Satanists to Distribute Materials to Florida Public School Students

lunchroomORLANDO — A prominent Satanist organization plans to distribute pamphlets and other materials to public school students in Florida after an atheist group that took issue with the distribution of Christian materials was given the green light to also share its printed publications.

As previously reported, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) learned last year that a Christian ministry had made Bibles available to Orlando high school students on “Religious Freedom Day.” To counter the Bible distribution, FFRF sought permission from the school district to give students a variety of atheistic and anti-Christian materials.

According to reports, the Orange County School Board permitted FFRF to distribute several books and pamphlets, including a booklet entitled “What’s Wrong With The Ten Commandments?” and a brochure entitled “What Is An Atheist?” However, the board prohibited FFRF from giving students several other publications, citing the materials’ “disruptive” and inappropriate content.

FFRF promptly sued the school board for not allowing the distribution of the materials, and eventually it complied with the organization’s demands. In July, a district judge officially dismissed the FFRF lawsuit, thus giving the green light to the in-school distribution of atheistic materials.

Now, the New York-based Satanic Temple has announced that it will likewise distribute its publications to area schools so that it can have its equal time before students.

“I am quite certain that all of the children in these Florida schools are already aware of the Christian religion and it’s Bible, and this might be the first exposure these children have to the actual practice of Satanism,” spokesperson Lucien Greaves wrote in a recent press release about the matter. “We think many students will be very curious to see what we offer.”

According to CBS Tampa, one of the materials to be made available to students is The Satanic Children’s Big Book of Activities, which includes a coloring page that features “Annabel’s study filled with Satanic literature and philosophy,” a pentagram connect the dots complete with a goat’s head, and a secret code that reads “Satana Blessed Be.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“We would never seek to establish a precedent of disseminating our religious materials in public schools because we believe our constitutional values are better served by respecting a strong separation of Church and State,” Greaves said.

“However, if a public school board is going to allow religious pamphlets and full Bibles to be distributed to students—as is the case in Orange County, Florida—we think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions, as opposed to standing idly by while one religious voice dominates the discourse and delivers propaganda to youth,” he added.

The Satanic Temple is also behind a proposed “homage to Satan,” which it seeks to place next to a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol building.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • James Grimes

    Hopefully, parents will stand against this nonsense.

    • Dan Summers

      Hope they do…and remove all religious writings from all public schools. Christians wanted to distribute their nonsense in a public school…so every other faith has the same right. I hope the scientologists give out some of their literature too.

      No matter what you believe James, there is nothing illegal going on here. This is going exactly according the Constitution. There is nothing you or anyone else can to prevent them from giving away their information….unless you want the Christians to stop too.

      • jmichael39

        You wouldn’t want that…then they’d have to remove all your atheists BS from the schools too.

        • sowellfan

          Actually, if you read the news stories about atheist literature distribution in schools, you’ll notice that they only did it in response to Christian literature distribution, and their preference was that *no* religious (or anti-religious) literature be distributed. But the governments in question opted to allow everything, rather than disallowing the tales of the blood god.

          • jmichael39

            Good for them. Because, frankly, the rejection of all religious literature is, at the very least, a back door way of advocating for atheism.

          • James Grimes


          • jmichael39

            So you favor removing all religions from having any influence on our kids in school? Good. Then we can count on your help in ridding the schools of atheism as well.

          • Kiska Jolene Lucas

            Atheism is not a religion..

          • jmichael39

            The Supreme Court seems to think it is. Perhaps you’re foolish enough to think that a religion needs a supreme being in order for it to be a religion. Just to be clear “atheism” means without god, not without religion.

          • BC
          • josh crissen

            you should look that up, because you will find that you are wrong. In fact TIME magazine just did a article on the “New Religion Atheism” were atheist churches are now being built and services are being held on Sundays, look it up.

          • Aster Nova

            Time lied. Shocking that the media would lie.They are community gatherings for non-believers not churches. Hell the one in my area is held at a cafe which is hardly a church.

          • jmichael39

            Sure it is…the courts have oft ruled it as a religion. But nice try.

          • Dan Summers

            Atheism is as much a religion as Off is a TV channel.

            What in your mind makes Atheism a religion? Define religion. Hint Religion require worship.

          • BC

            Many of the atheist I know worship man and science.

          • josh crissen

            not necessarily




            a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

            “consumerism is the new religion”

          • jmichael39

            Ask the courts, fool…and the atheists who have brought cases arguing their right to religious freedoms. You don’t like it too bad. A-theism does not equate to A-religion.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            Why do you need to recruit for Christianity in schools? Is it an admission that your churches are failures? After all, that what they are there for. The schools are public domain and religion should keep out.

          • jmichael39

            Then get Secular Humanism out too. That’s a religion, but permitted on our campuses without restriction. And they’re constantly recruiting too. I read about a science professor who openly admitted that his goal in teaching evolution is to convince as many people as possible that it is true in contrast to theistic views of the origins of the universe. THAT is recruiting people to the scientific view that is espoused by his religious beliefs…period. No two ways about it.

            You watch an ID scientist debate an evolutionist and they both have solid arguments based upon science. The evolutionist accepts the conclusions and evidence that best suits his worldviews and ID scientists does the exact same thing.

            Only one serious difference in their two approaches. The ID scientist accepts the scientific arguments of the evolutionists as legitimate science. He disagrees but accepts their views. The evolutionist’s ultimate argument centers around his view that ID is not “real” science to him…why? because giving it that legitimacy means it will then be allowed equal access to those young minds he wants exclusive access to. PERIOD.

          • Aster Nova

            ID is not science. Evolution has been tested and proven. How could you test ID while following the scientific method? You can’t. You can’t test it. It’s not science. Also, evolution does not deal with origins of the universe. I call BS on your whole story.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO – call whatever want, ID IS as much based upon science as Darwinism.

            Micro evolution is not in question…but you’re a fool if you think that science has “proven” macro-evolutionary theories. But you keep trying.

            How can you test macroevolutionary theories scientifically. ID is tested the EXACT same way. Read a damned book instead of parroting what other imbeciles say about ID. Read The Black Box or Darwin’s Dilemma or any number of other ID books. You can disagree with the conclusions of those books all you want, but I DARE you to tell me how those conclusions were not arrived at through scientific methodology.

            No, evolution does not deal with origins…Darwinism does though. What’s your point? I don’t see you refuting anything presented and your statements about ID clearly point to the fact that you don’t honestly know squat about ID. But like I said, you keep trying.

          • jmichael39

            Approaching this from another angle, WHY should religion have no place in our schools. For the first 175+ years of this country there was no problem with religion, God, the bible being incorporated into our public education and the rest of the public domain. For the first 175+ years there was no question that the intent of the Establishment Clause was NOT to rid the public domain of religion, but to simply refuse to fund a single denomination as the national religion. No body for 175+ years questioned the inclusion of God, the Bible and religion in the public domain because, to them, there was no question that it belonged in the public domain.

            So you tell me, what changed to make it so the obvious and limited application of the establishment clause was no longer right? When was the Constitution changed in such as way as to mean that religion, God and the Bible didn’t belong in the public domain? Tell me.

          • James Grimes

            Really, as Christians should we care what their preferences are? They are useless nuisances who make no real contributions to the quality of life in this country.

          • Dan Summers

            Wow James….just wow. Atheists don’t contribute to the country at all? Nothing at all? Take off the blinders of your religion.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            Religion should be allowed in public schools only if science is allowed in their churches.

          • josh crissen

            I want to know why anti God, atheist, agnostics etc, want to come onto a Christian site and try to push their agenda. Do you not realize that, by this blatant rude, disruptive action you just confirm, prove, and solidify our views about you ?

          • Aster Nova

            We want you to read more than one book for the betterment of the community. We want you to become scientifically literate so that we can advance as a society. I don’t hate religion or god (who does not exist or atleast there is not evidence that he does). I want our society to progress and religion hold progression back.

          • josh crissen

            you did not answer my question, if you do not believe in God (like that matters lol) why come onto a Christian site, other than you know deep down that you are wrong

          • josh crissen

            your an idiot-some of the greatest advances in Science were made by scientists who at least acknowledged the existence of God

            Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

            Belief in God

            Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a “God of the gaps”, these scientists, and still others alive today, believe because of the evidence.

            Rich Deem

            Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
            Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution – and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

            Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
            Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)

            Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
            Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity – well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

            Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
            Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

            Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
            Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God – for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences – can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

            Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
            Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, thePensées (“Thoughts”), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s last words were, “May God never abandon me.”

            Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
            In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

            Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
            One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

            Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
            Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

            Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
            Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860’s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics – selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.

            William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
            Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

            Max Planck (1858-1947)
            Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a “tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition” with the goal “toward God!”

            Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
            Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

        • Dan Summers

          What Atheist BS? You mean like teaching science? Teaching provable and testable facts?

          What kind of BS are you referring too exactly? Do you even know what you are talking about?

          • josh crissen

            the original scientist either were Christians or Agnostic, none denied God.One example of many was Sir Isaac Newton..

            Religious views of Isaac Newton

            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)[1]was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified asoccult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5]

            Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw amonotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[6][7]Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[8] in recent times he has been described as a heretic.[9

            He was a heretic according to the Catholic church as his views followed those of the Protestants.

      • Lisa Jones

        Yeah u fuking moron. Let’s use children to fight out twisted anti religious agendas. You’re
        Evil. Go fuk yourself u psychopath loser

        • Marie Adigwe

          No, this person is making a statement. If you want Christian literature distributed in schools, then you must realize that other religious organizations have the same Constitutional right to distribute their religious materials.

        • Dan Summers

          Lisa…it was Christians who opened the door to all this. Anti-religious agenda…no this is a religious one.

          If you want Christian literature/mythology handed out you have to accept that ALL Faiths and Nones get to hand out theirs as well. Either everyone gets to play or no one gets to play. This is a public school…and making sure not to give preference to any faith over any other is paramount.

          The simplest solution is to ban all religious texts from being handed out.

          • jmichael39

            great then let’s remove all secular humanist books too…since they’re a religion too.

          • Mike

            This is a secular country, has been since it’s conception. The Constitution makes this a secular country. Secular and humanist books are not a religion, also if they were they are not talking about murdering gays, stoning non-virginal brides, killing babies, burning witches, mass genocide or any of the other numerous “religiously moral” things in the Bible. Your God is a vile, murderous baby killer, it is no wonder his followers are just as evil! You are a perfect example!

          • jmichael39

            Once again, you make statements with no logic, no research, no evidence and no brain power.

            The clear preponderance of evidence from our founding fathers, through their actions and words, is that this country was founding upon the very principles of the bible. You want references? I can present dozens. Are you ready to read or are still too stupid to know you’re wrong when its so obvious to virtually every one else except your fellow atheists?

            Oh, and btw, secular humanism IS a religion. Your own fellow secular humanists have argued so in the courts and have actually won. The courts have ruled secular humanism to be a religion. Again, do you want some citations to back that up? Or would like to actually, for once, do your own research?

            ” if they were they are not talking about murdering gays, stoning non-virginal brides, killing babies, burning witches, mass genocide
            …” – LMAO…you mean like what Nazis did to gays or muslims do to their women and children or you and your fellow secular humanists have done to 55+million unborn babies (here in the US alone) all in the name of a choice or fine upstanding atheists like Stalin, Mao and others have done to tens of millions of people all in the name of a secular socialist state? You and your fellow humanists (that’s a laugh actually considering what I’m about to point out) have killed more humans all in the name of choice in just the past 40 years than all the horrible historical events recorded in the Bible combined. You’re a laughably sick excuse of a human being, Mike. Congratulations on being too stupid to walk away while you still might have had some semblance of intellectually dignity.

      • BC

        Your right, and as a Christian, I wouldn’t want to prevent them from passing out the information to my child. Because I’d be able to use the information as a witnessing and teaching tool for my kids.

        • Dan Summers

          A much better way to look at it then many responses here.

    • Excelsior

      I couldn’t agree more. The faster we get those bibles out of the schools the better.

  • Don Hamilton

    This presents a wonderful opportunity to use our skills in Christian apologetics. Sadly, not many of our children have been taught these skills.

    • Dan Summers

      So you are upset that Christians do not get to be the only one to spread their own literature? Apologetic’s as a skill? How is lying and twisting an ignoring the facts in any way a like skill?

  • sowellfan

    I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in God *or* Satan (for the record I don’t believe the Satanic temple believes in a literal Satan either). But, if you’re just using the Bible as evidence, Satan is much less murderous than God. Like, how many people does Satan really kill? Maybe 10 or so, if you’re talking about Job’s folks, and that only happened b/c he made a bet with God and God’s like, “Sure, dude, kill whoever you want – just not this one guy.” I mean, the God of the OT is quite literally a *blood god*. He’s got all these crazy requirements for the people he picked out as his favorites – but beyond that, what does he want? Well, he wants them to find something perfect, and destroy it, and offer up its blood to him. Then you’ve got the places where God is ordering genocide, ordering rape, actual murder of innocent babies and children. And you’re gonna tell me that God is the good guy here?

    • Guest

      The arrogance of man. To question God, but not allow God to question them. Understand, by the “fall” of creation Satan has killed millions, he is the great deceiver, the father of lies. God did not order unjust killing, he was responding to the evil of men in sacrificial killing of there own.

    • Vito Zabala Halasan

      @swollenfan…haha you didnt believe in God? Why you mentioned about God ? very confusing. if really God nothing in you mind, supposed to be not mentioned Him, the only happen you now, you just doubt, because GOD exist. Explain to me WHY the earth tilted in 23.5 degrees? because of evolution or billions of bacteria’s did it?

      • Krauss Allie

        Hello there Vito. I’m writing an article on the ignorance of Christians and I’ll be sure to include your post as a wonderful example of this. In short, the answer to your questions are No and No.

        Can you do me a small favor and tell me how your ignorance of the orbital plane is somehow evidence for the Christian God?

        looking forward to your reply!
        -take care, Dr. Allie

        • jmichael39

          LMAO…thanks for the late night humor.

        • Vito Zabala Halasan

          there’s no Ignorance who believing God. I wondering those haters and Atheist discussing about God.

    • jmichael39

      and you’re quite literally full of yourself.

      • sowellfan

        Dude, I’m not the one who supposedly created an entire universe just to create a race of people on one planet out of billions of planets, condemn those people to torture for being imperfect, but let them off with a technicality by sacrificing myself to myself (though it’s a temporary sacrifice, not a real one), so that I could tell them, “Okay, here’s the deal – you can worship me forever, or…it’s the torture thing. I’m a great guy, right?”

        • jmichael39

          And neither did my God. So what’s your point? That you’re too full of yourself to do anything but hate people you disagree with? And you think YOU’RE the open minded one. Save yourself the heartache, dude.

        • jmichael39

          And neither did my God. So what’s your point? That you’re too full of yourself to do anything but hate people you disagree with? And you think YOU’RE the open minded one. Save yourself the heartache, dude.

        • Lisa Jones

          Oh yeah but u advocate the evils of satan which are far more twisted sinister and take the lives of millions. U are evil and false get lost u pile of worthless cow dung

        • BC

          Do you have boundaries, and things you accept and don’t accept in your life?

          Do you leave known thieves in your home when your not there?
          (if they are unrepentant of their stealing and have stole from you before?)

          Do you continue in relationship with someone who lies to you continually or cheats on you repeatedly?? Or do you set up boundaries and consequences for those behaviors?

          It is the same principle God has..These behaviors are unacceptable, I will forgive IF you repent and turn from those behaviors–If you repent we can be in relationship, if you don’t repent we can’t..these are the consequences of non-repentance, eternal separation from God.

          That He even gave a way to pay the penalty for man’s rebellion shows an act of Love for those He created on one planet out of billions in the universe.

      • James Grimes

        He is another atheist troll who haunts this site to be hostile and disagreeable. Just as we do with the others, let’s ignore him and not give him the audience he pathetically craves.

        • jmichael39

          Oh I have no problem debating an atheist. They’re typically so full of themselves that they fail to realize just how truly ignorant they are.

          • Dan Summers

            Well when you can provide proof of your beliefs we will listen. Or even just obeying the law of the land(as the Bible commands) and keeping your religion out of government…that would be nice too.

        • jmichael39

          Oh I have no problem debating an atheist. They’re typically so full of themselves that they fail to realize just how truly ignorant they are.

    • Tobias Valentin

      Its visible u are a Satanist…Do not hide it anymore….

      • sowellfan

        I’d be interested to see any actual evidence you have. I’m quite open about what I believe and don’t believe. I don’t see good evidence to believe in a God (at least for any of the popular definitions of God) or Satan. I don’t affiliate with any of the “Satanist” groups because though they might be happen to be atheists of one sort or another, they seem kind of silly to me, and I have no desire to prance about in robes or what-not.

    • Guest

      You are sooooo misled! God is a God of LOVE! Sin entered the world through satan in the garden of eden, since then God has forgiven people over and over BUT still some chose to live like the devil and are evil. Sin causes death NOT God. God gave us all a FREE WILL to love and live for Him but many choose to live in sin. That is where all evil, war, hate, and murder comes from. You ought to go to and watch “The Hope” video to get basic understanding of the Lord God..A LOVING God!

      • Aster Nova

        Prove it or shut up.

    • Lisa Jones

      Sowellfan u are a fuking piece of ignorant dumb shlt. And I’m sure u are very much
      Into evil if u advocate this nonsense. You are stupid. People like you
      Need to get lost. Idiot ignoramus.

      • Lyss B

        What an eloquent example of christian values. I’m sure to be swayed to your way of thinking by your use of insightful adjectives.

        • Lisa Jones

          Insightful adjectives? Yes let’s advocate promoting evil with the farce of politeness behind us that makes it ok. Evil with a polite and PC attitude. You’re deplorable.

          • Lyss B

            I was using sarcasm to convey the idea that your previous use of language was an ineffective means of changing a person’s opinion regarding your position of intolerance. It wasn’t exactly polite either. Sarcasm rarely is. Also, why should politeness be a farce? Are you unable to have a polite conversation with a person who does not share your world view?

          • Dan Summers

            Your bigotry is showing.

          • BC

            Deplorable??? .

          • Cathy Young

            Look at the foul mouth on you, zealot. You promote evil all on your own. I highly doubt jesus would have called his people by those names, whether they listened or not. Like I say, you can always tell a christian by that hateful arrogance every single one of you exudes.

      • Dan Summers

        How very Christian of you….and Ad Hominem attack. Guess you don’t have anything to actually say that counters any points he has made…just like your faith you have nothing.

      • BC

        Why so rude? How does that share the Love of God? How is it you call yourself a Christian and yet speak to someone made in the image of God in such a way?? (While He may not believe in your god, I’m not sure I do either, because My God would convict me in the depths of my being if I wrote such things).

        And if You claim to be a follower of Christ, then you need repent of such things and seek God’s and this man’s forgiveness.

    • josh crissen

      How can a created being judge its creator ? This is no different than the movies were the robot starts questioning the morality of its creator who wants to disassemble it, kinda silly don’t ya think. Take Terminator for an example, the created being turns on its creator, then gets more angry, more vicious when the creator dares to fight back. That movie is a perfect scenario of what the big picture is, behind the death and suffering. You pick and choose examples, which are no more than battles of a much bigger war and judge God on those.

  • Vito Zabala Halasan

    @swollenfan…haha you didnt believe in God? Why you mentioned about God ? very confusing. if really God nothing in you mind, supposed to be not mentioned Him, the only happen you now, you just doubt, because GOD exist. Explain to me WHY the earth tilted in 23.5 degrees? because of evolution or billions of bacteria’s did it?…

  • Tobias Valentin

    All Atheist are Satanist but of course they hide it coz it sounds more acceptable ….

    • Krauss Allie

      Have you even given a moment’s thought to what you’re writing??? Think about it, if we were going to lie about our beliefs to make it sound more acceptable, wouldn’t we just say we’re Christians then??? As though atheists get a free ride…. sure, nobody heckles atheists! Come on now.

      Listen, I understand that you need to convince yourself that we secretly worship the devil, because if you didn’t make up this silly lie your mind would be forced to figure out how so many seemingly intelligent people could possibly come to a different conclusion than you. Can you really not even imagine that it’s possible for someone to read the Holy Bible and come away unconvinced? After all, 2/3 of the planet aren’t convinced of it!!! Christians only make up 1/3 of the word’s population, with the rest being mainly Islamic or Hindu, with plenty of other religions thrown in there along with atheism, which simply means ‘we don’t believe’ in any of them.

      Look, I’m not trying to start an argument with you, but when you say things as utterly ridiculous as this, I’ve got to wonder if I’m really dealing with a mature adult here. Here’s something for you to ponder…. if Atheists are secretly Satan worshipers because we don’t accept your faith, then what are Jews, Muslims, and Hindu’s? They reject your faith too. Do they secretly worhship satan as well?

    • Lisa Jones

      Yup they are!!! Everyone I know who is atheist agnostic seems to so
      Somehow end up being stanist messed up

      • Dan Summers

        YOu don’t know many people do you?

    • Dan Summers

      Well thank you for out right lying.

  • Leonard Githinji

    It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children about Christianity and to protect them against the doctrine of satanism.To win this battle we must pray without ceasing and God will fight for us.

  • Lisa Jones

    Only in stupid evil Orlando will this evil filth take place
    People need to protest this shlt. Come on idiots wake up!!

  • GodsAccident

    The profoundly simple lesson in this is being missed by arguing the points of each religion.

    In short, no religious materials should be allowed in a government funded school. But since it was (stupidly, clearly) allowed, it allows ALL beliefs, no matter how “offensive”, to distribute their own materials. Fundamentalist Christians will never get this it seems.

  • MC

    “In 2004, scholars at UCLA revealed that college students involved in religious activities are likely to have better mental health. In 2006, population researchers at the University of Texas discovered that the more often you go to church, the longer you live. In the same year researchers at Duke University in America discovered that religious people have stronger immune systems than the irreligious. They also established that churchgoers have lower blood pressure.

    Meanwhile in 2009 a team of Harvard psychologists discovered that believers who checked into hospital with broken hips reported less depression, had shorter hospital stays, and could hobble further when they left hospital.”

    “In the last few years scientists have revealed that believers, compared to non-believers, have better outcomes from breast cancer, coronary disease, mental illness, Aids, and rheumatoid arthritis. Believers even get better results from IVF. Likewise, believers also report greater levels of happiness, are less likely to commit suicide, and cope with stressful events much better. Believers also have more kids.

    What’s more, these benefits are visible even if you adjust for the fact that believers are less likely to smoke, drink or take drugs. And let’s not forget that religious people are nicer. They certainly give more money to charity than atheists, who are, according to the very latest survey, the meanest of all.”

    “Divorce. Four of every 10 children experience parental divorce, but a link between religious practice and a decreased likelihood of divorce has been established in numerous studies. Women who are more religious are less likely to experience divorce or separation than their less religious peers. Marriages in which both spouses attend religious services frequently are 2.4 times less likely to end in divorce than marriages in which neither spouse worships. Those who view their religious beliefs as “very important” are 22 percent less likely to divorce than those for whom religious beliefs are only “somewhat important.” The sociological literature reviews by the late David Larson of the Duke University Medical School and his colleagues indicated that religious attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability, confirming studies conducted as far back as 50 years ago.

    The likelihood of divorce is even further reduced when husbands and wives share the same religious commitment. Such couples report having a greater sense of well-being and more satisfaction with their marital relationship, and they are less likely to commit acts of domestic violence. A study of couples with divergent theological views showed that they were more likely to argue, especially about financial matters.Intermarriage across major faith groups is also linked with greater marital instability. Furthermore, couples who share the same faith are more likely to reunite if they separate than are couples who do not share the same religious affiliation. In one study, one-third of the separated spouses who had the same religious affiliation reconciled, compared with less than one-fifth of those with different affiliations.”

    “Mother-Child Relationship. Compared with mothers who did not consider Religion important, those who deemed Religion to be very important rated their relationship with their child significantly higher, according to a 1999 study. When mothers and their children share the same level of religious practice, they experience better relationships with one another. For instance, when 18-year-olds attended religious services with approximately the same frequency as their mothers, the mothers reported significantly better relationships with them, even many years later, indicating that the effects of similar religious practice endures. Moreover, mothers who became more religious throughout the first 18 years of their child’s life reported a better relationship with that child, regardless of the level of their religious practice before the child was born. Mothers who attended religious services less often over time reported a lower-quality relationship with their adult child.”

    “Father-Child Relationship. Greater religious practice of fathers is associated with better relationships with their children, higher expectations for good relationships in the future, a greater investment in their relationships with their children, a greater sense of obligation to stay in regular contact with their children, and a greater likelihood of supporting their children and grandchildren.

    Wilcox found that fathers’ religious affiliations and religious attendance were positively associated with their involvement in activities with their children, such as one-on-one interaction, having dinner with their families, and volunteering for youth-related activities. Compared with fathers who had no religious affiliation, those who attended religious services frequently were more likely to monitor their children, praise and hug their children, and spend time with their children. In fact, fathers’ frequency of religious attendance was a stronger predictor of paternal involvement in one-on-one activities with children than were employment and income-the factors most frequently cited in the academic literature on fatherhood.”

    “Domestic Violence. A small but growing body of research has focused on the links between religious practice and decreased family violence. For example, men who attended religious services at least weekly were more than 50 percent less likely to commit an act of violence against their partners than were peers who attended only once a year or less. No matter how the data were analyzed, regular attendance at religious services had a strong and statistically significant inverse association with the incidence of domestic abuse. Similarly, after controlling for all other factors, Wilcox found that of all groups studied (unaffiliated, active conservative Protestant, active mainline Protestant, nominal conservative Protestant, and nominal mainline Protestants), religiously active conservative Protestant men were least likely to engage in domestic violence.

    ‘Religion and Extramarital Sex

    Religious belief and practice are associated with less permissive attitudes toward extramarital sex and correspondingly lower rates of non-marital sexual activity among adolescents and adults.”

    “Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing. Thirty-seven percent of births now occur out of wedlock, with an increasing number born to cohabiting parents. However, given the findings on the relationship between religious practice and non-marital sex, attitudes, and behavior, it is not surprising that regular religious practice is one of the most powerful factors in preventing out-of-wedlock births. Rates of such births are markedly higher among young women who do not have a religious affiliation than among peers who do.

    The level of young women’s religious commitment also makes a significant difference. Compared with those who viewed themselves as being “very religious,” those who were “not at all religious” were far more likely to bear a child out of wedlock (among whites, three times as likely; among Hispanics, 2.5 times as likely; and among blacks, twice as likely). At he state aggregate level, the same phenomenon occurs. States with higher rates of religious attendance have lower rates of teenage pregnancy.”

    “Religion and Physical Health

    Greater longevity is consistently and significantly related to higher levels of religious practice and involvement, regardless of the sex, race, education, or health history of those studied.[89] For example, those who are religiously involved live an average of seven years longer than those who are not. This gap is as great as that between non-smokers and those who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. Predicting the life spans of 20-year-olds who are religiously involved compared with those who are not yields differences in life span as great as those between women and men and between whites and blacks. Among African-Americans, the longevity benefit is still greater. The average life span of religious blacks is 14 years longer than that of their nonreligious peers.Studies on the effects of religious practice on annual death rates of various populations found that, after controlling for variables such as race, death rates for an age cohort (e.g., men age 59 or women age 71) were reduced by 28 percent to 46 percent (e.g., from 100 deaths per year to 72 deaths to 54 deaths) for that age group.

    An earlier review of 250 epidemiological health research studies found a reduced risk of colitis, different types of cancer, and untimely death among people with higher levels of religious commitment. Conversely, at any age, those who did not attend religious services had higher risks of dying from cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema, arteriosclerosis, and other cardiovascular diseases and were more likely to commit suicide, according to an even earlier review by faculty of the John Hopkins University School of Public Health. The most significant pathway by which religious practice delivers these longevity benefits is a lifestyle that reduces the risk of mortality from infectious diseases and diabetes by encouraging a support network among family and friends that helps to maintain a pattern of regimented care.

    Not only a person’s own religious practice, but also parents’ religious practice affects personal health. Adolescents whose mothers attended religious services at least weekly displayed better health, greater problem-solving skills, and higher overall satisfaction with their lives, regardless of race, gender, income, or family structure, according to a study of public school children in Baltimore.”

    “Religion and Community

    Religious practice benefits not only individuals, but also communities. Religiously active men and women are often more sensitive to others, more likely to serve and give to those in need, and more likely to be productive members of their communities.

    “Compassion and Charity. Religious practice is linked to greater generosity in charitable giving. In extensive research documenting the relationship between Religion and philanthropy, Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University demonstrated that religious practice correlates with a higher rate of care and concern for others. Compared with peers with no religious affiliation, religious respondents were 15 percent more likely to report having tender, concerned feelings for the disadvantaged. This gap was reduced by only 2 percent when the effects of education, income, marital status, sex, race, and age were taken into account.

    The correlation between Religion and increased charitable giving crosses ideological boundaries. When Brooks divided the survey population into quadrants of politically conservative, liberal, secular, and religious respondents, he found that the impact of Religion on compassion applied regardless of the political perspective. Religious conservatives were 6 percent more likely to be concerned about the disadvantaged than were secular liberals, while religious liberals were 24 percentage points more likely to express such feelings of compassion than were secular conservatives.

    Among the general survey population, religious individuals were 40 percent more likely than their secular counterparts to give money to charities and more than twice as likely to volunteer. Among those who felt compassion for the disadvantaged, religious respondents were 23 percentage points more likely to donate to charities at least yearly and 32 percentage points more likely to donate monthly than were their secular counterparts. They were 34 percentage points more likely to volunteer at least yearly and 22 percentage points more likely to volunteer monthly.”

    “Strong and repeated evidence indicates that the regular practice of Religion has beneficial effects in nearly every aspect of social concern and policy. This evidence shows that religious practice protects against social disorder and dysfunction.

    Specifically, the available data clearly indicate that religious belief and practice are associated with:

    Higher levels of marital happiness and stability;

    Stronger parent-child relationships;

    Greater educational aspirations and attainment, especially among the poor;

    Higher levels of good work habits;

    Greater longevity and physical health;

    Higher levels of well-being and happiness;

    Higher recovery rates from addictions to alcohol or drugs;

    Higher levels of self-control, self-esteem, and coping skills;

    Higher rates of charitable donations and volunteering; and

    Higher levels of community cohesion and social support for those in need.

    The evidence further demonstrates that religious belief and practice are also associated with:

    Lower divorce rates:

    Lower cohabitation rates;

    Lower rates of out-of-wedlock births;

    Lower levels of teen sexual activity;

    Less abuse of alcohol and drugs;

    Lower rates of suicide, depression, and suicide ideation;

    Lower levels of many infectious diseases;

    Less juvenile crime;

    Less violent crime; and

    Less domestic violence.”