Somali Christians Fleeing Islamic Extremists Lose Family, Fingers

SomaliaHARGEISA, Somaliland (Morning Star News) Desperate to avoid arrest in Somaliland for leaving Islam, one Christian fled to Ethiopia, while another in Somalia escaped kidnappers after losing fingers for his faith.

Sharif (full name withheld for security reasons) said he had to leave his wife and four children behind in order to sneak out of Somaliland, an autonomous region of Somalia.

After the 31-year-old Sharif put his faith in Christ in May 2014 in Hargeisa, capital of the self-declared republic of Somaliland, a year later rumors began circulating that he had left Islam, he said.

“My association with a visiting white missionary landed me in trouble,” he told Morning Star News by phone from an undisclosed town in Ethiopia. “I feel sad because I cannot see my family, because if I return back to Somaliland, then the government will arrest me.”

Sharif said he was thankful to God for enabling him to miraculously cross the border.

His children, ages 8, 6, 4 and 1, have relocated to an undisclosed town in Somaliland with their mother.

“I am not sure what will happen to my wife and four children,” he said. “I am praying that God will provide for their basic needs. Pray for me that one day I will see them.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Non-Somalis may practice any faith in Somaliland, but conversion from Islam is forbidden for natives, said a church leader in Hargeisa. The constitution of Somaliland, which stipulates that all laws must comply with the general principles of sharia (Islamic law), prohibits conversion from Islam, according to the U.S. State Department’s latest International Religious Freedom Report (2013).

The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The constitution of Somaliland enshrines Islam as the state religion and forbids the propagation of any faith other than Islam.

A church leader in Somaliland who requested anonymity requested prayer for God to provide for the many converts to Christianity in Somalia who are suffering persecution for their faith.

Another former Muslim recently escaped from insurgents of the Islamic extremist Al Shabaab in Baidoa, Somalia. After kidnapping the Christian, whose name is withheld, on May 15, the Islamic extremists chopped off four fingers on his right hand while interrogating him about his faith, he told Morning Star News by phone from an undisclosed town in Somalia.

“Please pray for me, because my hand is not yet healed,” he said.

Al Shabaab, the Somali cell of Al Qaeda, has vowed to rid Somalia of Christians as it fights for control of the country against the government and forces of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

Garissa Terror Attack Foiled

In Kenya about 120 miles from the border with Somalia, police in Garissa on Wednesday night (Aug. 26) discovered a stash of deadly weapons at a house after arresting 14 suspected members of Al Shabaab four days earlier, a church leader told Morning Star News.

“On Saturday (Aug. 22), rumors were going all over Garissa town that the Al Shabaab was planning to attack the churches,” said the church leader (name withheld). “That evening, 14 suspects believed to be linked to the Al Shabaab terror group were arrested – eight Tanzanians and four Kenyans.”

Authorities subsequently recovered seven rocket-propelled grenades, three AK-47 assault rifles, 227 rounds of ammunition and hand grenades from a house in the Soko Ngombe area of Garissa.

North-Eastern Regional Coordinator Mohamud Saleh told reporters that Kenya Defense Forces, police and intelligence personnel raided the rented house in Garissa’s livestock market area and also recovered fertilizer that could have been used to make explosives. The weapons were believed to have been smuggled into the country by Al Shabaab militants from Somalia.

Cell phones recovered in the raid indicated how the attack was going to be carried out, the church leader said, citing a reliable source.

Authorities raided the house after receiving information from terror suspects they arrested the previous week, The Standard newspaper reported. The recovery came days after seven pistols, seven grenades, 20 rounds of ammunition and 15 magazines were seized in the Garissa Ndogo trading center in Garissa, the newspaper reported.

A pastors’ fellowship in Garissa has mobilized churches in the town to set aside two days of prayer and fasting for peace in the area.

“We know that this is the work of the devil, which calls for spiritual warfare, hence we are called to confront these spiritual forces,” the church leader said.

Following the April 2 attack by Al Shabaab on Garissa University College that killed 142 students and six others, churches in Garissa are depleted, he said.

“On Sunday, Aug. 23, only 50 church members came to church as compared to 150 the previous Sunday,” the pastor said.

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
  • Reason2012

    (1) There is no such thing as “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. That phrase came from the time a Pastor wrote a letter to Jefferson expressing his fears that Jefferson would in some way restrict religious freedoms. In response to these fears, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter back to indicate that he would in no way restrict the freedom of religious expression because he saw a wall of separation between church and state.

    So actually the phrase means the exact opposite of what a few claim it means: it re-iterates the First Amendment, that government shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religious expression.

    (2) First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; And yet those who reject God demand the government establish its own denomination of Christianity with its own version of marriage. A violation of the First Amendment.

    (3) Congress/government also cannnot make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    A school can decide to, for example, put up Ten Commandment displays and no one can force them not to.

    A school can decide NOT to put up Ten Commandment displays and no one can force them to.

    But in a Christian nation, the populace will be personally choosing to put up Ten Commandment displays often. Those that do not like this can start voting in a large number of people that believe differently and hope it changes.

    That’s liberty.

    That’s freedom.

    That’s the Constitution many died to create.

    That’s the United States of America.

    Start understanding the Constitution, the First Amendment and the lie about “separation to church and state” and take back our right to honor and worship God as people in positions of leadership personally choose and see fit to on a case by case basis.

    Continue to pray that God will raise up godly leaders to stand up to the anti-God anti-America agenda that has infiltrated our government.

    • Psygn

      I’m sure the Satanic Temple will want to put up a statue using your argument.

      • Reason2012

        Hello. Not unless the majority of people in the area follow satan.
        But even in this case that is not the same thing as satanism is not a religion (although they try to pretend it is) but is instead taking part of a legitimate religion (Christianity in this case) and then using it to mock Christianity, which is all satanism is. So they shouldn’t be allowed to put up their specific anti-Christian hateful propaganda anywhere. Just like no one should be allowed to put up displays that hatefully mock what atheists believe.
        Thank you for posting.

        • Psygn

          Since the Satanic Temple registered as a “religion” they have equal standing under the law regardless of the majority.
          At the moment I don’t know if they have any interest in putting a statue there but I’m sure the legal battle would be interesting and educational for all of us.

          • Reason2012

            If they were a religion, they would be. But since they are really just taking part of Christianity (satan) to hatefully mock Christianity and Christians, they are not. But again, they would need the majority in a community to be satanists as well.

          • Angel

            only idiots would worship satan and allow a satanic statue to be built. Atheist or not, people should be very disturbed by this.

          • Psygn

            People may be disturbed while the law is indifferent.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Why? Atheists don’t believe in Satan any more than they believe in God.

            As an Anti-Theist, I would rather no religious icons be displayed on government property. But if they are going to allow it, I would rather have them all up there, and watch everyone else squirm. Then at least I get some enjoyment out of it.

          • Angel

            you sound like a very nice.. person

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Nice is not always appropriate. For example, when a totally drunk person gets in the car and tries to drive home. You can be “nice” and let them drive, or you can be confrontational and try to get the keys away from them.

            The point of the post is that Christians think its their right to have religious symbols and sayings everywhere to the point to lying about the reasoning. Freedom OF religion as you will. Soon as you let everyone have freedom Of religion they want freedom FROM religion. So yes. I’d get a kick watching the Christians arguing for what I’ve been saying the whole time.

          • Angel

            I am not a christian, I just do not agree with wanting to toy with people because they are religious. It is cruel.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You mistake my point. I wouldn’t laugh at them because they are religious, I pity that part. I laugh at the hypocrites. I do that regardless of their religious beliefs.

            If they don’t want to be laughed at or mocked, don’t do things that are worthy of being laughed at or mocked.

            If their icons were not in places they shouldn’t be, then I doubt I’d even be taking part in this discussion.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Well, it was Christianity that opened the door for Satanism when they created the religion. So you see it as mocking, I am sure the hypocrisy of your Jesus is insulting to them too.

            Also, they don’t need a majority. They need to fill out the same forms, and then once it is declined, they will sue and win, the government will pay an exorbitant amount of lawyers fees and Christianity will lose by fighting. They will also get a lot of press adding to their support. So it isn’t as hard as you think it is.

          • Reason2012

            Satanism is taking the evil figure of Christianity and acting like you worship him just to mock Christianity. That’s not a religion.

            Being insulted by Jesus is different than being insulted by having your own beliefs pointed out and then mocked.

            Yes, they make up fake religions and then introduce lawsuits as just another way to shut down Christianity.

            Thanks for posting.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Well, they can chose to do so if you wish. You don’t have to like it. I think your religion is pretty damn evil, and I think you are all worshiping your own imaginations, but I can’t forcibly stop you either.

            You act like the Satanic religion is brand new. The funny thing is you are the people that for years went around accusing people of being devil worshipers (usually resulting in a giant bonfire and a large pole). Now that a country keeps you from burning them alive, you want to point at them and say they are only making fun of your beliefs. Guess what, you created them, you get to live with them. I’ll enjoy the show.

          • akosipatriot

            There is nothing educational when the motive of these alleged religious satanic group is obvious.

            However, when they declared themselves to be a religion, then the law maybe use against them. Satan as depicted in the Bible is the antagonist, a figure who always wants to devour anyone and destroy men. If their doctrine will consist of these things associated with Satan, then there must be some law that will deter the members of this group from doing harm in the society.

            However, these people will also think for their own safety, so they will use tactics to mock and destroy Christianity using cunning schemes to avoid detection, but when the damage was already done, it will be too late.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            If you view the Bible as a story, it is the story of God and Jesus as told by the authors who researched the disciples that followed Jesus (and that is giving it way too much credit), and thus is the word of God.

            So the descriptions of Satan, are done from the point of view of God being “the good guy” and Satan as being “the bad guy”. The moment Satan is described as the antagonist, then the view becomes biased. I haven’t studied Satanism, but the little I have heard, is that its beliefs are different than what it describes in the Bible.

            I view your God as a malicious being. So I see monuments such as the Ten Commandments as promoting that malicious agenda. What makes your opinion and better than mine?

          • akosipatriot

            *If you view the Bible as a story, it is the story of God and Jesus as
            told by the authors who researched the disciples that followed Jesus
            (and that is giving it way too much credit), and thus is the word of

            And that is what really the Bible tells you, it is the story of man’s fall and the rescue of God through Jesus Christ. If you believe otherwise, then *that is your interpretation!* you are entitled and has the freedom to believe anything. But you can’t impose your interpretation to Christianity. If you insist, you must have the credibility to do so.

            *So the descriptions of Satan, are done from the point of view of God
            being “the good guy” and Satan as being “the bad guy”. The moment Satan
            is described as the antagonist, then the view becomes biased. *

            If you use a different word other than “satan” which was used first by Christians to named the main opponent of Christianity then YOU HAVE A POINT, but because they’ve been using “Satan*” then your point here is moot.*

            *I view your God as a malicious being. *

            You are entitled to your own interpretation, but that doesn’t mean your interpretation is correct.

            *So I see monuments such as the
            Ten Commandments as promoting that malicious agenda.*

            Your viewing of God causes you to see monuments as being malicious, but we do not share the same view, so your next statement/question is absurd. Please do respond with consistent view and respect with other people’s views and interpretation. Suffice it to say, that we read the Bible together, but we have different interpretations, we take the Bible as a positive, you take it as a negative. Then you can’t impose your negative views to us, you can however recommend removing statues or text in public if that will cased you harm physically or emotionally and you have to prove that.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            “*that is your interpretation!*”

            Actually no. I find no evidence that the book is an authoritative source on anything, so even if it was the most reasonable story in the world, and didn’t have stories of incest, burning bushes, resurrections and zombies, I still wouldn’t have reason to view it as something we should consider as truth. Prove the book is worth paying attention to, and THEN it becomes important to *interpret*. My *interpretations* are only to show that the book can be used to hurt, deceive, and hate. Just because you interpret it one way, doesn’t mean that someone else cant read something completely different. Heck, Protestants and Catholics have been at each others throats since the Catholic church came about.

            “But you can’t impose your interpretation to Christianity. If you insist, you must have the credibility to do so.”

            Well, I have the credibility of Christian Scholars that admit half of it is garbage, and yet claim that having faith is the biggest thing, not the Bible’s contents. Which is odd, because without the Bible there is no Jesus or God, but then that is that rationality thing again (with a dose of circular reasoning).

            Also, I am not “imposing” it on you. I’d rather you NOT believe how the Bible actually reads. You call it spirit or whatever, I call it your own inner morality that KNOWS slavery is wrong and that is what makes you interpret it as being irrelevant in the name of Jesus love (though it never says that, with the “I came to fulfill” bit).

            “If you use a different word other than “satan” which was used first by Christians to named the main opponent of Christianity then YOU HAVE A POINT, but because they’ve been using “Satan*” then your point here is moot.*”

            How is that? You claim your story is based in reality. So that means God and Satan both exist. However, we only have Gods version of the story. What makes God the “Good” guy? Often “history” (and I use that very liberally with the Bible), is decided by the ‘victor’ and usually results in the victor stating how just he was to dispose of the enemy. When I read the Bible, I am nauseous at what your God deems as good.

            “You are entitled to your own interpretation, but that doesn’t mean your interpretation is correct.”

            Correct, but the fact is the interpretation is up for debate, and Satanists can have a similar viewpoint to mine on the morality of your God. However, they choose to worship Satan instead of choosing not to worship at all. Which makes their religion every bit as legitimate as yours.

            As soon as you show where I have been inconsistent, I will address your concern. I do not feel I have.

            “Then you can’t impose your negative views to us, you can however recommend removing statues or text in public if that will cased you harm physically or emotionally and you have to prove that.”

            It is not “imposing negative views”. It is GET YOUR TRASH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT. Put it on the front yard, right next to the sofa and the tattered flag you never bring in the house. You might have to move the old Ford truck that is still up on cinder blocks, but you and a few buddies and a pack of beer can take care of that. Then you can tell the world how much the Ten Commandments means to you by having a nice little monument.

            If you want to make a bigger splash, then you and your buddies can purchase PRIVATE land near the government office (California just sold land under a cross for 4.5 million dollars, I am sure the local community could use the money). Then all the commuters can see how religious you are, and you can beam with pride (humility? Nope. Definitely Pride, we all know how your jealous God loves that). Oh, make sure you bid is good. Don’t want those Baphomet statue owners to buy it out from under you.

            “Please do respond with consistent view and respect with other people’s views and interpretation”

            You see, you are stuck in the idea that you are right and everyone else is wrong (Christian “Us vs.Them” syndrome), so when something starts to make sense in the real world, your fall back is a Bible quote or making vague attacks on the argument that have no real value. So make your attack more specific. Where was I inconsistent and how does that make my previous arguments invalid? Here is your opening, do not waste it.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          So your idea is:

          1) Christians putting up icon is religious right.
          2) Anyone else putting up icon is making fun of Christians and shouldn’t be allowed.
          3) No one should be allowed to mock religion.
          4) Majority rules.

          Ha! You have no clue what freedom of religion and freedom of speech are.

          If you want to put all the focus on “Freedom OF Religion” then you will allow two things:

          1) Any religion can be posted on government land and should be encouraged to to prevent government from establishing a state religion, regardless if you are offended by it or not (I am offended by Christian propaganda, so if you expect me to live by it, you can too). There is already too many people who mistakenly believe this is a country for Christians.

          2) Government will slowly begin to intrude into religious matters. They will use the excuse of religion being incorporated into government locations. The first likely change would be to being taxation on all religions (to be fair, and not establish only one religion). Do not underestimate the power of political greed.

          If you add in majority rules, then you might end up with a denomination within Christianity to trump your beliefs. This include denomination specific icons and monuments such as the Catholic Trinity or perhaps a statue of the Pope. If they are a majority, then your opinion doesn’t count in your world view.

          If you allow Freedom OF Religion, then you don’t have to worry about that scary Baphomet statue. You don’t have to worry about the government getting involved too much in religious matters because there is a WALL between church and state. The wall protects both ways. I don’t understand why Christians can not see that.

          Everything you say in your post reeks of fascism. You basically are saying that as the Christian majority, you get to do what you want and everyone else can lump it, and are willing to impose that on everyone else. I will fight that with every fiber of my being because your teachings and belief is the most hateful thing in America.

          Now about freedom of speech. You are in luck! You can say whatever you want about your religion. You can say whatever you want about someone else’s religious beliefs. No one can stop you. But that means everyone else can say whatever they want about yours. So you can not stop “specific anti-Christian hateful propaganda”. It is their right. So if you’d like to insult Atheists, then feel free. Unlike you, I have a backbone and don’t need to whine and cry when someone criticizes my beliefs, especially when they come with evidence to back up their claims. Of course, you have to be careful about making that “lovey cuddly religion” image you are trying so hard to maintain.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, the correction is

            (1) Any religious group where the majority in the community are of that religion, they can choose to put up a religious symbol, or choose not to. All people have rights but you think only secularists have rights and want to censor everything else.

            (2) Anyone putting up something that’s hatefully mocking anything (atheism, evolutionism, Christianity, Islam) should not be allowed. And we’re talking statues, plaques and so on, not demonstrations and rallies.

            (3) You can mock religion, just can’t put up a hateful display that does so and dishonestly claim that hateful mocking “is a religion”. If they want to call it a religion, then show their religion book that showed how people have been worshiping him for ages, rather than resorting to the Bible or a book of another religion to show how they instead mock it.

            (4) It’s what the majority wants, yes. Not what a few individuals want instead: censor Chrstianity and put up displays mocking it in the name of “it’s my religion”. You seem to think majority is irrelevant and that instead we should bow to the commands of a few anti-Christian secularists. We promote freedom of religion of the masses, you promote censorship in the name of the few.

            If there’s “freedom of speech”, tell me: why can’t people publicly say “homosexuality is wrong” or “marriage is between one man and one woman” without being discriminated against, treated as a bigot, sued, fined and worse? So much for “freedom of speech”. You shouldn’t be sued for saying it. But you do not see people putting up statues “homosexuality is wrong”, which would be akin to putting up statues that attack Christianity as well.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            1) Majority has NO bearing on it. Everyone has rights in the US.
            2) “Should not” is opinion. Law doesn’t stop negative messages. Remember Westboro? As heinous as their message was, they had a right to say it.
            3) You have no right to tell anyone else what is or isn’t a religion.
            4) Majority is irrelevant. This is not a democracy we live in. Its a Republic. The word Democracy is used to make people like you feel all fluffy inside.

            People can say Homosexuality is wrong, and I would defend your right to say it. However, you can be treated as a bigot, because that is exactly what you are if you claim it. You shouldn’t be able to be sued for saying it. If someone whoops you silly for saying it, they can be sent to jail for assault. You can not be put in jail or fined for saying it (as long as you aren’t inciting violence). However, you can say all these things, but still have to make provide your services/products to them. If a homosexual goes into a sub shop and orders a sub, do you think that they should not be able to get one because of their sexual preference? What makes being a baker any different?

            To be honest, I doubt anyone would have even noticed if not for the big deal that was made about it by the bakers (and then the customers).

            If you are not willing to serve the whole community, then do not open a business.

            When I hear arguments like yours, I hear that whiny kid from back in elementary school that always cried when he didn’t get what he wanted. Why wont people accept that my delusion should be plastered everywhere?!? I want to read scriptures on the walls when I go pay my traffic ticket. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.

            Your delusion is your delusion. Keep it to yourself.

      • akosipatriot

        What happened to America, even now it has a religion called Satanic Temple or any Satanic churches. This is a result of ignorance and a hardened heart. Since by definition, these Satanic churches really are not religions at all but pretending to be one to gain an equal footing in the law to attack Christianity. After all, Satan was depicted in the Bible as the main antagonist, then who is the most obvious choice of the enemy but Satan himself to mock Christians? The motive is obvious.

        These men won’t listen logical arguments against them but instead use whatever tricks they can come up with to destroy Christianity and the effect of is to destroy civilization as we know it. There is no way for a civilization to stand when men have these satanic values.

        I look up and read their arguments, and doesn’t stand to any logical standard of reasoning.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          So you have a religion that opposes yours. So what?

          I’m an Anti-Theist, and I oppose you more than any Satanic religion does. Live with it.

          • akosipatriot

            What is an anti-theist?

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            An Anti-Theist (Christians sometimes use the word ‘Militant Atheist’) is someone who believe that religion is an actual poison to society. Related to Atheism (the non-belief in gods), it goes a step further and actually has a stance on the immorality and bigotry all religions can foster in their followers.

            In my view, religious actively promotes ignorance (choose to ignore established fact in favor for myth), devalues critical thinking (faith trumps rationality), promotes obedience (to respective deity and organized religions leadership), frequently scams people out of money (Catholic “Gold candles” Pope, Joel Olsteen, Swaggart, Ken Ham, etc.), preaches bigotry (Westboro, Phil Robertson), murder and intolerance (Suicide bombers, abortion clinic bombings), turns families on one another (destroys families that have different beliefs), harasses people (Mormon/Jehova’s Witnesses), can be bat sh*t crazy (Heaven’s Gate/ Waco/ Scientology), looks to dominate over everyone else (Christians/Muslim), interferes where it doesn’t belong (Fundie Christian’s views on sex, birthcontrol, and homosexual acts/Muslims), is responsible for millions of deaths (Muslims, Christians), defended/allied with the Nazi party and Mussolini during WWII (Pope Pius), promotes and defends pedophiles (Muslim/Catholic/Jehova’s Witness more recently), has a con artist for a prophet (Mormon and Scientology, arguably others), has a dark side (Jedi/The Force, now an actual religion, lol) and practice indoctrination in order to maintain beliefs (Christian/Muslim child abuse/indocrination).

            That is just what I can come up with on the top of my head in about 5 min.

          • akosipatriot

            If your accusations are true to all religions, (religious people are human beings, in the same way that militant atheists are human being and may not adhere to what you as a militant atheist as good).

            As some poster at theologyweb stated:

            “Why should Christ bear the blame because of those who wear his coat poorly? Measure Christianity by Christ and those who truly reflect Him.”

            You see, your accusations can be applied to people individually, not to Christ and his church. As I said, we are human beings, and is subject to act in cruel or badly and these acts you will not like. Because of these acts, you blame our God. This is also what happened in ancient Israel. Again, I can also list all the evils of atheist empires of history(North Korea, China, USSR. etc) to argue that more crimes has been committed in the name of militant atheism! So what we are now is circular reasoning.

            The best you can do is to study carefully. I see that you said this:

            “devalues critical thinking (faith trumps rationality)”

            So if you values critical thinking, then you need to do your homework to prove all your accusations yourself, not by just reading the works of Richard Dawkins, or after just reading his TGD book. And the *faith* thing you said that trumps rationality will require YOU to define faith as practice by Christians, not the *faith* defined by militant atheists and impose them on Christian’s faith.

            I am not anti-Gay, I don’t throw stones at gays, but I certainly argue and disagree with what they promote, is that a sign of not thinking critically? Or being a fundie? You choose, but at least, I have shown you reasons(critically thinking) how I disagree with the LGBT lifestyle.

            Many of your accusations are already addressed by Christian thinkers, would I search them for you, who claimed to be a critical thinker? Or you search it by yourself.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Atheists do not have empires. Atheists only do not believe in gods.

            Now, I suppose if Stalin was truly motivated by Anti-Theism (meaning he hated religions), then you could possibly blame it on that belief, though it too doesn’t necessarily promote violence. Stalin also embraced religion at other points in his life, so his secularism was only when he wanted it to be.

            You see, all the stuff above can be “interpreted” from their respective religions beliefs. There is no Atheistic belief that tells you to do anything to religious people good or bad, so you can not make a claim that Atheism teaches that. There is no book, no creed, way of life, etc.

            N O T H I N G

            You have a Bible. That Bible tells you what to do. There are passages that tell you its ok to enslave, murder, and mutilate people that are different. Your religion can be used to hurt people.

            So no. It is about the beliefs. I agree with you people are people and some are capable of inhumane atrocities.

            So, if ordered to by your God (or someone representing him like Jesus, Mohammad, the Rapture anyone?), to start slaughtering a group of people that opposed the religion, would you do it? There are several answers and conclusions. I use “evil” as define as behaving in an inhumane manner.

            1) You’d do it even before your God commanded. (You are evil)
            2) You didn’t have a reason to do so before, but you’d follow the command with no remorse. (Not having empathy is the sign of a psychopath, regardless the religion is your motivation).
            3) You normally wouldn’t think of it as it is not in your nature to do so and you are normally empathetic, but you’d follow your God’s orders because he is your lord and savior (You are a good person that is motivated to do bad things through your religion)
            4) You’d never do such a heinous act. (You are a good person that refuses to do bad things through your religion).

            Numbers 1 and 4 would be people acting on their own morality (or lack thereof). 2 and 3 act based on what the religion told them what to do. Your answer is probably that God would never do such a thing (yet he has in the Bible).

            Atheists don’t have anything to tell them to do those things, so if an Atheist kills a bunch of people, there is no higher power to motivate it. Therefore he is responsible for his own actions. Basically he has no excuse and should be held accountable for his actions. Just like if he was a benevolent person that saved millions of people, he would be responsible for that as well.

            As for you, I don’t think you are not able to think critically. I would have stopped talking to you a long time ago if you just preached. However, your religion DOES favor faith over rationality, and as a Christian you will have times when you must choose one or the other. Most of the time, Christians ignore parts of the Bible where these conflicts comes up (Genesis story vs. evolution for example). I’m glad you do. Most Christians are good people that are trying to do what they feel is right. Its the actual teachings I have a problem with, not the people (well not most of the people).

          • akosipatriot

            Now this blunder!:

            “You see, all the stuff above can be “interpreted” from their respective religions beliefs. There is no Atheistic belief that tells you to do anything to religious people good or bad, so you can not make a claim that Atheism teaches that. There is no book, no creed, way of life, etc. ”

            Totally ridiculous and full of crap. You try to escape from some responsibilities being done in the name of “I hate religion” aka militant atheism from history to make you sound like you have a better sound arguments to support your claims. There is no atheistic belief, if NONE, why are you here? As I said all along (I have debated many atheists), in atheism the world is full of contradiction, in your post above you contradict yourself already. Why debate instead of no debate? Is there any value of reading where the poster shows no critical thinking skills? You should have read the text carefully.

            Example, Paul of Tarsus was a pharisee. That is, Paul is expert of the law (Mosaic law, where you can find many commandments that are morally object able by today’s standards).
            Now find me where the converted Paul recommends people to kill in the name of God, since Paul was really a Mosaic law expert, he would be influenced by what he read, in accordance to your expert analysis that my religion may influence me to kill people?

            You confused so many things, such as there are people who kill in the name of the Christian God (crusaders, Spanish inquisition to name a few), yet you failed to critically analyze that what these ancient men drives them to kill is because of power and greed(human factor) not because of God ordered them to do so, they used the name of God as a vehicle. This is regardless of religion men will kill, whether he is an atheist or fundie, this is a fact.

            *You have a Bible. That Bible tells you what to do. There are passages that tell you its ok to enslave, murder, and mutilate people that are different. Your religion can be used to hurt people.*

            You are assuming things based on your faulty understanding of the Biblical commandments. Say, I have read where God commanded Israel to wipe off the Canaanites inhabitants, would I rather do that today? You say militant atheism promotes critical thinking EH??? Yet what you just said is ignorance and the result of poor grasp of what Israel was doing in Canaan at that time. Should I read the rest of your post?

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            That’s because you associate Atheist with opposite of Christianity.

            Atheist is opposite of Theist.

            Atheist has no teachings. Only answers no to the God question.

            Theist has no teachings. Only answers yes to the God question.

            Christianity (further defined by a denomination) is what adds the rules, morals, and values you believe in.

            Anti-theism, Humanism, and Skepticism make up the values and world views I live by.

            I would say neither of us identify only with those labels.

            So Atheism didn’t promote Stalin to do anything. Power and paranoia did. Possibly political views as well. He definitely wasn’t a Humanist or a Skeptic. He may have been an Anti-Theist.

            So once you have the basic English down, you’ll understand where you are misunderstanding.

            As for the Crusades, I agree with you. However it was the carrot. The Pope essentially gave the OK to kill, murder, and rape the Muslims in exchange for indulgences. Some did it because of there nature. Some did it because they believed it was Gods call to battle. There is some of each. The war would have never happened without a religious reason to take the Holy lands (Muslim and Christians).

          • akosipatriot

            In case you missed, war will occur regardless if there are organized religions or none at all. All major world wars are not religious.

            From the very beginning, we have this belief system of same sex sexual relationship as a sinful act. This is a belief. It is a sin. You being with no concept of sin, since you do not believe it, but you do have *belief* system that may in conflict with my belief system which includes same sexual sexual relationship as immoral. If you do have no belief at all, you will only shrug at me and ignore my belief system. In the example of sexual immorality, you argue otherwise that it is not immoral(am i right) by saying it is okay as long as it won’t bother you, it’s called unbelief of the specific belief I was in.

            I am not a native English speaker, but I understand your arguments well enough.

            *So Atheism didn’t promote Stalin to do anything. Power and paranoia did.*

            So does the concept of religious war, it can be argued also that power and paranoia drive most terrorists to kill. It was also documented somewhere that some ISIS members do it not because of Islamic principles but because of greed, power over their victims(they enjoyed doing it). So there is no black and white.

            You try to free yourself from the accountability of people hating religions by stating the no belief system. Stalin’s atheism also drives him to kill Christians, if Stalin was a Christian he will not do this. You argued that it is by power and paranoia, but that is debatable. How can you be so sure? Did you really know the mind of Stalin? You need to cite source. Suffice it to say, that when prompted for responsibility of those who commit crimes in the name of atheism, you stated the no belief argument. It may have been power/paranoia that drive them to commit crimes. You defended atheism in the instance as if atheism have a belief system, which you defined as no-belief system. You see the contradiction?

            A no belief system who argues and make arguments against a belief system which will then make the no-belief system some kind of opposite to what all the belief system does. Oh the contradiction.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I apologize about the English comment. If it is your second language you are doing just fine, if not better than most people who speak it as their main language. I only say that because, I often run into people on these boards the purposely change definitions of words to make it seem like it is something different.

            I “free myself from accountability” because I have no association with the Atheists that live near me or the Atheists afar outside of my understanding that a God doesn’t exist. Instead, I take the yoke of my own actions. I can not blame anyone for what I do except for myself. I don’t expect anyone to take that responsibility. Richard Dawkins cannot come out and tell Atheists that there is some scientific reason that we need to start killing Christians. No one would listen to him, because outside of his logic and expertise in his specific field, he has not say in what any Atheist does.

            If the Pope were to do something though, I believe many people WOULD take action. It may not be as big a show of force as it used to be, plus governments would intervene, however some people would respond to such an order. Do you disagree? Would everyone refuse the Popes order.

            You are right on the power trip that some people get regardless of their religious belief. Some are harmless con artists (Joel Olsteen, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, to name a few that monetize the belief), others that are dangerous to the people around us, especially children (such as the pedophile Catholic Priests). The religion doesn’t really motivate these actions, they do them on their own. However, the Catholic church did try to protect them, and as for those profiteering on others beliefs, they are well supported and defended by their followers.

            Atheists and Christians alike can be bad people. However, the religious motivation adds to that (nothing to add with Atheism). You mentioned ISIS. I can almost guarantee the top ranking people are doing it for the power, money, and thrill it gets them. But the people underneath that look up to these people and hear them preach are often the True Believers, that take literally the promise of the virgin filled afterlife, and kill themselves hoping to take several enemies out with them. That is religion motivated. You can not shy away from that. Who would kill themselves and not reap any of the power and money reward that would be gained from an action (they would be dead)? So it has to be the promise of the afterlife and the view that God would protect them.

            I look at the followers here in the US (of any religion), the majority of them are good people trying to do good for themselves, their family and their fellow man. It is rare that someone would overwrite their morality to follow a religious dictate (usually ones beliefs match their morality).

            Steven Weinberg says it best, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

          • akosipatriot

            “Atheists and Christians alike can be bad people. ”

            “However, the religious motivation adds to that (nothing to add with Atheism).”

            I don’t think so. In Atheism, people in this camp like in the atheist regimes of USSR/North Korea, they do not held themselves accountable to a high moral authority and thus create unspeakable evil deeds.

            There are those people who are willing to kill and to die for various reasons, religious motivation included, but there is no man who will kill or die for the sake of what is known to be a lie. Christianity has been criticized for thousands of years already but was proven to founded on solid foundation and not on lies like what we have in some counterfeit religions.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            The “atheist” regimes are not about “Atheism”. That is akin to calling the US a “Christian” country. Sure, there are a lot of Christians here, and since they hold quite a bit of power, there is influences that support Christian morals, but we are NOT motivated by Christianity alone.

            The only reason North Korea is Atheist, is because their leader wishes to be revered as a god himself.

            China doesn’t want religion because it is detrimental to controlling its people, and can be a motivation for revolt.

            China has state approved places of worship available to it citizens, but they are state controlled, and as much a mouth piece as the media is for them.

            Neither preaches “Atheism” as a morality guide (probably because it isn’t one). They preach that you should look up to their leader for the guidance a priest would normally give.

            What about the Sweden and Finland? Both has high Atheistic populations and boasts a secular government. They crime rates are rather low, and are generally considered “good” countries.

            Christianity has killed and murdered for thousands of years to keep its prominence, and now that it is no longer tolerated (not many Christian theocracies left) their numbers are dwindling.

            The only places where Christianity is on the rise is places of poverty. Christianity has always relied on the downtrodden to bolster its numbers.

          • akosipatriot

            I really do not buy the argument that secular western countries become rich its because of their being non-Christian origin. Much like the Philippines is a poor country because it is a Christian nation. We became poor not because we are Christians but because it has something more to do with the culture we are in. I’m in the Philippines.
            The reason also western rich countries are rich not because of their present-day non-Christian population, but it has more something to do with the past generations which arguably has the Judeo-Christian culture influenced. If we follow Christianity dearly, then we will be rich since there will be honesty in all levels in the government, helping the poor is more common and all other areas where Christianity’s loving thy neighbor is applicable. But this is not the case.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I don’t think prosperity has to do with being Christian or non-Christian. I think many of the factors that contribute to that have to do with secular reasons that have nothing to do with religion. England is prosperous and has been for a long time.

            You are correct, to a point. If you were true to Christianity and were bound to be more honest, then perhaps things would be a bit better. I would argue though that the majority of Christians do not keep to this ideal very well. Despite Christians being 77% of the US, we still have very Christian politicians that lie on a regular basis.

            Also, the Christian views on lying is not specific to them. Lying is pretty much a looked down on action, no matter who you are, and what you believe.

          • rationalobservations?

            You correctly refer to the peaceful, free, educated and democratic nations of Sweden and Finland as the possible prototype for a more enlightened future for mankind.

            While we in the UK shamefully lag behind those nations – we don’t lag too far behind since our own minority of gullible folk in thrall to religion is down to less than 6% of population when the active membership of all businesses of religion is added together.

            The USA is behind the rest of the democratic western world – but how far behind is often exaggerated since actual statistics reveal that fewer than 30% of US citizens are active members of any of the 200+ religious cults and sects of America. No matter how many lie about being active christians, the statistics reveal those lies.

            The good news is that European atheists refuse to be stigmatised or discriminated against and our numbers are strong enough to democratically curb the worst excesses of the remaining religiots among us. The trend in the USA looks like it is slowly following?

            Keep up the good work of spreading the good news of peaceful, humanitarian humanistic atheism.

            Keep up the good work of confounding and exposing the nonsense of religion.



          • rationalobservations?

            Christianity appears to have been cobbled together as a Roman religion in the 4th century. Nothing similar to that religion has left any significant or meaningful historical trace from before that time.

            When you write that christianity was founded on “solid foundations” – what exactly do you mean? There appear to have been quite a few “messiah” claimants between Circa 4 BCE and Circa 140 CE. There is no trace of any messiah claimant called Yeshua/Joshua/”Jesus”.

            1) Can you name anyone who can refer to 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of a messiah claimant later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans named “Jesus”? .

            2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Codex Sinaiticus christer bible. Or any earlier text that matches any complete text within the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus?

            3) Can you explain the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century Codex Sinaiticus bible and those that followed it?

            4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the diverse and different versions of christer bibles today?

            5) Can you explain the complete absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled?

            6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within Jewish literature and tradition?

            Please provide EVIDENCE based answers. Recycled propaganda based upon assumptions and presumptions and personal opinions just don’t mean a thing.

          • rationalobservations?

            Atheists mostly do believe in things like humanity, peace, progress, secular laws, charity, love, education and equality etc.

            We merely find no reason to believe in any of the thousands of imaginary and undetectable supernatural entities dreamed up by men – or the exclusively self serving businesses of religion that were set up by men and are run by men.

          • akosipatriot

            All organizations were driven by men religious or secular. So, how is your atheist organization be different than religious organizations in general which are all driven by faulty men? You do believe in elitist mentality that only atheist men can generate good will? Yes, atheists mostly do believe in greater goods, but when atheists do evil, there are no limits. This is also happened to religious leaders, but they will be branded as hypocrites, while evil atheist men can’t be called such a thing as hypocrites, for they do evil as a natural way for them. You speak the “serving business of religion” as though it is a norm when it is not. You atheists if you really believe to be a “rationalist” thinker as you claimed, you should be therefore knew that religious men sometimes use their privileged to profit from their positions AS DO secular organizations and secular government officials are corrupt. They are all men subject to corruption. If at all its true that you really “evidence” seekers yet you throw flawed arguments against religious establishments for their “flawed” humanity, you are therefore accusing yourselves of the same despicable acts, and therefore hypocrites.

            You forgot that God (If he exist) he will never require or want any payments, for the Christian doctrine says he created all things, so how could he ask for more? Why is it that God be held accountable for faulty men who run religious organizations for their own benefits? God needs obedience, not payments or anything else.

          • akosipatriot

            “Theist has no teachings. Only answers yes to the God question.”
            You have the freedom to speak, but that will not turn truth into a lie.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Please explain how it is a lie.

            Theism is the belief in a god. Christianity defines what that god that is.

            Repeating what you want to believe doesn’t make it truth.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I understand the Constitution just fine. You understand the Constitution the way you wish it were.

      • Reason2012

        How so?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Translation: “He understands that one can use the Constitution to make it mean anything he wants it to mean. You understand the Constitution as an established document, not a living malleable one.”

          • jmichael39

            “living malleable one” – Liberal speak for “it means whatever helps us achieve our fundamental transformation of America”

          • Gene Schunek

            Not just liberal speak, several Supreme Court Justices, liberal and conservative have stated: the Constitution means whatever we say it means.
            One of the worst decisions was Citizens United which fundamentally changed this country from a republic into an oligarchy. You and others probably would list the gay marriage decision as one the worst.

          • jmichael39

            Any court decision that clearly stands in contrast to the original intent of those who wrote any particular provision of the constitution is a bad decision. To call the Constitution a living document as some sort of justification for essentially amending the Constitution to mean something other that what the designed intended it to mean, is utterly ridiculous. If the Constitution was supposed to be a living document the founders would have simply ignored the idea of the amendment process and simply declared it one of the powers of the court to do…or the Congress to do legislatively …or the president to do by fiat. Calling it a living document is pure BS.

    • icowrich

      “And yet those who reject God demand the government establish its own denomination of Christianity with its own version of marriage.”

      That statement assumes marriage is a uniquely Christian concept, which it most certainly is not.

      • Reason2012

        Hello. Feel free to present documents over 3500 years old that show the definition of marriage being two men. Since you can’t your claim that marriage was not only defined by God is exposed as being flat as there IS no other definition but one man and one woman, until today by unconstitutional force of government overreach. Marriage has existed since the beginning – one doesn’t need to believe in God to partake in it: one man and one woman.
        Thank you for posting.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          Definitions are not binding. They are whatever society sets their value at. The term (four letter expletive word starting with F, use your imagination), was originally used as a farming term.

          Personally, I agree with you, as I am not homosexual. But seeing as how a guy marrying another guy does not affect me or how I live my life, I see no reason to get in the way of it.

          I will however defend the concept against anyone that claims their religion trumps peoples love for one another.

          • Reason2012

            So in other words no one can show a document even older that shows what marriage has been defined as, which is the only point.

            Homosexual marriage does not affect anyone else? Think gain.

            1) Marriage was defined by God, not man. Getting government to redefine it is an attack on God. If you wish to contradict it, feel free to cite documents far older than 3,500 years ago where it was first written down.

            As if that’s not enough,

            (2) Marriage is a religious institution that has existed since the beginning of time, and as above also has the oldest documented definition.

            (3) The government is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by REDEFINING religious institutions then passing laws to establish this new state religion where anyone who does not adhere to this new state religion is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined thousands of dollars.

            (4) Marriage is for the possibility of procreation for the continuance of society. A same-gender marriage is, by design, never capable of such a thing. Marriage is not “two or more living things that love each other”

            (5) Any pro-creation should be within a marriage – same-gender ‘marriages’ are forced to go outside the ‘marriage” 100% of the time by design. Yes, homosexual activists seek to pervert the family any way they can.

            (6) Kids have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father – same-gender marriages deny them this right 100% of the time, by design.

            (7) Kids have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, not forced into setups that are dysfunctional 100% of the time: two or more fathers and no mother, or two or more mothers and no father. For as long as courts have ruled on it, they’ve always ruled in favor of having both a mother and a father, not just a father or just a mother.

            (8) Every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature alone re-iterates what marriage is – that this is what a family is. Marriage IS a biological family.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            1) Hmm. Might want to get your facts straight. Hera, was the Greek patron of marriage, and Hindus weddings are called vivaha. Both predate Christianity.

            2) I doubt cavemen cared much about marriage. It was society that brought about rules for marriage. Religion is also a byproduct of society.

            3) I don’t even know what the heck you are talking about here. It doesn’t make sense, and I do not believe what you are saying is true.

            4) Marriage is the promise of two people to share their lives with one another. Secular marriage adds rules that will protect both parties in the event of a divorce, and to make sure the child’s best interests are taken into consideration.

            5) That is your morality that stems from religion. Trying to enforce it outside your religion is silly.

            6 & 7) Kids without a “loving father and mother”, have a right to get loving foster/adoptive parents regardless of gender. Your definition of dysfunctional is “anything that is not Christian”.

            8) Nature determines procreation, not marriage. Homosexual men and women can not reproduce without having intercourse with the opposite sex (or through medical procedures).

          • akosipatriot

            Evidence for your point #1? When was the Genesis book was written that defined marriage(one man, one woman). That is, when it was written, it doesn’t mean that it was not yet defined. Oral tradition or some kind of tradition predates Genesis that defined marriage. Marriage is older than the date of the first book of the Bible was written.


          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You want evidence? Can you handle the truth? Here it is:

            I looked up multiple sources that claim the first text Genesis was written around 7th century BCE (660 BCE or so). (remove spaces)

            http://biologos. org/uploads/resources/enns_scholarly_essay3. pdf

            http://www. patheos. com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/31/when-was-genesis-written-and-why-rjs/

            http://fontes. lstc. edu/~rklein/Documents/mosesone. htm

            http://creation. com/did-moses-really-write-genesis

            Check out Wikipedia as well, if not for the info it has there, then the HUGE list of references at the bottom.

            So it is complicated. There are believed to be some writings that Moses had in scribbling down the various myths and his own findings. But there were also quite a bit added by multiple authors that would be compiled around the time noted above. To pull which verse was written when will probably be a near impossibility.

            Now with that said, the Hebrew language was first noted in the 10 Century BCE, which would be well after Moses. Which means that anything Moses wrote would have to be in Aramaic script. Genesis was originally written in Hebrew, so at best parts of it would be translated interpretation.

            Hindu marriage as mentioned before traces back to somwhere between 2000 and 1500 BCE, which predates Moses entirely.

            http://www. religionfacts. com/hinduism/history

            Greek mythology dates back to 800 BCE (maybe earlier).

            http://www. history. com/topics/ancient-history/greek-mythology

            Also, this caught my eye:

            “Unlike the positive regard in which marriage was generally held in the “pagan” Greek and Roman cultures in which Christianity developed, early Christianity itself demoted the institution of marriage in favor of celibacy.”

            https://signposts02. wordpress. com/2013/08/20/the-truth-about-marriage-neither-god-nor-the-church-invented-it/

            Any questions?

          • akosipatriot

            Do you really think with such a short post would convince me that you sided with truth rather than hearsay? Please think this way, what you posted(specially the last paragraphs) would like me to think that God did not really instituted marriage but rather, through pagan culture as well. Yes it is possible, specially if your worldview is materialistic and atheistic, in your worldview, that would be consistent. If I, a Christian would not think critically, as you presume earlier that Christianity promotes and demotes critical thinking, I would have follow you immediately and believe your report.

            For the celibacy, it was recommended by Paul for persons who are still single at the time of his writings, for those who are willing for the sake of God, but he warned that if by being celibacy they will commit sins especially sexual immorality, it is better for them to marry instead. The recommendation of celibacy was only made for people at the time to escape hardships.

            As I said, the marriage concept predates any existing Biblical record, it was recorded later on, but not necessarily it was invented by the Hebrew people by the time they write it down.
            It was right in the creation event where God introduce Eve to Adam that defined marriage, but of course you will not believe this. It is debatable of who first write the marriage institution, but that would be irrelevant for us, since God made man, and purposely made to have a family, it is natural for God also to institute marriage as between a man and a woman since the goal is to have a family (multiply).

            You are assuming so many things as true in behalf of your arguments.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I think *you* can think critically. I think the religion promotes people to not think critically. There are some great people that did great things DESPITE the burdens that the religion placed on them. Newton and Galileo were two such people.

            So you believe that God works through religions other than Christianity? I do know there are some that believe all religions worship the same god, just have different methods of doing so. I just didn’t think I would hear that from you.

            “It was right in the creation event where God introduce Eve to Adam that defined marriage, but of course you will not believe this.”

            Then it becomes a belief. If you claim that you have some authoritative reason to keep marriage as the definition you hold in your religion, then you have to prove your God and then prove he created marriage for that purpose. Otherwise, you can follow the belief yourself, and leave other people alone about their belief, because your claim is meaningless without proving there is some authority behind the claim.

            I showed you that Hindus came up with it before Christianity (or even Judaism) came into existence. You claim that God came up with it before the “religion” started and hinted that it might have been God that gave it to the Hindus. All I can deal with is the facts laid out before me, and Biblical guess work based on the Adam and Eve story (a story falsified by the theory of evolution) is not going to cut it with me.

            Belief is fine until you claim it as truth. So if you would like to prove it, please do so.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Yep. Society just changed the definition on you. You got to see history in the makeing. Isn’t it exciting?

          • akosipatriot

            You see no wrong for a guy marrying a guy. I see something wrong with it, their sexual organs are not compatible, you can’t have truly sex with the same sex organ. You can however argue otherwise, but that doesn’t mean that you arguing it would make the same two sexual organs compatible. The answer is obvious, because we can see the immediate results if the two people were joining together for a union(sex), they will see their fruits. On other side, same sex individuals who come together in a union(sex) will resort to simulation and other fakes so as to obtain the orgasm. What is the fruit of that sexual union? Lust. They will lust with one another, and their union will not last long, since their joining(sex) is a result of lust. Yes, there must some kind of true love, he loves him, she loves her, because… of good reasons in the same way as a man and a woman fall in love. Granted. But that love will not last long, because there is no true sexual union (only simulation), and there is no fruit of that union, except of lust. Since it can’t true sexual union, the relationship is fragile and can’t continue for long. I am not saying here all, but the majority of that relationship will not last long. In the heterosexual couple, the opposite is true, the majority of their relationship will last longer as designed by nature.

            Evidence? See the society replacing partners quickly as if its only changing diaper. One doctor in my country stated the fact an HIV positive patient may have at least 100 sexual partners.

            See the fruits of that lifestyle, this is the evidence you need if you want to critically examine the homosexual lifestyle.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Which country is that?

            As for your “sexual compatibility”, I don’t think they are doing it the same way we are. lol I don’t care, it is their life.

            “What is the fruit of that sexual union? Lust. They will lust with one another, and their union will not last long, since their joining(sex) is a result of lust.”

            And finally we come down to the TRUE argument. The idea that sex is evil, bad, and dirty. All founded in religion.

            Tell you what. I like sex. I LOVE sex. It is not bad. It is not dirty (at least not in a bad way). It is DEFINITELY not evil. I wouldn’t be here without it.

            Your religion loves to tell people how sinful they are, that they are all defective and that only God can fix them. Guess what, if we are “broke” in that way, God did it, and it is his responsibility then. Shifting the blame to us is the cowards way. Good thing he doesn’t exist.

            So your “humility” is actually the act of acknowledging the fact you are substandard in some way. I can not view myself or any other human being that way.

            “Evidence? See the society replacing partners quickly as if its only changing diaper. One doctor in my country stated the fact an HIV positive patient may have at least 100 sexual partners.”

            Wow. I thought that old 90’s argument about HIV being a “gay” disease had went away. I guess ignorance goes on.

            You know where AIDS is prevalent? Africa. What do Catholics do about it? Tell them not to use condoms. Clean up your own backyard before you start talking about other peoples problems.

        • icowrich

          I made no such claim. I’m only correcting your incorrect assumption that marriage is uniquely Christian, which is a necessary assumption if you’re going to claim that marriage policy created a new Christian denomination.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      In essence, you believe religion has a right to directly influence government to further its goals but government has no right to influence religion.

      That sir is a theocracy. I would work to tumble such a government. Good thing I don’t have to cause we live in a free country with a secular government that lets you believe what you want to believe.

      • Reason2012

        No, I believe people have the free exercise of religion and that freedom doesn’t stop if the majority of specific communities wants to do so (or not do so) on a case by case basis.

        So you believe Christianity should be censored except where you give permission. That is a theocracy of secularism.

        Christians promote freedom of religion you promote censorship, telling them where they can and cannot have said freedom. The government workds for the PEOPLE and if those local people want such things, even on government (We The People’s) property, that’s liberty, that’s freedom, that’s the United States of America.

        You would love many third world countries – they deny most such freedoms. A shame you seek to turn America into one.

        Take care.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          The only place it can not be is the places where it could insinuate that the government is establishing it as a basis of government. Hence “establishing” a state religion. This is basically government property and schools. Everything else is up for grabs. Why not try a billboard? You get more publicity that way.

  • Emmanuel

    Strike two

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      Was there a strike one?

      • Emmanuel


        • Unrepentant Atheist

          You mean this one? (remove spaces)

          http://www. christiantoday. com/article/ htm

          Where the Supreme Court upheld the previous ruling that the Ten Commandments had to be removed? Sounds like a home run to me.

  • Bill

    If the mere presence of the 10 Commandments causes one to be upset , perhaps one should change their life. Just sayin’.

    • The Last Trump

      Like sunlight and crucifixes to vampires, these intolerant liberals recoil in horror at anything even remotely Biblical. Go figure.
      Perhaps a round of exorcisms would be in order to cure these baby killing, 1st amendment law breaking, haters of God and freedom from their “ailment”.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Your statement would be correct if anyone ever sued an institution or organization other than an arm of the government to cause religious symbols to be removed.

        Since no one ever sues anyone but government institutions, don’t you think that atheist organizations have a very specific goal in mind? And don’t you think it’s disingenuous to say that they “recoil in horror at anything even remotely Biblical” if atheist groups are perfectly happy to leave Christian symbols anywhere they might be on private property?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Oh yes, so true, Trump and Bill! When I was an atheist, just the mere sight of Christians spreading the Gospel or a person quoting the Bible set me off on a litany of cursing. There were some guys from a local Baptist Church who came into my driveway, and you can be sure I let them have both barrels – Satanese speaking. But, if it was any other religion, I was perfectly fine with it. Nothing offends like the One Who is Truth.

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          I am so glad you became a believer. It gives hope for others we are trying to reach:)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Grace of God, LadyFreeBird, Grace of God.

            YOU are so glad?!? 🙂 Imagine my joy – I should be in Hell right now – I was practically storming the gates to get in! Thanks for the encouragement, woman of God – never give up on anyone! (These Planned Parenthood videos make a great opportunity to spread the Gospel of Life, leading to the One Who is Life.)

            ‘They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” ‘ — Galatians 1:23

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I won’t give up . There are a few people who comes to these sites I really want to be saved. Like Gizmo and someone45.It would be so nice to see then have a change of heart. If
            Saul/Paul could be saved that to gives much hope 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Elie is one I have been interacting with lately. He is VERY respectful and likable. Seems like a seeker. He does not comment a lot, but I really like him. He has a great sense of humor too – but is intellectually oriented and geared toward truth.

            I have been talking with Unrepentant Atheist too a lot lately. (I think his name is hilarious – and redundant. :-)) He has some spunk and really hangs in there with me, since I can get long-winded. Not sure where StereoMan went – I think he might have changed names, but we had some good long discussions too. He was edgier, but when he stuck to the facts, he calmed down.
            The ones I like most are not blind faith atheists, but ones open to the evidence. That’s what got me. The secular data, properly understood, points to our Deity. All truth is God’s Truth. He owns it, we learn it.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Amen. I hope they all get saved. I keep praying. I would like to see them on the other side of life. When real life begins.

  • Henry Dandria

    How can a government,or any one for that matter,endorse something that dose not exist,such as non belief?

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      They don’t. They shouldn’t endorse any religion or lack of belief in religion. Period.

  • BBP Vas

    A victory today, but it is only a matter of time before they find someone in or around that school to get around it enough to become offended so that they can file suit again.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      Exactly, though pretty sad when you can claim victory on a technicality. But hey, that’s the way the law works. The person suing has to have some legitimate damage done, and obviously this person did not. So it was the right call.

      You are correct though, once someone with standing joins the suit, then there is little you will be able to do to keep the monument there.

  • Carol Sakaguchi

    It gives the impression that the government is endorsing belief over unbelief” does anyone ever think that by erasing every vestige of belief from society that it looks like the government is favoring unbelief over belief?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      If they were replacing the symbols with pro atheist propaganda, then yes. Since they’re replacing the symbols with nothing, then no, it just looks like the government has no position on religion.

      • Dave_L

        Doesn’t the absence of a monument depicting God endorse the Atheists’ belief?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No. It endorses no position at all.

          • Dave_L

            It was their belief that led to the removal.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so?

          • Dave_L

            It was their belief that led to the removal.

          • Carol Sakaguchi

            I agree, removing every vestige of belief is a stance against religion. Remember the old Soviet Union? When you can only practice your “religion between the 4 walls of your house or only in your place of worship then freedom of religion has been banished from the marketplace. We are in the process in this country of erasing Christianity from our society b/c the behemoth government is foisting laws on us that it thinks is right but goes against what believers think is right. Our society is losing its moral underpinnings and we are decaying from the inside out. I heard we are the biggest exporters of porn in the world. We’ve killed over 60 million babies thanks to roe v wade. And now we are pushing gay marriage on everyone including foreign countries. Our inner cities are filled with fatherless children who gang bang and will either be dead or on the dole for their whole lives thanks to our under performing schools. The greed of Wall Street and big corporations and their policies are contributing to the loss of decent jobs and heading us with the national debt to a depression the size of which will make the 1933 depression look like a party. I hope our country wakes up soon and gets some good, honest leaders.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You can worship everywhere. You can have your icons everywhere, EXCEPT on government property. So you can have you icons in 99.9% of the places in the US, and you want to cry oppression? Maybe you should go to Russia and see exactly what it is like there, then come back and compare.

            You are a fool if you actually feel like you are being oppressed.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can practice your religion, literally, anywhere you want. At home, at church, on a street corner, at work (and we have laws codifying this right). In an open field, on a bus, at a music festival, even in a store. And guess what? A store owner can’t stop you!

            You can practice in government buildings too. The only “right” you don’t have is the right to make the government put your religious symbols on their buildings.

            Is that really oppression?

          • Carol Sakaguchi

            You can google persecution of Christians in USA and you will see some episodes. There are law suits against Christians from A to Z. It’s just the beginning so people without faith may not notice. Things like high schools forbidding kids from having a Bible club unless they allow unbelievers to b/c president of the club. Police forbidding preachers from street preaching. These are not the types of stories that the main stream media will cover. You have to go to Christian news sites to find out what is going on, and I am sure you are not interested.

          • Carol Sakaguchi

            I wrote a reply and it didn’t post. You can google persecution of Christians in the USA and see a few episodes. Some high schools who won’t let kids have a bible club unless they open the club to let unbelievers b/c president. Police forbidding a street preacher to preach. Hundreds of lawsuits against Christians from A to Z. Most are not covered by the mainstream media. You have to go to Christian news sites. This is the beginning of persecution so probably not noticeable by people without faith.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know how to respond to this, because it contains nothing of substance. You can’t convince anyone of anything by speaking in vague generalities.

            Lawsuits and police activity don’t necessarily have to be meritorious. If someone is stomping on your rights, you have a right to be heard as well.

      • Carol Sakaguchi

        Absence of symbols is atheism, scrubbing society free of all religion is anti-religion. That’s what communism is. Atheist at its core. We are supposed to be an open and tolerant society. Now we are open to everything but religion. So now we are closed we are not really open and free. We become more like the old Soviet Union every day. We are being ruled by a 9 member oligarchy in black robes who are unelected and don’t reflect the desires of the people. They are a third branch of power who our founders never intended to “legislate” as they have no accountability to anyone. Atheists think getting rid of Christianity is a positive. Hitler thought getting rid of Jews was a positive.

        • Ralph Spoilsport 11

          Absence of symbols is atheism

          Ridiculous. Does every blank wall on a public school promote atheism?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “Absence of symbols is atheism”

          No, signs on government property saying “God does not exist” is atheism. Absence of symbols is nothing. What do YOU think neutral would look like?

          “scrubbing society free of all religion is anti-religion.”

          Except A) We’re only scrubbing government buildings and B) we’re scrubbing symbols that had no right to be there in the first place. If I come to your house, and plant a sign on your front lawn that says “Sir Laurence Olivier is the greatest actor ever,” it would have no business being there and you’d have every right to remove it. Taking it away would not mean you have some objection to Sir Laurence Olivier, it would simply mean you want your house to have no reference to him whatsoever, and the fact that it, for some reason, did, needed to be rectified.

          “We are supposed to be an open and tolerant society. Now we are open to
          everything but religion. So now we are closed we are not really open and

          Of course you are. You can adorn YOUR HOUSE with anything you want. A Mary in a Grotto in front if you so desire. Giant swastikas, if that’s what you want to do. Purple polka dots, if it suits your fancy. But YOU don’t own government buildings.

          “We are being ruled by a 9 member oligarchy in black robes who are unelected and don’t reflect the desires of the people.”

          They reflect the desires of the Constitution. Constitutional rights and protections are not up to a a popular vote.

          “Atheists think getting rid of Christianity is a positive. Hitler thought getting rid of Jews was a positive.

          Sure. Taking religious symbols off of government property and ONLY government property is exactly the same as rounding up Jews and marching them into ovens. Exactly the same.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          If what you say were true, then you create your own enemies. The typical Us vs. Them approach. I prefer to let you believe in peace and not have encroachment into government, however if you choose to make everyone not like you into an enemy, then you have coming to you exactly what you deserve.

  • Josey

    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1

  • FoJC_Forever

    Unfortunately, many people are disobeying the 2nd Commandment by honoring these types of monuments, which is a form of worship. They are only stone with carved words in them. Christians don’t worship and follow a dead, textual based religion. Christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit by Jesus (the) Christ, and have a living relationship with God. Centuries of being inundated by fake Christianity has mislead billions of people into believing God is honoring interpretations of Scripture, instead of listening to the Holy Spirit and believing what He says Scripture means.

    • Dave_L

      You have it wrong not only about writing the Law. “And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:9, KJV 1900) see also; (Deuteronomy 27:3).

      You are also wrong about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. God poured the Holy Spirit on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. Later He poured the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house. Besides these two outpourings, only the Apostles could impart the Holy Spirit and the charismatic gifts through the laying on of their hands. Those to whom they imparted the gifts could not transfer them. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit passed when the Apostles and John’s few remaining students died by the first half of the second century.

      The purpose of the Baptism and the Gifts were to confirm the Apostles. Also, Tongues (unlearned languages) were for a sign of looming judgement on the unbelieving Jews. Prophecy along with Tongues (unlearned languages and their translation) served in place of the New Testament until it finally became complete.

      “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come (the New Testment) , then that which is in part (tongues and prophecy) shall be done away.” (1 Corinthians 13:8–10, KJV 1900)

      • FoJC_Forever

        No, I don’t have it wrong, and quit stalking me online.

        I know your kind. You are the mockers in the street when Jesus was carrying His cross. All the while you pretend to know the Scriptures, while you serve the Devil and his deceptive will.

        You’re no different than the homosexuals who twist the Scriptures to validate their sinful desires.

        The Baptism of the Holy Spirit has never passed away. Jesus (the) Christ is Eternal, and His Word never passes away. It is your unbelief that keeps you from receiving it. It your unbelief which teaches others to trust in your false spirits and doctrine.

        • Dave_L

          If the Bible is perfect and complete, and if it does a better job of showing God’s Will than Tongues and Prophecy, it means the Charismatic gifts have ended. “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part (tongues and prophecy) shall be done away.” (1 Corinthians 13:10, KJV 1900)

          Only the original Apostles could impart the Holy Spirit Baptism through the laying on of their hands after the time of the two outpourings.

          Tongues were of private interpretation. Peter tells us we have a more sure word in “… that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20, KJV 1900)

          They recorded a Tongues message and played it for several different Pentecostals who thought they had the gift of interpretation. All came up with something totally different.

          If the Charismatic gifts are for today, where is the evidence?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your post is full of false statements, and I know you are intentionally making these statements.

            You’re just twisting the Scriptures to match your unbelief. This has been happening for hundreds of years by people like you. I see the arrogance in the eyes of people like you all the time. You think you know God because you put on a pretense of kindness of love, but your hearts are filled with your own desires.

            Fake Christians like you are why abortion, homosexuality, rampant divorce, fornication, and a plethora of other sins are tolerated in a society that has claimed to be Christian. You claim to be Christians, but you’re nothing more than religious people following “what is good in your own site”.

            I will never submit to your false religion. You turn people away from the Truth, only to embrace your false doctrines. When the Antichrist rises, your kind will believe he is Christ and follow him willingly.

          • Dave_L

            “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8:14–17, KJV 1900)

            Why did they send the Apostles to impart the Baptism of the Holy Spirit if it was available the way Pentecostals seem to think it is today?

            Why didn’t Philip impart the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to the Samarians when he preached to them, if it is available the way Pentecostals think it is today?

            Philip preached the Gospel and they believed and he baptized them in water. Yet only by the laying on of the Apostle’s hands did they receive the Holy Spirit Baptism and charismatic gifts.

            “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” (Hebrews 2:3–4, KJV 1900)

          • FoJC_Forever

            Piecemeal doctrine. You reformulate the Scriptures to cater to your experience which is rooted in unbelief, just like the people who plotted to murder Jesus.

          • Dave_L

            In the Book of Acts and Corinthians, believers with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit spoke in foreign languages (Tongues) they hadn’t first learned. They also knew what they were saying and could translate the foreign language into their own natural language so others could understand. Today’s Pentecostals can not do this. They are not speaking in foreign languages, nor do they know what they are saying.

          • FoJC_Forever

            We only know what we’re saying in our known language(s), if the Holy Spirit gives us the translation. The same is true for those who first received the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

            I have no idea what ‘Pentecostals’ do, I’m not one of them. If you want to argue and accuse a Pentecostal, go find one and quit making blanket accusations and false statements about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

          • Dave_L

            “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” (Acts 2:4–5, KJV 1900)

            “And [they asked] how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:8, KJV 1900)

            If you are not speaking German, French, Greek, or some other human language that you never learned, you are not speaking in tongues in the Biblical sense.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Another lie. You’re just leaving out the Scriptures about tongues which don’t support your false doctrine.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The wonderful thing is, that no matter how much you stalk me and others, no matter how many Scriptures you copy/paste on this and other boards, you will never be able to persuade those who know Jesus (the) Christ. All you’ll do is preserve help preserve temporary, fake Christianity with your fake doctrinal pretense. And, when the End comes, it will overtake you like a thief in the night. You work hand in hand with those who worship other deities and those who claim there is no God.

          • Dave_L

            Pentecostals are not able to perform miracles if any, especially like Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus healed an amputated ear and raised the dead. The Apostles commanded healing of cripples and raised the dead.

            There are false apostles.“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:13–14, KJV 1900)

            “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:” (Revelation 2:2, KJV 1900)

          • FoJC_Forever

            Jesus performed few miracles due to the unbelief of those who rejected His Word, and He is the Living Word of God. Miracles happen, and not through medicine, but I have no doubt you don’t experience any of them.

            Your Scripture use is not indicative of one who knows Jesus (the) Christ, but one who is well versed in arguing on comment boards. You know how to work the crowd, for certain, but you can’t fool those of us who know Jesus.

            You are a liar and an imitator.

          • Dave_L

            “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” (Galatians 5:22, KJV 1900)

            Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Their unbelief told Jesus they were still under judgement and therefore not to be healed.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Twisted. You deceive through this vessel effectively, Lucifer, but yours and his End is coming.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The reference “when that which is perfect is come” is not talking about the Scriptures, it is talking about the completion of Salvation – when all Sin is purged from Creation and we who love and know Jesus (the) Christ are perfected.

            Tongues are not of “private interpretation”. You’re not even close on this one. You’re smart and “well read”, but you lack Understanding.

            Laying on of hands is not the only way the Holy Spirit is imparted to Believers. You appear to know the Scriptures, but you leave out what doesn’t support your vain argument. The chinks in your facade are starting to show. But, you’re just trying to “make an impact”, aren’t you?

            “Where is the evidence”…. yeah, you’re definitely a newer username of an unbeliever pretending to be a Christian.

            The Word of God is the evidence. The Holy Spirit is the witness and He who imparts the Gifts. You don’t have them, because you don’t know Jesus (the) Christ.

          • Dave_L

            Why would Paul say “tongues” would end at the end of the world? Wouldn’t this be obvious or would it even be necessary for him to say this if your interpretation is correct?

            The fact is, he told us tongues would cease along with prophecy before the end of the world because faith, hope, and love only would remain in their place. You don’t need faith and hope after God creates the New Heavens and Earth.

            “And now [after tongues and prophecy cease] abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Corinthians 13:13)

            The “Perfect” refers to the Scriptures. The Scriptures are our “text based Bible”.

            “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

            Furthermore, Daniel said visions and prophecy would end in the times of Christ and the Apostles.

            “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.” (Daniel 9:24)

          • FoJC_Forever

            Go away troll and internet stalker. You should be locked up. You’re a danger to people on the internet.

          • Dave_L

            “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” (Galatians 5:22–24, KJV 1900)

          • FoJC_Forever

            And this fruit doesn’t exist in you. You like to antagonize and berate Christians, while pretending to be one.

            You are a criminal, but I don’t expect the law to do anything about your actions, since they support so many wicked things. However, on the Day of Judgement, you will receive your reward for your crimes.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re nothing more than a liar, like those who claimed to know the Scriptures, but wanted to kill the Living Word of God, Jesus (the) Christ. I know some people are impressed by your quotations, but those who follow Jesus will not be fooled by you. We never have been and never will be, because the Holy Spirit will raise up a standard against you.

  • Perhaps these FFRF are not men of standing after all? After all, the judge said they lack standing.

  • Katherine Harms

    The First Amendment protects the state and the church from the sort of unseemly power struggles they might otherwise have. The Framers knew from experience the danger of an established church. However, a monument to the Ten Commandments is not an establishment of religion; it is a recognition of the historical value of the Ten Commandments in the establishment of law in the USA. The Ten Commandments are part of the ethical and legal background of US law, and the same fact is recognized in the Supreme Court building. A monument to the Ten Commandments may annoy people who don’t believe in God, but their annoyance does not change the historical place those ten laws hold in American law and American history.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      While I agree that the Christian population has an affect on our history, the excuse of historical relevance is just that, an excuse.

      As for being a part of law, I see nothing in our law telling us which God to worship, not to worship other gods, not to covet they neighbors wife, or to not say “God Damn”. So I think you are stretching it a bit here.

  • FoJC_Forever

    The “ten commandments” are only a part of the Law given through Moses. Simply glorifying these ten, while ignoring the rest of the Law is what people do when they pick and choose other Scriptures to honor or quietly ignore. If a person is going to “live by Ten Commandments”, then he or she is obliged to keep the entire Law and one offense makes them guilty of all of it.

    The entire Law was fulfilled by Jesus (the) Christ, and He is the Mediator of the New Covenant. The active Covenant God has with mankind isn’t through the Law given through Moses, but through Jesus (the) Christ alone.

    These monuments are merely a work of division and distraction.

    • Dave_L

      If people don’t answer to God, who makes the laws other than the mighty among men? This is how the evolutionist would have it. Might makes right.

      The Law never saved anyone. God gave it to curtail the wicked among the Jews until they served His purpose. Apparently He gave it to the wicked in America until they likewise served His purpose.

      Salvation has always been through the New Birth and resulting Faith in the coming Savior God would provide. Today we know the savior is Jesus.

      • FoJC_Forever

        You’re just imitating my use of capitalization of certain terms in order to mock me, as well as mocking the Word of God.

        • Dave_L

          “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1, KJV 1900)

          • FoJC_Forever

            Ah, you misuse this Scripture like the homosexuals misuse it.

      • Unrepentant Atheist

        Prove to me God saved anyone.

        • Dave_L

          Prove He didn’t.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You made the claim he did. I don’t have to accept anything you say nor have to disprove your claims. If you have no evidences, then I shrug and ignore you blathering.

            As far as I am concerned, God is merely a sky fairy in your imagination.

          • Dave_L

            “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.” (Hebrews 11:1–2, KJV 1900)

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            “Faith in religion is the belief of the unknowable, without any evidence to justify the belief. In essence, it is insanity.”

            ~ Me

            You can at least question me and determine if my words have any value to them. Your anonymous authors that picked and chose the Bibles contents from writings and word of mouth on events over 400 years old (at the time of their writing) is much less reliable.

          • Dave_L

            No body can believe in something they cannot sense without lying to themselves. It would be a lie for you to force yourself to believe something you cannot sense.

            As an atheist, you are honest claiming what you claim. However, Faith is both a “substance” and an “evidence” that God gives to people of his choosing. When he does this, they become aware of him and believe having sensed his presence. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” (Galatians 5:22).

            “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.” (1 John 4:13, KJV 1900)

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Unfortunately personal experience is not very convincing, especially when it is outside the normal five senses. The Bible’s poetic verses are not much help either.

          • Dave_L

            It is proof for those with the gift. I think of it as a sixth sense Adam lost in the Fall. He died spiritually that day but God restores that same loss to those he chooses to save.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You’ll have to put up the verse that states people get sixth sense like abilities to detect God. I cant seem to remember that particular passage. Even so, its a bit arbitrary to just give it out willy nilly with no rhyme or reason.

          • Dave_L

            “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:16–17, KJV 1900)

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Thank you for the verse.

            It’s kinda a self fulfilling prophesy. If you believe, you will feel it, if you feel it, you will believe.

            I’m never a big fan of “feelings” being the primary method of determining truth.

          • Dave_L

            It doesn’t work that way. Belief is not the cause, it is the effect. Human faith happens when someone chooses and forces themselves to believe. Biblical faith happens when God produces it in you.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So it goes against the free will thing then. Since it requires God to flip a switch.

          • Dave_L

            Most certainly.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Wow. Ok. So then people do not get a “choice” to follow God, they are selected, and the rest go to hell. Nice.

            How arbitrary of him.

            Guess it doesn’t matter if I believe or not since it is a lottery.

            I learn a new Christian belief every day. Reason2012, do you agree with this?

          • Dave_L

            If you believe, then God chose and saved you. It is called salvation by Grace.

            “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12–13, KJV 1900)

            Notice, they received Christ because they were Born Of God. Not of blood (born Jewish) nor the Will of the Flesh (free will) nor the Will of Man (Catholics or Lutherans via the sacraments). They were Born of God.

            Whosoever believes will be saved, not because they believe. They believe because God saved them.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            But you told me that there is a switch that God turns on and without that switch turned on you will not “understand”. So that makes it his fault I am an Atheist, according to your beliefs and what you have stated.

            So now the saving comes first. So God saves, and then people believe. Of course, that requires people to believe they were saved.

            More circular logic…..

          • Dave_L

            Not quite. God judged us guilty in Adam. We are born spiritually dead “atheists” or worshipers of false gods. Unless you repent from unbelief, it means he abandoned you in your original condition. You are still liable for your sins. It is not circular reasoning to react to something that impacts you, in this case faith.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Interesting. You are the first Christian to agree with me that we are born Atheists. I’ll have to disagree on the reasoning you have for it, as I’ll go with the fact we don’t know much of anything when we are born and need to learn man made concepts like religion. But that is just me.

          • Dave_L

            Actually, if God so desired, and who’s to say, you could wake up tomorrow morning seeking him. It’s not about you, it’s about what God wants.

            When God saved me I didn’t want anything to do with religion, especially Christians. I still have a problem with a good many of them. But faith is something God instills in us. He becomes what we want most. If you ever experience Him, everything pales in comparison.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Good to know. I usually don’t have issues with Christians themselves, but with the teachings. Good luck. It was a pleasure talking with you.

  • Praise Yahweh! Nevertheless, this should be a wake-up call for Christians.

    QUESTION: Would such a case have ever made it before a judge to decide in 17th-century Colonial America whose governments of, by, and for God based upon His unchanging moral law?

    ANSWER: Of course not! The person(s) bringing such a case would have in all likelihood been brought up on charges of contempt of Yahweh and His law.

    There must, therefore, be a defining moment in America’s history when her Christian character and biblical course were formally altered. That point was in 1787 when the late 18th-century Enlightenment and Masonic founders replaced the 17th-century governments for their own humanistic government of, by, and for the people based upon man-made capricious traditions.

    For more regarding these two polar opposite governments, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 3.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-quesiton Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Grundune

      I know what you are doing. You want to destroy support for the
      U.S. Constitution. Why are you, a preacher, so intent on doing that?

    • Tom in Raleigh

      There was no American government until the 18th century

      • Tom, thanks for responding.

        “…Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835: ‘They [the 17th-century Colonials] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now
        presents to the world is to be found [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8].

        ‘Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ … copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and

        “America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law. Since 1788, when the United States of America, as a nation, stopped following Yahweh’s laws and began following the laws of WE THE PEOPLE, our legislation has ceased providing righteous instruction to others. Instead, the rest of the world now holds America in disdain. If America hopes to regain her favored status in the eyes of the world, she must return to her original Constitution….”

        For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 3.

        • Unrepentant Atheist


          I think you missed the point. 17th century = 1600-1699.

          So during that time, we were British. The Monarchy had a state religion which was enforced.

          Considering many people came here to FLEE that oppression, discounts your claim.

          • Amazing…..

            I think you’d best go back and study your early American history again.

            The Puritans and Pilgrims excpressly came to America to establish communities/governments based upon Yahweh’s immutable moral laws. Go back up reread de Tocqueville’s quote in my original post, followed by the following, from the same source:

            “…McGuffey’s Eclectic Reader, America’s most popular
            school book in the 1800s, also testified to America’s early form of theocratic government:

            ‘Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they
            immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so….’24

            “William McGuffey was undoubtedly influenced by the writings of renowned early American preachers such as John Cotton:

            ‘The famous John Cotton, the first minister of Boston … earnestly pleaded “that the government might be considered as a theocracy, wherein the Lord was judge, lawgiver and king; that the laws which He gave Israel might be adopted….” At the desire of the court, he compiled a system of laws founded chiefly on the laws of Moses….’25

            “John W. Welch commented on the outstanding influence Yahweh’s law had in Colonial America:

            ‘Indeed, it has rightly been concluded that “the ideal polity of early Puritan New England was thought to comprehend divine intentions as revealed in Mosaic law.” The rule of law began, not with the rules of man but with the rules of God. One Puritan document directly states, “[T]he more any law smells of man, the more unprofitable,” and thus, it asserts, the only proper laws were in fact “divine ordinances, revealed in the pages of Holy Writ and administered according to deductions and rules gathered from the Word of God.’26….”

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I am sure some people did come here to be able to practice their religion in peace. I am sure the Anglican Church wasn’t to friendly to opposing sects.

            But the fact is there were tons of variations of Christianity, as well as some other religions including deists and pagans.

            I am not particularly interested in Mr. Welch’s views on things as he was not a founding father. Hence he may have been just as fundie as Westboro is now.

            But all arguments aside, that was then, and this is now. Regardless if you are right or wrong, it matters not. Right now the Supreme Court sides with diversity and separation of Church and State. Christianities numbers are falling as the main proponents in the news are crazy wackadoos like Westboro and Phil Robertson as well as them not being able to close off their communities anymore to outside ideas (mostly because of the internet).

          • Yes, and judgment’s a coming.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Yep, and the courts will rule you have to move the silly statue.

          • rationalobservations?

            Religionists are now a rapidly dwindling minority within the democratic developed world.

            All the thousands of undetectable and imaginary deities have been judged by a rapidly growing cohort of mankind to by dreamed up by men.

            All the exclusively self serving and obscenely wealthy businesses of religion see their flocks aging and dying and all across Europe redundant churches are being sold and redeveloped into something that is actually useful to mankind.

            When you are dead and merely cease to exist, the next generation will laugh at the memory of such (as Einstein called it;) childish superstition..

  • Willem Toerien

    Who cares? It’s not as if the majority of Christians actually care about the ten commandments. If you want the ten commandments removed, it’s easy:

    Step 1.
    Show everyone the fourth commandment and ask them, “which one of you set Saturday apart?”

    Step 2.
    Show them the first and the second commandments, and ask them, “so, what do you think of the Roman Catholic Church?” or whatever.

    Step 3.
    Show them the seventh commandment and ask them, “okay, how many fornication is going on in your youth, in the church?”


    You’ll find the majority will actually justify these things in 20 or so arguments, like “Christ is the end of the law” or “Christ fulfilled the law”. Thus giving you reason to tear the ten commandments down. See? Easy.

    But make sure you don’t touch the law on tithing… You might find some strong opposition there… Oh wait, it’s not part of the ten commandments even. 🙁