he would help. I would be happy to listen to you if you need someone to lend an ear. I am praying that God will bless you so you won’t feel so weary of this world. God bless you.

          • libertynottyranny

            I did answer, so either you have very poor reading comprehension or you are simply ignoring the facts for some ulterior motive. Which is it?

            Yes, I confess, I was critical of his hypocritical question – intentionally so. He thought he was going to catch me in a contradiction, when in fact it is he that is contradicting himself – which was the whole point of my response – why can you not see that? So, may I suppose that you would accuse Christ of prevaricating when He conversed w/ the legalists?

            Speaking of the Lord, He actually said to not grow weary of doing good – He never said not to grow weary of this world (or have you not read that His patience of putting up w/ this world’s rejection of Him & His commandments has a limit? Or how He destroyed the world in the flood b/c it had grown so evil? Or how Peter warns that He will destroy it again for the same reason? 2 peter 3).

            He also said what place does light have w/ darkness. You sucking up to/siding w/ the world is no way to win converts. Or maybe you missed John’s address to Herod when he told him to repent? (I’m pretty sure he didn’t Facebook friend him). Or how Paul & Barnabas shook the dust off their feet (heeding the Lords advice in Matt 10, Mark 6, & Luke 9) at the synagogue in Antioch at those who didn’t fear God & railed against them? Or have you not read where the Lord said not to cast your pearls amongst swine?

            Lastly I appreciate the offer to talk to me & set me right, however (the Lord not withstanding), my wife would most certainly not approve.

            2Peter 3:1-13  Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminderthat you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of creation.”

            For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

            Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

          • libertynottyranny

            I did answer, so either you have very poor reading comprehension or you are simply ignoring the facts for some ulterior motive. Which is it?

            Yes, I confess, I was critical of his hypocritical question – intentionally so. He thought he was going to catch me in a contradiction, when in fact it is he that is contradicting himself – which was the whole point of my response – why can you not see that? So, may I suppose that you would accuse Christ of prevaricating when He conversed w/ the legalists?

            Speaking of the Lord, He actually said to not grow weary of doing good – He never said not to grow weary of this world (or have you not read that His patience of putting up w/ this world’s rejection of Him & His commandments has a limit? Or how He destroyed the world in the flood b/c it had grown so evil? Or how Peter warns that He will destroy it again for the same reason? 2 peter 3).

            He also said what place does light have w/ darkness. You sucking up to/siding w/ the world is no way to win converts. Or maybe you missed John’s address to Herod when he told him to repent? (I’m pretty sure he didn’t Facebook friend him). Or how Paul & Barnabas shook the dust off their feet (heeding the Lords advice in Matt 10, Mark 6, & Luke 9) at the synagogue in Antioch at those who didn’t fear God & railed against them? Or have you not read where the Lord said not to cast your pearls amongst swine?

            Lastly I appreciate the offer to talk to me & set me right, however (the Lord not withstanding), my wife would most certainly not approve.

            2Peter 3:1-13  Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminderthat you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of creation.”

            For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

            Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

          • libertynottyranny

            I did answer, you are simply ignoring it because you don’t like it. But I answered.

            Yes, I confess, I was critical of his hypocritical question – intentionally so. He thought he was going to catch me in a contradiction, when in fact it is he that is contradicting himself – which was the whole point of my response – why can you not see that? So, may I suppose that you would accuse Christ of prevaricating when He conversed w/ the legalists?

            Speaking of the Lord, He actually said to not grow weary of doing good – He never said not to grow weary of this world (or have you not read that His patience of putting up w/ this world’s rejection of Him & His commandments has a limit? Or how He destroyed the world in the flood b/c it had grown so evil? Or how Peter warns that He will destroy it again for the same reason? 2 peter 3).

            He also said what place does light have w/ darkness. You codling to/siding w/ the world is no way to win converts. Or maybe you missed John’s address to Herod when he told him to repent? Or how Paul & Barnabas shook the dust off their feet (heeding the Lords advice in Matt 10, Mark 6, & Luke 9) at the synagogue in Antioch at those who didn’t fear God & railed against them? Or have you not read where the Lord said not to cast your pearls before swine?

            2Peter 3:1-13  Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminderthat you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of creation.”

            For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

            Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

          • libertynottyranny

            I did answer, you are simply ignoring it because you don’t like it. But I answered.

            Yes, I confess, I was critical of his hypocritical question – intentionally so. He thought he was going to catch me in a contradiction, when in fact it is he that is contradicting himself – which was the whole point of my response – why can you not see that? So, may I suppose that you would accuse Christ of prevaricating when He conversed w/ the legalists?

            Speaking of the Lord, He actually said to not grow weary of doing good – He never said not to grow weary of this world (or have you not read that His patience of putting up w/ this world’s rejection of Him & His commandments has a limit? Or how He destroyed the world in the flood b/c it had grown so evil? Or how Peter warns that He will destroy it again for the same reason? 2 peter 3).

            He also said what place does light have w/ darkness. You codling to/siding w/ the world is no way to win converts. Or maybe you missed John’s address to Herod when he told him to repent? Or how Paul & Barnabas shook the dust off their feet (heeding the Lords advice in Matt 10, Mark 6, & Luke 9) at the synagogue in Antioch at those who didn’t fear God & railed against them? Or have you not read where the Lord said not to cast your pearls before swine?

            2Peter 3:1-13  Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminderthat you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of creation.”

            For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

            Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

          • libertynottyranny

            That’s so cute ambulance chaser – keep up the juvenile antics & mark the post as spam. That’s so 3rd grade mature of you. But hey, if you can’t handle the intellectual discourse, then just shut up the opposing view, right? You would have made such a great H youth in the late 30s germany. Enjoy it while you can, your wages will come due in time.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Ambulance chaser is not one to remove a post for any reason other than that it’s content is abusive. We are all supposed to report those posts. Maybe it wasn’t AC that deleted it, but the Admin because someone flagged it as spam.
            And BTW you should try to reply to the one that said the comment in the posts. Not someone who replied to them without mentioning their post. Thanks!

          • libertynottyranny

            Mm hmm…right. You claim to know a lot about what is in ambulance chasers heart – know him well do you? Actually I addressed it exactly where I intended. It’s called smoking out a rat (or swine as the case may be). & it may be there is more than one.

            Abusive huh? So what precisely did/do you (&/or AC – you obviously know “him” very well, & can speak for him) find “abusive” about Matthew 7:1-6 & 2Peter 3? Or Matthew 10, Mark 6, Luke 9, & Acts 13?

            Odd that a professing believer would find the Word of God abusive/offensive. AC I get – “he” has much to fear & given his state I can see that he might be “offended” especially as it pierces his conscience. Doesn’t excuse his actions & intellectual dishonesty, but him I get him (he’s intellectually weak in addition to being a lost soul). You on the other hand…

            Well, if nothing else you’ve confirmed to me which side you’re on. & if that last post offended you two then this one must drive you mad.

            Certainly if I played by your & ACs rules, I’d report everything you post as abusive/offensive to reason & common sense. But alas, even those that I disagree w/ & think foolish have a right to speak, so I choose not to return in kind. But you go ahead & report this as “abusive” as well – we both know you (& ac) have no other “defense”. But hey, you’re both great at jumping to conclusions & making (ill founded) assumptions, so…

          • Sharon_at_home

            You know what I’m not on their side, I’m on God’s. But you take our duty to help people to come to Jesus and destroy the chance of them converting by the way you talk. Whether it’s the truth or not, Jesus would not want you to be rude. Jesus wanted us to try to bring them to Jesus but he did not say to bring them unwillingly, he stated that he did not want the unwilling. Talking to them like they are less than human is not going to make them want to know Jesus when to them you are convicting them already.
            Stand up for God, yes, but don’t treat others like you don’t think much of them because of their sin. You are a sinner as well.

          • libertynottyranny

            A sinner I am. If by pointing out hypocrisy, you think rude then I am guilty. But the charges you’ve leveled (& don’t forget you inserted yourself in this) are unfounded.

            My job is not to bend over backwards & agree w/ everything you or AC say “in order to win them for Jesus”. If I thought for a moment he’d listen I’d take a different tact. But he isn’t interested in listening, he is only interested in dragging people into an arguments & attacking the brethren. As you stated Christ isn’t interested in the unwilling – & ac has shown himself to be not only unwilling but hostile to the gospel & the church.

            I wasn’t trying to convert ac (like you, he inserted himself in the convo – asking a hypocritical question) & I answered accordingly. The fact that you didn’t like my answer does not make it rude (it was not). I don’t care one whit about ac’s sin. What sin did I berate him over (again you are making false charges)? Christ’s payment for his sin is just as valid as yours & mine & is available to him for the asking. But that’s on him, not me. My only charge against him was that he was trying to start an argument from a hypocritical position.

            Further I gave you ample scriptural references where the apostles & Jesus Himself called out hypocrisy, along w/ rejecting those that rejected the gospel.

            I do have an obligation to stand up for my brethren when the enemies of the gospel attack them. I have nothing to apologize to you or ac about. & you attacking/accusing the brethren w/o a valid charge & jumping to conclusions, & instead siding w/ the enemy says more about your issues than it does mine.

          • Chris

            Your job is obviously not to behave as a Christian either.

          • libertynottyranny

            So your excuse for rejecting Christ will be that I’m not behaving like a Christian? You obviously know what christians are supposed to do… so why aren’t you doing it?

          • Chris

            “So your excuse for rejecting Christ will be that I’m not behaving like a Christian?”

            I never mentioned Christ. Do you often compare yourself with Christ?

            As for me I am a Zoroastrian. I do not need an ‘excuse’ for no longer believing in Christianity I merely need a reason.

            “You obviously know what christians are supposed to do… so why aren’t you doing it?”

            Because I’m not a Christian I am a Zoroastrian. Different religion with different ethics.

          • Sharon_at_home

            First of all, they aren’t our enemies, they are people who sin. How does that make them enemies? We all sin.
            Christ wants everyone to convert and he felt that any one could turn to Jesus at anytime.
            I am protesting about Christians that seem to think Christ wanted us to hate anyone. Hate will not encourage people to accept Jesus into their lives.
            Talking badly about anyone – pointing out their sins in a cruel way – is not going to turn anyone anywhere near conversion.
            I treat people the way I want to be treated. The way that Christ told us to.
            Do you think he would approve of the way you treat sinners because I don’t see Love in the way you do it. I know we have to tell them of their sin, but by being so arrogant about your being a child of God, it’s not like it will do anything to make a difference to them. And in a sense I am telling you of your sin of hate. It’s our responsibility to encourage sinners to stop sinning, and this is what I try to do.

            That’s the main reason I posted. I’m tired of people thinking all Christians are cruel because I am not and I’m sure others are not. Christians are supposed to be good people. Not critical to the point of demeaning sinners. Jesus is the one I follow and I do try to follow what he said, how he said it, and what he wanted for us. Love.

            They only “attack” because of the way you state your views. If you seem to be interested in a discussion, they are quite happy to discuss it in a respectful manner, but if you attack sinners right from the get go, of course they are going to attack you too. This board is supposed to be where we can discuss the articles, and our faith. Just because they are disbelievers, doesn’t mean they aren’t good people too. If you met them on the street, you wouldn’t even know they don’t believe, and you would treat them better because of the lack of that knowledge.

            You’ve got AC all wrong. He does not act like you said. He rarely says much more about what he posts than the information he wants to give us. He is never rude and states his questions most often without a personal statement about it. I don’t really find that attacking but rather wanting to discuss what the item he asked about. It may be against our faith, but it is usually a question that is an honest question. He wants us to see the other side which isn’t attacking either.

            What you view as attacking seems to be questions that we should be able to answer because they aren’t asking about God’s opinion, they are asking for your personal opinion. You should be able to say if you agree with something, or not, but think about how you would have thought of it maybe before you were born again. TBH I try to always look at both sides because I have experienced a long life and have things in it that gives me the other view. I include Jesus in my decision making but I have been taught to use the Gospel and to follow Jesus. I want to spread the joy of knowing Jesus, so I try to do that rather than demean sinners. That is still taking the Lord’s side.

            Yes we are supposed to tell sinners that they are sinning, but Jesus wouldn’t want hatred in that telling. He wanted us to Love, not hate.
            Another thing, I don’t compromise. I always explain the bible parts that they are opposed to because they need to understand it. I don’t insist their side is wrong, I show them why we believe it is wrong in the bible.
            As always that’s up to them what they believe, but at least it gives them the biblical view to be able to know God’s Word and the reason behind them if we are able. As well, the disbelievers have never condemned me for believing in God, they allow me to decide. They show appreciation for the information, not rebellion to God’s Word.

            I do not go against God’s Word by trying to help people who are sinning, I follow God’s word when it come to what things are sins, but I don’t condemn them or punish them – I teach them from the bible itself. Which is done with the hope that they will come to know Jesus and about Love, not about hate.
            It’s because I love everyone like Jesus told us to, and I won’t hurt anyone in any way to promote my faith. I believe that we encourage but God enables sinners to convert, but it’s only if they are willing. How can sinners be willing to turn to Jesus’ Love if they think all His servants are more about hating the sinners and less about helping them to overcome.
            If you can help me understand your view, I’d be happy to listen to it, and discuss it with you too. You sound new and full of the love and joy of becoming newly reborn and you are being faithful when you stand up for our God, but you need to get more familiar with the Gospel because it tells us how to behave and how to spread the Gospel. I really want to help you be the best Christian you can be for Jesus. I’m only saying these things because we are supposed to rebuke our brethren when they sin. Loving you in Christ, God bless!

          • Sharon_at_home

            I didn’t say that God’s Word was abusive. I said you were being abusive by not acting like Jesus when you tell them of their sin. You speak of my judging but you certainly sound like you are judging sinners and the way you tell them is by calling them names? What about James 4:11-12? Should we both ignore that too? I won’t.
            I have never reported anything as abusive to the admin unless it was just swear words and nothing else, but I will stand up for Jesus when someone is being abusive. Never once did Jesus say to tell the sinner about their sin with hate and scorn. He understood that they needed to be aware of their sins and he also told them about his love and their salvation and hope of eternal life.
            I do not ‘jump’ to conclusions, thank you. I read over the posts and decide about some things from the behaviour of the poster. Reaching the conclusion that you seem to think it’s ok to be unrighteous towards sinners. People who are righteous would not make someone feel bad about themselves to a point they don’t want to know about something that would make someone behave as you have.
            You don’t seem to understand how Jesus wanted us to behave – to shine our lights for the glory of the Father. I never turn my back on God’s Word, never. I don’t have to say anything about my personal belief when I explain something of the bible to someone who is a disbeliever. I have also never hidden my devotion to God in any way, so they know I believe, but I don’t focus just on the sin, I also focus on God’s Word which is why we of faith live with his Love. Just saying “God says it’s a sin”, and you are an awful person for sinning that sin, is not going to show His Word to anyone because it’s a personal opinion that you feel they are awful about the sin. God never said the people were awful, just that he hated the sin. Since God loves everyone I believe he would never say that about sin makes the person who he is. If it did you and I would be sinners that God would hate regardless of our being a child of god.
            Unless we repent our sins, we aren’t guaranteed a place in Heaven.
            That’s why it’s described as the Hope of Eternal life.

          • libertynottyranny

            Sharon I’m sure you’re very nice lady & you’re clearly a much better saint than I (as you keep pointing out).

            However, & this is the last time I’ll repeat it, you are accusing me of something I simply haven’t done. I have not called out anymore’s particular “sin” or state that I am somehow “better” than them or that I am w/o sin. Furthermore I did not call anyone “names”.

            I did call ac a hypocrite (Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites – He even told them the devil was their father!) & I accused him of being intellectually dishonest. That is not judging (more correctly-damning) in the biblical sense. That is simply challenging his position & that only after he challenged mine.

            You claimed a response (to you) that ac had removed (5 times) was only done b/c it was “abusive”. However to assert that you would have had to have read it. All that was in the post were scriptural references & actual scripture quotes. So that can only mean one of two things: you didn’t read it, so you are bending the truth when you state that it was only removed b/c it was abusive or you think the Word itself is abusive. There was nothing about it that was abusive unless one of your definitions of abuse includes reasoning from scripture.

            I admit that in my flesh dwells no good thing (just as I’m sure that in yours nothing good dwells). I’ll also admit that in my flesh I can be biting & sarcastic (and thus fall into sin). But sarcasm itself is not a sin – Jesus & the epistle writers used many rhetorical devices (including sarcasm) to make a point. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.

            Shalom

          • libertynottyranny

            I did answer, you are simply ignoring it because you don’t like it. But I answered.

            Yes, I confess, I was critical of his hypocritical question – intentionally so. He thought he was going to catch me in a contradiction, when in fact it is he that is contradicting himself – which was the whole point of my response – why can you not see that? So, may I suppose that you would accuse Christ of prevaricating when He conversed w/ the legalists?

            Speaking of the Lord, He actually said to not grow weary of doing good – He never said not to grow weary of this world (or have you not read that His patience of putting up w/ this world’s rejection of Him & His commandments has a limit? Or how He destroyed the world in the flood b/c it had grown so evil? Or how Peter warns that He will destroy it again for the same reason? 2 peter 3).

            He also said what place does light have w/ darkness. You codling to/siding w/ the world is no way to win converts. Or maybe you missed John’s address to Herod when he told him to repent? Or how Paul & Barnabas shook the dust off their feet (heeding the Lords advice in Matt 10, Mark 6, & Luke 9) at the synagogue in Antioch at those who didn’t fear God & railed against them? Or have you not read where the Lord said not to cast your pearls before swine?

            2Peter 3:1-13  Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminderthat you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of creation.”

            For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

            Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I respect this. Thanks.

          • Amos Moses

            just makes you out to be the hypocrite you are …………

  • bowie1

    I hear the churches are not that confident this executive order will be all that helpful.

    • Amos Moses

      i am not ….. and i honestly am not sure any atheist is either …… but they cannot help being giant IRKs …………

    • Chet

      However it shakes out it’s far better than continuing to run scared…

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    America has become a nation of suing each other. Sad. So much of the leftover wealth for courts. Who are paying the massive medical bills while people are suing each other? Empire’s chaotic sunset… If only the atheists were quiet, Americans would have been happy just living in their own land peacefully… Eden had a snake. President Trump needs more radical measure to protect the churches.

    • Johndoe

      Atheists are Americans.

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      People have been suing each other since we invented laws. Archaeologists have found reports of lawsuits written in cuneiform and dating back over 3,000 years. Every human society on Earth larger than an isolated village has developed a legal system not just to deal with crime, but to regulate trade, establish standards, and mediate conflicts.

      We do this because the alternative is blood in the streets.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Not this often or with these stupid reasons. The English people used to be more lawful, not this. The English needs Christianity to be saved and to be fair and good-mannered again.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” – Henry VI, Part2, Act IV, Scene 2.

          William Shakespeare disagrees with you.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Kings and queens with absolute powers did the same thing everywhere for all time. Magna Carta was invented by the English Christians in the manner of 1 Samuel to prevent such things. Shakespeare is not everything. Read John Locke and C.S. Lewis.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            LOL! The Magna Carta was written by revolting barons, and the first thing King John did after signing it was to get the Pope to declare it void! That was in 1215. The British Parliament didn’t any real power for another 450 years.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Magna Carta is a Christian product. It was the milestone for all mankind to realize that the law is above the humans – modern democracy’s basis – because the text of the Holy Bible was still hidden from the commoners at that time. The English has been superior of all because of their possession of the Holy Bible in readable forms. Mankind would have been for-ever peasant slaves to landlords or to warlords if it wasn’t for the English contributions.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Have you read the text of the Magna Carta? It does nothing for the common people beyond making a few clarifications of law.. It was about the barons demanding a slice of power. And, as I said, King John had the Pope declare it null and void.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            In part; it still changed the entire history. The English were a great people! Christendom banzai!! Nothing is so superb like the historic Western Christendom.

          • Croquet_Player

            Grace is…idiosyncratic. I hope you take my meaning. I find it fascinating that she’ll espouse the Magna Carta, but not take it the obvious step further. (I love the Magna Carta by the way. There’s a beautiful copy at Salisbury Cathedral in England. I wept when I saw it. Kings, while they may rule by “divine right” ((how convenient)) are not above the law. A revolutionary idea.)

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            It’s an amazing document to be sure, and the beginning of English Common Law. But to tout it as some great Christian work? Idiosyncratic is a good description.

          • Croquet_Player

            Just so you understand about Grace…here’s a conversation from a few minutes ago. I think she’s a nice lady who is mentally unwell.

            Me: Grace, you keep saying the same thing over, and over, and over again. It doesn’t make it true. I understand you don’t approve of
            homosexuality, and you’re welcome to that opinion, but gay Americans have the identical rights as every other American, and that’s a fact you’re simply going to have to come to grips with.

            Grace: You are wrong. Gay Americans should be categorized and given the same rights with the pedophiles, incest-offenders, polygamists, rapists, prostitutes and the cannibals, and not with the colored races. America is still in a process of rising and falling, but the Holy Bible is the eternal truth confirmed by both human conscience and science. Abortion is murder and homosexuality/transgenderism is a sin. The future people will talk how the Western Sodom destroyed itself if the world continues. Jude 1.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Wow. Yeah, she’s special.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You guys should stop talking about others on their backs. It’s because of you young immoral generation that the present Earth is melting. No blame game, okay? Read the Holy Bible and get human rights and be normal.

          • Croquet_Player

            The phrase is “behind their backs”. Not “on their backs”. And since you could read it, it’s not behind your back. You said “It’s because of you young immoral generation that the present Earth is melting. No blame game, okay?” So you blame the young for climate change, and then immediately make a request for no blame. So I guess you can blame people, but others can’t. By the way, suggesting “young people” and “immorality” are responsible for climate change is absolutely ridiculous.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            C-P, you still talk behind my back. Climate change is NOTHING comparing to what people manually do to each other on today’s Earth. Today’s young generation should stop bashing their parents’ generation who only worked hard to feed them. If ills come, people must blame self and self’s own generation, not the former. That’s what I mean. Everyone is a sinner and must repent to get saved. Romans 3.

          • Croquet_Player

            So, “no blame game”, but you feel perfectly entitled to blame others. This is exactly why I’m encouraging others to be gentle with you. The things you say don’t make any sense. It’s impossible to have a rational conversation with an irrational person, and you are behaving irrationally. It is unfair and unkind to treat an irrational person as if they are fully competent. I don’t wish to be unkind. When you say “young people” are responsible for climate change, you have parted company with reality, and there’s no point in continuing the conversation.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Who cares about planet melting? It’s too late now. Young people are becoming a worse generation of child-abvusers each passing year, and the Earth is facing far worse calamity than the rising and dying oceans or nuclear wars or the explosion of the Arctic mathane gas. If people don’t stop killing the unborn children and keep conducting depravity, everything will come to a swift end. II Peter 3. People should get horrified about today’s generation instead of any other former generations. Today has a lot of sins.

          • Croquet_Player

            Feel free to keep posting, but I’m not interested in responding to your remarks. Have a nice day.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Please read the Word of God and gain life, C-P. Praying for you.
            Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” (John 10)

          • Bob Johnson

            Every generation thinks the youth of today are lost, beatniks, hippies,, all the way back to the ancient Greeks the old see no future in the young. Yet somehow, someway that youth goes on to even greater heights.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It is also true that every generation had greater evil to combat. The West should not force Sodomy upon mankind. It’s an unprecedented evil slavery each time. You must remember Nazi Youth never returned and the memory made Germany only bonless, although their greatest problem is haughtiness against God and nothing else. I don’t mean any nation is better than Germany; every nation is sinful and will get what is due. Read Isaiah 40 and John 3 and Romans 8 and repent of your sin to get saved.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            I’m in my late 50s, hardly the young immoral generation.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Then why do you support today’s West’s Sodomy? What got you? Your parents would be very sad if they know what you are doing.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            I support it because I value liberty and justice for all. I gave up on religion partially because of people like you, Grace. Raging bigots who demand that everyone conform to what makes them comfortable. The world is a big, diverse place, and we’re better that way.

            My father was very proud of me and what I have accomplished. He wasn’t overly happy with my rejection of the faith, but understood that it is a path that every person has to choose. My mom is very happy with me, my family, and our lives.

            Don’t project, my dear, it makes you look bad. And stop obsessing over gay sex.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You chose godlessness’ tyranny by choosing Western atheism. Western secularists oppress mankind by forcing immorality, and liberty is gone long ago. They rant diversity to enslave you with immorality. If you are not seeing it, you are blind. Your father did not know what is controling you. Gay-sex is the reason everyone is losing liberty even in America. It’s nice to be in the oppressors’ side and ignore the pain, isn’t it?

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            And blocked again. I can no longer tolerate Grace’s constant insults and cluelessness.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Truth-telling is not an insult. You must not bully people. This is a Christian News site. Why are you here? You must repent of your sin of unbelief and trust in Jesus Christ as the Lord and Saviour, to get saved. Read the Gospel of John. Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world.

          • Parodyx

            You aren’t telling the truth, though, Grace. You never do. What you spout is a very strange and twisted version of someone else’s nightmarish idea of Christianity, which is to say not Christianity at all, but fundamentalist dogma.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You think the way you do because you grew up in Sodom. Sodom gets destroyed. Read the Holy Bible and repent of your sin. Matthew chapters 5-7. Jude 1.

          • Rookheight

            The earth is melting largely because of climate change denial, which—at least in this country—is almost exclusively a Christian phenomenon. Your camp has everything to answer for in terms of our failure to act.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s too late. Earth will melt no matter what mankind do, except for stopping the infanticide of the unborns. Earth hates the baby-killing mankind and wish them gone. Only God is merciful and gave mankind enough time to repent. Genesis 4. II Peter chapter 3.

          • Rookheight

            You’ve demonstrated my point admirably. If you decide to care about reality at some point, and to help us deal with problems in the real world, start by throwing that book in the trash.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            America will go. The Word of God is forever. Isaiah 40.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You should stop slandering others on their backs. Talk to people directly.

          • Bob Johnson

            This is an open thread. No one is talking behind your back, you can read every comment made here. Some people may be talking about you, however, these comments are in the open and everyone can read and respond.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I know, but she shouldn’t do that, because I may not have come back here and found out her comments. This is just another proof that Americans need Christianity, even to be fair.

    • Joe Cogan

      How’s the weather in Moscow today, Grace?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        I wish Americans are more like the Russians today. Russians are more normal than Americans this century. Sigh.

  • Oboehner

    I guess they think their religion should have all the representation.

    • Croquet_Player

      As the saying goes, “atheism is a religion like ‘off’ is a TV channel”.

      • Oboehner

        There are many sayings, here’s one:

        re·li·gion

        ri-ˈli-jən
        “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” Since the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God, they rely on a system of beliefs to which they hold to with ardor and faith.

        • Johndoe

          What are the tenets of atheism? What is their system of beliefs? Atheists simply don’t believe in gods….any gods.

          • Oboehner

            They believe in the non-existence of God and act accordingly. If it was just simple non-belief, this article and the actions described therein would not be as prevalent or exist at all. I see no such activity regarding the Easter Bunny.

          • Amos Moses

            the tenets seem to be ……. being a giant IRK …….. they hate the idea of god or God ….. and hate is not a passive activity …… it requires energy ……….

          • Croquet_Player

            There are no “tenets of atheism”. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity or deities, and nothing more.

          • Amos Moses

            sure there are ….. being a liar is one of them ………… A-theists are their OWN deity …. they worship themselves and their bellies …………..

          • Croquet_Player

            Nope. There is no official atheist position on anything. Please go find an “official atheist website” which lists the “tenets of atheism”.

          • Amos Moses

            atheists lie ….. what good would it do to find a “website” dedicated to lies …….

          • Croquet_Player

            Yes, I understand that you believe all atheists are liars, and you’re welcome to that opinion. Nevertheless, as I pointed out, there are no official “tenets of atheism” or a “doctrine of atheism” or anything of the sort. Which (although you didn’t bother, and simply resorted to calling all atheists “liars”) is why you wouldn’t have found anything. Once again, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities. Nothing more or less.

          • Johndoe

            Lol! Too funny ! I worship nothing.

          • Amos Moses

            you worship your belly …….. your appetites ……… your bowels ……..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I know those things exist. I can’t say the same for any god.

          • Amos Moses

            you know God exists …. and you know you know He exists …… you suppress the truth ………..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?”

          • Amos Moses

            quoting the fuller text proves you wrong ………..

            2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
            2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
            2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
            2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
            2:11 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.
            2:12 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.
            2:13 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.
            2:14 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.
            2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
            2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I know the things in my own spirit, at least, and a belief in a god isn’t one of them. It’s you who are wrong here.

          • Amos Moses

            no you dont …….. you lie to yourself …. as all natural men do …….

            2:14 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.
            2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
            2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

            “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”

        • Croquet_Player

          No atheist needs to prove the non-existence of a deity. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deities. It is not a statement that no deities exist.

          • Oboehner

            Then Christianity is simply a lack of belief in the non-existence of a deity.

          • Croquet_Player

            And the double negative makes it a positive claim. It is the burden of those asserting a positive claim to offer proof.

          • Oboehner

            Easter Bunny?

          • Croquet_Player

            I see no credible evidence for the existence of an “Easter Bunny”. Do you?

          • Oboehner

            Do we need lawsuits wasting taxpayer money to fight the belief in it?

          • Croquet_Player

            As things stand, no. However if over 70% of Americans believed that the Easter Bunny existed, worshiped the Easter Bunny at Easter Bunny churches, were given an advantageous tax-free status for those churches, and then wished to utilize their advantages to advance an Easter Bunny-centric political agenda in violation of the Johnson amendment, then it would be a matter of concern.

          • Oboehner

            Well now what your saying is that atheists are butt-hurt because the majority of Americans do not hold the same faith they do and wish to wield an undue amount of influence in an attempt to rectify that somehow?

          • Croquet_Player

            No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. People may believe whatever they like. And the issue is not a matter of what people do or don’t believe. The problem lies in the tax free status of non-profits and religious institutions. While churches (and non profits) may take a position on political issues, they may not support or oppose specific political candidates, nor may they give money to candidates. People may anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to churches, which could then be directly and anonymously funneled into a candidate’s campaign. This offers an enormous and unfair advantage. For example, the Catholic Church has almost incalculable wealth. And there’s no question that unlimited funds would be a huge advantage to a political candidate. So unless you want political candidates to have access to unlimited, anonymous funding, you should be in support of the Johnson amendment too, and be concerned about any weakening of it. Or don’t be surprised to wake up one day to find an Archbishop is your new state governor, and you have no idea who funded his campaign, nor any way of finding out.

          • Oboehner

            You mean like the tax-free status that was afforded atheists by the courts when they had their beliefs declared a religion? Google can be useful. They aren’t unfairly influencing government are they?

            And you say that wealth like that of George Soros can have an unfair advantage? I don’t see atheists going after him, why is that? Or how about Goldman Sachs? I don’t see the atheists going after them even after they raked in billions in a fraud scheme due to their unfair advantage, what’s up with that?

            Candidates already have access to “unlimited, anonymous funding”, the Johnson Amendment was just a underhanded ploy to shut up his opposition – it can die with him.

          • Croquet_Player

            Atheists did not have their views “declared a religion”, because it is not. And individual atheists must pay taxes like everyone else. However atheists are afforded the identical rights as religious people to think whatever they like. So just as I can’t fire an employee for being a Christian, I can’t fire an employee for being an atheist. While one is a religious world view and the other is not, the constitution protects both viewpoints identically. Another way of putting it is: it is illegal to discriminate against people for what they believe, and it is identically illegal to discriminate against people for what they don’t believe.

            If George Soros donates over $2,500 to a campaign, it must be recorded and made public. And there is a cap on what individuals may donate. That’s a key difference about campaign funding laws. The Johnson amendment doesn’t apply to Soros or Goldman Sachs, as they are not tax-free churches or non-profits, and must operate under ordinary political contribution laws which are lax enough as it is (and in my opinion desperately need reforming). So while they may be able to donate to campaigns, they can’t do it anonymously, nor can they write it off on their taxes.

            “I don’t see atheists going after him, why is that?” Well for one thing atheists aren’t a homogeneous group with identical political views. All atheists share only one thing in common – a lack of belief in deities. Any other viewpoints are up for grabs. There are millions of people who oppose the undue influence the rich wield in politics. Doubtless many of them are atheists (or religious people) too, but there’s no way of identifying them as they’re not doing so under some commonly shared atheist (or religious) banner. So just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there, you just have no way of identifying and quantifying them, and neither do I.

            I’m in favor of as much transparency and fairness in politics as possible. If you’re not, that’s entirely up to you. But I advise caution, as what you think might be an advantage might prove not to be to your advantage at all.

          • Oboehner

            “Atheists did not have their views “declared a religion”, because it is not.” https://richarddawkins (dot) net/2014/11/atheists-score-major-win-in-federal-court/
            Is it safe to assume the rest of your post is BS as well?
            Atheist is most certainly a religious worldview whether you choose to believe it or not, they believe there is no deities, not just the weasel wording they try and use.
            Ever hear of a PAC? Apparently not.
            Like I said, the underhanded Johnson crap can die with him.

          • Croquet_Player

            Again, you are incorrect. If you will please read the article you cited, it states the court ruled that “Secular Humanism” is a religion, not “atheism”. They are not the same thing. While a number of atheists are Secular Humanists too, Secular Humanism is a philosophy which involves a number of principles, but does not encompass a belief in a deity. Atheism is simply a lack of belif in any deities, and nothing more. So you can be an atheist, but not be a Secular Humanist. Like Secular Humanism, there are certain sects of Buddhism which also do not maintain a belief in any deities, but are a religion all the same.

          • Oboehner

            Certain sects of Buddhists are still Buddhists.

          • Croquet_Player

            Yes they are, and as I pointed out, that’s a religion, if you accept the idea (as the courts do) that a religion can also be defined as an overall philosophy, or set of principles, without a deity.

          • Oboehner

            Yes, just like the dictionary, so?

          • Croquet_Player

            “So”? You brought it up.

          • Oboehner

            Alrighty then.

          • Johndoe

            Nope. It’s simply the disbelief in ANY gods. Nothing more. Nothing less.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, it’s simply a belief there is NO God, proven more and more with every lawsuit.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’ll cite a court ruling to support your claim that atheism is a religion, but if a court rules a law unconstitutional, that doesn’t matter?

          • Oboehner

            A court ruling matters to the two parties involved – no one else. The fact remains a court ruled (even if one case) atheism is a religion. Basically saying that court agrees with me.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So then how do you define religion?

          • Oboehner

            “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” Just like Merriam-Webster.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Atheism doesn’t even fit that definition. It’s certainly not a “system of beliefs” because it’s nothing but a position on ONE issue.

          • Oboehner

            Au contraire, like I stated before atheism is a belief there is no God held to with ardor and faith. Proven with every lawsuit.

          • Johndoe

            Butt hurt? Rubbish! Majority of Americans = sheeple

          • Oboehner

            When they disagree with you worldview?

          • Amos Moses

            the positive claim is that God does not exist ……. and it is an unprovable claim …… so they lose …….. there is a way to prove it …… they just do not have the means to prove it ………..

          • Croquet_Player

            It’s a very common misconception that atheism is the belief that “A God (or gods) does not exist.” Actually very few atheists take this position. Most atheists would say, “I see no evidence for any deity or deities.” This does not say there are no deities, just that there is insufficient evidence to support a belief in any.

          • Amos Moses

            “I see no evidence for any deity or deities.”

            actually that makes them NOT an atheist ……. it makes them agnostistic …….. a person who denies knowledge ……..

          • Croquet_Player

            Again, incorrect. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, atheism is a position on belief. (And no, an agnostic is not one who “denies knowledge”.) An agnostic can be a theist (“I believe in a god, but I cannot know for certain one exists”) or an atheist (“I do not believe in a god, but I cannot know for certain one does not exist.”) Most atheists are “agnostic atheists”. They do not believe in any gods (atheist) but do not say that they know for certain no gods exist (agnostic). You can also be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist. “I know for certain a god exists.” (Gnostic theist). “I know for certain no gods exist.” (Gnostic atheist).

          • Amos Moses

            when the evidence is abundant … to say you see no evidence ….. is DENIAL of knowledge ……..

          • Croquet_Player

            I understand you’re a theist, and that’s fine and you’re welcome to your opinions, (and I strongly support your right to hold whatever religious opinions you like) but you don’t get to re-invent the meaning of words and have people take you seriously. “Gnosis” comes from a Greek word, meaning “knowledge” (as opposed to belief). Please look it up on Wikipedia, it’s actually a fascinating word.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Uh, you might want to re-read that. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Like some gobbledygook dressing to go with your word salad?

          • Oboehner

            Speaking your language, you understand.

          • Parodyx

            I’m speaking English. And doing it without peppering my sentences with angry hate-bombs like “pervert”.

          • Oboehner

            per·vert pər-ˈvərt “to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right”
            Says nothing of “hate bomb” in Webster’s.

          • Parodyx

            You quoted the verb, not the noun. Nice try.

          • Oboehner

            One who perverts.

          • Parodyx

            No, the definition of a pervert is a person with abnormal sexual behavior. Using your definition, straight people would also be perverts. This is why it’s such an idiotic thing to do to try to define someone strictly on what they do in the bedroom, because everyone’s guilty of it to some degree.

          • Oboehner

            A cookie for you!! I’m so proud, *sniff, sniff* you looked it up for yourself.
            Agreed, probably everyone is guilty of it to some degree… however trying to push it off as normal is a different story.

          • Parodyx

            It is normal. There are millions of homosexuals. It occurs throughout nature. They have the right to fall in love and they have the right to abhor hateful and bigoted religions.

          • Oboehner

            “It occurs throughout nature.” So does incest, murder, rape, torture, pedophilia, cannibalism, etc. that all normal too?

          • Parodyx

            Why are you comparing all these practices of abuse to a wholly consensual non-abusive act?

          • Oboehner

            Remember this statement attempting to justify perversion? “It occurs throughout nature.”
            I was pointing out all of the other things that occur in nature, and if sodomy is normal because you claim it occurs in nature, so is everything else that occurs in nature. Can’t have it both ways.

          • Parodyx

            You also don’t get to have it both ways. You have to call straight couples who practice it all the same vile names you call homosexuals. And in fact since you like to call even the homosexuals who don’t practice sodomy “sodomites” maybe you should start calling the people in your church sodomites too. Fair’s fair after all, and you don’t seem too bothered by facts.

          • Oboehner

            “You have to call straight couples who practice it all the same vile names you call homosexuals” If it smell like crap…

          • Parodyx

            Why, do you have a problem applying rules failrly across the board?

            You call homosexuals sodomites. Despite the fact that many of them, including gay men, don’t engage in the practice.

            Why, then, do you not want to call heterosexuals the same thing since all the exact same rules apply?

            Wait…I think I know. Because this is not about labelling people according to their actions. This is about a group of people you hate and want to call an offensive name.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said before, the vast majority of gay men do, and the rest – give them time.
            If heteros engage in it, it is still sodomy by definition.
            What is pathetic is the fact that when gaymen engage in it – that’s ok. Calling their actions by the proper name is somehow vile when doing it isn’t?

          • Parodyx

            Yeah, I heard you say that the first time. It was hard to contain my
            incredulity then, and it’s still just as hard. As ridiculous as it is to think that someone’s going to “ease into” a very specific sexual practice, it’s even harder to care, and it’s a non-issue when heterosexuals do exactly the same thing.

            So, look at that – three separate reasons why it’s a non-issue.

            As I said, this isn’t about sodomy, or sodomites. This is about you wanting to hurt people with as offensive a word as you can get away with.

          • Oboehner

            Hetero’s aren’t ramming it down people’s throats demanding acceptance and special rights, the sodomites are.
            “As ridiculous as it is to think that someone’s going to “ease into” a very specific sexual practice” Yeah, right.

          • Parodyx

            What special rights are irking you so?
            The right to live with a person they love and be happy?
            Also, once again, “sodomites” is the wrong word to use here unless you’re intending to included straight people who engage in it.

            Please provide your evidence that all homosexuals eventually practice sodomy.

          • Oboehner

            When hetero’s make it their go to act, I’ll bring them up to. Oh, and you forgot the acceptance part.
            Please provide your evidence that all homosexual males don’t eventually practice sodomy.

          • Parodyx

            Sucks to be you, because heteros probably DO make it their go-to act in many cases. You just never know about it because it doesn’t result in pregnancy (which could possibly be part of the reason for whatever appeal it holds).

            Evidence that all homosexual males don’t practice sodomy?
            Well, that wasn’t hard. Google is your friend:

            www dot good dot is/articles/gay-sex-is-not-anal-sex

          • Oboehner

            You really expect the sodomites to admit it? Seriously?

          • Parodyx

            Depends who you mean by “the sodomites”.

          • Oboehner

            Dictionary definition will work.

          • Parodyx

            Not really. “A heterosexual or homosexual person who practices sodomy.”

          • Oboehner

            Ah, yeah.

          • Parodyx

            I know it’s hard for you to accept that straight people can be sodomites, but then again, we are trying to be honest, aren’t we?

          • Oboehner

            I know it’s hard for you to accept that the vast majority of gay men are sodomites, but then again, we are trying to be honest, aren’t we?

          • Parodyx

            I am, you clearly aren’t. You really have no interest in sodomites, if you did, you’d be going after the straight folks in equal measure. If you were at least honest you’d admit that it’s gay people, and gay men in particular, that bug you the most.

          • Oboehner

            *SIGH* As I said before the straight folks aren’t suing everyone for special rights. If you were at least honest you’d admit that it’s gay people.

          • Parodyx

            Suing for special rights? Gee…no. No one is doing that.

          • Parodyx

            You have a deity and a holy book and a bunch of rules.
            Atheism has no deity, no holy book and no rules.

            Gosh, just LOOK at how similar they are!

          • Oboehner

            Dieties and “holy books” are irrelevant to something being a religion.

          • Parodyx

            No, in fact they are the common denominator. I can state the book and deity for all the major religions. Including yours.

          • Oboehner

            “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” Merriam-Webster.
            Fits all, even yours.

          • Parodyx

            Actually you’re lying. Here’s the full definition, most of which you left out:

            “1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

            2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

            3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness”

            Doesn’t really fit atheism at all actually…does it?

          • Oboehner

            Definitions to be precise, and I posted the one that fit, guess what? Still fits, if someone were to ask “what is something that is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”, the answer would be… a religion! So actually you are the one lying.

          • Parodyx

            I see, and you chose to omit the three most common definitions, which fall well before that vague one….WHY, exactly?

          • Oboehner

            They may fit some, but not all. I chose the one that fits all.
            What is the definition of run? If one runs for office are they sprinting down the street toward their goal?

          • Parodyx

            Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s the absence of religion.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, it has all of the elements of the definition I gave. Clearly if it was just non-belief, there would be no lawsuits as they merely indicate an obsessive or fanatical viewpoint indicative or religious zealots.

          • Parodyx

            Sounds rather desperate. The only thing that binds all atheists is a lack of belief in God. In every other respect they could be different. That’s why it isn’t a religion.

          • Oboehner

            “Sounds rather desperate.” You must mean all of the lawsuits that PROVE atheist believe there is no God – a religious belief.

          • Parodyx

            What lawsuits are those?

          • Oboehner

            “Atheist Activist Group Sues Trump Over Order Allowing Electioneering From Pulpit”
            Sound familiar?

          • Parodyx

            Well, tell your reality TV president not to mix Christianity with politics and there won’t be any problem.

          • Oboehner

            Where is the law against that? Atheists do it all the time.

          • Parodyx

            Atheism is not a religion any more than bald is a hair color.

          • Oboehner

            It is their religious belief there is no God, a religion plain and simple.

          • Parodyx

            Which is not a religious belief at all, because there is no binding theory or set of rules making it so, as a religion would have, as well as no deity, no holy book, and no church. All atheists have in common, and you’ve been told this, is they have no belief in a deity. One thing in common does not a religion make.

            I swear, one day I will write a book of these easily-refuted piles of BS and call it “Why I Am Not a Christian Fundamentalist”.

          • Oboehner

            No deity, no holy book, and no church needed. It is a belief held to with faith – a religion. You’ve been told this as well as a court case has agreed with the fact it is a religion.

          • Parodyx

            No it isn’t. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s a single belief. One common thread isn’t a religion. Unless you want to say all people who are afraid of the dark are also in a religion. The court case you are talking about has been grossly misrepresented, if you’ve read through this thread you’ll know that.

          • Oboehner

            “It’s a single belief” held to with ardor and faith. So… people that are afraid of the dark adamantly believe is something they cannot prove and file lawsuits against those who aren’t afraid?

            “The court case you are talking about has been grossly misrepresented” by atheists, the shame.

          • Parodyx

            ANY single belief is held to with ardor and faith! But ONE SINGLE BELIEF isn’t enough to form a religion. You want so badly for atheism to be a religion that you’re grasping for whatever straws you can.

          • Oboehner

            Any belief period. You want so badly for atheism not to be a religion that you’re grasping for whatever straws you can.

          • Parodyx

            It isn’t, there’s no current definition that calls it a religion, period. Because it isn’t in any reasonable way. Religions are groups of beliefs, not a single belief.

          • Oboehner

            Sure, the court cases were just kidding, so was the dictionary – or whatever.

          • Parodyx

            You’re welcome to cite a court case, no one’s successfully done that so far.

          • Oboehner

            *sigh* American Humanist Association v. United States

            The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism”
            as a religion.

            “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wisconsin said.

          • Parodyx

            Atheism is not secular humanism.

          • Oboehner

            Difference?

          • Parodyx

            Being secular means treating everyone equally despite differences in your or others’ religious beliefs. An atheist is a non-believer in religion and existence of God or supreme power.

          • Oboehner

            Dig a little deeper, read a little more, then get back to me.

          • Parodyx

            No need.

          • Oboehner

            Then we’re done.

          • bumsmcgee

            Wait a sec, wait a sec, aren’t you the goofy bastard who also thinks evolution is a religion? LOL, that would explain a TON.

          • Oboehner

            Aren’t you the goofy religious zealot that thinks there is one shred of proof for that religion? You probably think you were around bazillions of years ago too, that would explain a TON.

          • bumsmcgee

            I have my answer! LOL!

          • Oboehner

            Just no proof of your religion, too sad.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We’ve been through this before. The court already ruled that atheism is a religion.

          • Croquet_Player

            I know of no court cases where atheism has been ruled a religion. Perhaps you’d like to cite one.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Like the last one you and I spoke about ad nauseam?

            Torcaso v. Watkins

          • Croquet_Player

            I think you have mistaken me for someone else. You and I have never discussed Torcaso v. Watkins. In any case, The court result said nothing about atheism per se. It addressed “Secular Humanism”, which is not the same thing as atheism. From Wikipedia:

            “It has occasionally been argued that in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court “found” secular humanism to be a religion. This assertion is based on a reference, by Justice Black in footnote number 11 of the Court’s finding, to court cases where organized groups of self-identified humanists, or ethicists, meeting on a regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted religious-based tax exemptions.

            Justice Black’s use of the term “secular humanism” in his footnote
            has been seized upon by some religious groups, such as those supporting causes such as teaching creationism in schools, as a “finding” that any secular or science-based activity is, in fact, religion.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re just copying from wiki, which isn’t a reliable source. Anyone can write anything there.

            I already gave the quote that says atheism is a religion. It’s a court ruling.

          • Colin Rafferty

            That court ruling you cite (Torcaso v Watkins) says that secular humanism is a religion, not atheism. They are two very different things.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If that were true, why did the WI ruling quote the ruling when it ruled atheism was a religion?

          • Colin Rafferty

            It was quoted for a different reason.

            If it were actually true that Torcaso says that atheism is a religion, you would not have referred to a comment about secular humanism.

            There is nowhere in Tocaso that says that atheism is a religion.

            These rulings are all online. They are really easy to find, and if you actually read them, you would know what they say.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Atheism is a religion. I gave you the quote from the court ruling. You are pushing your religion on everyone else. Tsk tsk. That’s against the Constitution.

          • Colin Rafferty

            There is no quote in Torcaso that says it, and you never even gave me any quote from Torcaso. You made a reference to footnote 11, which mentions that secular humanism is a religion. Which is neither a quote, nor about atheism.

            I think you are misremembering. There is no quote, and you never gave one.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I gave you the quote from the WI judge. Are you saying he didn’t know what he was quoting? Or are you just hoping your word salad will make people confused and not look it up themselves?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I just looked it up myself. The Torcaso ruling nowhere states atheism is a religion, and the WI case does not quote it as saying such.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Either you’re a poor researcher or you’re lying since I quoted directly from the ruling. 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Give me this supposed quote again, I can’t seem to find where you posted it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,”

          • Colin Rafferty

            TheKingOfRhye was asking you for a quote from Torcaso. That’s an out-of-context quote from Kaufman.

          • Parodyx

            I’m quite enjoying this.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Really? I’m actually not. I think this is an unnecessary exercise in hair-splitting.

            I do have to give Guest some credit, though, for acknowledging that court rulings are binding and actually making arguments based on them rather than just dismissing the whole concept of a judiciary. And yes, I’m aware that I just congratulated someone for not ignoring Civics 101. It’s a low bar, but I’ll take it.

          • Parodyx

            I just mean how Colin is handling him so well.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He is, I’ll give him that.

          • Parodyx

            Also next time you go “home” sign up for the forum and join the thread we started.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know that the WI ruling was based upon the Torcaso ruling, don’t you? 🙂

          • Parodyx

            It’s also blatantly false. He changed the original quote which was:

            “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted…”

            He removed Kaufman’s name and left the rest of the quote intact.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Ha, I hadn’t even noticed that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That is not a quote from Tarcaso.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No kidding. It’s a quote from the WI ruling that based its decision on the other ruling.

          • Parodyx

            This quote is a lie. The actual quote is:

            “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thank you for proving that atheism is religion. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Please don’t thank me for things I did not do.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No kidding. Thanks for proving my point that atheism is a religion. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            The quotation marks are not mine. They are from the original source, as you well know.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            As from mine. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            You have succeeded only in showing dishonesty by altering the original quote.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thank you for quoting the part about atheism being a religion. That was stellar. 🙂

          • Colin Rafferty

            I think TheKingOfRhye is having problems finding the one quote you gave because you made it in response to me. And your disqus profile has your comments private for some reason.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            All he has to do is copy and paste the quote into a search engine within quotation marks.

          • Colin Rafferty

            We were talking about Torcaso. How many times did I say Torcaso? I had already responded to your Kaufman quote. But I’ll respond again, this time by quoting it in context.

            “The problem with the district court’s analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier.   Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

            Note that the ruling put the word “religion” in scare quotes, and referred to it as “in the sense we discussed earlier”. So you have to look at the earlier discussion to see what they actually mean. Here’s their earlier discussion (all ellipses just removing case numbers):

            “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky ….   The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”   In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” ”

            And then:

            “It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate’s request to form a new religious group should be granted is “the absence from the beliefs of a concept of a supreme being.” … Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.   As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.”

            So yes, “atheism is Kaufman’s religion”, but only for the sake of argument, as atheism “takes a position on religion”.

            So your quote was an accurate quote, but taken completely out of context.

            There is no US court case that actually says that atheism is a religion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, the WI ruling was based on the other ruling with a quote referencing that ruling.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Here’s the reference to Torcaso (ellipses remove only case numbers):

            “Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins …, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”  ….   Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion.”

            It is not referencing Torcaso to show that atheism is a religion, but to show that atheism is held at the same standard as religion. So in fact, this quote is showing the exact opposite of what you say.

            But this is all moot, since Kaufman does not say that atheism is religion. As I explained in great detail in the previous comment that you just responded to. The single sentence you use is taken out of context.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The WI ruling was based upon the other ruling. You should try to read the whole thing, perhaps with a dictionary beside you. 🙂

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’ll simplify this for you, since you seem to keep not reading where I tell you what you’re getting wrong.

            You have a single sentence from Kaufman, which appears on the surface to say that atheism is a religion. But in fact, when taken in context of the entire ruling, and in fact, in with the previous sentence, that they are considering it a religion just for discussion.

            Kaufman does refer to Torcaso, but it specifically does so in reference to secular humanism being a religion.

            Overall, it seems that you are misunderstanding the single quote you have, and misunderstanding why Torcaso is referenced. You also keep mixing up secular humanism with atheism (which would horrify St. Thomas More).

            So either you are profoundly illiterate or just plain dishonest. I prefer to think the former, because when one is intellectually dishonest, that demeans us all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re clueless. The first ruling was made in the 1960’s when the term “secular humanism” was used by the atheist in question. The more recent ruling is the one from which the quote was taken. So you see, it doesn’t matter which ruling you take, they both say the same thing, but let’s pretend we can only take one. The more recent one is the one that uses the term “atheism” as in ““Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

          • Colin Rafferty

            Once again, the Kaufman sentence about atheism and religion is because they have already said that they are considering atheism as a religion for the purposes of discussion.

            Here’s part of the actual context:

            “The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.””

            So you see, this is where the discuss what it means to be a religion in the Establishment sense. In that they are explicitly including “nonreligion”. Which is the definition of atheism.

            And here’s your quote, taken in context:

            “The problem with the district court’s analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier.   Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, …”

            See where they say “in the sense we discussed earlier? That’s the context of them calling atheism Kaufman’s religion. That for the purpose of Establishment sense, they would consider a “nonreligion” to be a religion.

            And if they didn’t consider atheism to be a nonreligion, why even mention that?

            But I’ve said all this before, and you are either pretending you didn’t read it, or didn’t understand it the first time.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know what you’re quoting. 🙂 No wonder God says atheists are fools.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Sure fine. If you actually had a response, you would give it. Except all you can do is show that single sentence, which I have explained three times you have taken out of context.

            Now, you can say “but I showed you a quote”, but that won’t make you right. And claiming I don’t know what I’m saying doesn’t make me wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I gave you the main quote from the ruling. 🙂 Doesn’t get any clearer than that.

          • Colin Rafferty

            And I gave you the context of the quote. Which made the meaning even clearer.

            “[T]he Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”””
            “Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier [namely: nonreligion].   Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, …”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, give it up. It’s been proven – twice. 🙂

          • Colin Rafferty

            Yes, Torcaso was about atheism. But the footnote was not about Torcaso himself, but a list of religions that “do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God”. Which is why it was a footnote — because it was not relevant to Mr. Torcaso directly.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re clueless. You don’t understand how language evolves, nor do you understand legal jargon. You’ve been proven wrong ad nauseam yet you still keep yapping.

          • Parodyx

            I think it’s pretty much standard protocol that when someone proves that you are wrong, you thank them. You don’t continue to insist you are right.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then why aren’t you thanking me? 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Dude, you were schooled. Embarrassed. Humiliated. Own it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, because giving a direct quote that proves you wrong is “schooled”. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            As Colin said, “There is no quote in Torcaso that says it, and you never even gave me
            any quote from Torcaso. You made a reference to footnote 11, which
            mentions that secular humanism is a religion. Which is neither a quote,
            nor about atheism.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Secular humanism was the terminology used for atheism in the 1960’s. The more recent ruling referred to that quote and then called it atheism. Same thing.

          • Parodyx

            Not the same thing. At all. As you have been told.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, because a bunch of people on the internet know more than the courts who made the ruling. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Yep, you’re just trolling now.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, I’m laughing at you. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            That’s what trolls do.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sure you know all about trolls since you keep getting banned from here. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Never been banned from here. Eats you alive, doesn’t it? 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sure you have ,under your other handles. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            You say that to everybody. It means nothing now. You overdid it and now people know about you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sorry, but if you haven’t been here before, how would you know who says what? See, you give yourself away every time. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Who said I haven’t been here before?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You did. 🙂 You lie so much you forget which ones you’ve told, don’t you?

          • Parodyx

            No, I never said I hadn’t been here before. You’re trolling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Tsk tsk. Lying. Again.

          • Parodyx

            Not playing any more of your games, “Guest”. Off with you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There you go again. “Atheism is a religion”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I found the entire Torcaso ruling online (not on Wikipedia, BTW), and as far as I see, it doesn’t even mention the word ‘atheism”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Did you find the WI ruling that quoted the Torcaso ruling? 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Kaufman v. McCaughtry never quoted Torcaso as saying atheism is a religion. Here are where it mentions Torcaso:

            “A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme
            being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367
            U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961)”

            “In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of
            “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as
            theistic ones.   Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct.
            1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose
            requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and
            neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence
            of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”  Id. at
            495, 81 S.Ct. 1680.   Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular
            Humanism” as an example of a religion.  Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.”

            What that case did was declare atheism a religion for legal and First Amendment purposes. I think that is a good thing, but under most conventional defintions of “religion”, atheism in and of itself is not one, although there can be and indeed are atheistic religions.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And then said, “Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,”

            Keep going. You’re proving yourself wrong again and again. 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not disputing what Kaufman said. You were saying it was quoting Tarcaso to support the declaration that atheism is a religion, when nothing of the sort happened.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”. So why are you trying to shove your religion down everyone’s throat?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t shove atheism or anything else down anyone’s throat. Why do you even think that’s what I have been doing?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And what do you think the Constitution is but a legal document?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Corporations have been ruled to be people, for legal purposes. Does that mean that they actually are?

            And I’ll ask again, how am I personally shoving atheism down anyones throat?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Constitution is a legal document. The courts have ruled atheism to be a religion. In opposition to the Constitution, the religion of atheism has infringed upon the rights of other faiths, particularly Christianity.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ll ask you this then….forget about what the court says for a second, how would YOU define “religion”?

            “In opposition to the Constitution, the religion of atheism has infringed upon the rights of other faiths, particularly Christianity.”

            What rights are being infringed upon by atheism?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Did you read the article?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, I especially agreed with the part where the FFRF said “Trump lacks the constitutional authority to “selectively veto a legitimate statute” signed into law more than 50 years ago, and asserts that the president is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that his order is not applied equally to both religious and secular groups.”

          • Rookheight

            I have to say I admire your stamina. You have been embarrassed by at least three people, who utterly demolished your “please don’t look this up” argument, and yet you keep whining.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, because a quote from the actual court ruling that proves you wrong Is such hard work to repost. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            What he posted was a blatant lie. The original quote was, ” Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

            He REMOVED the word “Kaufman’s” above and left the rest of the quote intact so that it would say “Atheism is religion”. You can Google it for yourself.

          • Rookheight

            Beyond that, he’s maintaining the fingers-in-ears approach against everyone mopping the floor with him. All I was saying is that most people realize when they are outmatched far earlier.

          • Parodyx

            He knows all that, and is enjoying it. Classic troll. Notice his smiley faces after every comment? He isn’t here to win any factual points.

          • Rookheight

            No objection from me; any bystanders can see which side knows what we’re talking about.

          • Rookheight

            Even if atheism were a religion—which it’s not, we’re all trying to explain to you—pushing your religion on everyone else isn’t against the Constitution unless you’re a state actor. I think you have gotten yourself very confused on this issue and should start your studies over.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you bow to the altar of atheism and you’re shoving it down everyone’s throats which is against the Constitution. You want a theocracy.

          • Croquet_Player

            Yeah, I don’t care that you don’t consider Wikipedia a reliable source. It’s useful for other people who aren’t nuts. You did not give “a quote”, because there is no quote from any court ruling that states atheism is a religion. The court ruled that “Secular Humanism” may be considered a religion, not atheism. The two aren’t the same thing. You’re either misinformed, ignorant, or a liar. Atheism isn’t a religion, and every time you, or anyone else, claims it is you’ll be flat out wrong. And now that the facts have been pointed out to you, you’ll be a deliberate liar if you say it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Wiki is not reliable because anyone can edit its content, including you.

            I gave you the quote from the WI ruling, which was more recent than the case to which you’re referring. Now either you’re bad at using a search engine or you’re lying, Neither bodes well for you.

          • Croquet_Player

            Here is the entire “footnote 11” of judge Black’s decision in Torcaso v. Watkins. I does not mention atheism. You offered no legitimate quote from any other decision.

            “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would
            generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism,
            Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda,
            153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social
            Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id.
            at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton),
            120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American
            Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly! And that was the phrase for atheism in the 1960’s. The more recent ruling (the Wisconsin one) uses the more modern term of atheism, and cites that footnote in doing so. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Again, in the Wisconsin case, (KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY) the court did not specifically rule that atheism IS a religion. It ruled that for the purposes of protecting an inmate’s rights, it may be considered as “equivalent” to a religion, which is not the same thing as actually BEING a religion. “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion”
            for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently
            in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.,
            545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   The Establishment
            Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
            establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to
            religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”

            To put it another way, an employer cannot fire an employee for being a Christian, or for being an atheist. Although one is a religious point of view and the other isn’t, the Establishment clause protects both identically. But that still doesn’t make it a religion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, they did. I gave you the exact quote from the ruling. 🙂 You gotta stay off of wiki and atheist sites.

          • Croquet_Player

            The court did not rule atheism is a religion, in either the Torcaso or Kaufman cases. Repeating it over and over again doesn’t make it any more true than the first time you said it. Despite your efforts to elide the two, atheism and Secular Humanism are not the same thing. What the court actually ruled is that for the purposes of upholding the Establishment clause, atheism may be considered “equivalent” to a religion. That’s the exact word they used, “equivalent”, a fact you have conveniently ignored. What you’re doing is trying to make “equivalent” mean “the same thing”. It doesn’t mean that. By your reasoning, anything that is an “equivalent” is “the same thing”. So if I use margarine in a recipe as an “equivalent” to butter, margarine IS butter. Obviously it’s not. You’re welcome to pursue whatever nonsense line of reasoning you like and endlessly repeat your error, but anyone reading the court case documents for themselves can see what you’ve done and where you’ve gone wrong. I would encourage them to look it up.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I gave you a quote. You are unbelievably stupid.

          • Croquet_Player

            You cherry-picked one sentence, but ignored the context of the full text, which clearly states that atheism is “equivalent” to a religion, not that it IS a religion. And anyone may look it up for themselves.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So when he ruled “atheism is a religion” he didn’t mean it? LOL By the way, everything you’re quoting is proving my argument, not your own, so by all means, keep at it. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Again, you’re continuing to ignore the full context of the ruling. Why do you keep doing that? I’m not the only one that has pointed this out to you either. It’s quite clear in the ruling that specifically for the purposes of applying the Establishment clause, the courts may view atheism as “equivalent” to a religion. “EQUIVALENT”. Cherry-picking a sentence fragment is easy to do, if your intention is to distort the overall meaning of a complete body of text, which is exactly what you’re doing. It’s intellectual dishonesty. And people should look up the full ruling to see what you’ve done for themselves.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            All of that blabber of yours can’t negate the fact that it was ruled that “atheism is a religion”. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            No, it wasn’t. But the fact that you’re resorting to being insulting says a great deal about you, none of it good. Outright rudeness and intellectual dishonesty are the inevitable refuge of those with no successful arguments and low character.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There you go again. 🙂 You got your quote and now you launch into another bout of word salad to deflect from the fact that you were wrong.

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m not wrong, and neither are the other people here who have pointed out the identical thing to you. But you’re obviously willing to lie and distort text, which I note is a nasty habit of yours, so you’re no longer worth talking to.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            A direct quote is not a distortion of text. 🙂 “Atheism is a religion”. There you go.

          • Croquet_Player

            It is when you pull the fragment entirely out of context. But lying and distortion is your preferred modus operandi. Which is why you’re one of the most contemptible people on here. The local troll. “The Seventh Circuit observed that “[i]f we think of religion as
            taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of
            religion.” Thus, atheism can be a religion for the purpose of constitutional analyses.” But go ahead and keep lying to everyone, it displays your true colors.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There is no other way to interpret “Atheism is a religion” than “Atheism is a religion”. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Says you. Ask a lawyer.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You think a lawyer knows more than the judge who made the decision? “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Croquet_Player

            I think a lawyer knows far better than you how to correctly interpret the full text, not just your fragment.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And even better the judge who ruled that Torcaso v. Watkins proved atheism is a religion. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Keep it up, troll.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Says the person who can’t read 2 legal rulings with understanding. “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            He’s talked to at least two lawyers. He still insists he knows better than they do. This is a troll.

          • Rookheight

            You don’t seem to realize that you misunderstood this opinion. Atheism receives the same protections as a religion under the law. That does not make it a religion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So that’s why the ruling says “atheism is a religion”, right? 🙂

          • Parodyx

            It doesn’t say that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You just quoted it. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            No, I didn’t.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Quote:”Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            The quote was “atheism is Kaufman’s religion”. What you did is take Kaufman’s name out, deliberately and dishonestly.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thank you for proving my case so gullibly! 🙂 I knew you’d finally get to it! 🙂 Atheism can’t be Kaufman’s religion if it’s not a religion. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Never said it was. That is what the quote said though. You know, the one you thought you would get away with creatively editing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I didn’t edit anything. 🙂 Thank you for proving my case and proving yourself wrong. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            You edited the quote to make it say what you wanted it to.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thank you for quoting the part about atheism being a religion. That was stellar. 🙂 Good job!

          • Parodyx

            I didn’t.
            Original quote (which is not part of any ruling): “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

            Guest’s rewrite of this quote: “Atheism is a religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being”

            That’s what you did, and everyone knows it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So if atheism is Kaufman’s religion, atheism must be a religion. “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            If the quote were a ruling. It is not. As you well know.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Indeed it is, and it proves that “atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            You’ve only proven that someone has an opinion that atheism is a religion. You haven’t quoted from a ruling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do realize that was a ruling, don’t you? 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Um, no, it wasn’t.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you keep saying the same thing when it’s been proven you are lying. Repeatedly.

          • Parodyx

            Find me something else online that suggests that atheism is officially recognized as a religion. This example has been disqualified.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then why have atheists been trying to overturn it for decades? 🙂 “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            They haven’t.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re embarrassing yourself again. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            I think it’s you who has every reason to be embarrassed. Every single thing you’ve tried to make fly here has been exposed. Your integrity has sunk to its knees and haemorrhaged all over the floor in a pathetic little pile.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, do you really think that repeating false accusations will win you anything? “Atheism is a religion”. Atheists are still trying to fight that one in court.

          • Parodyx

            So you keep claiming, once again without a shred of evidence. You ARE aware that there are actual lawyers here telling you you’re wrong, yes?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, no. 🙂 But keep lying about it.

          • Parodyx

            Your department, not mine.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You keep repeating the same false accusations and talking points from that atheist site of yours. 🙂

          • Colin Rafferty

            Which court cited this? Do you have a case name?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Torcaso v. Watkins

          • Colin Rafferty

            Wrong. In fact, that case proves exactly the opposite.

            That case is based around the fact that Torcaso did not have a religion, and that this should not bar him from holding public office.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It said that atheism was his religion.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, it didn’t. The text of the decision is online. That is not in there. If you believe your claim be true, you should have no problem quoting the sentence that says that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s in the footnote. Judge Black called secular humanism a religion. Then there was this WI decision that ruled ““Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

          • Colin Rafferty

            I see where your mistake was. Secular humanism is not atheism.

            As for a different case, Kaufman v McCaughtry, they said that atheism is a religion for the purposes of First Amendment claims, because it takes a position on the existence of god.

            “Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.   As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sorry, but you’re wrong. In both cases, atheism was ruled a religion. You have your quote.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Secular humanism is not atheism. Torcaso v. Watkins does not say that atheism is a religion. It says that secular humanism is a religion.

            The first noted humanist, Saint Thomas More, would be surprised to learn that he was an atheist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So why did the WI court quote the ruling when it ruled atheism a religion?

          • Colin Rafferty

            It quoted it for a different reason, not it’s mentioning of atheism being a religion for first amendment purposes.

            It quoted it to say ‘that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”’

            These rulings aren’t really that hard to read. You ought to have seen this for yourself.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already gave you the quote. It says atheism is a religion. Re-read it.

          • Colin Rafferty

            There is no quote in Torcaso that says atheism is a religion. You never gave me a quote from Torcaso that says it. You are misremembering what you said.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I gave you a direct quote from the court records. Are you saying the WI judge didn’t know what he was quoting?

          • Colin Rafferty

            The quote you gave from Kaufman was not the judge quoting from Torcaso. See my other response for the reality of Kaufman.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The quote I gave was from the WI ruling with a quote that referenced the other ruling.

          • Joe Cogan

            If the Supreme Court, or a Wisconsin court, ruled that lamb was a vegetable, would that make it a vegetable? You’re an idiot, sir.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So now you hate the courts because they ruled something you disagree with? But – but – I thought the point was to prove whether or not the courts even said so!

          • Rookheight

            The First Amendment affords the same protections to nonreligious citizens for their nonreligious convictions. That doesn’t make those convictions religious, it’s just common sense equality under the law.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What does that have to do with the court ruling that says, “Atheism is religion”? And why are you trying to shove your religion down everyone’s throat?

          • Rookheight

            There’s a difference between a court ruling that SAYS something (a three-word quote with no context) and a court actually RULING something.

            Courts have never ruled that atheism is a religion, because it’s obviously not. Atheists’ beliefs are entitled to the same legal protections as religious people’s beliefs, and that’s it. The court explained this in a way that less educated (or intellectually dishonest) people might not understand (or might misrepresent), and you are one or the other.

            We’ve all been trying to explain this to you all day; if you still don’t understand, maybe you should just let it go. Or try picking three out-of-context words and arguing them as legal precedent in court, and see how that goes.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You just got the court ruling that says (this is a quote), “Atheism is a religion”. That makes it pretty clear. 🙂

          • Rookheight

            Yeah, you’re hopeless.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, because a direct quote from a court ruling is “hopeless”.:)

          • Parodyx

            There is no court ruling that says “atheism is a religion”. Maybe if enough people repeat it, it will sink in.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why do you lie and think you can get away with it? I quoted directly from the WI ruling.

          • Parodyx

            Why do you continue to play games? You quoted dishonestly from it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            If you are going to play games and ignore what people have said to you, it’s no bother for me to repeat it for you.

            Colin Rafferty: “There is no quote in Torcaso that says it, and you never even gave me any quote from Torcaso. You made a reference to footnote 11, which mentions that secular humanism is a religion. Which is neither a quote, nor about atheism.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”. That’s in the most recent WI ruling.

          • Parodyx

            Here are more quotes which you ignored before and continue to ignore now:

            Croquet_Player: “You did not give “a quote”, because there is no quote from any court ruling that states atheism is a religion. The court ruled that “Secular Humanism” may be considered a religion, not atheism. The two aren’t the same thing.”

            Rookheight: “There’s a difference between a court ruling that SAYS something (a three-word quote with no context) and a court actually RULING something.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            “You made a reference to footnote 11, which mentions that secular humanism is a religion. Which is neither a quote, nor about atheism.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re confusing 2 different cases. “Atheism is a religion” is from the most recent court ruling.

          • Parodyx

            Present proof please.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Go re-read all my posts. 🙂 You’ve got so much proof you could drown in it yet you’re still playing this game. 🙂 Yes, I am laughing at you. “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            Oh, so just more of your game playing and refusal to read and comprehend the schooling you received from no fewer than four people. I see. Carry on.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, the reference was given to BOTH cases multiple times. Did you only just realize we’re talking about 2 separate cases? “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            No, there is no such ruling. You are dodging and trolling, and if you’re not you will provide a very simple web link.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You can’t link here but I’ve already cited the case for you, multiple times. 🙂
            United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

            James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
            No. 04-1914.
            Decided: August 19, 2005

            “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            Here’s what it says. I searched for the phrase verbatim.

            “But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns.”

            It’s interesting to search the case a little bit – you should read this, as there is a direct reference to you in the first sentence:

            “Only an imbecile would think that atheism is literally equivalent to religion. The sort of case he refers to, in all likelihood, is Kaufman v Mccaughtry, from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds that a prison inmate’s religious liberties include allowing atheists to conduct study groups, just as religious prisoners are allowed to do. That case mentions a few US Supreme Court opinions that give atheism the same protection as religion, so they may be regarded as equivalent with respect to an individual’s freedom — but of course that doesn’t mean atheism is religion.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You copied and pasted that from an atheist site, not from the actual court case. Nice attempt to deceive readers, who I’m sure are smart enough to Google the case themselves. 🙂 “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            Google it yourself. Just put the phrase it quotation marks so it picks up the exact phrase. You aren’t even a good troll. A child could figure this out.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even realize what you copied. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Sure I do. It’s the statement you lied about.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Not only did I not lie, but you proved my case for me. I knew you’d finally get around to doing it quite explicitly, albeit unintentionally. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            You have been exposed. You can’t un-embarrass yourself now,

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The truth has been exposed, and guess what? It wasn’t on your side. 🙂 “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            You can quote yourself all day long.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Or I could do what I’ve done all along and quote the legal decision that “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            You haven’t done so. The quote you have was incorrect and it didn’t say what you claimed.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So if atheism is Kaufman’s religion, “atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            The quote is not taken from any ruling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sure it is and it was based upon an earlier ruling decades ago that atheism is a religion.

          • Parodyx

            It’s not from a ruling. Anyone can go and see for themselves.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That was a ruling. And yes, anyone can read it for themselves since I’ve a.) quoted it, and b.) given the court case’s name.

          • Parodyx

            Well then let’s let them do that so they can see it’s not from a ruling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What do you gain by lying? Or are you that ignorant that you don’t know what a court ruling is?

          • Parodyx

            Lying? Am I the one who altered the quote? No, that was you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”. Face it.

          • Parodyx

            Happy to. When you prove it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re just embarrassing yourself at this point. Perhaps you should stop your gay activism and read up on other issues.

          • Parodyx

            Perhaps you should stop lying and trolling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”. “Human secularism is a religion”. You can find those words in plenty of places, and that’s why atheists like you have their shorts in a knot.

            If atheism isn’t a religion, how can it be Kaufman’s? Thus, you yourself have unwittingly proven that “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            You don’t seem to tire of being told the same thing over and over, because the quote which you ALTERED was not “Atheism is a religion”. The original quote said “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion,” and it was an opinion only and not part of a ruling. The worst thing about your position is you keep relying on a single case, even though you keep trying to dress it up as a victory. There would be a lot more of them if you had a leg to stand on.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh the irony! 🙂

          • Parodyx

            The quote was “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            No it isn’t, sand you have no ruling to show otherwise. Give it up.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already gave the ruling and how to find it. I’m sure those who are more adept at using a search engine than you are will find it. 🙂 “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            You still aren’t using your quotation marks honestly. The quote was “atheism is Kaufman’s religion”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thank you for proving my case for me! 🙂

          • Parodyx

            You mean exposing your sneaky lie? You are welcome!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Atheism is a religion”. Indeed it is! 🙂

          • Parodyx

            In your mind perhaps. But there is no quote which says that. Anywhere.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thank you for quoting the part about atheism being a religion. That was stellar. 🙂 🙂

          • Parodyx

            You mean Kaufman’s “religion”? No problem. Happy to clarify the truth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It can’t be Kaufman’s religion if it isn’t a religion. Thanks for playing. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            This all according to the quote. Which wasn’t a ruling. Thanks for trolling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now you’ve gone from denying the quote doesn’t exist to denying that it was part of the ruling. 🙂 “The FOOL hath said in his heart there is no God”. Yep, atheists are dumb.

          • Parodyx

            It’s both. You changed the quote to suit your claim, but didn’t take it from an authoritative source. You’re trolling, and it’s obvious.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I did not change anything, and I gave the ruling reference. “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            Correction, the quote is “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion” and it was not taken from a ruling but from an opinion. Please stop changing quotes to suit your agenda.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are making things up – again. Do you even know what a court ruling is?

          • Parodyx

            Why did you alter the original quote to suit your purposes if you’re being honest here? That’s the question you need to answer. You were caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, if I altered something, why did I reference it? 🙂 Thanks for proving your reading comprehension skills suck. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Because you didn’t expect anyone would call you out in it…dude.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Call me out on what ? Proving my point? 🙂 You prove over and over again that atheists are fools.

          • Parodyx

            Anyone who wants to can follow the thread from the beginning. It started with your unwillingness to provide a link. Then it was showing how you altered the quote you gave us by taking Kaufman’s name out. You tried to deflect that one by saying I got it from an atheist website, whatever that is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You did copy and paste from an atheist website, which is why you keep repeating that a quote isn’t there that most decidedly is. “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            Please do not thank me for things I did not do. Your lie was exposed.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh the irony! 🙂 Thank you for quoting the part about atheism being a religion. That was stellar. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            I didn’t.
            Original quote (which is not part of any ruling): “Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

            Guest’s rewrite of this quote: “Atheism is a religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

            The first quote may easily be Googled in its entirety to fully prove you lied.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If atheism isn’t a religion, how can it be part of Kaufman’s religion? 🙂 “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            The quote is not a ruling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The ruling is that atheism is a religion. 🙂 You keep trying to skim over that but you can’t deny reality.

          • Parodyx

            Reality is that you changed the quote.
            Reality is that you TOOK that quote from a part of an opinion from someone else unrelated to any ruling.
            Reality is that you’re trolling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you are lying. You are intentionally misrepresenting what was in a COURT RULING, found at United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
            James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
            No. 04-1914.
            Decided: August 19, 2005
            “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            Anyone who reads that will find out what I did, that you changed a quote from it, and that you weren’t even quoting from a ruling. If atheism were considered a religion you’d have a lot more information than one dubious little reference here, it would be slathered all over the internet, and it’s not.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you didn’t even know how to find the court case, you don’t know what a ruling is, and you didn’t even know that atheism was ruled a religion decades ago, and again more recently, and you didn’t know that atheists have been trying to overturn this ruling for years now. Why do you keep talking about the topic when you don’t even know what it is? “Atheism is a religion”.

          • Parodyx

            Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it a fact 🙂 It’s just troll behavior. I think most people here have your number. The court case is easy as pie to find, you just use Google. Your quote couldn’t be located verbatim because you changed it. Once we knew what the ACTUAL quote was, before your edit job on it, it popped up in several places. The problem is, the quote wasn’t part of a ruling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh the irony! 🙂

      • Amos Moses

        tv does have a brightness setting …… but it does not work ………….

  • Amos Moses

    Now, some 15 films into the series, the stakes are becoming raised to near-ultimate levels. And so in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the latest hotly anticipated superhero epic, the villain is a million-year-old deity who created himself and the world around him. In fact Kurt Russell’s character – Ego – is not only a god, but also importantly a kind of God-the-Father. Yet far from being an all-powerful but ultimately all-good God in the Christian tradition, Ego is more like the nightmarish cartoon that some atheists like to draw of the creator. This God isn’t driven by love and a desire to be in community with the things he has created, but by a maniacal desire for universal superiority. He’s exactly the kind of judgmental, power-crazed, submission-demanding straw man that the New Atheists have been so keen to propagate in recent years.

    • Croquet_Player

      Much like the straw man atheist a number of religious folks put out there, as seen in the 2014 film “God’s Not Dead”. (Although to be fair atheists actually exist, but the deity you refer to here is a fictional character in a comic book movie.) Frustrating, isn’t it?

      • Amos Moses

        “Although to be fair atheists actually exist, but the deity you refer to here is a fictional character in a comic book movie.”

        assertion …. POSITIVE CLAIM ……….. NO EVIDENCE ………. is that a scientific or theological statement ……… FYI …… you just PROVED what said was not true ….. self-contradictory statements ….. just makes you a liar ……

        to wit ….

        “There are no “tenets of atheism”. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity or deities, and nothing more.””Please go find an “official atheist website” which lists the “tenets of atheism”.”

        are you confused ……. because this is contradiction ……… i can actually find numerous references to “tenets of a-theism” ….. just more lies and self-contradictory statements …………

        • Johndoe

          Lol!

        • Croquet_Player

          Wow. Let’s settle down. In your original comment, you’re referring to a fictional character in a movie. That’s what I was referring to too. A fictional character in a movie. I think you have rather lost the plot here. Let’s take your points one by one. I await your points.

          • Amos Moses

            a-theists refer to God as many things ….. to include something very similar to the OP ……. when atheists claim God does not exist but then turn around and say things like “nightmarish cartoon that some atheists like to draw of the creator” and that He has ” a maniacal desire for universal superiority. He’s exactly the kind of judgmental, power-crazed, submission-demanding” …. or words to that effect …… is precisely how a-theists and others characterize him …… maybe not precisely those words …….. but words to that effect ……….

            now i will give to your point that you were referring to the OP …… and i may have misread your intention …. or your words ….. but it does not change the point ……. a-theists claim a thing does not exist …… but if He does …… then He is a really mean guy ….. as if they has any basis for such judgement ………….

          • Croquet_Player

            Some atheists claim a deity or deities do not exist. Most atheists simply say there is no credible evidence to support a belief in any deities. There’s a key difference there, one is making a positive claim, the other isn’t. Please don’t lump both viewpoints together. And yes, atheists, like everyone else, hold a wide variety of viewpoints about various deities and their supposed characteristics. For example, I find the Hindu god “Ganesha” to be rather charming. I don’t believe it exists, but I understand that others do, and they assign him certain attributes. I can still discuss the idea of the god Ganesha, while not believing it exists. (Does it exist? I don’t know for certain, but I see no credible evidence to support the claim, therefore I don’t believe in it.)

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      Ego, the Living Planet, first appeared in Thor #132 (Sept. 1966). So the idea that the character was created to somehow appeal to atheists is silly.

      • Amos Moses

        right ….. because a-theists did not exist before 1966 …… got cha …………. FAIL … try again ………

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          We existed, but at that time being an atheist was not a good thing to speak out about.

          And Ego was created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, two nice Jewish boys from New York. He was written to give Thor (an actual god, remember) a powerful enemy that could not be defeated merely by swinging a magic hammer.

          And even in the movie Ego says he’s a “small g god” implying that even Ego acknowledges a greater power than itself.

          • Amos Moses

            i always liked Jack Kirby …….

  • Robinske2

    This group surely has judge shopped for a liberlal/democrat who will rule in their favor. America is ruled by judges, not our elected officials.

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      In reality, you take the judge assigned – at random – by the court calendar.

      • Croquet_Player

        “In reality”. That’s where some folks here part company. 😉

  • Snowy

    Regarding your “special message:” How is sending bibles providing for refugees’ physical needs? Which message would you rather send to them–that Christians place the refugees’ needs for shelter, food, and water above proselytizing, or that they think the money is best spent on an audio bible they probably don’t want, and probably don’t have a way to listen to?

    It’s one thing to pray, it’s another to prey, and pressing a new religion towards someone who is so vulnerable, so in need, is very much the latter. What is a better way to follow Jesus’ example: to clothe and feed and display the comfort and giving of a good Christian, or to be salesmen, couching relief with a sales pitch?

    This is not what Jesus would do.

  • Mama Hoover

    I don’t see what you are arguing about, It is totally equal. Atheists can electioneer for the candidate they feel most meets their belief at their meetings and the churches can electioneer at their worship services. No problem.

    • Colin Rafferty

      If the atheist meeting is a tax-exempt non-profit, you cannot electioneer, or lose your tax-exempt status. Just like a church would lose its tax-exempt status.

      The issue here is that churches want special privileges. They want to electioneer and also keep their tax-exempt status.

  • Mama Hoover

    As would the atheist “churches”.

  • Joe Cogan

    If taxation without representation is tyranny, as James Otis so memorably put it, then representation without taxation is freeloading. If churches want to wade into politics, they can start by voluntarily eschewing their tax exempt status.

    • Jason Todd

      The First Amendment!

      • Joe Cogan

        Nothing in the First Amendment prohibits taxing churches.

        • Jason Todd

          Taxing a church for exercising its constitutional rights is.

          • Joe Cogan

            Nonsense. Nothing in the text says anything one way or another about taxing churches.

          • Jason Todd

            Nonsense.

            Excuse me?

            Did you or did you not say, “If churches want to wade into politics, they can start by voluntarily eschewing their tax exempt status?”

            In other words, you, like the FFRF, want to see what is said from the pulpit controlled.

            Here’s the problem, you freakin’ bigot: The First Amendment gives churches not only freedom of religion, but freedom of speech. What are you are suggesting is absolutely, blatantly unconstitutional, as is the Johnson Amendment, which should have been junked years ago.

          • Joe Cogan

            Excuse me, but you’re nuts. NOTHING in the text of the First Amendment or anything else in the Constitution says anything about whether or not churches should be taxed. Their tax-exempt status is granted by the government, it is not a right. You don’t have a leg to stand on, Constitutionally speaking.

          • Jason Todd

            So you are a moron as well as a bigot.

            Marbles. Freeway. Blocked.

          • Joe Cogan

            Inability to respond duly noted. Thanks for playing.

          • Bob Johnson

            I have a constitutional right to free speech and yet I am taxed. I have the right to any religion and I can give my money to a church and then deduct that money from my taxes. A television evangelist can collect millions of dollars tax free.

          • Rookheight

            The government is allowed to attach strings to privileges. If they offer the privilege of tax exemption, they can take away certain specific political speech. If you want that speech, you can have it, but you have to give up the tax-free privilege.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Everyone and everything, barring a few exceptions, gets taxed. Being taxed is not a punishment, it’s neutral. NOT being taxed is a privilege.

  • BuckeyePhysicist

    There has been electioneering in liberal Protestant churches for decades. This levels the playing field.

  • Chet

    I’ll bet my life President Trump and Vice President Pence aren’t shaking in their boots over these clowns… And neither should any other man or school, or institution or military branch be. These anti God anti Christ people are but paper tigers and toothless wonders…