Lynn is not “revered” as a Reverend by any aside from inside his own political group. He and his polticial activist denomination are not legitimate in the eyes of many of their fellow believers of a wide variety of Christian traditions.
It amazes me how the United Church of Christ ordinates people and adopts doctrines that display what a faulty and ideologically motivated perspective they have on both the Constitution and Scripture. It saddens me when I get beyond what a spiritually destructive voice they are. Shame on him and them.
The real people who stand up for the rights of religious folk are not Barry Lynn and the AUSCS and ACLU, but the ACLJ. Lynn would never defend my religious freedom and my Christian beliefs because in truth he is interested in advancing the doctrines of his church and his ideology by claiming “separations” in the Constitution that are not there. Don’t waste your time reading his posts or let him fearmonger you into believing the nation is on the brink of religious tyranny.

“Lynn would never defend my religious freedom.”
Actually, he does that every day.

Jay, you whine that “Many people in Washington and around the country are upset by this message”. Seriously, do you think that atheists are not upset by the constant barrage of anti-atheist and hateful messages from the Christian community, and organizations such as yours? Do atheists not deserve equal time in a publicly-funded venue? And why do you seem to think that Christianity deserves any respect from the atheist community when it treats them with such contempt and condemnation? Put the nativity scene on a church lawn, or other private property, where it SHOULD be, and the problem is solved.

Your Name,
I am a nonbeliever myself, but I think the atheist sign in Washington is stupid. How do we as atheists and other freethinkers expect to gain respect when we aggressively insist on presenting rather misanthropic views and actions–like attacking religious people. That sign attacked religious beliefs.
And let’s get serious. Exactly HOW attacked are we? I might get some odd looks and some questions when I admit my lack of belief, but I am never the victim of hateful attacks from ANY religious community.
I cannot comprehend the malevolent narcissism of so many of my fellow nontheists.
Posha

Religious imagry, even in the most benign form, has no place on government property. There are plenty of seasonal images that can be used to show enthusiasm for what has become as secular a holiday as it is religious. If nothing else, the government can use the resources to promote community sharing. The religious iconography does not help.
That being said, the cause of the atheists would be promoted far better if they worked from positive aspects of their positions rather than pointing out the negative in other groups. Defining yourself, individually or collectively, in the negative is not as useful as finding something positive. The sign in Washington is but one of many examples of working from the negative.
Independaent respect for Truth,
You clearly are not all that conversant with religous issues. Nonetheless, anyone who speaks for freedom of expression speaks for you as well as everyone else. Rev. Lynn is an ordained pastor, as am I, and we serve God by helping folks who have no voice (or think they do not) to make their needs known. Respect for other people trumps respect for “truth”.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Joyous Haj, Delighful Kwanzaa, and Wondrous Solstice to you all.

Indy I agree with you in principle that Rev. Lynn and others have seemingly taken the concept of ‘seperation of church and state’ out of context as Jefferson was trying to confirm protection of a Baptist denomination from religious persecution, and this so-called ‘seperation’ appears nowhere in the Constitution. Oddly enough, these seperationists are defly silent when religious institutions are forced to violate conscience by complying with ‘anti-discrimination’ laws or shut down. Even so, I did agree with Rev. Lynn on one occasion that certain ministers (even one in my own Church) were going too far and coming perilously close to ‘endorsing candidates’ rather than informing how to vote with a clear conscience and allowing Church members to connect the dots.
I believe it is important to read both Lynn’s and Sekulow’s posts in this particular blog to understand where each side is coming from even though I align my beliefs more closely with Sekulow. It is important to listen respectfully to other sides of the issue, if for no other reason than to try and understand their line of thinking and to see if common goals can be reached without showing up the other side and constantly being at odds with them. Even were this not possible, it would still be useful to study your enemie’s tactics and build upon our own strategy, and who knows, even we may learn some things in the process we never knew before. After all, were we to just read posts confirming what we already believe, then where’s the spiritual or intellectual growth in that?
As for the fearmongering aspect we’re also being accused of the same tactics by those on the other side of the issue. I feel your pain.

==Religious imagry, even in the most benign form, has no place on government property.==
Not what the First Amendment says. Religious expression is the first expression allowed on public property.

==Do atheists not deserve equal time in a publicly-funded venue? ==
There’s no doubt that atheists have the Right to speak; but the question is whether they have anything to say worth listening to.

==”Lynn would never defend my religious freedom.”
Actually, he does that every day.==
Actually, he wants us to believe he does it every day. It’s a masquerade.

Sobering thought:
The first goal of the Settlers was to advance Christianity:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55257

So, there’s a nativity scene depicting what Christmas is actually about in the first place and it’s placed in a public place (legally) and someone doesn’t like it so they place something there (legally also) to show their disdain. What is the big problem here? If the nativity scene is outlawed due to it being religious, then that is a violation of the first amendment. So would be taking down the other sign unless it violates some kind of hate or vulgarity law.
By the way, if I come along a sign or poster or sticker that has an anti-religious viewpoint, why would I feel the need to place a religious sign next to it? Would this fix anything or change the person’s mind who put it there in the first place? Hardly. I would probably take notice of it and then think about my beliefs and be happy that I know what I know and I might say a prayer for the person. So, an atheist can do the same thing, as some atheists have commented in these postings. We are fighting the battle in the wrong manner.

It is correct that ‘separation of church and state’ does NOT appear in the Constitution – it actually comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson.
In addition, I wonder what if a negative sign against the Muslim faith would every occur on a government property. No. Since the atheist sign appears next to a Christian scene, however, some Americans believe it is ok. That begs another question: what would Jefferson have to say about THAT?

Forget Jefferson. James Madison, the main author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights directly speaks in favor of the *total* separation of church and state. He speaks of the danger of religious intrusion into the affairs of the state. Separation is absolute FACT, as evidenced by Madison’s words:
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ” (Detached Memoranda)
“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State” (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)

This country has always been about one thing-money-not religeos freedom. The Walmart incident best exemplifies the season. Yet the holy 1st amendment and the watchdog efforts of Rev Lynn and others has resulted in the most free religeously and prosperous country on the planet. Very simple-plenty of room on untaxed church property for displays. Trying to place them on public property reveals an agenda sure to invite controversy and divisivness.

Pluto Animus and Hoag:
Wrong. Barry Lynn never defends my freedom to religious expression, only the freedom from religious expressions that his ideology does not agree with. His work is very selective and strongly affiliated with certain political persuasions. His watchdog efforts are only used to harass other believers who have different doctrinal perspectives than he has.
Please someone educate yourself on the words of Madison and Jefferson. None are arguing that they referenced a “separation of Church and State.” What is up for argument is what they intended by that. It is obvious from other excerpts from their writings, some even contained in the same documents being referenced, that they did not intend freedom FROM religious expression in the public square, as is obvious by official Congressional proceedings and classroom instruction at the time. Understand your contextual history. The “evil” they were gaurding against, unlike Lynn, was official Church rule over the Govt. and vice versa. Their main reasoning for this was born out of the tragedies in Britain that first led to settlers deciding to leave there for here. For example, a Catholic would become the monarch and start murdering Protestants and ruling under Vatican authority; a Protestant would replace them and murder Catholics and place themselves at the head of an official “Church of England” that they could preside over. Literally, our Founders were concerned with Religious Rule like you will see in many Islamic Countries and in the Vatican.
Inform yourself on our history. The Founders weren’t worried about someone being offended by a Nativity Scene or a teacher having a Bible on their desk or meeting with Students for voluntary prayer. In fact they wanted to govt. to stay out of telling churches and religious people in what ways they could express themselves, including govt. officials. If you don’t want “Intelligent Design” taught in schools because YOU think it is religiously based; if you don’t want 10 Commandment placards in any govt. buidling because it offends your religion; if you don’t wan’t people saying Merry Christmas because they are a govt. official, then allow me to make some demands too. I don’t want my tax dollars to go to funding abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and agenda driven sex education. I don’t want my child taught that evolution through random natural processes is the ONLY scientific perspective, because that is intellectually dishonest and is biased against my faith. I don’t want a school and the govt. to tell me or my children when or where we can pray or when we can read the Bible. I don’t want govt. butting in to the doctrine my church teaches or who it hires or allows to use its facilities.
If the Founders were with us today, while they would think it waa intellectually unsound, they would probably say just let the atheists and whoever else also have their place in the public square. That is what it is to be: a free public square in which people of all faiths and none can express themseleves (peacefully, without violating another’s right to life and same freedom) alongside another. Atheism and evolutionary philosophy are legitimate religions based upon presumptions of faith as well; give them their equal space in the public square. Keep govt. out of regulating peaceful religious expression in the public square, as the Founders and Constitution call for, and understanding and consensus may have a chance to flourish.
Quit using the govt. and public sphere to limit or influence how people peacfully express their religion, this includes people of all religions and even atheists who cannot even see that they do indeed abide by faith based philosphy themseleves.

Ridicuous, regarding the Founders’ intention, you nail it!

==Religious imagry, even in the most benign form, has no place on government property.==
Who says? Certainly not the First Amendment.

I see Ridiculous, like Mr. Incredible, has an appropriate “name”. It is certainly ridiculous to assume for one moment that the Founding Fathers did not mean exactly what they said. It is complete revisionist history to state that the Deists, Freemasons, and other Enlightenment leaders had any respect whatsoever for religion in the sense of modern Christian separatist neofundamentalism. The language of the Constitutional Convention was clear: absolute Freedom of Conscience could best be accomplished if the State did not “respect” any sectarian establishment of religion (church, synagogue, coven, gathering, tent meeting, whatever) either. And in spite of your claims, Intelligent Design (the absurd claim that Bible-only-based evidence is science) and the Display of the 10 Commandments in public places (except in very specific educational contexts) have been consistently found to be unconstitutional because they are religious beliefs, even if disguised as secular concepts. What happened in Olympia, WA was very obvious. Every year a fraternal group put up a “Holiday Tree” where people could donate money for chilrens’ charities. Not satisfied with that, Christians sued to have the name changed to Christmas Tree. Not satisfied with that, more fundamentalist Christians demanded a creche. Then a Jewish group demanded a minorah. This year an atheist group demanded a plaque. Now, instead of a State Capitol, we have a religious free-for-all –which is exactly what the founding fathers attempted to prevent…

==I see Ridiculous, like Mr. Incredible, has an appropriate “name”. ==
So, you have to stoop to insults. Heh.
“Incredible” means “astonishing,” and that IS appropriate.
The “separation of Church and State” crowd is never impressed by anything but surrender, and, when they cannot get surrender to their incantations, they resort to insults.
==It is certainly ridiculous to assume for one moment that the Founding Fathers did not mean exactly what they said.==
That’s what we’ve been saying!
== It is complete revisionist history to state that the Deists, Freemasons, and other Enlightenment leaders had any respect whatsoever for religion in the sense of modern Christian separatist neofundamentalism.==
They were Christian and believed in God.
==The language of the Constitutional Convention was clear: absolute Freedom of Conscience could best be accomplished if the State did not “respect” any sectarian establishment of religion (church, synagogue, coven, gathering, tent meeting, whatever) either.==
And, yet, they wanted to advance Christianity. They did not promote a smorgasbord of religious activity.
== And in spite [sic] of your claims, Intelligent Design (the absurd claim that Bible-only-based evidence is science)…==
“Absurd” only in YOUR mind.
==… and the Display of the 10 Commandments in public places (except in very specific educational contexts) have been consistently found to be unconstitutional because they are religious beliefs, even if disguised as secular concepts.==
Atheism is a religion:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
==What happened in Olympia, WA was very obvious. Every year a fraternal group put up a “Holiday Tree” where people could donate money for chilrens’ [sic] charities. Not satisfied with that, Christians sued to have the name changed to Christmas Tree.==
Because people like you want to change the name to avoid the true meaning of the holiday. It’s part of an agenda.
== Not satisfied with that, more fundamentalist Christians demanded a creche. Then a Jewish group demanded a minorah. This year an atheist group demanded a plaque.==
However, since people like you claim that atheism is not a religion, the Black would represent a viewpoint. That viewpoint takes a back seat to the first Freedom — that is, of “religious” expression.
== Now, instead of a State Capitol, we have a religious free-for-all –which is exactly what the founding fathers attempted to prevent… ==
They thought that Christianity is best for this country. So, with today’s smorgasbord, you have what you desire.
The solution to the problem is not to deny all “religious” activity, rather to recognize the “religious” activity of the Founding Fathers in Christianity and allow that to flourish, as they intended.

Uncredible,
All of your statements are false but I’ll just refute two. Atheism is NOT a religion. Religions are based on a belief in magic and absurd magical fairies of the kind YOU believe in. Atheists don’t get together once a week and throw their hands in the air and scream, shout and sing about what they believe. That’s what religious people like you do and it’s CRAZY. Atheists don’t get tax breaks but instead have to pay an unfair share of taxes because religious organizations do not.
As far as your claims about Intelligent Design can you tell us all why there isn’t one Christian college or university with a science department anywhere that teaches this nonsense, and why they all teach evolution and common descent? ID is nothing more than futile propaganda in the 2000 year long Christian war on science.

Incredible or astonishing, both can be used to describe someone making utterly absurd claims. You say “And, yet, they wanted to advance Christianity.” If that was their intention, it would have been enshrined in the Constitution, but it was NOT. It’s not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
“They were Christian and believed in God.” A good number of them were DEISTS; a far cry from Bible-beating Christianity. Even if your claim was true, there’s no point. The Founders created a secular government.
“They thought that Christianity is best for this country.” Again, they did NOT mention it ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

It’s very easy to refute the lies of Christian historical revisionists like Mr. Uncredible. From the Treaty of Tripoli:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
This treaty was signed by both John Adams and George Washington and was passed UNANIMOUSLY by (a supposedly Christian) congress. Modern-day conservative propaganda about the “Christian birth of our nation” is therefore just as erroneous and self-serving as Christian pronouncements about the birth of our universe. In both cases, “Men of God” completely ignore the actual evidence at hand and conjure up a fictitious tale. They then spread the myth, along with fabricated evidence, and repeat the myth so frequently that it is sonn accepted uncritically by the citizenry.
The problem with people like Uncredible is that they have a totally different concept of truth. For most of us truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality. But for fundamentalist Christians truth is whatever they believe it is. See Uncredible believes he has a magical spirit living inside him that makes it so he can’t ever be wrong. Arguing with someone like that is pointless. That’s why I will humiliate him to the point where he’ll have to find somewhere else to post his lies and propaganda. I think this may have already happened.

==All of your statements are false…==
The Devil tries to tell me that, too. Of course, I don’t listen to him.
== Atheism is NOT a religion.==
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
So you disagree with the federal court. We guess that’s okay. We, however, will take the court’s word for it.
== Religions are based on a belief in magic and absurd magical fairies of the kind YOU believe in.==
Christianity is not a religion. Islam is an example of a religion. Atheism is another example. Christianity is a relationship. Quite a difference.
== Atheists don’t get together once a week and throw their hands in the air and scream, shout and sing about what they believe.==
They DON’T???? In effect, THAT’S what you people are doing here!
==That’s what religious people like you do and it’s CRAZY.==
Hitler also condemned his opponents as being “crazy.” You related to him?
== Atheists don’t get tax breaks but instead have to pay an unfair share of taxes because religious organizations do not.==
So you don’t agree with the Constitution. Okay.
==As far as your claims about Intelligent Design…==
What claims about Intelligent Design?
==… can you tell us all why there isn’t one Christian college or university with a science department anywhere that teaches this nonsense, and why they all teach evolution and common descent?==
All?
== ID is nothing more than futile propaganda in the 2000 year long Christian war on science.==
There is no Christian war on Science. The Word of God is chock full of Science. In fact, the discipline of Science began in Christianity.

==From the Treaty of Tripoli:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. This treaty was signed by both John Adams and George Washington and was passed UNANIMOUSLY by (a supposedly Christian) congress.==
Who said it was a “Christian Congress”?
Anyway, they also didn’t put the phrase, “separation of Church and State,” in the Constitution. And, yet, you say it’s there.
Since the Treaty of Tripoli, however, courts have ruled otherwise:
Treaty of Tripoli 1796: This is not a Christian nation.
However, for 140 years after ratification, the courts reaffirmed the Christian Foundation of this country. They actually encouraged government support of the Christian faith:
Runkel vs. Winemiller (1799) Supreme Court of Maryland: This is a Christian nation.
The People vs. Ruggles (1811) Supreme Court of New York: This is a Christian nation.
Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth (1824) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: This is a Christian nation.
Vidal vs. Gerard’s Executioners (1844) United States Supreme Court: This is a Christian nation.
Commonwealth vs. Abner Kneeland (1838) Supreme Court of Massachusetts: This is a Christian nation.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) United States Supreme Court: This is a Christian nation.
Said, done and settled.
==The problem with people like Uncredible is that they have a totally different concept of truth.==
The Word of God, as the Truth, is not a problem. It is for YOU, but not for us.
== for most of us truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality.==
A conjured-up reality.
==But for fundamentalist Christians truth is whatever they believe it is.==
Scoffers feel that they are useless unless they can misrepresent the faith of Christians.
Christian “Truth” is not whatever Christians belief It is, rather what God says It is. We take God add His Word. You don’t. It’s not our problem. It doesn’t impact our Salvation.
== See Uncredible believes he has a magical spirit living inside him that makes it so he can’t ever be wrong.==
More conjured-up “reality,” huh.
== Arguing with someone like that is pointless.==
Translation: “I can’t think of anymore incantations to get Mr. Incredible to come on over to the dark side.”
== That’s why I will humiliate him to the point where he’ll have to find somewhere else to post his lies and propaganda.==
Boy, are YOU in for a surprise.

6==Incredible or astonishing..==
Synonyms.
==…both can be used to describe someone making utterly absurd claims.==
Translation: “I don’t agree with you, and, so, you must be wrong.”
== You say “And, yet, they wanted to advance Christianity.” If that was their intention, it would have been enshrined in the Constitution…==
Not necessarily.
==..but it was NOT.==
Irrelevant.
== It’s not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. ==
Irrelevant.
==”They were Christian and believed in God.” A good number of them were DEISTS; a far cry from Bible-beating Christianity.==
Most of them were Christian.
== Even if your claim was true, there’s no point.==
Translation: “even if you do have proof, whatever you say doesn’t square with what I think, nor what I want to happen in the world and, so, you have no point.”
== The Founders created a secular government.==
They created a government that is intended not to interfere with Christian worship. They welcomed Christian influence in the affairs of men because, as Jefferson noted, God is involved in the affairs of men.
==”They thought that Christianity is best for this country.” Again, they did NOT mention it ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. ==
That’s cuz the Constitution of the United States is not an op-ed piece.

Mr. Discredited,
You said: The Devil tries to tell me that, too. Of course, I don’t listen to him.
Boris says: What other absurd non-existent beings talk to you?
You said: So you disagree with the federal court. We guess that’s okay. We, however, will take the court’s word for it.
Boris says: Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so.
You said: Christianity is not a religion. Islam is an example of a religion. Atheism is another example. Christianity is a relationship. Quite a difference.
Boris says: Sorry but there are Christian churches and there are NO atheist churches. Churches are where religious people go. Quite a difference.
You said: They DON’T???? In effect, THAT’S what you people are doing here!
Boris says: Mocking and making fun of religious people.
You said: Hitler also condemned his opponents as being “crazy.” You related to him?
Boris says: No but you are. Hitler was a devout Christian: “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
You said: So you don’t agree with the Constitution. Okay.
Boris says: The Constitution makes black people three-fifths of a citizen, so yes I disagree with some of it. The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular & legal document. It contains no mention of Jesus Christ, Christianity or god. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice –in the First Amendment, which bars laws “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and in Article VI, which prohibits “religious tests” for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian (who’s version?). Our nation was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of “We, the People,” not a god, king, or dictator. The U.S.A. is the first nation in history to separate church and state. And for very good reasons too.
You said: What claims about Intelligent Design?
Boris says: Any. They are all nonsense.
You said: All?
Boris says: Name a Christian college with a science department that does not teach evolutionary biology. Just one.
You said: There is no Christian war on Science. The Word of God is chock full of Science. In fact, the discipline of Science began in Christianity.
Boris says: Christianity has never been on the cutting edge of science — on the contrary, it has been the one persecuting scientists. The list of those who earned the wrath of the Church reads like a Who’s Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. The Church has also been on the wrong side of the social sciences for over 1,500 years, actively promoting slavery, anti-Semitism, the torture and murder of women as witches, sexual repression, censorship and the Inquisition, Crusades and other aggressive wars, and capital punishment for misdemeanors. This has given rise to a Christian field called apologetics, which attempts to defend the Church’s errors, even claiming that science and Christianity are compatible friends, not enemies. But the atrocities and scientific errors were too profound, and stretched on for too many millennia, to be defended in any reasonable manner.
You said: Who said it was a “Christian Congress”?
Boris says: You said the United States was a Christian nation. Can you tell us all how it is possible that the first congress was not Christian in a Christian nation? Judging from the responses you make this should be a real whopper!
You said: Anyway, they also didn’t put the phrase, “separation of Church and State,” in the Constitution. And, yet, you say it’s there.
Boris says: When did I say that exactly? This is what it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What do you think that means?
You said: Since the Treaty of Tripoli, however, courts have ruled otherwise:
You said: However, for 140 years after ratification, the courts reaffirmed the Christian Foundation of this country. They actually encouraged government support of the Christian faith:
Said, done and settled.
Boris says: No it isn’t:
“A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” or a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.”
~ Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court, in Newdow v. United States Congress
“There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter into our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed … Those who made our Constitution saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to prevent such a catastrophe.”
~ The Supreme Court of Wisconsin – Weiss vs. the District Board, March 18, 1890
You said: The Word of God, as the Truth, is not a problem. It is for YOU, but not for us.
Boris says: Prove something in the Bible even might be true.
You said: A conjured-up reality.
Boris says: You’re the one who believes in supernatural mysticism and boogy entities, not me.
You said: Scoffers feel that they are useless unless they can misrepresent the faith of Christians.
Boris says: Christian scoffers feel very frightened unless they can misrepresent the views of free-thinkers.
You said: Christian “Truth” is not whatever Christians belief It is, rather what God says It is. We take God add His Word. You don’t. It’s not our problem. It doesn’t impact our Salvation.
Boris says: Prove there is a God and that there is even such a thing as salvation. Prove there is something to be saved from.
You said: More conjured-up “reality,” huh.
Boris says: You’re the one with the religious superstitions, not me.
You said: Translation: “I can’t think of anymore incantations to get Mr. Incredible to come on over to the dark side.”
Boris says: No one wants you to change your beliefs, nor do we expect you to. After all that is what blind-faith is all about.
You said: Boy, are YOU in for a surprise.
Boris says: You’ll say nothing to surprise me. You fundamentalists are all alike. You say the same things and repeat the same old lies. I already know what your response will be to anything anyone writes.

==What other absurd non-existent beings talk to you?==
Foolish question.
==Atheism is neither religion nor faith…==
So, you have made it clear that you disagree with the federal court has ruled that atheism IS a religion.
==Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so.==
I’ll take the court’s word for it.
==Sorry but there are Christian churches and there are NO atheist churches.==
“Church” is not necessarily a building.
== Churches are where religious people go.==
Some do, and some don’t. No one has to go to a building to worship.
==Mocking and making fun of religious people.==
That’s the way YOU choose to see it.
==Hitler was a devout Christian…==
So what? The vast majority of killings over the past century were done by the godless.
==The Constitution makes black people three-fifths of a citizen…==
Well, actually, it doesn’t. We know that won’t stop you from saying that it does.
==The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular & legal document.==
And, yet, it mentions God in His Covenant Name.
== It contains no mention of Jesus Christ, Christianity or god.==
It is true that the Constitution does not mention “god.” It does, however, mention God in His Covenant Name.
==… the Constitution refers to religion only twice –in the First Amendment… and in Article VI… Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian (who’s version?).==
Okay, so, you disagree with a federal court that says otherwise.
== Our nation was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of “We, the People,” not a god, king, or dictator.==
Except that opinions from the settlers through the Founding Fathers say otherwise.
== The U.S.A. is the first nation in history to separate church and state.==
That didn’t happen until 1947, when SCOTUS amended the Constitution to mean that. The Soviet Union had so-called “separation of Church and State” in its constitution before that.
The idea in what YOU call “separation of Church and State” is that the State will stay out of the affairs of worship. It does not mean that affairs of worship can be prohibited by the State. It does not mean that a citizen cannot bring worship to bear on matters of public policy. It does not mean that one may not worship in public.
==Any. They are all nonsense.==
You accuse me of making claims about Intelligent Design. Of course, anyone can go back and read my posts and see that I mentioned nothing of Intelligent Design.
What this episode indicates is that you have a reading comprehension problem.
==Name a Christian college with a science department that does not teach evolutionary biology. Just one.==
None of them ignore God’s plan of Science.
==Christianity has never been on the cutting edge of science — on the contrary, it has been the one persecuting scientists.==
What a pant load.
== The list of those who earned the wrath of the Church reads like a Who’s Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell.==
Way back when. Heh.
The rest of that is pure secular humanist propaganda.
==You said: Who said it was a “Christian Congress”?
Boris says: You said the United States was a Christian nation. Can you tell us all how it is possible that the first congress was not Christian in a Christian nation?==
Congress was not Christian. Most of the congressmen were Christian. But Congress was not Christian. You claimed that I said Congress was Christian. I asked you to tell us where I said that. Of course, you cannot. So, you proceed to try to squirm yourself out of that jam.
==You said: Anyway, they also didn’t put the phrase, “separation of Church and State,” in the Constitution. And, yet, you say it’s there.
Boris says: When did I say that exactly?==
In your post above: “The U.S.A. is the first nation in history to separate church and state.”
==”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What do you think that means?==
That the State doesn’t follow the lead of the King of England, as head of the Church of England, to prohibit neither the exercise, nor the practice, of the worship of God.
Since those who claim to be atheist also claim not to be religious, that part of the First Amendment does not apply to them.
==You said: Since the Treaty of Tripoli, however, courts have ruled otherwise:
You said: However, for 140 years after ratification, the courts reaffirmed the Christian Foundation of this country. They actually encouraged government support of the Christian faith:
Said, done and settled.
Boris says: No it isn’t…==
Yes, it is, according to a handful of court decisions since that Treaty.
==Prove something in the Bible even might be true.==
The Crucifixion of Jesus.
The Resurrection of Jesus. 500 witnesses saw that.
==You’re the one who believes in supernatural mysticism and boogy entities…==
So, who’s making fun of other people’s religion now?
==Christian scoffers feel very frightened unless they can misrepresent the views of free-thinkers.==
Romans 8:1
Scoffing at the world pleases God.
==Prove there is a God…==
(Psa 14:1) 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.
==… and that there is even such a thing as salvation.==
For the disobedient, there is no Salvation.
==Prove there is something to be saved from.==
Of course, you’re trying to send me on a fool’s errand cuz no matter how much proof I show, you are predisposed not to believe it. You have precluded yourself from the evidence. That doesn’t impact my Salvation.
==You’re the one with the religious superstitions…==
Of course, thanks to Christ, we are not loaded down with superstition. Atheists, on the other hand, rely on made-up arguments about superstition in order to try to justify, in themselves, their disobedience.
==No one wants you to change your beliefs…==
Oh yes you do.
==You said: Boy, are YOU in for a surprise.
Boris says: You’ll say nothing to surprise me.==
You said that you are going to humiliate me to the point that I will leave. I said that you are in for a surprise. Then, you go off on some wild tangent. Do you suppose you could keep your thoughts straight for a little while?

Mr. Uncredible
Argument # 12: Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with God.
To set Christianity apart from other religions, some like to use this line when witnessing to others. They will say that Christianity is not a religion in the dictionary sense that involves a system of impersonal rites, rituals and worship to an abstract impersonal deity. But rather, it involves a personal one-on-one relationship with Jesus Christ. And that’s what makes it special because you are having a personal relationship with a living being.
However, if you look at the American Heritage Dictionary definition for “religion”:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
You will see that mainstream Christianity as it is believed and practiced certainly falls into these definitions without a problem. Nevertheless, while the attempt to make Christianity stand out from the rest by emphasizing this personal relationship concept is emotionally comforting, consider the following.
1) Almost every religion tries to set itself apart from the rest and from the common definition of the word “religion” in some way. For example, Buddhists explain that Buddhism is not a religion, because
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/path_to_true_happiness.htm
Likewise, even cults such as Scientology have made the claim that it is not a religion but “an applied religious philosophy” (http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/religion-not.htm).
Buddhists have cited one interesting difference between their religion and Christianity that is worth noting here. One Buddhist thinker remarked, “The difference between Buddha and the founders of other religions such as Jesus, is that even if the Buddha never existed, what he said would still be true.” Now, that’s huge. It’s saying that even without the historicity of Buddha, the teachings of the religion, regardless of its originator, that deal with the human mind, attachment, suffering, karma, meditation, etc. would still be true. And remember that Buddhism in its basic untainted form makes no claims about deities or theology. Instead, it is about liberating your own mind from attachment, suffering or karma, and putting meditation techniques into practice, without requiring belief in any doctrine or theology. However, you definitely cannot say that about Jesus and Christianity. Without the historicity of Jesus (whose existence is very questionable) the Gospel of Christianity would fall flat on its face and be rendered completely inept and powerless. That is the weakness of Christianity, which the Christians must constantly believe and develop extreme doctrines/teachings for in order to maintain their confidence and security in it.
If you look at what it involves, this “relationship” with God / Jesus Christ is indeed an odd one. In this relationship, a Christian is supposed to obey God and love him as a Father. He/she does NOT have the freedom to disagree and hold opinions contrary to Bible teaching. This means that he/she cannot say to God or even to the Church “I love you God. But I don’t agree with what you said in the Bible here so and so……” To do so would mean he/she was not a true Christian, and the church would not accept such an opinion too. Instead, the person wishing to disagree with God or parts of the Bible in ANY issue would be encouraged or lectured to submit and acknowledge that God’s opinions/ways are perfect, righteous, and therefore there is no disagreeing with it, and to do so is morally wrong.
To have a true relationship with God, a Christian must ideally agree and obey with him and everything in the Bible 100 percent! This means that you are not allowed the freedom to have your own opinions that aren’t in line with the Bible or to think for yourself! What kind of a relationship is that? Would you want a relationship or even friendship with someone that required you to obey and agree with everything they said? In our society, we consider that to be an unhealthy relationship. In fact, that is more like a master/servant or dictator/pawn type of relationship. And it’s one where you cannot even both respectfully disagree. Is that what you would call a great relationship? Hmmmmmm
Finally, what kind of a relationship is it when the other person doesn’t even talk back audibly and you can’t even see him? It seems like a one-way deal. Why can’t God or Jesus appear to those who have a relationship with him, either simultaneously or just to one person or a few? Why all this hiding? It doesn’t make sense.
7. Estimates are that 10% – 20% of the people were church members circa 1790. The best estimate I found that used actual data was 17%. With only one in six going to church, it is ludicrous to claim that the nation was “Christian” at that time.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
The actions of the Constitution’s authors at the 1787 Convention best reveal their thoughts and intent regarding religion. They avoided attempts to insert worship into their deliberations, keeping religious activities separate from the process of creating our government. If no religion at the Constitutional Convention was good enough for our founders, it should be good enough for all public officials in the execution of their duties.
8. The founders never prayed during Constitutional Convention sessions.
9. On June 28, 1787, Franklin and Randall offered motions to begin sessions with prayers. Both motions were allowed to die by adjournment. Franklin noted that only “three or four” supported prayer, the rest thought it “unnecessary.”
10. Some cite the lack of funds for a clergyman as an excuse for no prayers. Randall’s motion, however, called for “reading prayers,” which would have cost nothing.
11. There is a tradition that Hamilton opposed convention prayers because he thought they did not need the help of a “foreign power.” I have found no additional information on this.
OUR SECULAR CONSTITUTION
Our founders created a secular government based on freethinking enlightenment political philosophies that were angrily opposed by many Christians. Our founder’s Constitution is a stunning rejection of government under god.
12. Only the Constitution establishes our government, not any other document with pious words, such as the Declaration of Independence, Mayflower Act, etc.
13. The Constitution ignores god, except for the date, “in the year of our Lord.”
14. “We the People,” not god, are the authority for our government.
15. Our government was the first to radically NOT claim authority from god.
16. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for national office.
17. The Constitution’s presidential oath does not end with “so help me god.”
18. During many state Constitution ratification sessions, Christians tried to add references to God and Jesus into the Preamble and to remove the “no religious test for office” provision. Their attempt and failure demonstrates that even though the Constitution was a heated public issue, its was ratified as written. Our founders and the public knowingly chose a godless Constitution.
THEY REALLY MEANT TO SEPARATE STATE AND CHURCH
Conservative Christians argue that the First Amendment language, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” says our founders only meant to prohibit the United States from establishing one denomination as the official national religion. The evidence refutes this narrowest of interpretations.
19. From John Adams’ writings we find the following: a) The United States described as, “the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature.” b) That the developers of our government never, “had interviews with the gods or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven.” c) “[G]overnments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.” It would be hard to describe a more materialistic approach to government.
20. During the 1789 Congress Madison proposed an amendment he regarded as the most important one for the Bill of Rights. The amendment’s text: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” It passed the House but failed in the Senate. Not only did Madison believe in a godless Constitution that separated church and state, he believed it did not go far enough in protecting equal freedom of conscience.
21. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1/01/1802), Thomas Jefferson cited “a wall of separation between Church and State” as his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting. Jefferson’s metaphor came from James Burgh, one of England’s leading, now forgotten, enlightenment political writers. Burgh’s “Crito” (1767) had the phrase, “build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil.”
22. President James Madison vetoed an 1811 Congressional Bill that gave a charter to an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia. Also in 1811, he vetoed another Bill that gave federal land to a Baptist church in the Mississippi territory.
23. In 1812, Congress requested a national fast day. Madison issued a non-sectarian, voluntary proclamation for people “so disposed” who wished to appeal to god for success in the War of 1812. Madison later regretted his decision. In 1819, he talked about, “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” and in 1832, “an entire abstinence of government from interference in any way whatever,” in matters of separating church and state. LOGICAL ARGUMENTS
24. Instead of Christian, Agrarian, Capitalist, English, Aristocratic, Slave-holding, Theocratic, Intolerant, Genocidal or Frontier Spirit would be equally good descriptors for our heritage. Since our secular form of government was radically unique and for all of us, the principles of our Constitution are a more meaningful way to characterize our nation than picking one from among many cultural traits to describe us. 25. The Constitution, not the bible, is the law of our land. What the Constitution means is determined by the Supreme Court. Public officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Officials who insert religion into government or who use government to support religion disrespect the Constitution and should be removed from office for breaking their oath.
END NOTE
Propaganda wars are slow going. Christianity has a huge head start on burying our founders uniquely godless concept of government under their myth of a Christian United States. I think we can, however, recover for the minds of the nation our founders’ original philosophy of government and freedom of conscience if we are willing to continually identify and correct Christian misinformation.
We have an invaluable ally in our uphill struggle to preserve the truth. We have the words of our founders which directly contradict the myth of a Christian United States.
———————————-
Now, here’s the kicker. There are THREE verses in the New Testament that claim that the Bible is NOT the exact word of God! Here let me show you!
1 Corinthians 7:12
“But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.”
The Apostle Paul clearly says here in the first sentence “speak I, NOT the Lord”. He is saying that these words he is about to say are from him and not God! It’s in plain language. This alone technically invalidates the fundamentalist doctrine that every word in the Bible is uttered directly by God. It alone shatters this absolute claim of theirs. There is no defense. However, there are two more similar verses like it to shatter the doctrine even further beyond what’s necessary. Later on in the same chapter, Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:25
“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”
You see here how Paul is saying that he is using his best personal judgment, and that what he’s saying is not directly from God? He is telling you that he is writing his own opinion. Then, in Paul’s next letter to the Corinthians, he says:
2 Corinthians 11:17
“That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.”
Again, the same claim by Paul.
Christian apologists, when countered with these verses, usually respond by claiming either that 1) Paul was adding to Jesus’ commands, or 2) Paul was being inspired without himself knowing it. Now those are very bizarre explanations indeed, which don’t even address this issue. Either way, even if those two explanations are true, they still shatter the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. And furthermore, in regards to the second explanation, why would God “inspire” Paul to say that his words were NOT from God?!
Now add up the score. ONE verse versus THREE! This extreme doctrine is shattered three times over. It’s been disproven by 300 percent! Game over.
You said: Foolish question.
Boris says: Your answer is what would be foolish and you know it. That’s why you are afraid to answer this and other questions isn’t it?
You said: So, you have made it clear that you disagree with the federal court has ruled that atheism IS a religion.
Boris says: Do you agree with the courts which state that abortion is not murder?
You said: I’ll take the court’s word for it.
Boris says: Good then you agree that abortion should be legal.
You said: “Church” is not necessarily a building.
Boris says: It doesn’t matter. Atheists don’t gather in any non-buildings either. Christians are so desperate to have strength in numbers to support their absurd beliefs they will gather anywhere to accomplish this. And that gathering is correctly defined as a church.
You said: Some do, and some don’t. No one has to go to a building to worship.
Boris says: Atheists don’t worship ANYTHING, so they don’t have to go anywhere.
You said: That’s the way YOU choose to see it.
Boris says: I don’t CHOOSE to see things a certain way. Unlike you and other delusionists I accept them the way they are.
You said: So what? The vast majority of killings over the past century were done by the godless.
Boris says: Name them and claim them. Who are these godless people? Stalin was deist who attended the Russian Orthodox Church until he died and Mao a Buddhist. Now that the lies you WERE going to tell have just been refuted I guess you’ll have to make up some new ones.
You said: Well, actually, it doesn’t. We know that won’t stop you from saying that it does.
Boris says: Under the “Three-Fifths Compromise,” slaves were counted as three-fifths of a human being for the purpose of determining a state’s representation in Congress. The same Founders who cried “no taxation without representation” must have seen the irony in giving representation to the slave-masters based on the quantity of their un-free, non-voting chattel. The injustice continues today.
You said: And, yet, it mentions God in His Covenant Name.
Boris says: A mention of God does not mean that it is automatically the Christian god.
You said: It is true that the Constitution does not mention “god.” It does, however, mention God in His Covenant Name.
Boris says: “The day of our Lord” was a colloquial saying, not a religious one.
You said: Okay, so, you disagree with a federal court that says otherwise.
Boris says: So, YOU disagree with the courts too.
You said: Except that opinions from the settlers through the Founding Fathers say otherwise.
Boris says: If this were true you would provide some evidence to back up your claim. Despite my repeated demands that you prove what you blabber on about, you can provide NO evidence whatsoever to support your bogus claims. You’re all talk with nothing to back up your big mouth.
You said: That didn’t happen until 1947, when SCOTUS amended the Constitution to mean that. The Soviet Union had so-called “separation of Church and State” in its constitution before that.
Boris says: SCOTUS never amended our Constitution fella. Only Congress can do that.
You said: The idea in what YOU call “separation of Church and State” is that the State will stay out of the affairs of worship. It does not mean that affairs of worship can be prohibited by the State. It does not mean that a citizen cannot bring worship to bear on matters of public policy. It does not mean that one may not worship in public.
Boris says: Separation of church and state wasn’t my idea it came from our Founding Fathers.
You said: You accuse me of making claims about Intelligent Design. Of course, anyone can go back and read my posts and see that I mentioned nothing of Intelligent Design.
Boris says: Yes you did and you believe that hoax too. ROFL!
You said: What this episode indicates is that you have a reading comprehension problem.
Boris says: I read and I can read the Bible in its original languages too. Can you? I didn’t think so.
You said: None of them ignore God’s plan of Science.
Boris says: So did God plan evolution and common descent then?
You said: What a pant load.
Boris says: That is a typical answer from someone who has no answers. That would be you.
You said: Way back when. Heh.
Boris says: Way back when huh? Fundamentalists don’t agree with any modern scientists either now do they? Like Richard Dawkins for example
You said: The rest of that is pure secular humanist propaganda.
Boris says: There is no such thing as “pure secular humanist propaganda.” Refuting the lies of theists doesn’t take propaganda. A false religion like Christianity is supported by nothing but lies and propaganda though.
You said: Congress was not Christian. Most of the congressmen were Christian. But Congress was not Christian. You claimed that I said Congress was Christian. I asked you to tell us where I said that. Of course, you cannot. So, you proceed to try to squirm yourself out of that jam.
Boris says: Name one congressman who was a Christian. Just one. ROFL!
You said: In your post above: “The U.S.A. is the first nation in history to separate church and state.”
Boris says: That is a true statement. Prove it isn’t.
You said: That the State doesn’t follow the lead of the King of England, as head of the Church of England, to prohibit neither the exercise, nor the practice, of the worship of God.
Boris says: Christians in America totally supported the British during the Revolution and the War of 1812 and were known as Tories. This was because Christian preachers insisted that the King was God’s appointed ruler and the rebels were Godless Tom Paine followers, which they were. The only known Christian in Washington’s army was Benedict Arnold, a perfect example of a Christian wouldn’t you say?
You said: Since those who claim to be atheist also claim not to be religious, that part of the First Amendment does not apply to them. Yes, it is, according to a handful of court decisions since that Treaty.
You said: The Crucifixion of Jesus.
Boris says: You can’t even prove Jesus existed so how can you prove he was crucified? The Romans NEVER used crucifixion as a form of punishment. Not once and not EVER. There has never been one skeleton, no not even ONE that bears the marks of crucifixion. The History Channel did a great show exposing this fact.
The Resurrection of Jesus. 500 witnesses saw that.
Boris says: And where can we find the eyewitness testimony of just ONE of these people? The whole story is bull, like the rest of the Bible. The author could have said a thousand people saw it and the story would still be a as untrue as any story ever told in this world.
You said: So, who’s making fun of other people’s religion now?
Boris says: I am. It’s my hobby.
You said: Romans 8:1
Boris says: You live and lie according to Romans 3:5 which makes you feel that the lies you tell are okay because you are promoting your religion.
You said: Scoffing at the world pleases God.
Boris says: Scoffing at people who believe in God pleases me.
You said: (Psa 14:1) 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.
Boris says: That is one of the Bible’s many defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. It figures you would fall for such propaganda, which is all the Bible really is.
You said: For the disobedient, there is no Salvation.
Boris says: There is no such thing as an afterlife so poof, there goes your salvation.
You said: Of course, you’re trying to send me on a fool’s errand cuz no matter how much proof I show, you are predisposed not to believe it. You have precluded yourself from the evidence. That doesn’t impact my Salvation.
Boris says: You’re on a fool’s errand all right. I didn’t send you on it. Whoever indoctrinated you into the Christian system of dogmatic superstitions did that. What evidence could you show me? There isn’t anything and you know it.
You said: Of course, thanks to Christ, we are not loaded down with superstition. Atheists, on the other hand, rely on made-up arguments about superstition in order to try to justify, in themselves, their disobedience.
Boris says: Are you kidding me? Christ IS a superstition and the dumbest one ever.
You said: Oh yes you do.
Boris says: I do not want to change your beliefs. Then I would have to find someone else to mock and make fun of. You’re so easy.
You said: You said that you are going to humiliate me to the point that I will leave. I said that you are in for a surprise. Then, you go off on some wild tangent. Do you suppose you could keep your thoughts straight for a little while?
Boris says: I have already humiliated you buddy. Almost everyone on this blog is laughing at you, disagreeing with you, mocking and making fun of you and seeing your lies exposed as lies. Get up and go look in the mirror right now. How red is your face? ROFL!

Boris,
Please don’t speak for people you don’t know. On the contrary, most on this site are lauging at you for your ludicrous assumations about people and facts, as well as your 100% UNAMERICAN disdain and mockery of people and religions. That, my friend, is as un-American as it gets.

Your Name,
I wasn’t speaking for anyone. I was relating what others had posted on this blog. If I’ve made any ludicrous assumptions (I believe you meant to say) name ‘em and claim ‘em. A few people always want to criticize what I write without pointing out exactly where and why I’m wrong. You’re another one I guess. As far as me criticizing religion and mocking religious people, that is neither American nor un-American. What is very un-American is something like the Ten Commandments, which demand the worship of only one God in a country founded upon religious freedom. That, my friend, is as un-American as it gets.

to boris, i don’t understand you. you have no faith in an Almighty Creator, yet you can read all scripture in it’s original text?? of course, you have the freedom not to believe, but why must you be so unkind and cruel to those of us that do. I will pray for you

Dave,
I’m a life-long atheist of Jewish ancestry so I learned ancient Hebrew as a child. Ancient Greek was my language for college. So unlike Bible scholars who learn these languages to be able to study the Bible, I just happen to know them. But like the scholars I have studied the Bible very carefully, but much more critically.
I don’t choose not to believe in an Almighty Creator, I just find that belief impossible, scientific explanations for things much more plausible and the Christian God absurd. While I may seem mean spirited to some, I’m really doing theists a favor. The only way to relieve people of the burden of having to believe the unbelievable is to ridicule their beliefs until they are forced to reconsider them. I think anyone who sits down and looks at their religion the way they look at other religions – with an open and skeptical mind, will always end up rejecting it. I truly believe you would be happier as an atheist and you believe I would be happier believing in God. In this impasse we must recognize that we both wish the best for each other.

The ACLJ does an amazing job of helping to protect the rights of Christians in America! When a student has their 1st Amendment Right to express their belief, trampled on by their school’s administration. The ACLJ steps up and rights that wrong. And, when the Islamic states attempt to sneak a law into the U.N. charter, making it punishable by death or imprisonment to express belief in a god other than Allah. The ACLJ has intelligent people who can decipher the legalese and then fight against that mandate. Most American Christians never would have seen that one coming, without the ACLJ’s lawyers watching out for us.
But, as a Christian, I could care less whether or not a Nativity scene is displayed on Federal, State or local Government property, during the CHRISTmas season. I don’t feel like my rights are being impinged. As long as they can’t tell me what I can display on my front lawn, or, what a Church can display on the Church’s property. I feel like my right to worship GOD is protected.
Likewise, if some group of atheists wants to put up a sign that expresses their point of view, I couldn’t care less! However I do feel sorry for the atheists because, I’m 100% sure they are not going to have a happy “life after death”, experience. In other words, hell’s mighty hot, winter, spring, summer and fall. I’m proud to be an ignorant, superstitious, believer in myths. And, happy I’m not as, intelligent and well educated in the sciences, as the atheist is.
When pondering the separation of church and state issue, here are some verses that are in the King James AV1611 Holy Bible, that seem to address said issue. To wit;
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.
Now, I’ve never heard Jesus’ voice when a government official speaks (usually it sounds more like the voice of Jesus’ arch nemesis). So I don’t look to the government for “truth”. And, those that are of the truth know. . . the Nativity is truth!
Worshipping YHWH and his son Jesus is mostly a private enterprise.
Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, you shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father which is in secret; and your Father which sees in secret shall reward you openly.
So, in conclusion, while we shouldn’t give away the farm. We should vote according to your CHRISTian values and choose our issues wisely;
Proverbs 31:8 Open your mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.
Sell that Nativity scene and use the money to feed and clothe some poor and needy people (or, in today’s economy. . . feed and clothe a small child)!

Hey Boris,
Where did you learn to filibuster? Are you a Democratic (Sin)ator?

I think this says it all:
I’m proud to be an ignorant, superstitious, believer in myths. And, happy I’m not as, intelligent and well educated in the sciences, as the atheist is.
Of course if this person had any education in the sciences he wouldn’t be an ignorant, superstitious, believer in myths.
For the Christian ignorance is bliss.

What’s being stated here is that, as in the Pleasant Grove case, displays at Christmastime should be argued under Free Speech versus the Establishment Clause because government is speaking by choosing what they want displayed. Am I correct with this analysis as it applies to Christmas displays?