Faith

‘What a Bully!’: Atheist Leader & ACLJ Head Spar Over a Jesus Statue & Moses in Epic Eye-Rolling Debate

Jordan Sekulow & Annie Laurie Gaylor Spar on FOX Over Jesus StatueOver the weekend, you may have missed an epic debate that aired on FOX News between Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and Jordan Sekulow, the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

The two couldn’t stand further apart from one another on the ideological and theological spectrum, which was illustrated when they clashed in a tense on-air debate over the presence of a Jesus statue on federal land in Montana. In addition to this subject, the two tussled over the presence of Moses in the U.S. Supreme Court as well. The situation was so intense that Gaylor, clearly overwhelmed by Sekulow’s opinions on church-state issues, resorted to calling her opponent “a bully” who misinforms the public.

There’s a reason FOX chose to bring these individuals in to debate the Jesus statue. To begin, the FFRF, an atheist group, has been the main force behind an attempt to have the relic removed from federal lands, while the ACLJ, a right-leaning, pro-faith legal non-profit, has been the primary source working against the atheist groups’ actions (the latter organization helped gather 70,000 signatures in support of the statue).

Gaylor began by making a case for her group’s attempts to ban the statue from federal grounds.

“We are charging that this is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and an improper use of federal land that excludes those of us who are Christian, who are not Catholic — the 15 percent of us who are non-religious should not be having to support a shrine to Jesus on federal land,” she said.

Jordan, though, predictably took a very different view.

“This is the same group that is against ‘under God’ in the pledge, the national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ the National Day of Prayer — I’m sure would like to sandblast some religious references we have here all over Washington, D.C. — maybe Moses from the Supreme Court and the 10 Commandments.”

This is where the dialogue took an interesting turn, as Gaylor interrupted Sekolow to proclaim, ”Moses isn’t in the Supreme Court, Jordan.”

As the ACLJ has pointed out on its blog, Gaylor is incorrect. Moses’ image is actually present on the building a number of times. Following the interview, Sekulow wrote:

As an attorney, I deal with the facts, so here they are. Moses appears not once, but at least four times in and on the Supreme Court building: on the East Pediment of the exterior, in the South Courtroom frieze, a West Façade medallion, and as one of the metopes of the Great Hall of the Court.

Jordan Sekulow & Annie Laurie Gaylor Spar on FOX Over Jesus Statue

The awkward interview continued, with Gaylor and Sekulow talking over one another.

“You have interrupted me quite a bit,” Gaylor proclaimed. “You have misinformed the public.”

The debate ends, somewhat stunningly, with the atheist leader saying, “What a bully he is!”

Watch the discussion, below:

This interview may remind you of a December FOX segment during which host Eric Bolling kicked FFRF co-president (and Gaylor’s husband) Dan Barker off of his program. As you may remember, Barker had insulted Christianity.

Now that Gaylor has been corrected regarding the presence of Moses, one wonders: Will the FFRF now rail against his appearances in the Supreme Court? Considering the group’s past targets, it’s a valid question.

Comments (256)

1 2 3 4
  • CLG 4
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:46am

    Well if all will just vote democrat (socialist) early and often, then the next potus will get to pack the courts (federal and supreme) with liberal judges that will side with the minority for the good of all. Then the statue of liberty will finally be down on her knees.

    Report Post »  
    • fred
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:00am

      Then we can shred the Declaration, get God out of the Pledge, off the coins, and out of peoples’ heads, so Government no longer has a reason to protect out our right to life and can kill us willy-nilly. Wouldn’t that be great!. (Atheists are such fools.)

      Report Post »  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:17am

      Why does your God need state support if he’s so powerful? I seemingly shows some real insecurity in the majorities Christian beliefs that they feel te government is necessary to keep God on people’s minds.

      Report Post »  
    • randerson503
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:05pm

      @WVERNON…You are kidding, right? That’s your argument…that we Christians need government to protect God. You are an idiot. The Constitution grants everyone the freddom of religion. God doesn’t need protection, his followers do because of despots and tyrants that would gladly remove all religious thought to further their agenda of subversion and control. That’s what communism is. For communism to work, all thoughts of religion must be purged because the doctrine teaches free will and individualism. You cannot be allowed to exist in the commune if you have individual thought. The state must dictate to you your needs and grant you an equal share of everyones labor. In this country, as founded and stated in our Constitution, our rights come from our Creator, not from the government. The government is necessary only to protect those rights.

      Also, no one has the right to not be offended. If this athiest group is offended by a statue of Jesus, tough. If a person does not believe in the teachings of Jesus, or that he is the Christ and Son of God, then that is simply the statue of a historical figure. We know and have proven, historically, that Jesus existed.

      Report Post » randerson503  
    • scuba13
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:38pm

      “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.” Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia 1782.

      Report Post » scuba13  
    • HumbleMan
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:42pm

      “FANATICAL SECULARISM” is a religion. The federal government is trying to establish a state religion, and this is it.

      Incidentally, it’s a “false” religion, just as Islam is a false religion. It has a political agenda.

      Report Post » HumbleMan  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:45pm

      How long the statue has been there is irrelevant.
      Whether or not anyone has ever complained before is irrelevant.
      That a majority of citizens want to keep it is irrelevant.

      Is it permissible under the Constitution? That is the only question.

      Despite your personal preference you really must stand in support of the rule of law.

      Report Post »  
    • the wireworker
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:47pm

      @WVERNON1981
      where do YOUR rights come from?

      Report Post » the wireworker  
    • Dstarr55
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:09pm

      ConservativeCaNucklehead, not sure what you are trying to say – first of all, how long it has been there is relevant because it will then have a historical context to it. The gentleman was right – where do we draw the line since many of the memorials, funded by taxpayers, has religious elements to them – do we wipe out history for a few activists? Also what law does the statue break? There happens to be no separation of Church and State – that is a ruse. The first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Did you notice the second part – no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof? To tell people, a vast majority which support the statue, that they cannot continue to have this statue on federal property where it has stood for almost 50 years is ridiculous. I question the motives of any organization that seeks to rewrite the religious history of America.

      Report Post »  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:46pm

      Hello DSTARR55.
      You wrote: “how long it has been there is relevant because it will then have a historical context to it.” With all due respect, so what?
      As I’ve posted elsewhere … Slavery was accepted and legal for a LONG time … Abortion has been legally sanctioned for almost 40 years.
      Should the right to own human beings never have been challenged in the past?
      Should the right to kill the unborn never be challenged in future?
      You also ask, “… do we wipe out history for a few activists?” I think the answer here is obvious. No. But we do correct mistakes and/or revise practices — regardless of how long they have been permitted — if we recognize in them a violation of law.
      Which leads to your next question: “… what law does the statue break?” I have no idea. I have not even hinted that I believe it does violate a provision of law. That is a question for the Judiciary.
      I do, however, think it is useful for this type of question to be adjudicated. How can it not be?
      What’s more, I believe it is self-evident that EVERY citizen ought to jealously protect EVERY OTHER citizen’s right to freely make appeal to the courts. This point I’m making has nothing to do with which side of the argument you, or I, might be on. My point is that it is advisable that we all support — if only philosophically — any citizen’s right to put their case. Many Christians who post here seem violently opposed to that idea. And I find that … disturbing.

      Report Post »  
    • blkbelt7
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:17pm

      this is just like the“obsolete man” from the twlight zone…it is exactly what the progressive left is trying to do…

      Report Post »  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:29pm

      @wireworker, They’re granted to me by a collective agreement between the individuals in this country that we protect certain behaviors we refer to as rights. The collective can just as easily remove them. Rights are an emergent phenomenon, emerging, not by the will of any single individual, but when enough people have been convinced that these rights are worth having and protecting. I know the implication of this is that my rights can be removed and they can. I may not like that, but they can be. Rights did not exist in the past because the collective society did not know of or deem such rights to be important.

      Report Post »  
    • stage9
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:32pm

      Because Fred, God grants human kind free will, that includes the choice to establish a government that is despotic, as found in murderous atheistic nations, or free Constitutional governments as found in God-fearing Christian nations.

      Your question is an absurd one. Because God’s power is not even part of the question. rights come from God, and God-fearing (Judeo/Christian) people establish governments based upon the premise that God created man free.

      The bankrupt philosophy of atheism steals those rights and replaces them with a system that devalues life, liberty and happiness.

      Atheism is a joke.

      Report Post » stage9  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:35pm

      @Randerson,

      I never claimed Christians need government to protect God. I said why does your god need government support in order to remind people of his existence. Why do you need the state to promote your religion?

      If your rights come from a Creator, then why did we only formalize those rights three centuries ago? Surely, your creator doesn‘t care about rights when it’s not willing to protect those rights itself. Your creator doesn’t even care if many living today under tyranny have those rights or not.

      Report Post »  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:45pm

      @STAGE9, there is no philosophy of atheism other than a position that we do not have a god belief. Second, not liking the implications of there being no god does not imply that God exists. It’s only a statement of your own feelings on the matter.

      Report Post »  
    • gobnait
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:02pm

      Wvernon1981: God needs no defense. His believers are entitled to the defense of their beliefs and that’s the whole point of the right to religious freedom. Open a copy of your Constitution and be educated. BTW there are plenty of atheists who believe in the right of people of faith to freely exercise their religions. The ones who don’t go out of their way to find excuses to be offended.

      Report Post »  
    • maccow
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:02am

      @Wvernon
      When the collective decides that any one with a username of Wvernon no longer has any right to life, you’re going to be okay with that? What if the majority of the collective decides that the president is god and you must worship him as god? Good luck with your fictitious rights then.
      Our God given rights as citizens didn’t come into existence with the Founding Fathers, they have been there from the beginning. But men like yourself, who wanted to control the freedoms of others, kept power in the hands of the few. Never in history has the collective had the power over rights but for a few brief centuries in America and that under God. In all other cases the few have ruled the collective. Rights do come from God, but the ability to enjoy them can be taken away by ignorant men. God doesn’t create the negative conditions you cite, ignorant men do. Your collective has no capacity to fix the problems they themselves have created, but yet you want to blame the problem on God.
      God fixes the problems of men, one person’s heart at a time. Your ignorance and intolerance are getting in the way of what He could be doing through you. But God doesn’t force His truths on you. You either accept the truth or reject Him. It is so sad to see the evidence of the choice you have made. God is sadly laughing at the infinitesimal speck you call your great intellect.

      Report Post » maccow  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:27pm

      @GOBNAIT

      Yes, you are entitled to defend your beliefs. It’s your first amendment right. I didn‘t assert that you didn’t’ have that right. However, why do you need to use the government to promote your religious beliefs? Keep your expression privately funded. I was saying that if God is so powerful, why does he need all this government support to remind people he exists and to be good when he’s supposedly perfectly capable of doing it himself. All I ever see are his followers doing his agenda rather than doing it himself.

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on February 9, 2012 at 7:12pm

      Atheism is a religion for people who are permanently stuck in adolescence and who utterly reject accountability. Anything that challenges their ridiculous beliefs they react to with fits. They’re illogical, amoral, and ridiculous.

      Report Post »  
  • All American American
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:45am

    What is an “unconstitutional endorsement of religion?“ In my copy of the Constitution it says NOTHING about ”endorsing” religion; it says Congress shall make no law ESTABLISHING a religion.

    I mean, if “endorsing”a religion is “unconstitutional,” would that not mean that any elected federal official who goes to church, regardless of denomination, has violated the Constitution?

    Again, I ask this simple question yet NO atheist can answer,

    Why do you spend so much time fighting against something which you don’t believe exists?????

    Report Post » All American American  
    • KP
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:06am

      I, as an atheist, hate these groups. I don’t care that it says God on money, in courts, in the Pledge of Allegiance or anywhere for that matter. I just choose not to participate, and I don’t tell anyone else that they have to believe as I do. (Or not believe.) Most atheists don’t care about all this mind boggling waste of time and resources.

      I had a friend send me a message, after she heard my mom is battling cancer. My friend is a church going person. She sent the message saying, “I’ll keep your mom in my prayers.” I didn’t lambaste her. I thanked her and told I really appreciated it. That’s how most, normal atheists operate.

      Report Post » KP  
    • hwyphd1
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:14am

      Simple answer they don’t care about religion, they are attacking our rights and it seems they are winning.

      Report Post » hwyphd1  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:16am

      @KP

      Your a good American!

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • All American American
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:37am

      KP,

      I appreciate your answer to my question. Unfortunately you seem to be the exception to the rule–or at least that’s how it appears sometimes.

      I pray your mother wins her battle with cancer. As long as you don’t mind those prayers coming from a deeply flawed Catholic guy who humbly recognizes that he needs God a lot more than God needs him.

      Report Post » All American American  
    • glock26
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:11am

      Why do you only quote part of the first amendment , and you left out the word” respecting” from the part you quoted. This is the whole thing. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedome of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Report Post »  
    • HumbleMan
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:46pm

      @KP, you are indeed a good and rational American.

      What’s missing from this picture? I’ll tell you. These people who litigate to remove God from all public places are political activists. They are not purely atheist. They are “secular fundamentalists” and more than like communists, because it is a fundamental tenant of communism to efface all that looks toward God. You see any belief in power higher than “man’s law” is a threat.

      Do not be confused about who we are fighting here, and do not be confused that it is a fight.

      Report Post » HumbleMan  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:56pm

      While the issue is obviously being raised by a group of atheists, I do not see the essential question as being an atheist issue or a christian issue.

      It is a Constitutional/Legal issue.

      And I think it is useful for this type of question to be properly adjudicated. How can it not be?

      Report Post »  
    • Balpit
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:01pm

      KP, I wish more atheists would follow your lead.

      Just as most Christians are good but nutty groups like the Westboro Baptists make everyone think, “See! All Christians are intolerant and hateful like them!”, I’m willing to bet atheists have the same problem with groups like the FFRF: making people think, “See! All atheists are intolerant and hateful just like them!”

      Report Post »  
    • Fiddlesticks
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:04pm

      @KP

      Agreed. I‘m an Atheist and don’t care about the multitudes of religious symbology and references to God. The FFRF is a liberal group and has nothing better to do than to get in everybody’s face about some of the stupidest stuff. Nothing in the constitution protects me “from” religion, so I don’t freak out every time I see a Jesus statue. I‘m definitely not going to freak out about a Jesus statue at the top of a mountain I’ll never go to in my entire life.

      Report Post »  
  • copatriots
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:44am

    Another day, another attempt at removing all things Christian from our culture and society. Strange how Christianity was our nation’s legacy for 230-plus years until Obama announces to the world that we are not a Christian nation, giving credence to this disruption among all his other messes as Organizer-in-Chief.

    MOD, I’m eager for your views on this article.

    Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:09pm

      I think it’s funny people want so many public displays of their religion.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:38pm

      I don’t see many, if any, new ones going up, do you? On the contrary, the key for FFRF folks is to remove every and any Christian symbol. This isn’t about the public display so much as it is atheists removing anything Christian-related from our government. As an atheist, do you feel it is necessary to remove this statue that has been there since 1953?

      Report Post »  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:24pm

      Slavery was accepted and legal for a LONG time. Remember?

      How about the tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans (US Citizens!) who were interred during WW2?

      Abortion is a daily occurrence, it’s been legally sanctioned for almost 40 years.

      Do I really need to cite examples of things that have been accepted, tolerated, or even expressly legitimized in law that were either morally wrong or essentially inconsistant with the Constitution and the subsequent Amendments thereto?

      Come on Christians. Think!

      What would happen if the balance of the population were to shift its theological preference and, I dunno, let’s say Islam became the dominant, most widely practiced religion and its adherants sought to populate State and Federal lands with symbols of their faith? What if they sought to implement Sharia? Wouldn’t you then want desperately to appeal to the rule of law, to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

      Is it not self-evident that EVERY citizen ought to jealously protect EVERY OTHER citizen’s right to freely make the same appeal?

      Report Post »  
    • riverdog1
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:24pm

      @all american american. no KP is the rule not the exception.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:42pm

      CONSERV, if you are a Christian I would think you would consider the Biblical example of Israel in repenting and returning to God. This country has a rich history of Judeo-Christian roots……not Muslim, Buddhist, atheistic or anything else. While we certainly have embraced peoples from other cultures (and rightly so) since our founding, it certainly should not be at the expense of our own roots. We have no further to look than Europe to witness their history and culture being systematically displaced.

      What do you think a non-Christian America is going to look like? Be careful what you wish for.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:24pm

      @Mod:
      “I think it’s funny people want so many public displays of their religion.”

      I think it‘s funny that you’re talking about people that have been dead for 200 years or so. WE didn’t request to put Moses in the Supreme court, or any other biblical reference in our courthouses. So since they have been there for quite some time, your argument is irrelevant. Some people, not you, obviously, want to keep things like that not because of religion, but because they played a HUGE part in helping us establish a rule of law, one that set us apart from every other country in the world.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:31pm

      @COPATRIOTS
      I didn’t talk about when they put them up, I said it’s silly I think people need public displays of their religion.

      @KADAMS
      Uh, “Under God” wasn’t added into the pledge until the 50s
      “In God We Trust” wasn’t our official motto until the 50s as well.
      Despite our harsh economic times, they just had a vote to re-submit that “In God We Trust” is still our motto, and it passed with overwhelming support.

      http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/11/02/Congress-reaffirms-In-God-We-Trust-motto/UPI-76721320241880/

      Great use of time! So much for jobs being the primary concern. It’s a sick joke.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:40pm

      Again, WE didn’t petition to put that on our money. In fact, the ‘In God we trust’ on money is actually in reference to Satan or Lucifer, which is the god the global elite worship.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:47pm

      Okay…..so people in 1953 and earlier when the buildings in D.C. were built, people chose to have public displays of their faith. They are here and part of our history. Where do you stand on needing them removed?

      And come on…..you point to the “In God We Trust” motto remaining on our currency. Please. Even you can understand why politicians don’t want to touch that in this volatile environment. Heck, even Obama professes Christianity for votes. Meanwhile, atheists want that motto removed also. One lawsuit at a time……

      Nevermind…..was more providing today’s evidence from our discussion the other day of atheists desiring to remove all things Christian from our culture and society.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:28pm

      FWIW, it is comments similar to what you parroted of Obama from your link about Congresses use of time and economic hardships that made me question your voting. Do you seriously think any job creation agenda the House advances is going to be endorsed by Obama? I trust you are equally appalled at the Obamas disgusting waste of taxpayers money on their numerous, elaborate vacations and not really focusing on job creation.

      I find it interesting that Ellison voted “present” versus “nay” on the national motto and that Obama quoted “E Pluribus Unum” as our motto in a speech. Perhaps to many in Congress, they do trust in a god. By as you often point out, what god, rather idol (so you don’t misinterpret me), do they trust in?

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:34pm

      Hey MOD,

      Jobs are still the primary concern.

      Especially the “job” that you and your kind are pushing.

      And yes, you are pushing.

      Mod, do you have any idea how much you and that……..woman sound alike?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:40pm

      Religious symbols on private property are fine to me. I don’t care if every single house around me had a nativity scene up, and I like looking at the scenes at the particular houses.

      What I don’t like is that then people feel the need to put those displays up on public property. I personally haven’t tried to get one taken down, and probably never will, I just think it’s stupid and unnecessary.

      I think it’s horribly stupid for people to get offended when a store says ,“Happy Holidays” and not “Merry Christmas.” Why can’t you practice your own rituals, beliefs and holidays, without also then needing stores to support that practice? Are you really going to boycott a store that says Happy Holidays?(not saying you in specific) Not to mention that many of the traditions of Christmas were stolen from pagans rituals, that Christians then conformed to their belief in Jesus and Christmas.

      On Christmas day as I was getting ready to leave to go out to dinner, I wrote very quickly on facebook, “Merry X-mas everyone!” and left. It was not an intentional slight to write “X-mas”, I was just in a hurry and usually do shorthand stuff like “Happy Bday” etc. Guess what happened? One of my friends felt the need to respond with, “Merry CHRISTmas.” Usually I let those things slide, but I thought it was horribly unnecessary so I responded with “Merry SANTAmas.” I could be quiet about being an atheist, but religious people don’t allow me to.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:41pm

      And no MOD,

      I am not insinuating that you two are one in the same.

      Just that when I watch her talk, I hear you.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:42pm

      @ BILLY

      Feel free to join my discussion anytime. I am learning much from both you and BAD_ASHE. Many props and thanks. :-)

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:50pm

      Just because Obama and I agree on something, doesn’t mean I agree with the majority of what he says and does. In fact, I didn’t even realize Obama had said, “Not a great use of our time” until I looked at the article.

      I voted against Obama in 2008, and won’t vote for him in 2012. Stop assuming that because I disagree with you on something, that means I’m totally in the tank for the other “side.“ It is this idea of ”sides” which makes things so hard to do. You never discuss the legitimacy of an argument, it always comes down to, “Wow, that person said this. Well we know he’s from the other side, so he must be wrong, or doing something evil.”

      I am appalled at all waste of taxpayer money, dunno why you keep pointing only at Obama out for something that all politicians do. Both sides are horribly corrupt and do things more for their own interest then for the interests of the people of this country.

      The fact that I get annoyed that our motto is “In God We Trust” is no different then the annoyance you would get if it got changed to “In Allah We Trust” or if they voted to remove it as our motto. Imagine the hissyfit Christians would throw if the re-affirmation of “In God We Trust” actually didn’t pass? I can see it now “OMG, WE’RE A CHRISTIAN NATION. THEY’RE TRYING TO TAKE GOD OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. THESE POLITICIANS WILL BURN IN HELL FOR THIS. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.”

      @Billy
      Jobs was never the concern of either party.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:50pm

      Not sure I buy your facebook example MOD.

      One thing I have learned here on the Blaze, is that liberals / atheists / communists etc, that post here ALWAYS have a “friend” or “Acquaintance” or a convenient little anecdote to help bolster their argument.

      This was a “FREIND” that felt the need to nitpick you like that?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:58pm

      Just because I happen to agree with Obama on something, doesn’t mean I agree with the majority of what he says and does. I voted against him in 2008 and won’t vote for him in 2012. Why do you keep assuming that because I don’t agree with you on something, that it means i’m in the tank for the other “side?” It is this idea of sides that leads to nothing ever getting done. There is barely legitimate talk about it, it just boils down to, “well he said this, and we know he’s on the other side, so whatever he is saying or doing must be wrong and I must fight back.”

      Why do you keep bringing up Obama to me? I don’t like a majority of his policies, so why do you keep talking about him? Please stop creating straw man arguments.

      I am against Government waste of any form, sadly both sides of the aisle are corrupt and have their interest at heart more then the people’s interest.

      My annoyance that “In God We Trust” is exactly that, an annoyance. Imagine if that motto got changed to “In Allah We Trust” or the vote to re-affirm didn’t get passed. I could just hear Christianity now, “OH MY GOD, THEY’RE TRYING TO TAKE GOD OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. THESE POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL, WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.”

      @Billy
      None of this has ever been about jobs, never has been.

       
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:01pm

      Wasn’t assuming “you’re in the tank” for anyone. Was more noting an example of why I thought you were an Obama supporter the other day.

      The issue about the Holiday and people being sensitive about Christmas versus X-mas should be obvious to you. Again, it is a full out atheist assault on removing Christ from our culture. And, again, as was previously discussed and provides only more evidence.

      Sorry I have to go for now. I cede to Billy. Good day to you both! :-)

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:06pm

      @Billy

      I don’t care whether or not you buy my example or not. Instead of refuting my example, maybe you could think that there ARE some Christians who feel the need to make nonsensical remarks to their friends about their Christianity.

      I could give you other examples(one that just happened on Sunday) about my friends making needless remarks on my facebook when I make a harmless comment. Again, I say I could give you an example, but I‘m not going to because you likely won’t “buy it.”

      I normally don’t mind it, as I know they love me, they’re just concerned for my “soul’ and want me to go back to church and fellowship with them, so in the end, it’s okay I guess.

      I know that not all Christians are like my friends, and I am by no means saying that my friends are mean people, they aren’t. They are very nice, caring and loving people, they’re just also really devote.

      I just think it’s an eye opening experience that my friends can both love me very much, yet continually make remarks on my facebook, or post bible verses, or post stuff that would be considered an insult to any other kind of belief, but I love my friends so I don’t feel the need to post unnecessary counter arguments, or post things on my facebook that is directly attacking their beliefs.

      BTW, I didn’t mean to post that other thing twice. I‘ve been having weird problems where posts won’t show to me no matter how many times i refresh.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:09pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      It’s not an assault on Christmas. Private stores have the right to greet and part with customers anyway they want. If they feel the need to say happy holidays instead of merry christmas, it shouldn’t bother you AT ALL. That is unless you feel that you need to have your religious belief bolstered by a retail chain wishing you a “Merry Christmas.”

      How does target not saying “Merry Christmas” to you affect your walk with Jesus? I really want to know the answer to that question.

      You in turn have the right to not shop at that store. If that store has enough people get mad about it, it may change its policy. But the fact that anybody would get upset over it is silly especially without how secularized Christmas has become.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:11pm

      Sorry, need to ask this before I go. The question primarily was to this specific statue in this location since 1953. No one is putting up a new statue on public land and certainly would never get approval to do so in today’s culture. This one has been up and on public land since 1953. I‘m assuming based on your statement that you think in 2012 that it needs to be removed because you don’t feel it should be on public land.

      As to all politicians wasting tax payer money and elaborate vacations, I am no great fan of GWB but you surely didn’t see him taking Obama style vacations or Laura hosting a first class girls trip to the south of Spain. At least Bush understood the pulse of the country and wasn’t so splurging in our face.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:25pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      My point doesn’t boil down to whether or not it “should” be there. Me personally? I don’t care. If they somehow boiled this whole situation down to a “vote” on whether or not to remove the statue, I wouldn’t take time out of my day to go and vote against it.

      If there are people who are willing to “fight against” it, to take the statue down, that’s cool. If they keep the statue up? That’s cool too.

      I am just weary of the line continually getting blurred between freedom of religion, to “You must conform your life around my beliefs.” I’m not saying a theocracy in the terms of ,“You must believe as I do or die” but “You must conform your life around my BELIEFS.” It already happens now when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research. People vote against these things, not for what I would call rational, well thought out reasons, but because they think their religious belief would dictate it to be wrong. In the end, if this place gets too “fundamental” I can leave, I would just hate to see it come to that.

      My point is, if you have a personal relationship with Jesus, why all the public statues, displays, admittance? Why do you care if a store doesn’t care about your religious beliefs, so it changes it to “Happy Holidays” It wasn’t a federally forced decision, it was individual stores deciding they wanted to be more inclusive to other people. What’s wrong with that?

      Report Post »  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:26pm

      COPATRIOTS … What do you think an America without the right to freely challenge the influence of religion-in-government would look like?

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:44pm

      CONSERVATIVECANUCKLEHEAD wrote:
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:26pm
      “COPATRIOTS … What do you think an America without the right to freely challenge the influence of religion-in-government would look like?”

      I know you directed that to COPATRIOTS, but I would be more interested in what you think it would look like.

      I am not in favor of removing anyone’s right to challange anything, but I do question the wisdom and the motives of this all out atheistic assault on everything Christian.

      It is not what the founders intended.

      @COPATRIOTS

      Thanks for the kind words. I enjoy reading your posts also.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:57pm

      Mod

      If you and your friends are regularly bickering back and forth with each other about religion, or lack thereof, my advice to you would be to find some new friends.

      I most certainly would not hang around with anyone that belittled my faith in any way, shape, or form.

      As I mentioned to you previously, unless I am in the company of church friends, the topic of religion rarely, if ever comes up.

      Why don’t you socialize with atheists like yourself?

      Surely there are plenty around, no?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:05pm

      Oh, and MOD,

      Your facebook thing?

      Maybe what you consider to be a “harmless” remark that you make, is not really all that harmless to the people you are directing it to.

      I know that some of your comments here are quite offensive to Christians, especially Catholics.

      But yet you seem to be constantly baffled as to why anyone would be offended by any of your comments.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:22pm

      @Billy

      I wouldn‘t really call it bickering as I usually don’t respond to what they say with anything more then a “lol” “:-p”. When my friends mention about the possibility of me going to church, I respectfully decline. Their comments are few and far between, and I generally don’t take them as an assault or anything, just friendly jabs. As I said, I went to an evangelical church for 6 years with them, so they may worry about me going to hell, etc, which is fine. It is also not all of my group of friends, just a few, and like I said, they aren’t constant “attacks.”

      I like my friends, and despite how it may come off as on here, I don’t take my atheism seriously enough to avoid friends or people who are religious. I really don’t know any atheists personally, there are some groups around where I live, but like I said, I like my friends and can look past any quips they may say or do.

      There are some “free thinkers” groups around here, but I’m not really much for ones of “groups.“ I like being independent and hate being categorized and having things assumed of me because of a ”label.” Unfortunately, it happens with Atheism, but that‘s only because Atheism has become a term for a rejection of something you haven’t been given sufficient evidence for. I guess I could reject the term, “Atheist” and just say, “i don’t think a God exists” but I’m sure I would instantly be branded an Atheist and have all of the assumptions made about me that I alr

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:30pm

      @Billy

      My comments on facebook are comments that aren’t even specific towards religion, much less Christianity.

      Like I said, the thing about “X-mas“ vs ”Christmas” was something I just normally do for Holidays, and I was in a rush. It was completely unnecessary for a friend to respond with, “Merry CHRISTmas”

      Last week it was late at night and I said, “wow, it doesn’t feel like Sunday” and I got a response, “That‘s because you weren’t at church. :-p” Again, isn’t that unnecessary?

      I view these as harmless, but they are examples of people needlessly making comments to me about their religion.

      As to comments on here, they may come off as mean, but that doesn‘t mean they aren’t truthful. If someone talks to me about Hitler, and tries to tell me he was an Atheist, and I point out his numerous mentions to God, or his treaty with the Catholic church, or other things, it may be offensive towards Catholics, but it doesn‘t mean it’s not true. Besides, while I said I may think it’s silly for the Catholic church to be anti-contraceptive, I did say that I support their right to have their belief and that I don’t think they should be forced to do it.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:15pm

      MOD, you can ask that very question to your Christian friends and I’m sure you. This issue in retail is the hypocrisy behind making money off of Christmas while having a corporate stance of Merry Christmas. Does it affect my walk? You know better. Is it insulting? Yes. But I don’t really celebrate Christmas the way most Americans do. It is genuinely about being grateful that Christ was born….even if it wasn’t even on that day. Christmas again has a culture and history in this country that many are trying to eliminate. For a person having many Christian friends, you sure don’t seem very considerate to your friends beliefs.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:18pm

      Sorry I shouldn‘t respond when I’m not giving full focus.

      *corporate stance of saying Happy Holidays.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:42pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      Private companies can do as they please. If they feel like they want to be more inclusive to Islam, or Buddhists, or whatever, they aren’t “attacking” you or your beliefs. If you feel the need to boycott any store that says Happy Holidays, that is your right. I personally think most of this is media driven to cause an uproar over something that doesn’t matter. If/when you do Christmas shopping, do you call up every store beforehand and say, “Do you have a policy of wishing people Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?” If you do, I personally feel bad for that you believe in something that is so constricting, that you feel the need to avoid places that don’t say “Merry Christmas.”

      My friends are rational enough to not give a crap whether or not they get wished a Merry Christmas from a store. They don‘t base their belief on other people’s perception, acceptance, or acknowledgement of that faith.

      And what are you talking about? I celebrate Christmas. I don’t reference Jesus, but as I said, a lot of the rituals of Christmas are stolen from pagan rituals, so it’s irrelevant. I enjoy spending time with my family.

      As for your accusation. I celebrated Christmas eve with all of my friends at one of their parents house. I had a great time, and was quiet and respectful when they held a prayer before eating so please don’t claim that I”m not being considerate when you know not of what you speak of.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:53pm

      Mod says:
      “Like I said, the thing about “X-mas“ vs ”Christmas” was something I just normally do for Holidays, and I was in a rush. It was completely unnecessary for a friend to respond with, “Merry CHRISTmas”

      Last week it was late at night and I said, “wow, it doesn’t feel like Sunday” and I got a response, “That‘s because you weren’t at church. :-p” Again, isn’t that unnecessary?”

      @MOD,

      I don’t know what you thought I meant, but yes, I agree, those quips are unnecessary. That’s why I suggested getting some new friends. If you guys cannot get past all the religious innuendos, then I can’t help you out there.

      Curious though that you say their comments are few and far between, and you don’t really take them seriously. You just consider them to be “Friendly jabs”. Not any kind of assault at all.

      Yet at the same time, you find them so annoying that you feel the need to complain to us here about them incessantly.

      You hold them up as a shining example of how you are constantly barraged by “Christians” that just won’t let you make it through a single day without shoving their beliefs down your throat and pushing a theocracy on you.

      Seems like a bit of a dichotomy to me.

      Which is it MOD?

      Big deal? or not a big deal?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:03pm

      @THERIGHTSOFBILLY

      I was just commenting on your post of, “Your facebook thing?

      Maybe what you consider to be a “harmless” remark that you make, is not really all that harmless to the people you are directing it to.”

      I don’t complain about them. I just use them as an example of people who are constantly talking about God when I constantly get told from people on here, “We don’t force our beliefs on you.” Maybe you don‘t talk about God unless you’re in your religious groups, I wish more people were like that.

      I can vehemently disagree with what they want to do and where they want this country to go, and still be their friend.

      I don‘t think they’re inherently evil and refuse to associate with them.
      I don’t view their disagreements as “attacks”
      I don’t view them as “my enemy.”

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:56pm

      OK MOD

      I’m done.

      Your game is obvious.

      As BAD_ASHE pointed out last night, you just keep moving the goalposts.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:05pm

      Had a post that got lost and I’m not keen of re-typing. Discussed the Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas in further detail. Somehow though I am quite sure none of it is new material. But I ended with something like this…..

      You commented much about love, MOD, of your friends and the other day about your Grandma. You reminded me of the movie “Contact”. How do you prove love? Prove to me with evidence that you love anyone.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:09pm

      BTW MOD, insincerely celebrating Christmas with your Christian friends seems awfully hypocritical. Seems to me you like the holiday without the history and meaning behind it much you like this country without the history and meaning behind it. Your friends are very gracious to you in Christ and I hope you are grateful for them.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:16pm

      CONSERV, why didn’t you answer my question? I would stand behind genuine national revival and God’s ability to bless. Your faith, or lack thereof, in God seems apparent. Restore our Judeo-Christian roots and see what would happen.

      There is no government-endorsed religion nor do I believe there should as the Founders intended. But this country WAS founded on Judeo-Christian values and to those we would be wise to return.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:24pm

      And surely don’t engage your heart in proving love. I want evidence.

      I asked this before and I’ll ask again……if you had a gun to your head (or a knife to your throat with a Muslim extremist), will you die for your atheism? Or would you convert to save your life?

      Report Post »  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:12pm

      THERIGHTSOF BILLY wrote:
      “I know you directed that to COPATRIOTS, but I would be more interested in what you think it would look like.”
      Easy. It would look very like a facsist state, a dictatorship, an Islamist theocracy.
      And it would seem that many of those posting here would prefer a facsistic, Christian theocracy. As I said, disturbing.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:16pm

      @ BILLY

      It was interesting that you surrendered here. I’ve admired and have respected your intent. I have wondered lately if there isn’t attention-seeking behind atheist claims. Regardless, it has certainly been indulged on this site regardless of intent.

      Be blessed and catch you on another thread.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:12am

      @Billy

      Once again Billy, making obscure remarks with no substance.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:28am

      @COPATRIOTS

      I define love in the sense that I care about a person intently.

      I have said numerous times that the holiday of Christmas isn’t what you think it is. You yourself talked about “rejoicing in that Christ was born, even if it wasn’t on that day.” Christmas HAS been a pagan holiday, which is why you see some forms of Christianity not celebrating it.

      I also think it‘s foolish and ignorant for you to say I’m being hypocritical for celebrating with them. It seems you’re saying that if you had Muslim friends who invited you to a party that they hold for their “belief” you would refuse to go and enjoy being around them simply because you don’t have faith in their God. If that is the case, I feel horribly sad for you, and the experiences you miss out on, and the nice people you will never meet because you are so set in your religious belief. Maybe it is because I don’t care about my Atheism enough to pass up spending time with people I care about?

      You talk about me being grateful for my friends, why don’t you think they should also be grateful for me? I care about my friends a lot, and their kids a lot, so much so that if forced to choose between saving my life, or my friend’s kids life, I would choose to save their life over mine. Don‘t you think I would be a good friend worth having that I would choose your child’s life over mine? Oh wait, I forgot, I‘m horribly evil because I’m an Atheist.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:41am

      The fact is

      I can both be annoyed by what my friends do sometimes, and still spend time with them because unlike you apparently, I can look past what they believe and enjoy being with them.

      I can say that they won’t shut up about their beliefs, but just not respond to what they say, and still be friends with them because while I’m an Atheist, I won’t keep it from me being friends with genuinely nice people.

      The fact is, especially on here, most people don’t come off as nice. I constantly see strong hatred towards gay people, atheists and other groups.

      The difference between me and other people on here, is that while I may vehemently disagree with you on some issues, I don‘t think you’re evil and refuse to accept what you believe. As evident that I do have Christian friends, and said I would side on the Catholic church in this contraception ban, and that I like Tim Tebow as a person. Conversely I constantly hear on here, “I will NEVER accept [X] and think [X] is disgusting”

      If people dislike what I say so much, and think I’m so evil, why do they respond to me? If i’m just a “troll” as people say, why don’t they just ignore me? That’s the best way to get rid of a “troll”. Fact is, I don‘t care if people don’t respond to me, I am usually just saying what I think, and I get responses, ones that end up in long drawn out discussions.

      I wasn’t even going to respond to this topic until I saw you say, “MOD, I’m eager for your views on

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:51am

      @COPATRIOTS

      It is just a temporary surrender.

      It just gets tiring playing MODS game.

      He is very disingenuous. He contradicts himself from post to post, story to story, and day to day.

      You cannot pin him down on anything. And I’m pretty sure he is sitting back laughing at any of us that play along.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:55am

      @COPATRIOTS

      Sorry, forgot to wish you a blessed day also.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:59am

      Hey MOD,

      While walking my dog, I stepped in a pile of his you know what.

      Now there is more substance on the bottom of my shoe than in your average comment.

      Peace

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 1:41am

      @THERIGHTSOFBILLY

      “And I’m pretty sure he is sitting back laughing at any of us that play along.”

      As I said to COPATRIOTS

      I usually just come on here and say what I think and move on. If no one responds to me, I could care less. The fact that you think I’m playing a “game” and that you would then actively participate in that game is what I find funny. You yourself even said, “It’s only temporary“ in regards to your ”surrender.”

      In fact, it was you who about a week ago talked about a “truce” in some obscure term, to which I was surprised and remarked that I never had a problem with you and that a “truce” wasn’t necessary. That “truce” lasted all of about 18 hours and you were right back here responding to whatever I said. In turn, if once I think a discussion has run its course, and leave the article you then claim that I just make statements and never respond to your arguments.

      It is you who keep responding to the majority of posts I make and judging by you already addressing me once again, you don’t seem too interested in ending this “game” I am playing. I hate to break it to you Billy, but whether or not you choose to respond to me is the least of my concerns. I know you enjoy following me from post to post, but if you think this is all part of some “game” then please, feel free to stop responding to me. In fact, I encourage it, stop responding to me. I don’t care. If you think I’m a troll, stop feeding me, simple as that.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:10am

      The fact that you can’t comprehend that I can vehemently disagree with what they say and believe, yet can still be friends with them and have a good time with them is your problem, not mine. I am proud that I have a really diverse group of friends(not saying that you don’t) and can’t enjoy time with all of them though I may disagree with them on a lot of things.

      If I come on here and talk harsh, I get people up in arms getting upset saying I’m being overly mean and militant. If I try to be nicer and have rational discussions, I get accused of playing “games” like I have some ulterior motives. It seems you and others on here view everything that isn’t Christian based, an attack on your faith. Not surprised on that issue though, but I may be wrong.

      I will do you a big favor on here Billy. Because you get tired of playing my “games” this will be my last response to you. No matter where you follow me, no matter how many times you respond to me, you will not get a response from me. You are now free from my “game.”

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:12am

      Oops, saw an error in my last post, “Can enjoy spending time with them.” is what I meant to say. There Billy, I am done. Be well.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:21am

      @Mod: If your friends are Christians, then I wonder what they think of your stance, and the fact that the bible says ‘Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers.’

      Also, if there’s a religious symbol at any given public park, and you don’t like it, you can always choose to go to another park. That would be my logic… if I allowed such a thing to bother me so much. I’d just enjoy the park.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:58am

      @KADAMS

      I can’t attest to their views on that, the only thing I can make is assumptions based around actions of Christians when it comes to other biblical verses that are illogical.

      1. I guess they could choose to overlook that verse, because they like me as a friend and are strong enough in their faith that they know I can’t hurt their walk. I guess they could been my friend, but keep me at arm’s length, to not get “too friendly” with me.

      2. I guess they could rationalize being my friend by applying some obscure rationalization to that Bible verse(which happens for other things in the Bible) and believing that it”s not really what that bible verse says(again, happens a lot) or that it applied to only a certain group of people.

      If you saw my answer above, I said personally don’t care about religious symbols. I think they start to blur the line in the religious/government realm, but what can I do? If there are people who want to try to get those symbols removed, well good for them. I just hope you’re as accepting if someone
      chooses to put a statue of Zeus or Buddha right next to a statue of Jesus.

      Report Post »  
  • twistin
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:40am

    Atheists also receive their unalienable rights from God.

    You’d think they would appreciate that.

    Report Post »  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:20am

      Rights are nice bu they’re hardly inalienable. Locke, I think it was, invoked a creator as being necessary for inalienable rights to exist. If these rights are inalienable, where were they for the first couple of hundred thousand years of our species existence. Rights are collectively granted to you by others just as they can be collectively removed.

      Report Post »  
    • marvlus
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:53am

      They just don’t know or understand it.

      Report Post »  
    • randerson503
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:16pm

      @WVERNON…Wrong again. Rights are not collectively granted by individuals. We are born with these rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights did exist in our earlier stages of development, however hominids and neanderthals hardly had the intellectual understanding required to acknowledge such truths. You are speaking of Marxism which removes all facets of individual liberty. Fall out of line, don’t work hard, and you lose your right to freedom, or quite possibly life. That’s the irony of the Occupy movement. These are people that want everything handed to them without working for it, but what they don’t realize is under communism they would be forced to work in some assigned capacity. Those that did not work would be executed.

      Report Post » randerson503  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:32pm

      Please look at the word ‘unalienable’ It’s not Un alien able… it’s un a LIEN able… which means, they CANNOT be taken away. The government is trying to be the ‘car finance’ company that holds (or wants to hold) the ‘LIEN’ on your car. Or you, in this case. They want to make your rights ‘lienable’ … able to be taken away. Word games are fun, no?

      Report Post »  
  • tolstoyx
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:35am

    I wonder if Miss Gaynor would argue so strongly if there were a place where Native American religions being given preference on federal land? Oh Wait……There is. I lived in Wyoming and Devil’s tower by Sundance Wyoming is on federal land. The Native Americans place prayer bundles in the cracks of the rocks and there are signs, placed there at taxpayer expense, saying “Please do not disturb the prayer bundles.” I don’t have a problem with that. I just wish they were as accommodating with Christians.

    Report Post » tolstoyx  
    • Jenny Lind
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:55am

      I did not know they did that, but how neat! Reminds me of the prayers tucked in the wall in Jeruselem. Prayers should be welcome anywhere that is sacred to a people of faith. Atheists are not harmed by prayer or statues or carvings, all the have to do is ignore them. they are no longer wlling to do that, They want their non-religion first among them. Good luck gang, God still is in charge. Argue away at that statement, but I won’t change my mind so you are wasting your time if you do. There are some polite atheists on the blog, who don’t try to convince us, and there are some rude ones, and I ignore them. Too bad they don’t get the “ignore” thing.

      Report Post »  
    • Arc
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:49am

      BRAVO……..superb and telling comparison….

      Report Post » Arc  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:22am

      So Jenny, you’re admitting you absolutely know the truth that god exists and his intentions and are closed minded to any evidence to the contrary.

      Report Post »  
    • boristhescot
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:34pm

      @WV, If Jenny won’t, then I will. I know absolutely that God exists and I won’t accept evidence to the contrary just as assuredly as I know that peanut butter cookies are delicious. It may seem arbitrary at first, but I found God because I earnestly sought him. the reason some find Christianity and some don’t depends upon how they search.
      This doesn’t make me close minded. I just know what I have found. I don’t mean to make baseless accusations, I just meant to make a generality. When you (general atheist/religion mocker) make such statements, please don’t pretend like you would gladly accept my evidence contrary to your views. Please don‘t pretend that you aren’t playing the same game from the other side. It insults both of us.

      Report Post »  
    • wvernon1981
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:00pm

      @BORISTHESCOTT, I’m quite open minded. Try me. However, I must warn you that I haven‘t seen any arguments for God that wasn’t refuted many times before but lacked a good rebuttal from the Christian.

      Report Post »  
  • sawbuck
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:32am

    80mesh
    Actually when you look out and see the forest, the sky
    “Landscapes”…. That Gods “Artwork”..!
    Don’t give the Atheist any credit for that ..!

    If you want to see their handy work…
    Look no further at how many deaths ,that can be laid at the feet of the Un-Godly in this country,
    Since the inception of Legalized Abortion and the murdering of the most innocent.
    And since they (Atheist) hold no value for a human life, they are going after the elderly and the sick … with assisted suicides….
    We use to pray over these people …
    Now we consult with them on their options..

    I wonder if someone signs a DNR …Does that mean you will soon not be able to pray over that individual or lay hands on them, in fear of a recovery..?

    Report Post » sawbuck  
  • rulken
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:14am

    There are thousands of acres in this park, and no one is forcing her, or anyone else to go visit this small plot of land that the monument is on.
    This case is pure and simple; the minority wants to impose their will on the majority.
    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I fore one, am sick and tired, of being told by the minority, what I can and can’t do!

    Report Post » rulken  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:27am

      And not one square millimeter of any of those acres may be devoted exclusively to religion.

      As opposed to the majority impermissibly enforcing its will on the minority in an area where the majority has no real power to act with the coercive power of government?

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:29am

      You point to their lunacy. They must make an effort to get to the statue. They claim that the statute is offensive. Therefore, they take an active role in offending themselves.

      Report Post »  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:46am

      It should be abundantly clear to ALL of us that this ATTACK on RELIGION is no accident. LOGIC tells me that if a person does NOT believe in GOD, they would also KNOW they are in the MINORITY and as long as they weren’t FORCED to believe in GOD , they would admit and allow the MAJORITY to believe as they would.

      For people to suddenly get very disturbed about statues and symbols is very telling. In all situations whereby DICTATORS chose to take over a population (and it only takes a very small percentage of the population going along with them to accomplish that (3% of Germans for example), one of the first things they do is separate the children from their parents (OWS) and indoctrinate them in their schools (we all know that’s been done) and then Close down their centers of belief.

      BELIEVERS who are banded together in their belief represent a huge threat to any aggressive take-over situation. By themselves, most ‘citizens’ won’t offer resistance but as a group, of course they do. This neurotic woman, Annie Laurie Grayson, is a perfect ‘front’ for these anarchists. I‘m sure she’s been well indoctrinated. Any normal person would not fight to remove a statue supported by the vast majority, they would go about their business. SHE has another Agenda. WAKE UP AMERICA. THEY ARE AT THE DOOR.

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
    • bikerr
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:15am

      @Lesbian Packing Hollow Points–You posted “And not one square millimeter of any of those acres may be devoted exclusively to religion.”—Ah…not one square millimeter of any of those acres ARE devoted exclusively to religion.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:21am

      The ones devoted to the support of the statue are.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Diomasach
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:32pm

      But the millimeters of which you speak are LEASED to the organization that takes care of the statue.

      But everyone seems to be missing the main point;
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

      So until Congress passes a law establishing an official religion of the United States (like the Church of England for example) then all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over the private practice of religion on land leased from the government is pointless.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:35pm

      *****

      Please read the first amendment again. You must have skipped it and went directly to the second.

      Report Post »  
    • Inlightofthings
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:20am

      LES-
      I did not dispute that certain people may have plausible theories on the creation of the universe, earth and people. I did say and maintain that “separation of Church and State” as being presented is a myth. In the same Constitution you have the right to discuss your theories without threat or oppression. That is the extent of your God given rights.

      I am aware the Founders did not invent slavery, but had foresight to put aside their divisiveness to provide for the imminent true interpretation of “All Men”.

      There is a stark difference between free speech and substitution of alternate beliefs, otherwise I’m certain we would see provisions to “create” laws regarding theories. Restricting Judeo Christian symbols on public land is such an example. I provided a literal interpretation of the First Amendment and you side stepped. I find your insights to be juvenile – akin to “if I can’t have candy, no-one can. If I can’t play my sport on Friday nights, no one can”. It never ends. You have your protections, embrace them. Burn a flag, protest etc. But stop exercising religious prohibition. You are a classic example of why the 99% OWS stuff is so absurd. I’m not 1%, but certainly not in that 99% either.

      Report Post »  
    • Inlightofthings
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:26am

      LES-
      I did not dispute that certain people may have plausible theories on the creation of the universe, earth and people. I did say and maintain that “separation of Church and State” as being presented is a myth. In the same Constitution you have the right to discuss your theories without threat or oppression. That is the extent of your God given rights.

      Report Post »  
  • Tankertony
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:10am

    Just looking at their faces I could tell who the atheist was.

    Report Post » Tankertony  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:00pm

      What do you mean?

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:09pm

      She looks clearly influenced. Demonically influenced. There are people you can just tell that something is ‘off” with them. She is one.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:27pm

      I guess I’ll have to take your word on that. I don’t see her any differently than either the host or Mr. Sekulow. I just don‘t think it serves any purpose to comment on someone’s appearence.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
  • rphilli2
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:05am

    There are no atheist in foxholes.

    Report Post »  
  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:00am

    The Moses medallion, and no doubt all of the other Moses appearances in and around the Courthouse, are in context. They showcase the world’s great lawgivers. Moses no more stands there as a Jewish holyman than Hammurabi stands there as a Pagan holyman, not to mention Julius and Gaius, also Pagans. When you showcase all sides of an issue, all sides may be represented.

    This is exactly the same criteria as has always been used in modern times. If you’re going to teach one religion in the schools, you have to teach them all. If you want the Christian creation myth taught, then you have to teach the Hindu creation myth too, and the Navajo creation myth, and the Norse creation myth, and the Greco-Roman creation myth, and … As long as you’re willing to do it all, you can do it all. if you want to pick and choose, then you can sit and spin.

    Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Inlightofthings
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:16am

      Les-
      Knowing there is no question surrounding the principles on which our country was founded, which religion does a statue of Jesus not represent? More specifically, which religion is a statue of Jesus professing?

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:25am

      All of the Catholic (orthodox) and Protestant denominations combined. Jesus is claimed to not only be a human religious leader (not civic leader) but indeed to BE a deity, so there is no place you could fit him on the Courthouse that he would NOT be viewed as a an establishment of religion by the court.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:26am

      Fact is, there were state religions in place when the Constitution was written, and they were not Constitutionally challenged after it was ratified. This proves that the founders clearly had no reservations about religion and states, i.e., citizens determining the rules by which they live. It took about 150 years to find ‘the separation of church and state,’ proof that it was never there in the beginning. The separation myth was invented… it simply can not be found in our Constitution.
      Dishonest and unethical black robed thugs wrote that tale… not surprisingly, in the 20th century.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:29am

      So, the fact that slavery in the Americas was not addressed for centuries means that its overturning was also an error? I don’t care how long the government has been in error. I only care that it correct itself in the here and now.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:53am

      *****, slavery was ended by amending the Constitution. If you wish to invent the concept of a separation of church and state, amend the Constitution. But, don’t say that it is there, when one can clearly see, that it is not.

      Report Post »  
    • medic06
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:55am

      The First amendment to the Constitution states; “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor inhibit the free practice thereof”.

      Allowing a statue to be built, a prayer to be spoken, a cross to be displayed, etc … DOES NOT constitute the passing of a law by congress. The Ten Commandments being put up in a court is not a Law being passed. A statue of Jesus or any one else being displayed there is not the passing of a law. Why is this never brought up in these debates! It IS unconstitutional for the government to tell me; where, when, or how I practice or display my faith. It is discriminatory to tell a child they can’t pray at school or say in Jesus name amen out loud in an assembly. No one has a right to not be offended.

      Also, in reference to the creation ‘myth’:

      I believe in creation, not as a myth, but I don’t believe it should be taught in school. I don’t believe origins of any kind need to be taught in school. They are all theories and not observable or repeatable, and how would one go about experimenting on that? Perhaps there could be a general class at the college level providing the basics of all the different theories. If the student chooses to peruse that as an elective great, if not great. Science can be taught and understood without discussing origin of the species or the universe.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:28am

      @ Medic 06:
      [insert boilerplate reference to incorporation via the 14th Amendment here]

      No one is saying you can’t display your faith anywhere you please. What the argument here is in the government’s actions in permitting this private property to be stored permanently on display on government lands. As I stated IAT, I don’t care about the statue. I don’t care about what gods people pray to in supplication before it, nor how many of them there are. I don’t care where they choose to do so. What I do care about is when it is enshrined on an ostensibly permanent basis on government land that my tax dollars go to maintain.

      If they only want to supplicate themselves before THAT statue in THAT location, then let them bring it with them when they come. And when they are done worshipping their deity, let them take it back down the mountain. Not to be any more crass than I have to to get the point across, but it’s not only national parks rules, but just common courtesy to pack out your trash.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Inlightofthings
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:12am

      Test post

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:16am

      test passed

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • goahead.makemyday
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:42pm

      I agree with medico on the point that NONE of the creation myths, theories, beliefs or whatever you choose to call them should be taught in school. As it is ONLY evolution is taught, besides the fact it is taught as FACT. I graduated not 3 years ago, and I had evolution not only forced down my throat during science classes but any history class that wasn’t after around 500 bc. Tell me since every cries out “it’s not fair” where is the fairness in that? I had to study it take tests on it, and worse the teachers never refereed to it as a THEORY they just say evolution. Of course they quickly glossed over the parts that made it evident it was a theory such as the bubble model for initial creation of amino acids and that no one has ever been successful at making anything more complex than amino acids in modern day labs.

      Report Post » goahead.makemyday  
    • ratzit56
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:06pm

      The land is LEASED by the Knights of Columbus, so they pay for it. The KoC take care of all the upkeep, so NONE of your taxes go toward this statue.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:18pm

      “So, the fact that slavery in the Americas was not addressed for centuries means that its overturning was also an error? ”

      oh you mean slavery that was upheld by the supreme court? the same supreme court that came up with ‘separation of church and state’??

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:37pm

      @*****

      Don’t forget the Big Bang myth, and Darwinism… I can’t really call Darwinism a myth, since you seem to be a product of it.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:52pm

      Also. (funny that Blaze censors l e s b o)
      Anyway, please go tell that to all the OTHER countries besides America that had (or still has, in cases) the institution of slavery.

      As far as slavery in America being ‘unaddressed’ for centuries, how many centuries? We’ve only been here for 2, and slavery was abolished in the 1860′s. Unless, of course you’re talking about the financial slavery we were sold into in 1913 to the Fed? If so, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

      Report Post »  
    • Inlightofthings
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:20pm

      Les,
      Fortunately Americans are figuring out how wrong you all are on this.
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

      Interpreted as:
      Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of Religion.

      Whats going on is religious prohibition. No-where in the Constitution does it even imply that a government venue is an unconstitutional location to display religious figures. Statues, nativity scenes etc. You know when “In God We Trust” was introduced on currency. We did not just “wake up” to the myth of separation of church and state in the last 50 – 60 years or so even though progressives use that as the argument.

      Your slavery comment makes no sense in light of history. The fathers were divided on this issue as you must know. “All Men” most certainly was one of the first true compromises knowing that the day would come that all men are created equal. There is no such allowance in the First Amendment with respect to Church and State; their intention was clear even though many prey on the ignorance of people to present it in a self serving fashion. With well over 50% in this country being functionally illiterate, we are easily swayed.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:12am

      The Big Bang and Evolution are not myths. They are theories. But then, that’s couched in the language of science. I’m not surprised that someone whose head is buried in the sands of religion would be unfamiliar with scientific language, such as the word “theory”.

      No one’s religious rights are being violated, since NO ONE HAS a right to claim public lands for their own religious worshipfulness. The issue is not whether the KoC (lovely acronym, BTW) has a right to lease public land for this purpose. The issue is whether the USFS has the AUTHORITY to lease it to them for this purpose. And that fact remains that if the USFS is not willing to lease ANY land to ANY religious organization to put up their own shrines, then it CAN’T lease ANY land to ANY religious organization, that includes the KoC.

      You do recall that there was a here here before there was a United States of America here, right? And that before there was a United States of America, the people here held slaves, right?

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Inlightofthings
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:56am

      LES-
      I did not dispute that certain people may have plausible theories on the creation of the universe, earth and people. I did say and maintain that “separation of Church and State” as being presented is a myth. In the same Constitution you have the right to discuss your theories without threat or oppression. That is the extent of your God given rights.

      I am aware the Founders did not invent slavery, but had foresight to put aside their divisiveness to provide for the imminent true interpretation of “All Men”.

      There is a stark difference between free speech and substitution of alternate beliefs, otherwise I’m certain we would see provisions to “create” laws regarding theories. Restricting Judeo Christian symbols on public land is such an example. I provided a literal interpretation of the First Amendment and you side stepped. I find your insights to be juvenile – akin to “if I can’t have candy, no-one can. If I can’t play my sport on Friday nights, no one can”. It never ends. You have your protections, embrace them. Burn a flag, protest etc. But stop exercising religious prohibition. You are a classic example of why the 99% OWS stuff is so absurd. I’m not 1%, but certainly not in that 99% either.

      Report Post »  
  • silentme63
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:57am

    atheist are a special breed… only after death will the truth come out and it will be too late. I believe in Jesus as our savior because we are all sinners. If I’m wrong oh well, but if atheist are wrong, thats totally different story. For hell is not pleasant place for any, I wish this on no-one.

    Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:46am

      And if the Muslims have it right, . . .what is your defence?

      For argument sake, I will go under the argument that christianity is right. A person cannot MAKE themself “believe” something. For example, can you make yourself believe that Faeries are real? With that in mind, for those who are unable to “accept the words of other humans who may be sure about something”, and when they decide that there is nothing credible to go on. . . so living their life as a good person, . . . . when that person dies and finds out that there really IS a real Jesus, AND is overwhelmed by who Jesus actually is, wanting to get to know him, . . . . . according to your doctrine, Jesus will uncaringly mock them that “they should have believed when alive” and send them to hell, . . . MERELY because they are NOW believing while outside their earthin vessel.

      Is that the way a “loving Jesus” will be?

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:00pm

      If you love your dog, and it becomes rabid, do you keep on with it in the hopes it will be cured, or do you put it down for the safety of others and out of compassion for the rabid animal? I would hope the latter. You can argue that people are the rabid dogs. I know, I know, a lot of people’s sense of self-worth and the level of self-conceit would become outraged in the comparison of dogs to people, but if the shoe fits..

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:10pm

      So, . . . . . I’m a “rabid dog”. Explain to me how I am dangerous to you or anyone else. Explain why it is okay for christains to disrespect “faithless” people by putting them down. :-/

      So, what about “the soul that finally understands and wants to be with this Jesus”? Why would their “seeing the light” befall on deaf ears of “the savior”, if he is “just and merciful”?

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
  • wboehmer
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:51am

    Notice at the 4:24 point in the video this clueless woman utters “God” & rolls her eyes in frustration that she can’t make her point.

    Ms. Gaylor, kindly keep God out of it!

    Report Post »  
    • StonyBurk
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:01am

      It is my understanding a former Pentecostal Preacher “married” her. Seeming to prove the Bible wisdom behind “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers” I love how those enemies of God always attempt to use God as a weapon against the Christian.Their distorted world view leads to a distorted understanding of our Christian nation -and of our written Constitution.There simply is Nothing in the
      Constitution -nor Bill of Rights as adopted to prohibit government endorsement –especially prohibiting display that includes religious symbols even on “government ” property.

      Report Post »  
  • mikenleeds
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:46am

    i think godless Annie is off her medz today , these people are completely crazy and needs to be kicked out of of the united states

    Report Post » mikenleeds  
    • medic06
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:36am

      With an icon of “We The People” you want to kick people out of this country for having a passionate belief (wrong or not) in something you disagree with? Our country was founded on liberty, everyone is allowed to choose for themselves. They also have a right of redress of grievance, right or wrong.

      Their argument, however; is VERY weak: The First amendment to the Constitution, that I believe they are using, states; “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor inhibit the free practice thereof”.

      Allowing a statue to be built, a prayer to be spoken, a cross to be displayed, etc … DOES NOT constitute the passing of a law by congress. Why is this never brought up in these debates! It IS unconstitutional for the government to tell me; where, when, or how I practice or display my faith. It is discriminatory to tell a child they can’t pray at school or say in Jesus name amen out loud in an assembly. No one has a right to not be offended.

      Report Post »  
  • sawbuck
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:41am

    Atheist Annie cant handle a real argument, then cries foul by throwing a insulting and deflecting comment …“What a bully”.

    We Christians stood quietly, not forcing ourselves on nonbelievers for sixty years, while the Godless of this nation creped into every facet of our nation .
    We Christians remained Passive ..While The Un-Godly brought us…. A country with no sense of morals
    We Christians foolishly …Gave a seat at the table to the Atheist, Communist, socialist and other people with different Utopia ideologies … … That have No sense of repercussions for the misdeeds they carry out in this life. They have used every tactic and every Allie they can get their hands on and have at their disposal …For the Destruction of the Christian way of life.
    Only to claim the very thing that their “Guilty” of…Bullying ,Distorting and Perverting the Truth….!
    They have brought us to the brink of destruction , to this “Once Great Nation” ….!

    Report Post » sawbuck  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:09am

      I laughed at the “bully” comment also, SAWBUCK. She was used that term intentionally to gain sympathy that the big, bad man was attacking the poor, meek woman. Militant atheists use every trick in the book…..even if it makes them a hypocrite.

      Report Post »  
  • Arc
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:38am

    Oh Poor pitiful atheist……..they are so ” put upon.” I simply cannot remember a day when those Godless miscreants haven’t been vilified in the mainstream media. They have been so maligned and ridiculed that I fail to see how they exist. Bless there little hearts…….oooops………Bless is reserved for a more deserved person.

    I can remember like it was only yesterday atheist were being “fed” to the lions, forced to fight gladiators in an emaciated condition, banished to other far away lands. and you couldn’t walk 100 yards without seeing an Atheist hanging on a cross. And…..by the way……I just finished reading the
    Atheist Periodical……. it was chock full of degridating quotes, offensive comments and antagonistic attitudes……..it was a quick read……same old same old……….no social redeeming value at all.

    I predict this Atheist Periodical will never make any TOP 10 list. There simply is NO PRECEDENT, NO REPUTATION and most assuredly NO VALUE

    Report Post » Arc  
  • 1956
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:36am

    They are so afraid that there IS a God, they rail against it. Kinda like someone with a cancer who doesn’t want to believe it, so they rage against the doctors or whomever.

    What a bereft life – to think that there is NOTHING BUT this. I never could understand why it is so important to push their agenda on to everyone else… but I guess it‘s because they want the one thing that those of us who are believers in God understand we don’t have and never will – CONTROL. I can make plans, I can try to do what I need to do…. but I don’t have control over my life – GOD does. He allows things to happen according to HIS plan. And I certainly don’t have control over what other people do or think. This is the lie the athiests tell themselves… that they can have control over their world outside of themselves.

    Report Post » 1956  
  • fencekicker
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:31am

    Look folks, these people who call themselves people of reason (atheists) are instead people of passion (anti-theists). It isn‘t enough that they don’t believe in a Holy Father, Salvation, or a time of future rewards/punishments; instead, they have made it their business to deny us our belief in the same. They argue, “I don’t believe in that, so you must tear it down“ or ”that offends me, so take it down”. They preach tolerance while practicing intolerance. While we don’t bow down at the feet of the staues of Christ, they do remind us of his teachings, to be our better selves, to love our neighbors as our selves. This message is foreign to those who seek to make a statement by denying others the reminders of their faith. So let’s call these people what they are: anti-theists. As they are against God.

    Report Post »  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:38am

      Excellent post…….Thank you!

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • D-Fence
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:56am

      Ding, ding, ding, ding. You are correct! “They preach tolerance while practicing intolerance. ” Everyday I have to remind myself to practice what I preach.

      Report Post » D-Fence  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:26am

    .
    I’d Iike to poured a bucket of Fire Ants, down her drawers…….

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
  • denispaul
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:22am

    The line in the sand has been drawn.This election is about religous freedom so if your a liberal weeney it’s about your rights also.

    Report Post »  
  • Rational Man
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:16am

    I expected a better arguement from Jordan and I think he could have done better. Instead of going at it from the angle that he did. I think he should have explained that it IS NOT a violation of the Constitution. He should have schooled everyone on what the Constitution does say and the intent and context in which the Establishment Clause was written. Instead of the bogus, “whatever I want it to be”, interpretation by crazy people. Jordan started down the right road when he started talking about all the Christian symbols on our national monuments and 200yr old public buildings, like the Supreme Court and Congressional buildings. But he stopped way short. She doesn’t even live there. Why does she even care? Why after all these years? Did she just wake up and realize she is in America? A Christian Nation founded on Judeo/Christian values and principles, by Christians?
    How ate up can a person get?

    Report Post » Rational Man  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:29am

      I agree.
      Of course, there is also the ten commandments on the doors inside the supreme court as well.
      Most athiests rebut the Moses argument by pointing out he is not on the most visible side of the building. Of course that depends on your perspective did the first judges arrive by car or by horse or on foot? Why are there two entrances with pediments?
      She wasn’t even that informed though. Either that or she is in complete denial.

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
  • midwesthippie
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:13am

    …clearly atheists have become outspoken hypocrites…they seem to be selective when it comes to people of history. a statue of marx would probably bring tears of joy.

    Report Post » midwesthippie  
  • SoupSandwich
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:04am

    Clearly, right next to Jesus is a shape of nothing, her choice of Higher Power, right there in the pic. That and the lawyer handed her soggy lunch to her. Wow, who would have known she was from Madison??? Hag.

    Report Post »  
  • obfuscatenot
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:01am

    I will never for the life of me understand, if one is an atheist, why would you give a whit about a statue of a person you don’t believe in? It might as well be homer simpson if you don’t believe…..

    Report Post »  
    • Taxpayer550
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:14am

      Great point! The problem with atheists is that they are constantly tormented by any visual or audible reminders of a morally superior Creator Being. It has nothing to do with paying taxes for something they don’t believe in. We all pay for some form of government that we disagree with. Atheists can‘t stand to face themselves because God’s law is written on their hearts.

      Report Post » Taxpayer550  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:24am

      If I’m not mistaken, the Knights of Columbus payed for the statue and their is no cost to tax payers at all. The Forest Service just let citizens put up a statue on public land. Land that is supposed to belong to every American. If they don’t like it, then let Montana have the land back. I’m sure they would be better stewarts of the land and make better use of it. The “Government” “owns” and controls far too much land in the west as it is. And they mis-handle it every day.

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • Luke21
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:47am

      The answer friend, is found in Romans chapter 1 (their conscience is seared – their minds ravaged by duplicitous thinking, they are driven by hate, unwilling to repent and seek God’s ready forgiveness & grace):

      [E]ven as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:28-32)

      They are foolish, wicked, vile (naw-bawl = wicked, fool-ish, vile) – Pslam 14 & 53

      “The fool [naw-bawl] has said in his heart,”There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.” – Psalm 14:1

      Report Post »  
    • deeberj
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:34am

      A true athiest doesn’t care. He would think I’m just stupid for believing and go on his merry way. He would not get all p!ssed off and try to rub out any public appearance of religion. These people that want freedom from religion have some other issues to which I am not privy.

      Report Post » deeberj  
  • HKS
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:54am

    Wow, that thing looks the part, scary.

    Report Post » HKS  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:28am

      Clueless is what I see as the permanant expression on her face……Just clueless!

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:08pm

      Demonic oppression.

      Report Post »  
  • khutch1965
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:52am

    Wow! They feel threatened by just a Statue of Jesus? Sad! When I see those transforming Apes into Human charts I don’t feel threatened, I even allow my kids to see the charts and explain to them how silly Darwin was.

    Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:36am

      What’s wrong with those charts? :-/

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • goahead.makemyday
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:52pm

      They include the missing link, which we don’t know how it looked(if it existed). So the charts if it shows the complete cycle is wrong and misleading.

      Report Post » goahead.makemyday  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:17pm

      Oh. I wasn’t aware that the chart was all inclusive of each step. I think science recognizes some “missing links”, but fossils are hard to come by.

      I’m just wondering if there was an issue with there being lower primates as our distant ancestors.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • TakeBackAmerica
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:06pm

      Hey, the Phony believer is back! Hey Phony believer! LOL!

      Those ‘charts’ are about as authentic as your ‘faith’ was! ROTFLMAO!

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:17pm

      There is a reason those ‘fossils are hard to come by’…. you can‘t find something that doesn’t and hasn’t ever existed.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:58pm

      And TakeBackAmerica, your comments are just as childish as ever.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:07pm

      KAdams. I‘m not an evolutionary biologist so I’m not able to discuss their stance. I know that there is more than just fossil remains as to why the scientific community states a common ancestor with certain primates. You may find more information at talkorigins.org

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:19pm

      @TakeAmericaBack – How about we put an end to this misunderstanding. Tell me your doctrines as to how a person becomes saved.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:29am

      @Deav: They have professed a link due to the similarities in primate/human DNA. However, the pig is much closer to human DNA than primates are, yet I don’t see biologists/archaeologists showing the pig in our *cough* ‘evolutionary’ family. (It actually pains me to say that…) At any rate, there are sites/videos you can research that talk about archaeologists destroying any artifacts/relics that don’t fit in with the theory of evolution(i.e. pottery that shows scenes painted on them, scenes depicting humans and dinosaurs together), where they hid all the 20-ft tall skeletons of the ‘giants’ and there’s a photo, I think, or a casting that was taken (plaster) of 2 foot prints… one human, and one giant lizard-type.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:24am

      KAdams, I’m surprised that you would mention [especially] the “skeletons of giants”. Do you think they [whomever "they" are that cover up "the truth"] would hide bones of giants solely because one bible verse states that “in those days there were giants”? And those “giants” were a product of “angels finding earth women appealing and having sex with them”? I am not trying to be difficult here [really, I'm not], but consider what it would actually mean if this were true.

      The jars/artifacts with “dinosaurs” painted on them are intriguing. I have seen many of them. I haven’t had a chance to view both sides of that argument to make a decision on their veracity yet.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:15am

      Correction, there are three verses. Could be a few others. However, the idea that spirit beings, such as angels, COULD impregnate humans seems highly unlikely. True, there have been examples of giantism that one can see the images of, but they are rare and may have even been celebrated to the point of making sure their dead body was preserved.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love