You Can’t Pray That Here!

0 Shares
164900587

Another Federal court has taken a whack at another 200-year-old tradition in this country. This time, it’s opening public meetings with a prayer. An appeals court has ruled that the practice somehow violates the U.S. Constitution.

Now the issue is in front of the Supreme Court. Let’s pray that a majority of the justices get it right. Here is what is going on.

Like many communities in America, the town of Greece, N.Y., opens its monthly board meetings with a prayer. Although a variety of local religious leaders have delivered the prayers, most of them were given by Christians. This shouldn’t be surprising, since most of the religious institutions in this Rochester suburb — as in most of the country — are Christian.

But this was too much for two women in the town. Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens protested that the prayers constituted a government endorsement of religion. They sued the town to have them stopped.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that such “legislative prayer” is perfectly OK, as long as the prayer does not promote (or disparage) a particular religion. But the plaintiffs found a court to support them. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Town of Greece v. Galloway that the practice was “too sectarian” and had to be stopped. The town appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which held a hearing on the case last week.

Hopefully, a majority of justices there will agree with earlier Supreme Court decisions, such as Marsh v. Chambers in 1983, which ruled that such legislative prayers weren’t an “establishment of religion,” but rather a “tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

By the way, in that 1983 decision, the Court wrote that the very same group of lawmakers who drafted the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights also “adopted the policy of selecting a chaplain to open each session with prayer.”

That is a tradition that every Congress has followed since then. To this day, every session of Congress begins with a prayer. The Supreme Court begins its sessions with the appeal, “God save the United States of America and this honorable Court.” Our coins carry the motto “In God We Trust.” And even the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “under God.”

As I said, acknowledging our dependence on God and asking His blessings upon us is a tradition that goes back to the very formation of this country.

While our Founding Fathers declared their “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,” they had a healthy mistrust of government. They recognized the wisdom of Lord Acton’s famous dictum: “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The best way to prevent this from happening, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, was to bind men down “by the chains of a constitution.”

But even the original Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the rights of the States and the people. So before the Constitution could be ratified, 10 amendments were added, to specify even further what the central government could and could not do.

The 1st Amendment in what became known as the Bill of Rights covered the rights that the Founding Fathers considered most essential: freedom of speech, of the press, to assemble and to petition the government “for a redress of grievances.”

But of all these basic freedoms, the most important was the one they listed first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Note the first five words: “Congress shall make no law.” It says nothing about what a State or a community might or might not do. In fact, the Founding Fathers were so intent on protecting the rights of the people to do pretty much do whatever they wanted that they wrote not one, but two amendments on the subject.

The 9th Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And in case that wasn’t clear enough, the framers of the Constitution repeated the same idea in the 10th Amendment. Could anything be more straightforward than this? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Founders never wanted or expected every state or community to draft the same laws, follow the same rules or practice the same traditions as every other community. They would have been appalled at the idea of some proscribed uniformity.

Unfortunately, if you’re looking for people to understand and support the Constitution, the Federal courts in this country are one of the last places you should look. And if President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) get their way, that situation is about to get a lot worse.

At a recent fundraiser, Obama boasted: “We’re remaking the courts.” And certainly the ultra-liberal appointments he’s made to various Federal courts confirm what he said.

Now, a key battle is brewing over three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has said there is no need for more additional judges there. “In terms of raw numbers,” he said, “the D.C. Circuit has the lowest number of total appeals filed annually among all the circuit courts of appeal.” He claims that members of the court agree with him. One even told him, “If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”

Grassley has introduced the Court Efficiency Act of 2013, which would eliminate three seats on the court, which he says are totally unnecessary. That’s one way to keep more liberals from being appointed.

However, there is no way Reid will allow Grassley’s proposal to come to a vote. Reid has said the Democrats need to get at least one more member on the D.C. Circuit Court to “switch the majority.”

Why is this court so important? Here’s how Janice Crouse and Mario Diaz, both of whom are associated with Concerned Women for America, explained it in the Washington Times: “His credibility shattered, the only hope the president has of advancing his agenda is through executive action. Because administrative actions are reviewed by the judges on the D.C. Circuit, the president seeks to pack the court with left-wing ideologues who will uphold his agenda.”

So that’s what’s at stake in this battle. On the issue of legislative prayer, there are some reasons to be optimistic that this Supreme Court will overturn the decision of the Appeals Court.

During the hearing, Justice Elena Kagan said, “Part of what we are trying to do here is to maintain a multi-religious society in a peaceful and harmonious way.” Then she added, “And every time the Court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better.”

Of course, the same thing could be said about almost every time the Federal government tries to “make things better.”

We’ll let you know how this battle plays out, as well as how the Supreme Court handles this latest assault our right to pray in public whenever our leaders gather. God knows we need His blessings — and protection.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Personal Liberty

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • http://www.rt.com Alondra

    Justice Elena Kagan said: “[E]very time the Court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better.”

    Courts should not take such cases. WHY two godless liberals should change community’s tradition and manifestation of the faith.

    Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

    “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof.”

    “The CONSTITUTION is not an instrument for the GOVERNMENT to restrain the people, it IS AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PEOPLE TO RESTRAIN THE
    GOVERNMENT – lest it come to dominate our (People’s) lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry, A Founding Father, the first and sixth Governor of Virginia

    “WICKEDNESS PROCEEDS FROM THE WICKED.” – (I Samuel 24:13)

    • Valor

      Correct! Sadly, government has come to dominate the people. We live in a Post Constitutional America.

      • Deerinwater

        Well ? it is 2013.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          So what is your point about 2013. Is that point of pride that the Constitution is set aside to have the government people do what they see what is right in their own eyes.

          • Deerinwater

            In what was to prove to be a very hot summer, a combined total of 55 delegated from all states (except Rode Island) convened in Philadelphia on May 25th 1787 to “improve” the article of the confederation that had been drafted to form and bind America as a nation. 11 years after claiming it’s Independence from England.

            From this All Summer meeting came what was to be known as our Constitution. ~ It was hammer out in privacy so the farmers could change their minds as they attempted to create a sound and just document that protected personal liberty with defining the the power and limits of Government.

            So we live in Post times of the creation of the constitutions crafting Nadzieja .

            There have been 10 thousand amendments offered since to change this Document of which only 27 have been accepted.

            The Bill of rights was ratified in 1791 , three years after the Constitution went into effort, guaranteeing basic personal liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of Religion.

            The first nine states to Ratify the Constitution did not include Virginia and New York, two of the most wealthy and influential states in the Union. It took the guarantees offered by the bill of rights to get their John Hancock.

            So ~! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights include in it ~ didn’t just “Happen” ~ it took years and we now live in POST TIMES.

            I like to think of it as a “Living Document” , while some people take exception to my opinion.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            When he had any point?

          • Deerinwater

            If you have a low reach, ~ you are out of luck, ~ this is true Alondra.

        • Valor

          Yes it is. And that means, with the present off course direction of America, there are not many years left for this country as the greatest nation in recorded history.

          • Deerinwater

            well? ~ where was you planning to go? ~ Should we turn around? Besides a dirt nap ~ what’s your destination?

    • Deerinwater

      Finally! , ~ I can agree with your first sentence.

      In as far and wicked and Godlessness ~ we are discussing unsolicited prayer. in public and not moral transgressions.

      Unless you would like to see Muslims walking about town with their Pray rug in one hand and compass in the other and at the designated time align themselves to the east with nose to ground and butt in to air?

      I’m not sure about you ~ I really don’t want to see it.

      • dan

        did you hear that there is a Miniturette on top of the new Freedom Tower ?

        • Deerinwater

          I don’t know what that is Dan. ~ Is it a bad thing?

      • Ringgo1

        You can see muslims praying in public in NYC now. Check it out. Dearborn, Michigan, now.

        • Deerinwater

          It wouldn’t surprise me, ~ this where this “liberty” is taking us.

          Now ~ all we need is some “Faith” out of the Ozarks that like to play with snakes while they pray and we’ll see just how well that goes over with everyone.

  • Valor

    What really hacks me off is that the mantra of “Separation of Church And State” is a false concept not existing in the Constitution. There is only one place religion is mentioned, that is in the First Amendment in what was originally referred to as “The Freedom of Religion Clause” until secular justices decided it should mean something else. The clause contains two sentences. First sentence: “The Congress shall pass no laws pertaining to the establishment of religion.” The Federalist papers make it clear the intent of this first sentence was to prevent an official state religion such as the Church of England where that was the only choice one had for worship. The second sentence reads “Nor the free exercise thereof!” Americans once understood that clause was not designed to keep religion out of the public square, it was intended to keep government out of religion. When any branch of government or representative of any branch of government tells anyone that they can not pray at any location, or what they may or may not say in their prayer, the government is violating your rights enumerated by that second sentence. Whether it is a city councilman, or the Supreme Court. I personally will tell that agency or individual to go pound sand. Sadly, this lie of separation of church and state has been told for so long and so often 90% of the uninformed, or ignorant people believe it is in the Constitution.

    • 1baronrichsnot1

      right on, I didn’t read yours before I posted mine!

  • jerry1944

    Add we wonder why crime is up and killings rise with out God

    • Anna

      The FBI stats show that violent crime in the U.S. reached a 40-year low in 2010

      • dan

        …and that gun crimes are down 27%
        but that racial / mob assault and violence is up

      • Nadzieja Batki

        If that what the case, then the FBI should have reduced its work force, rented out their buildings and office spaces, the courts should have let go of their buildings and personnel. That hasn’t happened.

      • jerry1944

        WOW that sure makes me feel better . I thought I have heard of a lot more killing .gang fights and drug use I am sure glad to know there isn’t by the FBI . But then the fbi is party of the government who like the nsa spy on the good ppl and not the crooks

  • Red55bird

    The Marxist Communist have all but taken over America.

    • ward

      Commies have not yet taken over ! People like myself have not even begun to fight the tyranny of these unjust arms of satin! There are many things these bastards have not accounted for in freedom loving U.S. citizens that when provoked will readily squelch their totalitarian ways!..!

  • bob

    Obama want’s this to be a muslium country with no other religion. Along with the destruction of the constitution. He want’s total control until he has totaly destroyed this country. He does not care about the american people. All he care’s about is how to take a great nation down. Him and all his communist follower’s like Biden his puppit. This president need’s to be impeached now.

  • Don Berry

    Want to pray? Good, go ahead…to yourself, using your prayer of choice, language of choice, god of choice. Praying out loud puts across opinion…opinion that has no place in government.

    • dan

      bwahahaaa…is that your opinion….THAT has no place in public,lol…
      except for those who abide those pesky God given rights.
      Got citizenship ?

      • Deerinwater

        That is your opinion Dan, ~ That you would exercise your right while openly claim to deny Don’s his, goes to the core of this debate.

        That you fall to see the “Conflict” is the very reason the question is being presented before the court.

        • dan

          the humor in the double entendre escaped you did it ?
          that you fail to see his ludicrous position amuses us….
          to deny God given rights by claiming God given rights…get it?

          • Deerinwater

            I guess it did, I failed see the humor. ` When did God give ANYONE right to disrupt the public with THEIR own notions of prayer?

            Fact of the matter is, ~ Scripture discourages open prayer in public. So how is it that you come to believe such conduct contused as a divine right would be what I would like to understand.

          • dan

            good points ! God is THE God of ORDER and the only legitamate purpose of government is maintain the peace

            by restrainingthe disorderly in conduct….as determined by the citizens in a Republic. Demographics change…and if the majority (not seven black robed appointees who legislate from the bench ) are presented with anamendment ,even a right could be curtailed….but ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED.

            You might like to review the Federalist Papers http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Scripture does not discourage open prayer in public, led by the prophets, priests, rulers. Rulers even prayed with the troops before they sent them out to battles.

          • Deerinwater

            It does too Nadzieja ~ it doesn’t’ matter who they are. ~ Even Jesus , ~ was known to secret off and pray for hours and days alone.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Go try to fool others not unlike yourself, you are straining yourself way too much.

          • Deerinwater

            Okay Nadzieja. ~ i really did not want to go there, hoping that maybe you knew enough scripture to know what my next “lay-down card” would be “if” you persisted to pursue this line of argument.

            It’s no strain for me at all, as I knew exactly where to find support for my argument when I offered it.

            Early morning Time constraints of being a small business man and a working boss is the only stain that I feel Nadzieja. I use Mr’ Livingston’s forum and debating as a pleasant distraction from the Mini Crises Management Center that I operate 7 days a week.

            Many days, ~ your are my only entertainment. ~ and allow me to thank both you and Mr. Livingston for that right now.

            Okay, ~ that said, ~ are you prepared to get your debating skill tested?

            Praying In Public

            Matthew 6:1-34 ESV / 127 helpful votes

            “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. …

            Matthew 6:6 ESV / 86 helpful votes

            But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

            Matthew 6:5 ESV / 73 helpful votes

            “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

            Matthew 6:7 ESV / 59 helpful votes

            “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

            Luke 18:10-14 ESV / 36 helpful votes

            “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

            Luke 5:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes

            But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray.

            Mark 1:35 ESV / 7 helpful votes

            And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he departed and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed.

            Luke 6:12 ESV / 6 helpful votes

            In these days he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God.

            Romans 8:26 ESV / 5 helpful votes

            Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

            Acts 12:12 ESV / 3 helpful votes

            When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.

            ..
            1 Corinthians 11:5-6 ESV / 1 helpful vote

            But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

            ( I left this scripture in this compilation just to prove how freaky some Christians can get)

            Luke 9:18 ESV / 1 helpful vote

            Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?”

            Nadzieja , Prayer is not to make a public spectacle of.

          • Bob666

            Darwin,
            You have been one very busy boy!

          • Deerinwater

            just trying to get to sleep Bob, ~ The pour at the Legion Hall was weak tonight ~ New waitress ` must be a republican.

          • Deerinwater

            Oh! i get it now! ~ The Claim of God given rights supersede any and all farther debate! while to do so, is to be seen a defying God! and being construed as being immoral.

            yea ~ that’s humorous Dan.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Which thug told you that fairytale and like a typical stupid you will propagate that fairytale.
      Wouldn’t it more honest of you to admit that you hate God of the Bible and the ones who follow him.
      So the only religion you want to be out in the open is the one the STATE makes up and allows you to practice, it has its own prayers, its own dogma, its own prayer books, its own services, its own priestcraft.

      • Deerinwater

        Don is saying just the opposite of your charge Nadzieja

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But if prayer is removed that is an opinion and the government already has put something else in it place.
      Human predators want no mention of God because he may just curtail their bad behaviors and deceit and treachery and may even eke out punishment for how this country is mismanaged.
      Banishing prayer and God won’t make him go away as much as the Dems/Progs/Leftists have tried.

      • Deerinwater

        It’s not an option Nadzieja , ~ it’s done. ~ I tend to think, an option is what would best serve all.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Any option that would best serve all does not exist and will not exist. You are rather naïve if you believe this.

          • Anna

            An option does exist that would best serve all, Nadzieja. That option would be to honor the Constitution which explicitly states that we are a religion-neutral, secular nation and have no prayer in public meetings.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            There is no such thing as religion-neutrality or a secular nation.

          • Anna

            There most certainly is. The United States Constitution guarantees our freedom of AND FROM religion. We are not a theocracy.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Please state the passage in the Constitution that guarantees that, Anna. I’ll make that easy for you:
            http://www.cato.org/pubs/constitution/amendments_en.html

          • Anna

            Thanks for answering your own question, Dave. Read and reread the 1st amendment until you ‘get it’. Thanks in advance for your diligence too.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            What is with you Progressives? Didn’t any of you learn how to read in your Propaganda schools?

          • Eric Bischoff

            More diatribe from a libertarian who blames Progressives for school propaganda (actually blames progressives for everything) when clearly the public school system is conservative and restricted in it’s material by Conservative Texans who decide and control what will be printed in the US school books. That’s just a fact that you may want to look-up if you don’t believe it. This year they decided that Jefferson didn’t belong in there anymore. Interestingly many of the private higher education Universities in America are more progressive. The very same schools that are recognized for their quality by parents worldwide who can afford to pay higher costs.

            We can read Dave, what’s your problem?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Eric the Red is still trapped in his la la land belief that Progressives can only be Liberals. Anybody who advocates Big Government as the solution to our problems is a Progressive, Eric the Red. You really need to get some education:
            http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html
            http://freedomlessons.net/freedom-101/progressives-and-tug-o-war/

          • Eric Bischoff

            I fail to understand how anyone could think that following or going back to such flawed documents makes any sense at all. It is full of mistakes it is not clear enough which is why people continue to argue the meaning. It is obviously time to rethink this document. It is old and does not serve us very well anymore. We could do much better.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            The problem is everyone interprets these.

            I interpret this to mean. You can’t favor a religion which we obviously are already doing.

            I also don’t see how the second part can be favored to mean let’s start all Govt sessions with Christian Prayers.

            Pray on your own time.

            “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,”

            Well our govt today is shooting war correspondents, arresting Journalists and prosecuting whistle blowers who are releasing proofs of govt criminal activity. We’re threatening Media organizations. Not exactly Freedom of speech or of the press anymore. An now Verizon wants the govt to give it the power to censor what you will have access to on the internet.

            “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”

            We’ve lost that right. We are forced to ask for a permit to peacefully assemble, often denied these permits or hearded in far out of the way places behind chain link fences away from politicians and the media.

            “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            Really!

            “Amendment II.

            (Ratified December 15, 1791)

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            Armed to the teeth, uneducated, racist, trigger happy, stand your ground americans are not exactly a well regulated militia.

            “Amendment III.

            (Ratified December 15, 1791)

            No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

            That one is not so obvious because it is happening in other countries where we obviously think we have the right to do anything we want.

            “Amendment IV.

            (Ratified December 15, 1791)

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

            Well this one has been gutted too. NSA anyone!

            “Amendment V.

            (Ratified December 15, 1791)

            No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

            Due process!

            Gutted as well since the Patriot act

            The law now says you are guilty until proven innocent.

            Just ask a marijuana dealer who lost his car and his house if he ever got just compensation.

            Or look at the misuse of eminent domain when they take a house so that a private developper can build a mall.

            “Amendment VI.

            (Ratified December 15, 1791)

            In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.”

            Is this a joke?

            If they don’t like you or your politics, they can accuse you of helping terrorists and use only secret evidence. We have plenty of political prisoners rotting in jail.

            “Amendment VIII.

            (Ratified December 15, 1791)

            Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

            We’ve seen plenty of cruel and unusual punishment. We’re #1 in the use of solitary confinement for example.

            “Amendment XI.

            (Ratified February 7, 1795)

            The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

            In case you are not up to speed on this. The new TPP about to be fast tracked is trying to do just that. Our Govt is saying that Foreign corporations would have more rights and power than out state and federal govt and corporations could sue us for demanding our laws to be obeyed when it threatens their profits.

            “Amendment XII.

            (Ratified June 15, 1804)

            The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from twothirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President–]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

            This one’s a joke too.

            We’ve just gone through a quiet Coup D’Etat where the Corrupt Supreme Court gave Bush the election. No one even questioned this.

            “Amendment XIII.

            (Ratified December 6, 1875)

            Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

            Well this was hypocritical.

            And now we have moved the bar. Prison Labor, Outsourced labor to foreign slave labor. How convenient.

            “Amendment XIV.

            (Ratified July 9, 1868)

            Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            I believe taking Edward Snowden’s passport violates this.

            TPP will violate this too.

            “Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

            So if you commit a crime or rebel against this tyranical govt you lose your right to vote!

            The drug war insures this and the patriot act means they can take away anyone’s right to vote.

            “Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

            So one side of the mouth says you sort of have the right to peacefully assemble. But they crack heads and arrest you when you do. And they can accuse you of helping the enemy with secret evidence. What’s the likelyhood of the windbag congress ever helping you with that!

            “Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

            This one is going to hurt. If I read this right, a soon as you try and overthrow this crooked govt they’ll take away your social security, your pension, your healthcare….

            “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

            Amendment XV.

            (Ratified February 3, 1870)

            Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

            This one has been violated too. The GOP has been working overtime and has found many disgusting ways around this to disenfranchise poor black voters.

            “Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            Amendment XVI.

            (Ratified February 3, 1913)

            The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

            Great amendment Hé!

            “Amendment XVII.

            (Ratified April 8, 1913)

            The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

            This one was not very well thought out. NY and CA only have 2 senators just like WY & RI. So much for representation.

            “Amendment XIX.

            (Ratified August 18, 1920)

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

            All men are created equal my Arse! Women were the last to get the right to vote even after black men.

            Still think these are the great laws we should live by or go back to?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            It was clear at the time it was written. Flawed, of course, because it was written by Humans, and worse Humans who, as leaders always do, had self-interests at heart. But compared to anything preceding it, it was a dynamite package of Government restraint. Of course, as the Anti-Federalists argued, it would have been better to leave things as they were with Local Governments in charge, Governments that were closer to the actual people they represented and so much more subservient to those people:
            http://mises.org/daily/2335
            http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/gary-d-barnett/limited-government/
            http://mises.org/daily/4254/Liberty-vs-the-Constitution-The-Early-Struggle

            As to the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
            How much clearer can it get?
            Do you see the word “Congress”. Has Congress passed any laws favoring religion? The Constitution was created to restrain the Federal Government from doing what Leaders always strive to do — Create more Power and Privilege for themselves and by necessity for their Politically-Connected pals. It wasn’t created to restrain the States.
            As we can see, the part about restraining the Federal Government hasn’t worked so well, as Leaders will always work to subvert any controls that are put on them.

            I’m not going to read any more of your comment, Eric, as the fact that you can’t even comprehend such a clear statement as the Establishment Clause tells me that it would be useless to debate with you on the clauses that are more subject to misinterpretation.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Prove that the Constitution says this, the more adamant you try to be the more of a liar you become.

          • Anna

            If you are capable of reading these comments you are capable of reading the 1st amendment of the Constitution. Pay particular attention to both the ‘establishment’ and ‘free exercise’ clauses. There is your proof.

          • Bob666

            Yo Nads,

            Amendment I

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            Any questions?

          • Deerinwater

            of course there is ~ Nadzieja ~ while perhaps, ~ just not for you and people that share you views.

            We can separate the mule from his smell, the sin of the sinner but can you?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            No, Anna, the Constitution does not explicitly state that. But feel Free to prove me wrong if you can.

          • Anna

            Read and reread the 1st amendment, Dave. Both the ‘establishment’ and ‘free exercise’ clauses guarantee our religion-neutral, secular nation status.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Please put the quote up, Anna, and then parse it for us so we can have a good laugh.

          • Anna

            Sorry, Dave. I can’t improve your reading comprehension for you. You need to do that for yourself. Somehow though, I think it will be like pouring water on a rock. You don’t want to understand. Willful ignorance is a choice. You choose, Dave.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You’re projecting, Anna. If you could bolster your claims, you would, but you can’t.

          • Deerinwater

            well, it’s for her to try David, ~ I tend to agree with her assessment about you, ~ I found it spot on.

            You can only transmit , ~ while you receive nothing.

            i’m certainly glad there are only Two of you.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Maybe if you put that bottle down, Deer, your normal vision would return.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Anna,

            You write: “That option would be to honor the Constitution which explicitly states that we are a religion-neutral, secular nation and have no prayer in public meetings.” Please point out where the Constitution state this “explicitly” or otherwise.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Anna

            I’d be glad to point out where this is stated, Bob: Read the 1st amendment and pay particular attention to both the establishment and free exercise clauses.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            There is no such animal as being religion neutral, secular nation. The Dems/Progs/ Leftists pulled that one out thin air, no one rules except them is what they have been trying to convince this nation.

      • Don Berry

        “Prayer removed” isn’t an opinion, it’s the law: separation of church and state. As it should be, try reading the 1st amendment. The “freedom” everybody cries about here, that’s supposedly being curtailed, is freedom to worship…or not. Not freedom to “do it my way”…!!

  • 1baronrichsnot1

    Our constitution is only as strong as the defenders! Use it or lose it! If SCOTUS is allowed to continue to rule against the constitution, then it will become a useless manefesto! Our constitutional guards are dropping like flies after a spraying. We need to strengthen our defense, argue more on the constitutional legality of bills, because as we all know, the constitution is the law of the people, owned by the people, and is the primary law of the land. 49 states have filed for and asked for a constitutional convention, according to constitutional law congress is supposed to enforce the issue of the states. That is one of the main articles of our constitution! It is past time! Seperation of church and state isn’t in the constitution. It just says we have freedom of religion unabridged in the bill of rights! It doesn’t say a word of where and when we exercise our rights!

  • Deerinwater

    That seems to be the problem with “tolerance”, it’s allows practices to be perceived as a “Right” or “Entitlement” when enjoyed without protest or resistance.

    We have the “Bill of Rights” which defines and guarantees “Personal Freedoms” and the Limits of Government .

    When we practice the right to assemble in Pubic for whatever the reason, when does it stop being personal and become “public” would be my question.

    I’m not completely sure that I know the answer to this question. I need a better understanding of what constitutes public and private.

    .

    • dan

      No. a common misconception is that the “Enumerated rights” are exclussive
      of ALL rights granted by God…or that gvernment is bound ONLY by the laws it can’t get around. turning the truth into lies and lies into the truth is one of the oldest tricks that wanna be tyrants resort to….the difference between public and private is like defing what is secret; if more than one person knows,
      it ain’t a secret anymore.

      • Deerinwater

        I see! ~ everything is seen a public and there is no such thing as “private”?

        is that your final answer?

        • dan

          kind of.,lol . i always was told that God and His angels
          saw me ….
          even in THE DARK
          you might say that privacy is an illusion…
          so give the nosey Neds and NSA something worth watching

          • Deerinwater

            Well I can certainly associate and appreciate the precept of an openness ideology where nothing can stay hidden forever or that it should.

            But we still find ourselves having to deal with issues offered up from the “Grassy Knoll” , do we not?

            Is not possible to ignore the existence of the social self and private self. not in our culture anyway.

            The Apache’s held the belief that a man can no do, things that he can’t talk about. ~ Any attempt to instill such “beliefs” were no doubt a stab at wisdom and offering guidance from a leadership position. For man can do , things he can’t speak of. ~ he just shouldn’t.

            We do a lot of things that we shouldn’t ~ or have you noticed? ~ That is the nature of man and the core reason for faith based worship in the Divine.

            While both man and his government finding themselves left to “deal with this common behavior” AND the “Faith” as well. ~ as people will do evil based on Faith.

            Any reason to do evil seems to work well.

          • dan

            To error is human (mea culpe)…
            to be forgiven is in the hands of the divine.
            Seeking and finding the Will of God…
            and then doing His Will is the key to happiness.

          • Deerinwater

            we agree on that ~ BUT ~ punishment and retribution is best left up to the Divine and not mine to take Dan.

            The evangelical arm of the Christian faith ~ is were you loose me. ~

            If there be a sweet water well, ~ there’s no need of forcing people to drink of it.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          You just blathered nonsense.

          • Deerinwater

            Well, my “nonsense” seems to be making it’s way to the Supreme Court Nadzieja , so obviously I am not alone with my quandary.

            While I might claim to be a Christian, ~ I do not wish to be subjected to someone like yourselves understanding of Christianity in a unsolicited fashion Nadzieja.

            It has been my Christian principal that has permitted people like yourself the luxury of violating the separation of Church and State for so long as you confuse tolerance, love and compassion with a personal freedom not afford you by the law as they are currently written.

            As our nation continues to gain in diversity, ~ the courts is being asked a simple question. What constitutes public and private. ~

            As for myself, ~ my faith and my church, I would think of as “private” ~ having not interest in sharing such things without being solicited by interested parties.

            If you wish to see this quandary as only nonsense, ~ that is up to you Nadzieja. while your opinions are not shared by many Americans.

            Solicitation of you “approval” is not what I seek.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Why does it bother you that people would pray in public?

          • Deerinwater

            i don’t want to wittiness it Nadzieja,~ anymore then I want to see a child disciplined, a hanging, a auto accident , watch you eat or you take a crap.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Yet you apparently don’t mind the turmoil that Power-hungry Liberal Progressives create by running these innocent people through the legal muggings of the Court system.

          • Deerinwater

            apparently so. ~ They are the ones that have pressed the issue to the forefront ~ so they must not mind it either David

  • ward

    Another step to dictatorship by the totalitarian minded appointed cronies that do not represent the majority of U.S. citizens . Between the do nothing congress & the unjust courts the wannabe king is right on track to bankrupting , weakening our military defense & security , destroying Christianity and taking GOD out of the U.S.A. foundation . GOD will only tolerate this sin so long & the wrath of his anger will fall on the once powerful country that was” IN GOD we trust” …….!

  • wavesofgrain

    Faith and Morality has been banned at schools, and liberals spew contempt at law abiding, church going citizens. Liberals, it seems, tend to be those who are corrupt, sneaky and oppose moral standards. Is it any wonder the liberal cities are becoming bankrupt combat zones? It would be interesting to see the percentage of children raised with religious church going families vs the children of non church going families in prison.

    • Chester

      Do you want someone telling you which side of the bed you MUST get up from? All too often, the very religions you say should rule want to do exactly that, and more. Not only do they want to tell you how to get in and out of bed, they want to prescribe exactly what you should wear to bed, and how it should be put on. If you don’t like the bed description, replace it instead with the way you live your life, including who you may or may not associate with.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You did a broad brush stroke vilifying all religions but have you gone to the Holy Scriptures to find out God’s side of the story and what he wants from us.

        • Chester

          I am a pretty firm believer in God and Christ, but I do NOT want ANY religion dictating my lifestyle. Seems that comes from not only supposedly Christian groups, but quite a number of other religions as well. Might even add in a large number of tribal groups, primarily from the Mid-East, which is where the largest part of the major world religions originated.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Then why are you a Liberal Progressive? The Church of Liberal Progressives Forces people to do things they don’t want to do on a daily basis.

          • Chester

            Sir, you are the one who named me such, as I disagree with both sides on a pretty regular basis. And also, you are calling something a “CHURCH” that is not now and has never been an organized religion, let alone a church. I have seen far more Conservative churches that Liberal, and I have seen my share and then some of both.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Liberal Progressivism is, like any religion, based on Faith. And in fact that Faith is more groundless than any of the other religions, since Socialism has been proven to be a failure throughout history. At least the religious people are worshiping something with positive outcomes.

          • JeffH

            Chester says “I am a pretty firm believer in God and Christ, but I do NOT want ANY religion dictating my lifestyle.”

            Just what is it that makes you so afraid of them? Don’t you have the final say in whether or not you allow yourself to be forced or dictated to by any religion? It’s your choice to make all the way.

            Well Chester, if you are letting anybody, a church or otherwise, dictate your lifestyle then you don’t have much of a backbone to begin with do you?

            The only people trying to dictate and force their lifestyles on anybody are the Liberal Progressives using the force of government as their personal bully over those of us that just want to be left alone to live a free, honest and moral life with a limited government.

          • Chester

            Well, sir, that is exactly what i am saying, I no longer stand for being dictated to, even by such as Force Recon, who MIGHT have sufficient authority to attempt it, if he so desired. I am always open to suggestions, but after that, it becomes MY choice as to whether or not I listen And actually, I see far more conservative types wanting to tell me how I MUST live than I do liberals, and that, sir, you can take to the bank.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            No you are not and that is to the first part of your first sentence.

          • Jana

            As it says in the book of Revelation there are only 2 Churches that God is truly pleased with. The rest go by the traditions of man, and those traditions can get pretty radical.

      • wavesofgrain

        That does NOT sound like the Christian religion to me. As you apparantly seem to speak from experience, what church did you attend? Our country was founded on the principles of Judeo/Christian foundations. Our founders knew, that in order to have a civil society, there must be a moral compass. Capitalism and Spiritual Moral guidelines propelled this country to become the greatest in the world. Millions from all over the world have clamored to become a part of this country. Now, due to liberalism, the culture that formed this great country is being ripped apart. And the results are more Crime and Mayem.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        I’m 64 years old. I’ve not had any religious person Force me to do anything (religiously speaking) that I didn’t want to do in all those years.
        Liberal Progressives, on the other hand, Force me to do things I don’t want to do on a daily basis. I will take religious people over Liberal Progressives any day of the week.

        • Chester

          Apparently you are not a member of some of the more radical Christian sects, let alone any of the others floating around out there. Not sure exactly WHAT a “liberal progressive” might have FORCED you to do against your will, unless it was to think with your own brain instead of following the conservative bandwagon saying it has always been this way, so it CAN’T be changed.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Government is Force, Chester. Every law you Liberal Progressives support is Forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do. The vast majority of Government laws and regulations are not about protecting people from the Force of others, which is the only legitimate function of Government.
            In 1900 Government spent 5% of our Gross Domestic Product. Now the consume over 40% of our GDP. Does Government need to be 8 times bigger now than in 1900? Of course they don’t. It is all about a small minority of Leaders and their Politically Connected pals feathering their own nests at the expense of the rest of us.

          • Chester

            So, are you ready to deal with the elimination of ALL laws? That includes those that say you own something unless and until you either sell it or give it away voluntarily. Don’t suppose you would care for the idea of someone being able to come in and take everything you own simply because they are bigger and meaner than you are. That is exactly the situation you seem to be describing as your ideal, so perhaps you want to rethink your idea on laws. Granted, they make it illegal for some people to do some of the things they would like to do, but, by doing so, they tend to protect ALL of society, not just the strongest.

          • JeffH

            Chester, you have a natural right to worship or NOT worship anything…any “God”, any religion, any church…right?

            Your analogies are totally flawed!

            No one has ever forced you to worship anything, God or otherwise, with the possible exception being your parents or legal guardian. You have a right to ignore, turn away and even protest against any religion you want to but
            you have absolutley no right to force anyone or use the government as a means of force for your “religion” of anti-religious views on anyone.

          • Chester

            Jeff, perhaps you might better understand the analogy if I had referred to laws rather than religions., but I was speaking to a man about what HE expected of life. He was chastising the “Liberal-Progressive” community as if it were a church rather than a very dis-organized organization. By referring to various churches and religions, I was speaking from knowledge of what some of these ORGANIZED groups expect of their members. Oh, and yes, for a number of them, once you are a member, you are very much under their control and regulation. Ask the followers of Jim Jones who followed him to Guyana.

          • JeffH

            Chester, a free man walks in his own shoes…the meek walk in another man’s shoes.

            I personally don’t care for churches and choose to do my worshiping away from them. I was raised and baptized as a Catholic although I never was a regular church goer. My brother graduated from a Christian college, is a Free Will Babtist and for most of his life taught and became principle of a christian school so I’ve also had exposure to his religion, but never by force and he never tried to preach to me.

            I don’t care what kind of power any cult, or organization has over it’s members…if a person becomes so mesmerized by their message and their brainwashing tactics then I believe that those people who do submit are subconsciously searching for something that is lacking in their daily lives.

            As for religion…for the most part I believe that established religions and altruistic movements are focused outward…they attempt to better the lives of members and often, nonmembers and they do show concern for others and make unselfish contributions.

            Of course there are cults and organizations that hide behind the mask of religion and prey on the weak. They have the characteristics of overbearing authoritarian control, the use of deception in recruitment, the use of coercive influence techniques, and the replacement of one identity with another which would not have been freely chosen by the individual before joining the group.

            Cults questions and answers
            http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            We have a natural right to control our own bodies and our own property, Chester. We do not have a right to physically trespass on the bodies and property of others. Government’s only legitimate role is to protect people from the Force of others. That would include physical Trespass on our bodies or property.
            Nothing I have said is limited only to Rich people or Poor people or those in-between.
            Taking people’s money away against their will is NOT protecting all of Society, Chester, it is just Theft.

            It is funny to me, Chester, that you would say — “Don’t suppose you would care for the idea of someone being able to come in and take everything you own simply because they are bigger and meaner than you are”.
            You have described the Big Government that you advocate, Chester.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Are you being forced to join them? You are free to tell them to go bugger off but then you wouldn’t have a reason to hate Christians so you have to give them horrible attributes.

          • Chester

            Natzieja, better read what I wrote again. Seeing that I AM a Christian, why would I HATE, your words, ALL Christians, or even any? I do have problems with some of the sects of Christianity, just as I have problems with some of the sects of Islam and Buddhism. I also have problems with ANY group who tries to justify forcing me to do something simply to match what THEY think is the right way to live. Do you think all lefthanded people should be forced to use only their right hand to eat? Like it or not, there are sects of Islam where using your left hand for much of anything other than wiping your backside is forbidden.

    • dan

      goes to situational ethics (ammorality) taught /indocrinated into children for 8-hours a day 40 plus hours a week…do as thou wilt…if it feels good do it.
      the change agents that infiltrated the public schools have done their damage
      and we’re seeing the bitter fruit.

      • wavesofgrain

        Dan, you hit the nail on the head. Since Public employees were allowed to unionize in the 70’s, we have seen the decline of education. Academics are replaced by “fuzzy warm feel-good” answers, so there is no right or wrong. Makes the Union teachers’ jobs much easier…no accountability. The Teachers Unions have become a Militant Left arm of the democrats. The MEA had Alinsky Rules for Radicals as their recommended reading on their website. Not sure if it is still there, because a stink was made about in when ‘bama became pres.

  • Red55bird

    It’s time that Christians wake up and smell the Roses, and take a hard look into the mirror and ask themselves, should I just turn my cheek, or get up a fight for GOD ALL MIGHTY. The last real President we had who truly believed that God was the answer was Ronald Reagan, and boy do I miss him. Heart land America has been taken over by extremist who say they’re anti Christian who want to take the word God out of everyday America, and I say over my dead body. These Marxist Socialist have gain power in all branches of the Government in collages and in Media. Billy Graham gave us warning just last week, that America is fast approaching this Marxist agenda in America, all part of the 54 point system to destroy Christianity in America. God law now being replace with mans law, marriage between a man to man or women to women, and the killing of millions of our unborn baby’s calling it a women right to do so. Forgive me for saying this but if God does not look down on America and hear our prayers for help, when we the people have forsaken him for so long now, because we turn the cheek and aloud evil to over take good. America time is running out for good to over take evil and if we don’t have a Rebellion soon, then all will be lost for the next generation, a Nation without God cannot survive.

    • Anna

      All the thousands of gods down through the ages are a human
      construction. You never specified which particular god you seem to think
      is, and has only ever been, the one true god. Which flavor of the eon
      do you think is ‘real’? What evidence to you have for this? Don’t tell
      me to ‘just believe’ or ‘have faith’. Why should I? Do you really think I
      need to believe in imaginary beings in order to be a good and moral
      person? This is my response to your unsolicited pronouncements, a little
      ‘taste of your own medicine’, but please recognize that the US
      Constitution guarantees you and I the freedom of religion. Please
      continue to believe whatever you want to believe. However, when you tell
      me or anyone else who reads your comment that they must believe as you
      do in order to live a truly righteous life, you have crossed the line
      and your speech is no longer protected by our Constitution, a secular,
      religion-neutral document by design.

      • Red55bird

        Well my God still love you young lady…………….

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Don’t use that phrase because it is not true. God laid out conditions under which he loves a human being.

          • CommonSense4America

            Gods love is Agape love. It is unconditional love.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            God’s Agape ≠ tolerance for evil aka sin.

          • CommonSense4America

            Like I said,,,unconditional love.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            Like I said the deceiving “love”.
            For the God’s LOVE you have to be “born again”.

            “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
            incorruptible, by the WORD of God, which lives and abides for ever … the word of the LORD endures for ever. And this is the WORD, which by the Gospel is preached unto you.” (1Peter 1:23, 25)

            The LORD Gospel is: R E P E N T !!!

            Read Scripture, because “16 All Scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Timothy 3:16-17)

            Psychopathic Maniac boob666 aka Yoda vote here:
            …………..↓
            ………….▼

          • CommonSense4America

            So you are saying that before you are “born again”, that God doesn’t love you? What a crock. God loves you, period. (gosh, now I’m sounding like Obama) Even though God loves you, He will not accept you into the Kingdom of Heaven to sit by His side UNLESS you have accepted HIM. John 3:16

          • Jana

            Alondra please see the post above under Nadzieja.
            You and Nad are a true warrior, but this was just a little overboard sweetie.
            Love you both, Jana

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            Jana, can you please clarify what was “overboard”? TY

          • Jana

            I answered and it went above read the post under Nadzieja, I clarified everything.

          • Jana

            Yes sweetie, read the post under Nadzieja, I clarified everything.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Try again. That is not what the Bible teaches.

          • Jana

            John 3:16-17

            16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

            17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
            KJV
            So yes it is what the Bible teaches. It is not up to us to judge whether or not they go to heaven, it is up to us to let people know they are on a slippery slope. They have till they die then God is their judge.
            Remember Jesus didn’t come into this world to condemn and He didn’t send me or you to condemn either.
            We do discern and know them by their fruits. There is a big difference.
            You are a true warrior for the Lord Nadzieja and Alondra too. This was just a notch too high.

            Love you both, Jana

        • http://www.rt.com Alondra

          And who is your god?

          The Biblical God says:
          “No one who denies the Son has the Father.” (1Jn2:23)

          If you do not have the Father, so explain, WHOSE ‘unconditional’ love you have?

          “The WRATH of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” (Rom. 1:18)

          I did not know that “unconditional love” is synonym for the “God’s WRATH”.

          “12 [A]ll WHO DID RECEIVE Him, to them He gave the right to BECOME CHILDREN of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 WHO WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

          God Loves HIS children, not Satan’s or of the koranic allah.

          To many self-proclaimed “Christians” Jesus will declare:

          “‘I NEVER knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:21-23), which means: you never were Mine.

          “Whoever does not abide in Me is THROWN AWAY like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown
          into the fire and burned” – Jesus Christ (John 15:6)

          You can’t be God’s child without being plugged to Christ.
          “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mt.22:14)

          STOP to preach the Satan’s gospel of appeasement.
          “Do not be attracted by strange doctrines…” (Heb.13:9; Eph.4:14)

          The Christ’s Gospel is about REPENTANCE!
          “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” God lamented in Hosea 4:6.

          Read Bible!

      • dan

        You have the freedom to listen or not…read or ignore…associate or not……you have always had the freedom to choose. You do not have the freedom to silence someon else.
        …and as for proof…
        I’ve got the proof,he said ,with a twinkle in his eye…

      • Nadzieja Batki

        It took all this verbiage to say that you don’t want to acknowledge the God of the Bible and you will be damned if you will obey or believe. Your choice. But you are stepping into different territory when you take it upon yourself to forbid another human being their rights and privileges to believe God and read his Word and Pray. Your choice is to step out of this area and not participate instead becoming a bully to make people do your way.

      • Christopher Richardson

        Anna – You are free to believe, or not, as is your wish. Listening respectfully or playing on your smart phone while others pray is an option – neither hurts you in any way. The gentleman you responded to was speaking to those that consider themselves Christians. If you do not, he was not addressing you or asking you to change your beliefs or take any action. I have always wondered, if someone is comfortable in their own beliefs then why are they so offended by those that express beliefs that differ.

        • Anna

          Because they are in a public venue! What is it about this that believers do not understand? I attend public meetings to get information about my town, not to listen to prayers. It does not matter what brand of prayer it is. It is unconstitutional to pray in a public venue.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You may or may not have a point, Anna, but the issue should be addressed by the people attending the meetings, not the courts who clearly have no jurisdiction over people praying in public places.

          • Anna

            You think that the courts have no jurisdiction over people praying in public places? Really? The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the Constitution of the US. If they don’t have jurisdiction and you think the people in the meeting should decide this then you are grossly misinformed.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            The Supreme Court was not given the Power of Judicial Review (deciding whether a law is Constitutional or not) by the Founders. It just took that Power and an ignorant citizenry let them get away with it.
            Why would you think a member of the Gang (Federal Government) would protect us from the Federal Government, Anna? Read this article and learn something, Anna:
            http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
            Even if the Supreme Court did legitimately have that Power, as Chip pointed out, the First Amendment is very clear:
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
            Do you get the part about “free exercise thereof”, Anna?

          • Vigilant

            “If they don’t have jurisdiction and you think the people in the meeting should decide this then you are grossly misinformed.”

            No, Ma’am, YOU are grossly misinformed. You would deny those people their individual sovereignty and their freedom to choose. It is YOU who would impose a gag law on people who have every right to exercise their beliefs publicly, any time and anywhere.

            You are the tyrant.

          • Ringgo1

            Muslims in NYC (and Dearborn, Michigan) pray in public, on sidewalks, in parks…five times a day. Are you saying they do not have the right to do this? Do you think the government should stop them? Hmmm?

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Since when did these location become theirs. What you are saying that Jews, Christians, Buddhists, the Wiccans,and any tree and bug worshipper should be allowed to pray in these locations as well but they are not.

          • Ringgo1

            Obama is instrumental in this. Please excuse my sarcasm. I did not mean to imply these locations belong to muslims (sic).

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            Do you want to see this in America?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Btc9qMALg

          • Ringgo1

            Please don’t misunderstand my sarcasm. Islam is a clear threat.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            Ringgo, I got your sarcasm. I did provide you with the links just for information and to show what the Kenyan Fraud plans for America are – Islamic Caliphate.

            The Kenyan Fraud’s goal is to reshape America demographically

            In his 2010 determination letter to Congress, he has announced that he will allow an additional 80,000
            muslim immigrants – – mostly from Islamic countries – – to resettle in the United States during fiscal year 2011, and 100,000 PER YEAR for the next 5 years from 2012-2016.

            The Illegal pResident said that the increase in Muslim immigrants “is JUSTIFIED by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the NATIONAL INTEREST.”
            http://planet.infowars.com/worldnews/middle-east/obama-authorizes-an-additional-80000-muslims-to-enter-the-country

            I am wandering, WHO decides what the “NATIONAL INTEREST” is?

            Watch this Video and PASS IT ON: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMMgzkbcZpQ

            Best wishes, my Friend, and God help us.

          • Anna

            Ringgo1, it’s a false equivalence and you know it. They are not leading anyone in prayer at the beginning of a town meeting. They are exercising their ‘free exercise’ clause and nothing more.

          • Anna

            Ringgo1, it’s a false equivalence and you know it. They are not leading anyone in prayer at the beginning of a town meeting. They are exercising their ‘free exercise’ clause and nothing more.

          • Christopher Richardson

            Clearly it is not unconstitutional. Did you read about the history and current practice outlined int he article? Did you see the SCOTUS has regularly upheld opening prayers as constitutional? I respect your belief and right to express your belief in this public forum. I believe you will be proven wrong when this case is decided. You do not have a right not to be offended.

          • Anna

            Legislators are not there to pray, meditate, or read tea leaves. They
            are there to govern, litigate, and to represent their constituents.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            They are also not there to redistribute our wealth and to exercise Powers which were not enumerated by the Constitution, Anna. But still they do it. And I’m guessing that you support those behaviors.

          • Christopher Richardson

            I agree with your second assertion and think the first two items, and perhaps for some, the third, helps them in their duties. By what right would you deny others the right to their beliefs? Setting aside discussion of the existence of a deity – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – what unavoidable harm is done by calling on a higher power (perhaps it is the collective will of the people represented) for guidance?

          • Anna

            The harm is in assuming that everyone in the public venue (in this case, a town meeting) believes in your brand of religion. Why would anyone do that? Better to uphold the religion-neutral, secular tenets stated in the Constitution and leave religion out of public venues. No one is denying others the right to their beliefs. Believe whatever you want. Just don’t assume everyone in attendance at a public meeting has the same beliefs as you by reciting a prayer to a specific god in this public place.

          • Christopher Richardson

            I will agree to disagree at this point. You view being exposed to beliefs that you do not share as harmful. I view it as keeping an open mind. (Some applaud it as accepting diversity) If all in our country held the position throughout our history that practicing and even exposing differing beliefs was unacceptable, public debate would never occur. Commonly accepted practices, such as slavery, discrimination against those of color, women, etc would still continue. Enjoy your singular view of our world – Might I suggest you spend the time during which an opening prayer is held reading our founding documents.

          • Anna

            Now you are simply projecting, Christopher. There is no diversity in prayers said at town meetings. They are all Christian prayers.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            There could be diversity. I would hazard the guess that most people would be fine with having different speakers giving different opening prayers on different days. Imagine that, people getting along instead of imposing their will on others by Force.

          • Anna

            There could never be diversity, Dave. Most people would not be fine with any other prayers but christian prayers. That is what this is really about, Dave. They want to impose their will on others by force. It’s ‘no prayers but our prayers’ or we will accuse you of attacking us.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            That is pure speculation on your part, Anna. I think maybe you’re projecting. Not everybody is as controlling as you Progressives are.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Weren’t we led to believe that everyone believes in the same God? You are tripping over yourself.

          • Anna

            I have no idea who taught you about religion. Most assume that their god is the ‘right’ god. However, unless you grow up in a fairly closed community, you realize at a young age that people have different religions than your religion. Perhaps it’s time for you to stop being ‘led’ and think for yourself.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            It’s time for you to STOP spewing your godlessness, “tolerant” and “compassionate” liberal pagan.

          • Anna

            Are you a censor? If so, censor my comments. If not, stop telling people to what to say.

          • Bob666

            Good luck on that Anna.

          • Anna

            Thanks, Bob! As a non-believer, luck is as nonsensical as faith but I understand your sentiment.

          • Bob666

            Anna,
            There are those on this site who lack an appreciation of freedom or liberties and have a perverse view of everyone’s first amendment rights. Some will resort to personal attacks and name calling when they do not agree with you.

            Good luck!

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            The same I tell you: “STOP telling people to what to say!”

          • Jana

            This is still a free country she can say what she wants. Are you a censor? If so then censor her comments, if not then quit telling her what to say!!!

          • Bob666

            Yo Jana,
            Really?

          • Jana

            Yep!!!

          • Bob666

            Very sad! Very sad indeed.

          • Jana

            The sad one is you Bob. You say you go to church? Do you really? Or do you just say you do? Why do you go? Do you love the Lord your God? Do you really love God or do you pay lip service only?

          • Bob666

            Jana,
            “The sad one is you Bob”.

            As Ronald Reagan use to say; “There you go again”.

            See Anna’a post above-“It was Alondra who initiated this dialog by telling me to STOP writing. Try to keep up”

            When a person tells another “It’s time for you to STOP spewing your godlessness, “tolerant” and “compassionate” liberal pagan”. how does that support Anna’s first amendment rights? Yes, Alondra has the right to say what ever she pleases (and does so with consistency).

            One of the best writing on this matter is below:

            “Voltaire said around the time of the Founding of this Country that, “I may disagree with everything that you say, but I shall defend to the death you’re right to say it.” People should be able to express themselves, any way they so choose as long as they do not harm anyone else’s person or property.
            There are limits to speech; we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, and we should not be able to insight to riot. That kind of speech can harm other
            peoples person and property, but being offended does neither. There is some art, or forms of art, that use religious symbolism, in a most unflattering light,
            that I have found offensive, but just because I find them offensive I do not think they should be outlawed. I find ignorance and racism offensive, but I
            don’t believe that outlawing either will stop either of them from happening. You cannot stop ignorance or racism by passing a law, is not possible. There will
            still be ignorant people, and they’re always be people who will hate other people for their differences, no matter what you do, or what law you pass.

            Only individually can we and do we, choose not to hate, or not to be ignorant, or not to be racist, no law or legislation can do that, or choose that, for us. It is too great an infringement on our Liberty, to have to
            be selective of every word that we choose, just so we do not offend anyone. People do not have to listen to people they find offensive, or read what people
            have written if they find it offensive, or watch entertainment they find offensive, or look at art they find offensive. They have the power and the right
            to censor for themselves, but not others or society. We need to get back to the place where we once were in this Country. When people were willing to fight and die to give liberty and freedom to everyone, and not just the people they agreed with”.

            We are all adults and should act like adults and many of us (if not all) have been guilty of not acting like adults. I may not like Alondra, but I will always support her right to spout out whatever offensive post that she makes as it is her first amendment right to do so. But does she have the right to to tell Anna “It’s time for you to STOP spewing your godlessness, “tolerant” and “compassionate” liberal pagan”?

            That is what is sad Jana and the fact that you agree with her is more sad, Think about it.

            I miss the old Jana, she had a great deal of respect for people, even if she did not agree with them.

          • Anna

            Jana, is your reading comprehension that poor? It was Alondra who initiated this dialog by telling me to STOP writing. Try to keep up.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            No, they are there to grant themselves and their politically-connected pals special privileges and Power. They just feign to be there to protect the people so as to get re-elected.

          • Anna

            Off-topic, Dave

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You brought it up, Anna, so it is not off-topic for me. Anyway, who appointed you to be the board police?

        • Vigilant

          Good comment.

      • ward

        one thing for sure women that are dictated by muslims are abused & God does not exsist but allah is their mans belief…where is their constitution & do you want that life ???…?

      • S.C.Murf

        You want proof? Open your eyes and look at what God the Father did with this rock that you are standing on. He says if you don’t like it go find your dirt to stand on and get off of His.
        up the hill
        airborne

      • Vigilant

        “…but please recognize that the US Constitution guarantees you and I [sic] the freedom of religion.”

        That’s right, Anna, and the sooner you recognize that it does not guarantee the freedom FROM religion, you might stand a chance of being considered a rational commenter. “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” carries no water with you, does it?

        ” However, when you tell me or anyone else who reads your comment that they must believe as you do in order to live a truly righteous life, you have crossed the line and your speech is no longer protected by our Constitution.”

        ROFLMAO! Your misunderstanding of free speech is as limited as your myopic world view. Try to foment a court case over free speech on the basis of any such comment and they’ll laugh you out of court.

        The comment made (” that they must believe as you do in order to live a truly righteous life”) is completely legal and IN NO WAY is an infringement of free speech. On the contrary, it’s a perfect example of that freedom you so abjectly misunderstand.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          You seem like an intelligent man (or woman), Vigilant. Yet your comments are typically laced with Argumentum ad Hominem. Is it really necessary?

          • Vigilant

            I’ve learned from the master and I bow to you.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I only personally attack those who drew first blood, and therefore deserve my disrespect.

          • Vigilant

            ROFLMAO. Better see that MD about your short term memory problem.. A day or two ago you called me a manipulator (your FIRST comment to me) even though I had not addressed you in any way, shape or form.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            We have a long history, Vigilant. I don’t respect you. I’m not saying that is a permanent condition, but so far you have given me no reason to change my mind.

          • Vigilant

            Forgive me, oh Great One, I forgot the cardinal rule: DaveH is always right (that’s an ad hominem, or as you like to say with your showiness, “Argumentum ad Hominem.”)

            Hell, even I can admit when I’m wrong. I’ve never seen you do that.

            You apparently enjoy the rivalry, as I offered three times to bury the hatchet and you ignored me. THAT opened you up to “ad hominem ad nauseum” as far as I’m concerned.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I was wrong once –> I thought I had done something wrong, but it later turned out that I had been right after all.
            Before you get all stewed, that was a joke.

          • Vigilant

            Well. I up arrowed you on that one. Good one.

          • Deerinwater

            One olive branch completely wasted I fear Vigilant. ~ David is a Principled Hypercritical man. Which direction is up , can be a heated subject of debate and depends entirely on exactly where “David” is at.

      • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Anna,

        You write: “please recognize that the US Constitution guarantees you and I the freedom of religion. Please continue to believe whatever you want to believe. However, when you tell me or anyone else who reads your comment that they must believe as you do in order to live a truly righteous life, you have crossed the line and your speech is no longer protected by our Constitution, a secular, religion-neutral document by design.” Your understanding of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution is sorely lacking. I suggest you re-read it to obtain a better understanding.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Vigilant

          Thank you for confirming my observations, Mr. Livingston.

        • WTS/JAY

          Is that what you mean by “Taking someone to the woodshed”, Mr. Livingston? :)

        • Anna

          Dear Bob,

          And I suggest the same to you….in order to obtain a ‘better’ understanding.

          No ‘wishes’,

          Anna

      • Vigilant

        “All the thousands of gods down through the ages are a human
        construction.”

        (1) Provide proof and we just might have something to talk about.

        (2) Did it ever occur to you that such universality of belief just might indicate something more than mere imagination? On the contrary, it can as easily be said that BILLIONS of people are on to something when they recognize what a paltry few cannot perceive.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Argumentum ad Populum.

          • Vigilant

            The second argument, yes. The first argument, no.

          • WTS/JAY

            Vigilant: On the contrary, it can as easily be said that BILLIONS of people are on to something when they recognize what a paltry few cannot perceive.

            I happen to think that your statement reveals a remarkable insight on your part, Vigilant, regardless the fact that you could be charged with positing a “Argumentum ad Populum”. Here’s another fellow that traces along the same line… http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.iv.html

          • Vigilant

            WTS/JAY, that’s a superb link, and atheists would do well to read it. It’s a keeper.

            It deals with natural law and reason both. It eloquently describes in part the thinking of the Founders themselves. Jefferson and other Founders’ belief that God and natural law can be known by reason is underscored in the self-evidence of Creator-endowed rights as expressed in the Declaration.

          • WTS/JAY

            I was sure that you would appreciate and benefit from it, Vigilant. A remarkable man, that Calvin. A creature endowed with the finest a gift from His creator; Intelligence.

        • Anna

          Religion is all nonsense from top to bottom and
          side to side. It is the remnant of primitive human beings. We no longer
          need superstitious explanations for lightening, thunder, rain, sunshine
          or the origin of the Universe. As long as people insist on living by
          astrology and biblical mythology, we will have misery caused by these
          superstitions.

          There are more than enough things for people to
          fight about – together we can reason our way through most of our issues.
          But we cannot reason about irrationality itself – and that is exactly
          what religion is – irrationality treated as if it were a benefit rather
          than a bane to our existence.

          • Jana

            Sounds like it is taken right from the Communist hand book. Congratulations.

          • Vigilant

            “Religion is all nonsense from top to bottom and
            side to side.”

            I know it’s useless arguing with someone like you who’s made up her mind and will accept no new information, but I repeat, “provide proof and we just might have something to talk about.”

          • Anna

            The onus is on you, the faith-based, to provide proof. I do not need to provide you with proof of nothingness. There is no evidence that god exists. Step out into the 21st century and embrace reality. It’s really quite nice!

          • Vigilant

            “Step out into the 21st century and embrace reality.”

            Yes, indeed, you need to do so and learn a little about quantum physics and the mystical side of the universe it has discovered. You might also take the time to understand the difference between the “how” and the “why” of the universe. Science will never be able to answer the question “why.”

            I suggest it is YOUR 19th century thinking that needs to be updated. Traditional scientific thinking is coming around, and has been for some time, to a destruction of the cause and effect world view of the dead and buried scientists. The actions from subatomic particles to black holes defy “rationality” and appear, among other things, to be based on probability alone. You see, your world of science is not at all as neatly packaged as you would wish it to be.

            I believe that your short sightedness furnishes you a ready made world with no uncertainties. It seems that YOU are the one who is so insecure in your thinking that you require a completely rational world. A little maturity will disclose to you that the world is always a mix of the rational and irrational.

            I don’t believe you would want to live in a purely rational world. Such a world could be run by machines, and the decisions of those machines, irrevocable and purely rational, would destroy the human spirit.

          • Vigilant

            Perhaps you’d care to explain the concept of “infinity” to me. There has never been an explanation in history that could satisfy the “rational” mind that it exists. Where do you find in the world of scientific observation and induction an example of it that you can point to and say “there it is”?

            The answer, of course, is that you can’t. It is purely within the mathematical world of pure deduction. Now if you say to me “but the whole basis for calculus is the concept that infinity exists, and calculus can be used to accomplish great technological feats and is the only math that can prove the theory of relativity,” then I will say, “yes, indeed, you are correct. Now prove to me that it is “real.”

            You will be left clueless to prove the existence of infinity by rational means, because the human mind is incapable of wrapping its brain around it. It can not be exhaustively described to the satisfaction of anyone who lives in a purely straight line world of cause and effect.

  • unbridled

    Tradition is as tradition does. If someone doesn’t like it they have the right to remove themselves from the offensive enviroment that they claim to have found themselves in. Never mind that they put themselves there to begin with and now seem compelled to stay there and suffer through what they find so offensive. I laugh when idiots find a poster or billbored that they claim offends them but they stand a gaze at it as if they are being forced to do so. Move, idiot, move!
    People seem to get a charge out of taking something away from others just to suit themselves. Suggestion to the two hags: ARRIVE A LITTLE LATE AT THE MONTHLY BOARD MEETING OR WAIT OUTSIDE THE DOOR UNTIL THE PRAYER HAS CONCLUDED!
    No, of course not, after all you have rights. The problem is that you think your rights outway everyone else’s….

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So it has nothing to do with someone being offended that a prayer is said, it has more to do with wanting to control and manipulate people.
      By their own admission these people hate God and want no part in his governance and they will make sure that no one else joins himself to God of the Bible.

      • unbridled

        Good point but I don’t think these people believe in God to begin with. They can’t hate what they do not acknowledge. They Hate God’s people and all that believe in him….
        .

        • Deerinwater

          They don’t hate you unbridled ~ they just see you as perhaps a “Unbridled Zealot” from some cult worship~ that can justify evil works employing the Divine while proclaiming “Righteousness” ~ basically a programmed fruit cake that has the capacity to do anything they feel like doing.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Obtuse.

          • Ringgo1

            Yes, Obtuse, and deliberately so. Proudly so…

          • unbridled

            Thanks for making my point for me, you Godless Heathen. Now, get out of the water before you pollute it….

          • Deerinwater

            And you mine, ~ with such an “unbridled” unchristian response.

            You are unbridled and out of control while I am controlled and just unfiltered, willing and prepared to tell you the way it is without attempting to demonize or destroy you in the process.

          • unbridled

            The only point you have is the one on top of your head mr. know it all. I’m not a christian. Oops, wrong again! Who made you the authority on the way it is?
            Go back in the corner and control your way into an unfiltered orgasim you schyco! You couldn’t demonize or destroy your way out of a paper bag….GOODBYE!

          • Deerinwater

            You leaving? ~ and just when I was beginning to enjoy you ~

            darn it!

            stick around, you might learn something.

  • Bill Fleming

    Let me float a crazy idea here. Don’t do any pray from any religion.
    Just start a meeting or session discuss the business at hand and go
    home. Pray at home or in your church of choice. Not exactly sure why an opening pray is needed at all. I know insane huh?

    • TheSilverRanger

      Sadly, those who are in religion don’t believe that. The church leaders in the US and in the Vatican take after the communist parasites and the Marxist altruists, who believe that if you don’t believe what they do, you’ll either be shamed, or killed. What’s more, they believe that your wealth is theirs since the parasites in the church can make nothing for themselves.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Have any of these institutions forced you to attend, contribute, baptize, associate with them? They haven’t because we do not have a STATE religion as Europe and other countries have. Even Israel does not have a State religion.
        God forbid if any religion like RCC and islam took predominance as they have done in Europe or middle east or the islands of the pacific your life and your belongings would not be your own.

        • TheSilverRanger

          Indeed, you are correct. For they are just as bad as those who are in the Vatican. The islamofacists parasites are no better than the parasites in the Vatican. The parasites who are the religious leaders, no matter what the religion, can make nothing for themselves. Their only tools are taxes, tithes, and “donations” meant to trick you into offering that which has not been earned. In America, we’re supposed to keep what is ours.

      • Jana

        The Silver Ranger,
        I am in the process of studying about Communism right now. Communism had two founders. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

        “The Naked Communist”
        I am learning a lot and I plan on learning a lot more. :) Thought it was time to know my enemy. I certainly know my Lord!

        • TheSilverRanger

          Ok….and? I’m kind of wondering what you’re trying to tell me, Jana.

          • Jana

            Oh, nothing really, just that I have deduced that communism and Marxism are the same. I was proud of me. :)

          • TheSilverRanger

            That was…good but…pointless.

          • Jana

            Not really. How many others that might read this may not have know that fact?
            Don’t be so narrowminded!

    • dan

      how about starting with the pledge of allegiance…
      DOH…one nation under GOD

      • TheSilverRanger

        Well played.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        It was written by a Socialist. Aren’t you religious people taught to Not worship false idols?
        “I pledge allegiance to the Flag ….”?
        I saw through that charade when I was a young and dumb teenager. It is simply a method to turn individual thinkers into members of the Big Government worshiping mob.

        • JeffH

          The Pledge was a propaganda prayer written by a socialist who’s goal was to inculcate young minds with dogma.

          Here are the transmutations that the Pledge has undergone since its inception in 1892:

          1892“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1892 to 1923“I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1923 to 1924“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1924 to 1954“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1954 to Present“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/05/francis-bellamy-and-the-united-states-pledge-of-allegiance-2/#sthash.ZYBWvdeu.dpuf

          • WTS/JAY

            Patriotism is the substance that greases the skids of war…?

          • Deerinwater

            well? ~ It can be employed that way, this is true.

            While a hammer can drive nails, build houses, kill cattle or smash your finger. .

        • gelliott

          Good point, but I still like it. It is one of the few remaining symbols of our tradition and culture that I think helps remind us that we’re all Americans with some key values in common and working for a united and prosperous country. I’d like to hold on to some of these traditions if we can.

        • Chester

          Allegiance has nothing to do with worship and a whole lot to do with who or what you will support. if you choose not to pledge allegiance to the flag of the country in which you reside, perhaps you should resign your citizenship in that country and go to a place you CAN support.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            And there it is, Folks, from the mouth of a Liberal Progressive. Sell your soul to the collective, OR ELSE.

          • WTS/JAY

            Progressives seem to share the same characteristic to that of religious zealots, DaveH; that being; “My way or the Highway”!

      • Bill Fleming

        Ron and Dan; who’s God, yours, mine (or lack there of), a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, etc..? The name of this page is personal liberty” right?

        Let’s first define liberty, okay?

        1. the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction

        2. the right or privilege of access to a particular place; freedom.

        A lot can be derived from the simple definition. I personally lean towards libertarian principles that I will summarize in this sentence:

        One has the personal freedom and individual rights to live ones life free from interference as long as you do not harm or infringe on others personal freedom or liberties.

        Now I personally do not have any issue with any religious activities such as pray at the beginning of a session. crosses on hills, Mosques at the site of the World Trade Center site or Nativity scenes in a city square BUT many do feel it is inappropriate and have made a rightful and allowable voice in opposition; (think 1st Amendment) and have won court cases that validate their position.

        I personally believe it is a waste of effort from both sides since there are considerably more urgent issues than this going on in our country.

        I believe my answer is a valid compromise for all involved in this issue. Leave your beliefs at home or you place of worship. Period end of story. No one will be offended or feel that their particular beliefs are being infringed upon.

        As for Ron’s comment; “God wants you to pray for guidance, direction, for making the right decisions when you are in a leadership position, for others, TOGETHER!!!!”. Well Ron not sure what would be preventing our leaders from gaining their direction from their beliefs; a prayer at the beginning of a session has no effect either way. Does their faith and direction only turn on after a prayer? My understanding is that one’s faith is always present even in absence of pray. Maybe I have that wrong, please clarify if needed.

        If you are dissatisfied with the religious beliefs or lack there of of our political leaders then work to have them replaced with folks more aligned to your beliefs.

        To Nadzieja Batki I am not exactly sure how to interpret your comment. Could you restate it or clarify it for me. Thanks

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Bill says — “BUT many do feel it is inappropriate and have made a rightful and allowable voice in opposition; (think 1st Amendment) and have won court cases that validate their position”.
          We must all be wary of the fact that Leaders love more Power. Of course they will tend to side with whatever direction increases their Power.
          If we truly want our Freedom back, we need to quit supporting those who want to grow Government ever larger.
          http://mises.org/books/century.pdf
          I mean, what next, Prayer Wars?

          • Bill Fleming

            Exactly correct Dave, more time and focus needs to be put on reducing the size of our Government then spinning our tires on this silly issue. The entire focus from both sides of this issue is a waste of time and energy. This issue is of personal freedom and tolerance of others beliefs regardless if you agree with them or not. It is sad that tolerance has become a bad thing in this country and yes I mean tolerance from both sides of the coin.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Then technically there should not be any meetings or sessions because whose mindset will prevail during the meetings or sessions as people bring into them what they are.

    • Ron S.

      our God wants you to pray for guidance, direction, for making the right decisions when you are in a leadership position, for others, TOGETHER!!!! And only if we had that in our Gov’t today maybe this world would not be the sh*t hole it is… he wants you to stand up for Him..not for evil or to be politically correct!!!! Do what’s right for ALL people and PRAYER hopefully will help you get that right!!!

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      It would probably be better if they prayed the whole time. That way they wouldn’t have time to meddle with other people’s lives or spend other people’s money.

      • Bill Fleming

        Excellent Point Dave! LOL

      • WTS/JAY

        Lol!

      • JeffH

        LMAO!

  • TheSilverRanger

    Religious rights, Mr. Wood? We’re making this big a stink over prayer? You’re free to worship whatever tribal fetish you favor in the privacy and comfort of your own home. But in America liberty is supposed to be our only law–a man’s only duty is to himself. To imply otherwise, therefore, is criminal.

    • Vis Fac

      And if that liberty is withheld in any way shape or form we have no liberty.

      Our Constitution Guarantees freedom of speech PERIOD yet you would limit it to the confines of one’s own dwelling. That my friend is repression NOT liberty or freedom. If a private person wished to lead a prayer they have the right to do so. Conversely those who don’t wish to participate have the freedom to either leave or not participate. Liberal “Political Correctness” has run amok when 1% can dictate what the other 99% is allowed to do.

      It’s time we right the ship and fight for what is ours. I am not afraid to go toe to toe with ANYONE because I have the constitution as my support I will NOT let anyone usurp my rights. I go as far as carrying a copy of OUR Bill of Rights to argue my point. Law enforcement backs down when they know you know your rights.

      A liberal is a power worshiper without power. Liberal one dimensional Idiot-ology is playing with fire by people who don’t know that fire is hot!!

      Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. And DUMBOCRITES are in all too much of a hurry to shut us up. Now
      why is that?

      The worst advertisement for socialism and liberalism are its adherents

      To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

      You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

      • TheSilverRanger

        Logical.

        • Vis Fac

          Unfortunately there is no logic in the liberal camp.

          To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

          You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est
          Semper-Fi

          • TheSilverRanger

            No, I mean what you’re saying is logical; you bring up a lot of valid points. I’m agreeing with what you’re saying. I’m on your side.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      I’m an atheist, Ranger, but nobody in my life has ever Forced me to pray. On the other hand, I see a lot of Force being applied to those who would like to pray.
      It’s odd to me that you proclaim — “We’re making this big a stink over prayer?” — but apparently don’t see the irony in your comment.

      • TheSilverRanger

        I’m starting to regret posting that comment myself. I’ll have to concede defeat in this argument if I cannot make any sense. I think what I was trying to say is that we shouldn’t be worrying about prayer during a legislative town meeting. We should be worrying about getting the town back in order. There are more important things to be worrying about. Perhaps I should have clarified that earlier. My apologies.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          No apologies necessary, and thanks for your polite response.

        • Bill Fleming

          You got it right Silver Ranger, no regrets man. :-)

        • WTS/JAY

          Two thumbs up, TSR!!!

        • JeffH

          Kudos SilverRanger.

      • Ron S.

        never too late to change TODH..that’s what our God would like you to know! None of us will know til after death, may be too late then…that’s why we have faith and believe and want to pray!!

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          I have no interest in changing, Ron. I don’t believe there is a God, but I do believe that the rules of morality are mostly good and beneficial to mankind.

          • Ron S.

            i respect that Dave..my God at least expects me to let you know he’s there..the rest is between Him and you. Those rules of morality have been under attack and almost illegal now due to a immoral society. And why is it in this world today anything that is deemed to be good and beneficial to mankind is, simply put…pure EVIL!!

  • wavesofgrain

    Yes, it would be interesting to know which culture’s offspring has cost the taxpayers more in prison and court systems….the god-fearing Christians, or those who withheld spiritual, moral guidelines in their child rearing

  • carl_AF

    I do not like it that there are people that think there is no God of any kind, but I accept their right to believe. I am very much offended by them sticking their noses in other people’s right to believe in their particular God. And, why is it that we have judges sitting on these courts that do not understand what the first amendment is all about. One other thing I believe is that these judges should be replaced if they do not understand what our Constitution states in regards to Federal Government’s and the different United States rights are. Anyone in office that has sworn to uphold the Constitution should be immediately replaced if they do not adhere to it.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Like Environmentalism, National Healthcare, Imperialism, and Anti-Terrorism — the movement against public praying is not about it’s stated goals, rather it is about POWER for the 1% that are the Leaders in this country:
      http://mises.org/daily/5776/The-State-is-the-1-Percent
      We are in a fight for our lives to stop the Progressive Leaders from committing us to Total Subjugation. They are robbing us of our Property and of our Freedom.

      • Vis Fac

        Oh So True

        Justice means minding one’s own business and not meddling with other men’s concerns

        Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something

        The Socialist the Liberal and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent because they themselves are not. George Orwell

        One cannot really be a Liberal and grown up. George Orwell

        To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

        You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

        Libertas inaestimabilis res est
        Semper-Fi

        • Bill Fleming

          it really starts to lose its impact when you start to copy and paste your comments. :-(

          • Vis Fac

            Bill You are entitled to “your” opinions I do not force anyone to read them What I “copy and paste is MY own and where I quote I provide the author.

            Apparently you are of little faith of learning by ROTE or freedom of expression and forwarding of ideas. If you live in a cave all your life you’ll never learn anything or expand your horizons. Do not read any further for you’ll only be upset!!

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools like you speak because you have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • Bill Fleming

            Where did I indicate that I did not agree with your opinion? I simply stated that the repetitive obvious “cut and paste” tactic loses it’s impact. With that said you have made tremendous amounts of assumptions regarding me. SMH Chill out Marine! LOL

          • Vis Fac

            Where did I say that you didn’t? You read into what I wrote what you wanted to. I merely said that no one is FORCING you to read what I post and that you are entitled to YOUR opinion, and nothing more.

            Apparently you do disagree otherwise you would have remained silent like others who might not agree. Your’s is the first so I must believe you disagree.

            It I MY prerogative to do what I wish unless that is what you are trying to stifle, and for that you’d best be prepared for battle because that is exactly what the liberals wish to do.

            I don’t assume anything I respond to what people say. You can learn quite a bit about people by reading what they say and as an entrepreneur I have learned to read people not just by what they say and how they say it but by their body language as well. If I hadn’t honed this ability I would have been out of business within a year.

            Your simple statement regarding my usage of copy and paste tells me you 1) don’t like the content or 2) more to the point disagree in which case your first statement is moot!!

            Benjamin Franklin was rather astute when he said “it’s better to be perceived a fool than open ones mouth and removed all doubt”

            Apparently you like to remove doubt.

            Si I if I were you I’d stop reading now lest you become offended.

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools like you speak because you have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • Jana

            I like and learn from his quotes.

          • Bill Fleming

            agreed but you do have to admit it loses it’s punch when you see it over and over again.

          • WTS/JAY

            And your criticism and straying off topic does not?

          • JeffH

            Bill, not at all! I personally like it because I think that it’s a part of Force Recon’s identity here at PLD and obviously a source of his pride too. I respect that!

    • Vigilant

      Alito, Scalia and Thomas understand the First Amendment,

      • wavesofgrain

        It is a shame that Roberts can no longer be trusted…..

        • Vigilant

          Agreed.

    • Vis Fac

      Supreme court justices are appointed for life and cannot be removed unless malfeasance of office has been committed In other words that too can be impeached by congress for failing to act “in good behavior

      Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.

      Justice means minding one’s own business and not meddling with other men’s concerns

      Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something

      The Socialist the Liberal and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent because they themselves are not. George Orwell

      One cannot really be a Liberal and grown up. George Orwell

      To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

      You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

  • Muffin Man Mashinksy

    Surprisingly Obummer & his justice dept. are on side of the prayers…..I don’t see the connection to promoting of a religion here…If Jews, Buddhists or Muslims are in meeting opened by Christian prayer they can still go home & go to Mosque, temple, etc without govt. approval

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Aren’t these same religious personages telling us that they all believe in the same God. So the more prattling they do, the more lying they do.

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    Who in their right mind would expect Federal Courts to protect us from the Federal Government? We need to stop the joke that has Unconstitutionally made the Supreme Court the Final Arbiter of Constitutionality:
    http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

    • Vis Fac

      If we were to do that then we would be just as hypocritical as the liberals who want to get rid of OUR constitution

      Article III of our constitution reads (in part)

      Section 1.

      The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

      Section 2.

      The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

      The Socialist the Liberal and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent because they themselves are not. George Orwell

      To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

      You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        Can you cite the particular passage, Force, that gives the Supreme Court the right to be the Final Arbiter of the Constitutionality of a law (i.e. Judicial Review)?
        Ask yourself this, Force — Would the representatives from the States in the late 18th century give up their Sovereignty by letting a member of the Federal Government (Supreme Court) decide which laws are Constitutional and which are not?
        Did you even read the article that I linked to?

        • Vis Fac

          Dave I must admit I didn’t read the article I was merely providing text. When interpreting one draws certain conclusions and often the SCOTUS i required to rule on the constitutionality of a particular case the nations uses their opinion as the final say so. When something is not directly addressed there is always someone wanting to take advantage of any “gray area” for their own advantage

          An interesting piece in the article was addressed regarding this subject allow me to provide the “meaty part” [SIC] “The Constitution’s “checks and balances” were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

          Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.”

          Again the SCOTUS is intended to be an arbiter in legal matters not the final say so. Unfortunately we (myself included) have allowed this to continue

          Thanks Dave for indeed you can teach an old dog a new trick I now have more ammunition to use on unsuspecting liberals

          To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

          You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est
          Semper-Fi

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Thank you, Force. You are a good man, who I would be happy to call friend.

          • Vis Fac

            Likewise !!

            I believe myself to be the wisest man alive, but I do know one thing, and that is that I know nothing and am not ashamed to admit to it!!

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

      • JeffH

        “Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a
        Constitution for a nation I do not recognize.”
        – Justice Antonin Scalia

        “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
        – Samuel Adams

        “A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it.”
        – Sam Ervin

        .

        • Vis Fac

          I have often said that politicians are nothing more than despotic hypocrites

          Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell

          “Politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” George Orwell

          Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something.

          To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

          You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est
          Semper-Fi

          • JeffH

            Force, with very few exceptions you are spot on!

          • Vis Fac

            Which exceptions? I’m always open for suggestions

            I believe myself to be one of the wisest men alive, but
            I do know one thing, and that is that I know nothing and am not ashamed to admit to it!!

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools speak because they have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • JeffH

            Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and I do think that Rand Paul is also…far & few though.

          • Vis Fac

            Are What? the exceptions? Maybe for now but you know what is said by having power. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

            As for these patriots I will support them as long as they stay focused.

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools speak because they need/have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • JeffH

            Force, you said it all with this “As for these patriots I will support them as long as they stay focused. I agree!

          • WTS/JAY

            I have issues when it comes to Mr. Cruz, JeffH. Specifically, his connections to the bankers through his wife; the vice president in the Private Wealth Management Group at Goldman Sachs. No offence, but that turns me right off.

          • JeffH

            Jay, I can understand your reservations with Cruz based on that and there is no offense taken. You had mentioned it before but I’m not quite ready to close the book on him but I’ll certainly log it in the memory bank and scrutinize his every move.

          • WTS/JAY

            It pays to be cautious, my old friend! :)

          • JeffH

            You are correct!

        • Vigilant

          “At several other points in the debates at the Constitutional Convention, delegates made comments indicating their belief that under the Constitution, federal judges would have the power of judicial review. For example, George Mason said that federal judges “could declare an unconstitutional law void.” James Madison said: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.”

          “In all, fifteen delegates from nine states made comments regarding the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws. All but two of them supported the idea that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not speak about judicial review during the Convention, but did speak about it before or after the Convention. Including these additional comments by Convention delegates, scholars have found that twenty-five or twenty-six of the Convention delegates made comments indicating support for judicial review, while three to six delegates opposed judicial review. One review of the debates and voting records of the convention counted as many as forty delegates who supported judicial review, with four or five opposed.

          “In their comments relating to judicial review, the framers indicated that the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional was part of the system of separation of powers. The framers stated that the courts’ power to declare laws unconstitutional would provide a check on the legislature, protecting against excessive exercise of legislative power.” (Wikipedia)

          As you can see, judicial review was far from something “new” to the courts (state courts used it for years prior to Marbury v. Madison). The vast majority of Constitutional delegates and the Father of the Constitution himself supported the concept.

          • WTS/JAY

            You, Vigilant, i regard to be a consummate scholar!

          • Vigilant

            Thank you, sir. But no more of a scholar than you. Your postings are always informative and a joy.

  • Nadzieja Batki

    Maybe kagen and her cohorts should rethink their meddling because every time they meddle in religious issues they screw them up more. All this tells is that the supreme court justices lack sense and discernment.

  • KingKen

    I’ve had it and I personally hereby secceed from the USA-!! I now declare myself a sovereign human being subject only to the Divine and Natural Laws of our Creator God.
    I will pray whenever and wherever I damn well please-!!!

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Morally you are correct, but Gangs don’t care if you are morally correct or not, so good luck with that.

    • Vigilant

      “I now declare myself a sovereign human being subject only to the Divine and Natural Laws of our Creator God.”

      Agreed, and that was declared In the Declaration of Independence.

  • Ruth DelaCerda

    Deny God and He will deny you. Hell just keeps getting more and more crowded

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Shouldn’t belief in God be based on faith in him rather than fear of going to hell.

      • Quester55

        When one starts Splitting Hairs on Faith in The Lord our GOD, It’s best if your Neck isn’t on the line!

        • Jeremy Leochner

          The difference between people of faith and cowed slaves is not Splitting Hairs Quester.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Jeremy (aka Flashman), you don’t really expect people to buy your nonsense, do you?
            You, being a Liberal Progressive who advocates modern-day slavery, have no legs to stand on when talking about “cowed slaves”.

          • WTS/JAY

            Ah! Good marksmanship, DaveH!

      • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

        Only if that Faith is in Jesus…the God of the Bible….

        • Jeremy Leochner

          Jesus was a man. A man I respect. But he was not God. And the God of the bible comes in two flavors. Old Testament and New Testament. Do you go the Jewish way or the Christian way. People have a right to choose. And their choice should not be based on fear.

          • Jana

            Jeremy your ignorance is showing. Jesus was God. He is the Son of God

            John 1:3-5

            3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. (This is Jesus the Christ that is being talked about here)

            4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

            5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
            Jeremy guess who the darkness is? YOU!

            By the way, The Old Testament is brought forth in many ways in the New Testament. So we study both the Old and the New. Don’t be fooled!

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            Wrong….Jesus is the SON OF GOD and is a Living God Today….yes he was in the Flesh when he was on the earth….Read and study the Bible….
            I was only stating the facts….I made no reference to being able to choose…..The God of the Bible gives us the right to choose….we can believe in Jesus of the Bible and all of God’s teachings or we can choose not to….
            Islam is the only one that uses fear and intmidation…..Why is that Islam wants to DETROY ALL THE INFEDELS…..That is everyone that does not believe in their DEAD FALSE GOD….

          • WTS/JAY

            Jeremy: Jesus was a man. A man I respect. But he was not God. And the God of the bible comes in two flavors. Old Testament and New Testament. Do you go the Jewish way or the Christian way.

            Tell that one to Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Saviour based on both, the old and the new Testament, Genius!

      • Jana

        Jeremy, That statement doesn’t even make sense. Of course we love the Lord our God because we do LOVE HIM WITH ALL OUR HEART!

        However, in HIS word HE tells us what will happen to those who worship any other god and HE says, Ex 34:14

        14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
        KJV
        The communists believe the only god of man is man himself.

        You want just part of the truth, or do you want all of the truth????

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Did you expect sense from a multi-personality shill, Jana?

          • Jana

            Not really Dave. And, thank you for being you.

          • JeffH

            …and circular reasoning.

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            For Jeremy…More like lack of reasoning….When he starts to talk about what the Bible says…when he has already admitted that he is not a Christian….He shows that he is pullling things out of THIN AIR…

      • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

        Jeremy….I suggest that you go read and study the Bible…..before you make statements about it…..It is obvious to all of us on here who are Christians and have STUDIED the Bible….that you have no idea what you are talking about…

      • WTS/JAY

        Shouldn’t belief in the law be based solely on faith in the law rather than fear of going to jail?

      • Vigilant

        Indeed, just as atheism is based on faith that He doesn’t exist.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Its an interesting debate. We are not a christian nation. We are a Republic. We have to recognize and honor everyone’s religious rights beliefs. Of course it would be impossible to offer a meeting opening which honors the religious beliefs of every single person living in the city of Greece. I don’t care so much about the religious institutions but if the majority of the people of Greece consider themselves Christians than that needs to be honored and respected as well. As an Agnostic who does not believe in god I have an ambivalent view of prayers at public meeting. I have no problem with them so long as they don’t reference a particular religious figure or church dogma. But most public prayers don’t do this and since it does not sound like these public meeting openings did that I see no problem. I say the people of Greece New York are the ones affected by these meetings. Its their representatives doing it. If they are okay with prayers in the opening of their public meetings I see no reason to get the courts involved.

    • TML

      Jeremy says, “I have an ambivalent view of prayers at public meeting. I have no problem with them so long as they don’t reference a particular religious figure or church dogma.”

      Why is there a problem if such a prayer were to mention a religious figure? Define “church dogma”. If it’s under the idea that it might offend someone’s poor wittle feelings then you’re opening the whole can of worms regarding the freedom of speech itself, majority or not.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Religious figures such as Abraham or Jesus or Mohammed denote a particular religion. Since Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same god and since Buddhists and Hindus do not hold to a creator based religious belief it is entirely possible for a prayer to be held in which no particular religion is represented. It can be on behalf of all people and can be respectful of all their beliefs However when you end the pray with “In Jesus name” for example you have suddenly turned it into an endorsement of the Christian religion in particular. Instead of a public meeting suddenly your in the midst of a sermon. As for church dogma perhaps that is a bit to much to judge on. Perhaps instead if specific dogma is used such as the invoking of the trinity or as I said praying in the name of a particular religious figure.

        This isn’t a matter of hurting peoples feelings. This is a matter of peoples rights to their own beliefs. A persons spiritual or religious beliefs are often at the core of their sense of themselves and how they view the world. It is part of the mixture of deeply held beliefs that make up our political and social selves. I do not believe in god. Yet I live in a country where every President has ended their oath of office with the words “So help me God”. Where “In God We Trust” is on the money and where in order to Pledge Allegiance you must admit that this is a nation under god. I have always accepted these things as tradition and see no problem with them. I have no problem with prayers in public meetings or places. What I do care about is the issue of prosthelytizing or endorsing a particular religion over another. I respect peoples religious beliefs and I ask that mine be respected in turn.

        • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

          NOT CORRECT….Christians are the only ones who believe in Jesus of the Bible….Jews believe that Jesus was just a Prohet…and that their Real Savior is still Comming…..Muslims believe that the fake god Allah…..Isalm was started more than 600 years after the Birth of Christ….The Koran is a VERY DISTORTED view of the Old Testament….

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Freedom Train its not the Prophet its the god. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same god. To Muslims Allah is the same god who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses and Jesus. Yawweh. Jehovah. Allah. Different names. Same God.

          • Jana

            Jeremy NO THEY DO NOT!!! Again your ignorance is showing greatly here. Jews and Christians believe in the same God, but not the Muslims. Ask the Muslims they will tell you they don’t. Otherwise why would they want Christians to denounce our God?

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            Jana….You are so corect….The main difference between Christian and Jews is that Christians believe in the New Testament….That Jesus is our Lord and Savior…and i the Son of God….Jews believe only in the Old Testament…and believe that Jesus was just a Prophet….and the that the Real Savior is coming….

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            NO….. they do not believe in the same God…..Read and study the Bible….as it is very clear on this…..

          • WTS/JAY

            Yours is an excellent example of double-speak , Jeremy.

        • Jana

          This is just a polite way for a socialist agenda to come in and take God out of our vocabulary and our of our society.

          In truth you do NOT respect peoples religious beliefs or you wouldn’t be saying anything at all.

          As Vladimir Lenin said,” Most people on the left aren’t communists, just the useful idiots being used by the socialist agenda which is a first and necessary step toward communism.”

          If the shoe fits Jeremy.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Jana I do not believe in God. However I have no desire to remove God from our vocabulary or society. I just don’t want society to forget that people like me are still part of society. I don’t want to push a socialist agenda. I am not sure how socialism even factors into this. My rights to religion and speech are just as important as yours Jana.

          • Jana

            I am not sure how socialism even factors into this.

            Because you sound like a socialist. You have the values of a socialist. You have been taught by socialists.

            First you say we are not a Christian Nation. We have been blessed by God since this Nation became a Nation. You may not believe it and you don’t have to, but it doesn’t change the fact that we have. We have never been attacked by another country on our soil. That is a blessing!

            “I have no problem with them so long as they don’t reference a particular religious figure” while they are praying is what you say. Then why waste their breath praying? For that is what it is a waste of breath talking in the breeze to nothing!

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something.” Force Recon.

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            Socialism factors in because True Marxist Siocialism is about the State being in Complete Control of everything….So if people believe in the Living God of the Bible…they are placing that belief above the state….So the Marxist Socialist Communist Agenda can not function without destroying all other belief’s except theirs…

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Socialism factors in, Jeremy (aka Flashman), because we know you are a Socialist.

          • Vigilant

            “My rights to religion and speech are just as important as yours Jana.”

            Then why are you advocating the stifling of religious expression that doesn’t conform to your own views?

          • WTS/JAY

            You’re on a roll, Vigilant!

        • TML

          Jeremy says, “It can be on behalf of all people and can be respectful of all their beliefs However when you end the pray with “In Jesus name” for example you have suddenly turned it into an endorsement of the Christian religion in particular.”
          “This is a matter of peoples rights to their own beliefs. A persons spiritual or religious beliefs are often at the core of their sense of themselves and how they view the world. It is part of the mixture of deeply held beliefs that make up our political and social selves.”

          Indeed, so why then would it be acceptable to have them personally repress what is at the core of their sense of self? To them, and them alone they endorse a religion, but that doesn’t translate to government endorsement just because it takes place in a government building or gathering. No law had been created which requires participation, or even acceptance, in a way that violates other peoples right to their own beliefs, and the right to say it aloud. It would seem most reasonable to assume the freedom of religion principle demands tolerance of such things from those who hear it, rather than the nonsensical claim that the one saying the prayer is somehow violating a right to others own beliefs.

          Jeremy says, “I do not believe in god…. … I respect peoples religious beliefs and I ask that mine be respected in turn.”

          Then as an atheist, you should agree that you don’t actually have a “religion” which can be violated.

          • WTS/JAY

            Superb!

          • Vigilant

            “Then as an atheist, you should agree that you don’t actually have a “religion” which can be violated.”

            Excellent point. The atheists and agnostics will tell you they are not a religion, regardless of their inability to prove their beliefs.

            Yet, if they say they are not a religion, then they cannot be guaranteed “the free exercise thereof” under the Constitution.

            Looks like they’ve painted themselves into a corner.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Actually Vigilant we are protected under the law regardless of our precise definition. We all have the right to believe as we wish. You may think I am wrong. That does not mean I do not have the right to think as I do. And the same holds with you.

          • Vigilant

            “We all have the right to believe as we wish. You may think I am wrong.”

            Not at all, and if you think I believe that, then you’ve not been paying attention. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I THINK. Now, get beyond your limited perception of the First Amendment and extend that thinking to everyone who is not an atheist.

            You have the right to think whatever you choose, you have the right to express your opinions and beliefs whenever and however you choose. And, thanks to the Constitution, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE.

            Best decide which side of the argument you are on.

          • WTS/JAY

            At best, you can only point out the contradictions in Jeremy’s worldview, TML, but you will never educate him, i’m afraid. But your valiant efforts are certainly admirable.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            I am capable of learning WTS/JAY. I admit TML has some valid points. I know the key to learning is to avoid making assumptions.

          • WTS/JAY

            Then you haven’t learned much, Jeremy, for you are under the assumption that praying in public is un-Constitutional.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            I never said nor do I believe that praying in public is unconstitutional WTS/JAY. I said that a public meeting being lead in a prayer which conforms to a particular religion violates the principal of separation of church and state.

          • WTS/JAY

            Jeremy: I never said nor do I believe that praying in public is unconstitutional WTS/JAY. I said that a public meeting being lead in a prayer which conforms to a particular religion violates the principal of separation of church and state.

            Therefore, it’s un-Constitutional…isn’t that what you are in essence saying, Jeremy?

          • Jeremy Leochner

            If a public official advocating the restricting of guns violates the second amendment than a public official endorsing a particular religion violates the first.

          • WTS/JAY

            Jeremy: If a public official advocating the restricting of guns violates the second amendment than a public official endorsing a particular religion violates the first.

            Endorsing? Don’t you mean “Establishing” a particular religion to the exclusion of all other religions?

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Its a fine line WTS/JAY. When I have Presidential candidates saying this is a Christian nation whose laws should be replaced by the ten commandments and where every president has been a Christian. Where numerous states still have Sabbath or Blue laws on the books. In a situation like that I think I have the right to at least some concern about the line between a public official endorsing a religion and establishing a religion.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            You do make a point TML. I do admit its impossible to represent fully the beliefs of all individuals present. My only wish is to avoid assuming that the figures, symbols and prayers of one religion can represent them all. I want to avoid assumptions.
            For example I am not an atheist. I am an Agnostic. And while I may not have a particular religion my right to believe as I choose can be violated as much as any person with a particular religion.

          • TML

            Jeremy says, “I do admit its impossible to represent fully the beliefs of all individuals present. My only wish is to avoid assuming that the figures, symbols and prayers of one religion can represent them all.”

            It does suck when your wish is recognized as impossible.
            You can please some of the people all the time, but you can not please all the people, all the time.
            The method of prayer defines every religion. To confine them to your own notion of acceptance in these matters, literally takes that identity from them. History itself shows this to be a great, and terrible, folly. It beckons an opposite and equal reaction (rebellion) – have we learned nothing from history, even as recently as Iran? (Que the: Iran Sux Doody Balls comment ;)

            Jeremy says, “ I want to avoid assumptions.
            For example I am not an atheist. I am an Agnostic. And while I may not have a particular religion my right to believe as I choose can be violated as much as any person with a particular religion.”

            Well, you stated that you did not believe in a god, which is the very definition of atheist. So, I’ll argue it isn’t an assumption. I am an atheist… Don’t be afraid to admit what you “do not believe”.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            On your first point yes your right TML. I just hope you can understand its a fine line between allowing a public official like a Mayor to express their religious identity as they wish and that public official endorsing one religion over another. Its a fine line between expressing ones religious beliefs and prosthelytizing.

            There are various ideologies within the belief system that is Agnosticism TML. Think of them as sects or factions within a particular religion. There are Agnostics who believe in god but do not know how to define him. There are those who do not believe in god and who do not believe we could ever know him even if he did exist. And there are agnostics like me who do not believe in god but believe that there is something beyond our simple scientific understanding. And if proof of god could be found I would acknowledge it. Atheists reject not merely the existence of god but the very premise of worshiping that which you cannot see. While I do not believe in god I have no problem with the belief in god. While I do not go to church I have no problem with church’s or people attending them regularly. While I do not believe in god I do believe in a spiritual world beyond this one. I am an Agnostic and proud of it.

          • TML

            Jeremy says, “I just hope you can understand its a fine line between allowing a public official like a Mayor to express their religious identity as they wish and that public official endorsing one religion over another. Its a fine line between expressing ones religious beliefs and prosthelytizing.”

            Actually the line is very clear: No law may be created that respects a particular religion, and of course, no religious test may be a prerequisite to holding any office. You do not forfeit your natural right to express your religious identity simply because you hold office as a public official. And no law exists against proselytizing. And I wouldn’t call it proselytizing for a Mayor, or other public figure to say, for example, a prayer for fallen heros, or victims of a tragedy.

            Jeremy says, “There are various ideologies within the belief system that is Agnosticism TML. Think of them as sects or factions within a particular religion. There are Agnostics who believe in god but do not know how to define him. There are those who do not believe in god and who do not believe we could ever know him even if he did exist. And there are agnostics like me who do not believe in god but believe that there is something beyond our simple scientific understanding. And if proof of god could be found I would acknowledge it. Atheists reject not merely the existence of god but the very premise of worshiping that which you cannot see. While I do not believe in god I have no problem with the belief in god. While I do not go to church I have no problem with church’s or people attending them regularly. While I do not believe in god I do believe in a spiritual world beyond this one. I am an Agnostic and proud of it.”

            If proof of god were actually found, then even atheists would accept it. That’s not an agnostic thing, that’s a logic, reason, and science thing. You seem to be trying to make it sound like a religion when it isn’t. There is only strong agnosticism (the belief that it is impossible to know if god exists) and weak agnosticism (the belief that it is possible to know if god exists, but currently doesn’t know). You seem to be a little confused in saying you don’t believe in a god, but believe in a spirit ‘world’, which are inexplicably linked in philosophical thought – Theism, (i.e. Holy Spirit, The Great Spirit, Tree spirits, Ghosts, Afterlife, etc.), but make no mistake, saying you do not believe in a god or gods is Atheism, pure and simple.

        • Vigilant

          “Buddhists and Hindus do not hold to a creator based religious belief it is entirely possible for a prayer to be held in which no particular religion is represented.”

          Buddhists and Hindus are not the ones bitching about it. They’ve got a lot more sense than those who are bitching about it.

          • WTS/JAY

            Excellent observation, Vigilant!

          • Jeremy Leochner

            It isn’t about bitching vigilant. Its about respecting peoples rights. Its about not assuming that everyone believes a particular thing. What is good for one may not be good for another.

          • Robert Messmer

            If the two ladies accept American money, then they are just bitching.

          • Vigilant

            “Its about not assuming that everyone believes a particular thing.” You’ll have embarked on a futile quest if you try to prove that particular assertion. I think, no, I KNOW that no one in this country assumes that everyone is Christian.

            “It isn’t about bitching vigilant. Its about respecting peoples rights.” That’s PRECISELY the point, Jeremy. As long as the First Amendment exists, you’d better get used to the idea that “free exercise thereof” MEANS “free exercise thereof.”

            I must be remiss, you’ll have to cite the passage in the Constitution that says, “what is good for one may not be good for another.” Understand that the Constitution was written, in part, to CELEBRATE our differences, not mold us onto one collective, non-thinking mass off bodies.

            If you think that “what is good for one may not be good for another,” and I agree with you, then be prepared to fight the redistribution of wealth in this country.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            On your first point yes Vigilant. No one assumes that everyone is Christian. But there are undeniably people who assume we are a Christian nation and that our laws and principals are based on the laws and principals of the Judeo Christian Bible.

            I have thought about your post and others Vigilant. I believe that a person has a right to lead a public meeting in prayer. And I believe that depending on the circumstances it is entirely constitutional even for a prayer to be attached to a particular religion when it is made in public. However it remains my firm belief that if an elected official such as a Mayor or City Council Member leads a prayer in a municipal building such as a City Hall and that prayer is attached to a particular religion than that official has violated the the establishment clause. Free exercise thereof does not equal anything goes.

            The idea of what is good for one may not be good for another is imbedded in the principal that all men are created equal and in the first amendment which recognizes freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I agree that the Constitution was meant to celebrate our differences. I don’t want to mold us into one collective non thinking mass. I simple do not want one religion being hailed as better than others by public officials.

            I do not see how the issue of wealth redistribution factors in Vigilant. Money is money. Wealth redistribution is used to help the community. I would also point out that as long as you support or use anything that is paid for with tax money than you are supporting the system of wealth redistribution.

          • Vigilant

            Jeremy, I’ve given you an up arrow for your thoughtful, reasoned reply.

            “But there are undeniably people who assume we are a Christian nation and that our laws and principals are based on the laws and principals of the Judeo Christian Bible.”

            We are indeed a Christian nation in so far as the population is overwhelmingly Christian. Turkey has a secular Constitutional Republic as we do, but no one would say they are not a Muslim nation. So, technically I agree with the assessment to that point, as far as definition of the term.

            However, the history of no nation can ever hope to be complete in the absence of consideration that religion has played a more than peripheral part in its founding.

            The prime movers amongst the Founders, those who made it happen, were Deists who acknowledged The Creator’s role in establishing natural law, and that was best expressed in Jefferson’s famous quote lifted from John Locke (“life, liberty, etc.).

            That idea of Creator-endowed rights was not just a flowery statement, it was the single most important utterance of why our government was formed as it was. It is the foundation and is assumed in every line of the Constitution. There is no way of getting around it.

            You say, “But there are undeniably people who assume…that our laws and principals are based on the laws and principals of the Judeo Christian Bible.” That is true, but those people don’t fully understand, or have been misled in part. Jefferson was highly devoted to the principles of Jesus but did not believe in his divinity. Additionally, no one should confuse the Constitutional principles with the Ten Commandments, which is often done.

            The Ten Commandments are primarily a list of proscriptions (“thou shalt not…”). The Constitution, on the other hand, is a document intended to expand and glorify our rights. Moreover, even the most theocratically-minded individual would be hard pressed to find in the Constitution any reference whatsoever to a “jealous God” who commands that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” That was exactly the intention of the Founders, and the reason for the First Amendment.

            They had seen the ravages of theocracy, monarchy and aristocracy in Europe and were firmly committed against the re-establishment of such autocratic forms of government.

            On the other hand, they were men living in a time when religion was taken a lot more seriously than it is today, and they understood very well that any republic they may establish could not survive in the absence of a moral and principled culture. As they saw it, Christian PRINCIPLES, not the hard laws or supernatural underpinnings of Christianity, were the key to continued harmony and prosperity.

            They gave the highest importance to freedom of conscience and freedom of choice, ideas that were crucial to Christianity.

            I would counsel against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A nation’s governing documents must be established with an eye to the cultural tastes and beliefs of its people, or it’s doomed to failure. It is entirely reasonable to adhere to Christian PRINCIPLES, which conform to the ideals of natural law, without being a religious zealot. And a nod must be given to the ideal of individual sovereignty, an (almost) uniquely Christian concept at the time of our founding.

          • Vigilant

            Jeremy, you said, “I do not see how the issue of wealth redistribution factors in Vigilant. Money is money. Wealth redistribution is used to help the community. I would also point out that as long as you support or use anything that is paid for with tax money than you are supporting the system of wealth redistribution.”

            Virtually every concept is not generic, but has a number of degrees of application.

            No one would argue that any government could be established without some degree of “socialism.” The Devil is in both the degree of its application and the extent to which the basic principle is adopted as a rule of governance.

            It is not by any means possible to assert that the Founders wanted socialism (as we know it), although many have tried. Some see in the Preamble the term “general welfare” and attempt to overlay on that a meaning which is completely alien to the context within which it was used by the Founders.

            Government is neither the source of our rights, nor should it be employed to undertake unconstitutional actions in its name. The compact established between the people and their government was such that it restricted the institution to a very few enumerated powers. The fear of the Anti-Federalists was so great that the document would never have been ratified unless the Bill of Rights were included to further clarify the restrictions placed upon the federal government.

            Government is impossible on a basis which strictly denies it the power to tax. This was acceptable as long as government limited its expenditures to the few things it was tasked to do (military, payroll for officials, and very few other official expenditures clearly outlined in the Constitution). All other functions were within the bailiwick of the states.

            The above is not to say that the Founders ever intended for the nation to morph into what it has become today. Hell, government sources of revenue prior to the 20th century, with the exception of the civil war, were entirely adequate in the form of duties and imposts without the “need” for unapportioned income taxes.

            Today’s degree of wealth redistribution by the central government is so far from the concept of government established by the Founders that they wouldn’t recognize it. But it is not just the alienation from the first principles that will kill it. It will die for lack of funding and the perennial need to borrow to support it.

        • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Jeremy Leochner,

          You write: “However when you end the pray with “In Jesus name” for example you have suddenly turned it into an endorsement of the Christian religion in particular. ” Regardless, unless and until CONGRESS makes a law establishing a religion there is no violation of the 1st Amendment, whether it is Congress being led in prayer, the courts, city council meetings or school functions, so the rest of your comment is a waste of space and mindless argle bargle.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • macgyver1948

            Bob Livingston… Jesus is not for everyone and all Americans have that right to choose.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            The issue Mr. Livingston is it violates the principal of separation of church and state. My religious rights and beliefs are just as important as anyone else’s. If someone wishes to profess their faith that is their right. However if they are leading a group of people in prayer and they add some sort of specific religious attachment to that prayer then they are making an assumption. They are assuming that everyone among them also agrees and is praying along the same lines. Just because the majority believe in the Christian god does not mean everyone does. If we start assuming that Christian prayers or Christian symbols or figures can represent all its a slippery slope to tyranny of the majority. For goodness sake there have been Presidential candidates who have unabashedly claimed that we are a Christian nation and that our laws should be or are based on the ten commandments. The Ten Commandments include commands against strange gods and against taking the lords name in vain and insisting on honoring of the Sabbath day. Those three commands violate both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Yet there are Christians who proudly say that those laws should be our nations laws. I have no problem with public meetings or institutions being lead in prayer. But if the prayers are attached to an individual religion than I cannot support them. If an individual state or individual city banning guns violates the second amendment than I believe a city or state establishing or endorsing a particular religion violates the first amendment.
            Best Wishes also
            Jeremy

        • Robert Messmer

          I wouldn’t say the same god for all three religions. After all Jews don’t believe in Hell, but Christians (some anyway) will tell you that anyone who isn’t saved is going to be cast into Hell by God, and while Christians (some, mostly NT) believe God is a God of Love, Muslims maintain that their god Allah wants them to either kill or enslave the whole earth.

      • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

        Why is there a problem….BECAUSE ALL THE MARXIST SOCIALIST LIBERALS WANT ALL REFERENCES TO CHRISTIANITY REMOVED FROM OUR SOCIETY…..BECAUSE JESUS AND THE BIBLE ARE A REAL THREAT TO THEM AND THEIR MARXIST SOCIALIST AGENDA OF COMPLETE POWER AND CONTOL…

        • macgyver1948

          FreedomnTrainUSA… Maybe the Commies/marxist socialists might but not the liberals. Decide and speak for yourself. I do not know any Liberals who want to deny you your Christian rights. I wont let you deny my religious rights so why would I deny you yours?

          One more thing FreedomTraoinUSA… “JESUS AND THE (Christian) BIBLE” is not at all a threat. What can be the threat is how religion can be imposed on other peoples rights to choose religion or not by those who insist “Only our ways are right for all and if you disagree with us you have to be wrong”.. That in not at all the Constitutional way. Again, please speak for yourself and not others.

          • WTS/JAY

            You’re right, mac, it has to be a two-sided wall for there to be two rooms to this issue, otherwise, you would end up with only one room. That’s not a lot of room where your relatives and your guests could bunk. All in one room? I don’t think so. I’m so ok with two-sided walls that are not specific to any rooms, mac!

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            The are two types of the Blind…..Those who can’t physically see…..AND THOSE WHO MENTALLY ARE SO BLIND THAT THEY CAN’T SEE THE TRUTH THAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM…..
            YOU FIT THE LATTER DEFINITION…..

          • macgyver1948

            FreedomTrainUSA… Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. One person’s chosen “truth”, especially when he cannot prove a thing, is not necessarily another’s. You see
            Liberals as “Commies/Marxist/socialists” and I see the Tea Party as Nazis AND I see over 270 GOP in Congress as the Tea Rights’ puppets, along with the out-of-touch-binding pledges that many GOP have signed. The Constitution says we can both share our feelings on that as we choose. I am in total favor of the Constitution, what are you about concerning the Constitution if you run into people who do not agree with you?

            I see just fine in both your ways in your comment, :-).

            So do you really believe in Freedom for all as your name here suggests or is Freedom only for those who agree with you? America is not about everyone seeing things in the same ways, religiously as well as politically, it never was. With God’s help it never will be.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      It’s odd that you don’t want people to be exposed to prayers of which they don’t approve, but you don’t mind a bit helping yourself to other people’s money and personal choices against their will, Jeremy. Your philosophy is just a bit inconsistent.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Dave as long as you use anything that is paid for with tax money your equally guilty of “helping yourself to other people’s money”. And if you support laws or policies that I disagree with could it not be argued that you are interfering with my personal choices against my will.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Jeremy (aka Flashman),
          As usual, you are wrong. Since I have been Forced to pay for things I don’t desire, I sure as hell do have a right to use them. The people who are helping themselves to other people’s money are the ones who vote for those things.
          I vote only for politicians who want to dismantle the copious laws that have been created by Progressives, so don’t blame me for politicians who interfere with your personal choices.

          • Jana

            Exactly!!!

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Dave everyone has to pay for things they don’t want. I don’t want our troops overseas fighting battles they should not have to. Yet my tax dollars go there. And you cannot tell me that your use of roads or freeways is out of spite towards having to pay for things you don’t like. Its because you use something which you need. And I agree that there are people helping themselves to other peoples money. I think we disagree on who exactly those people are.

            You do realize Dave that laws against using child labor and laws against sexual discrimination in the work place. Laws that helped to clean up the smog in my home state of California Used to be you could never see up to a few miles away. Now you can get a great view. All of these laws were pushed by Progressives. If you could give me a specific law you want repealed maybe I might agree with you. But I need something more than just “created by progressives”.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — ” I don’t want our troops overseas fighting battles they should not have to”.
            Neither do I, Flashman. Defense, being one of the few legitimate roles of the Federal Government, does not include overseas excursions against people who are not attacking us.
            Why do the Leaders do that? Read this:
            http://mises.org/books/century.pdf

            Roads and Bridges should be paid for by the people who actually use them. With today’s technology that would be an easy task. To understand how the Private Sector would do a better job read this:
            http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

            Child Labor and Sexual Discrimination issues would be better accomplished in Free Markets. Child Labor Laws were fought for primarily to eliminate competition offered by teenagers to Unionists. If indeed Child Labor was an onerous event, then why are parents allowed exceptions to the rule in their family businesses?
            http://mises.org/daily/2858
            And Sexual Discrimination would end naturally in Free Markets, because absent Government protection, the companies who hired the best producers, regardless of sex or race or sexual orientation, would trounce those companies who were hiring their workers based on prejudice.

            Indeed pollution is a trespass on other people’s bodies and property, but establishing unelected bureaucratic agencies to do the job is, at the best, inefficient and prone to corruption. Perhaps the worst effect being the burdening of innocent companies with onerous and costly regulations.
            The best way to address the pollution issue is for Congress to establish legal pollution limits and let the victims and the courts adjudicate the violators.
            Read this:
            http://mises.org/daily/2120
            Particularly this section:
            http://mises.org/daily/2120#11

  • TML

    I expect the SCOTUS will rule appropriately. The text is clear and simple, that a ‘separation of church and state’ in the Bill of Rights only involves a barrier for the Federal government in creating laws that ‘respect’, or favor, any single religion and thus serves as a barrier against an established theocracy. While at the same time, prayer in any sphere of government buildings or gatherings (even public schools) falls squarely under the freedom of religion clause, and cannot – even logically – be considered “endorsement of religion”. Even atheists understand that (whether they care or not is another matter, such as the fools who espouse Freedom ‘from’ Religion).

    • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

      There is no such thing in the Constitution as SEPEATION OF CHURCH AND STATE….It only says that the Federal Government cannot set up a State Religion…..This Concept of Seapartaion of Church and state came into being by Court Rulling….on a narrow issue…that the Liberals have redefined to make people believe this concept…

      • Jana

        Yet the LAWYERS got into the mix and made a mess of this!

        • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

          EXACTLY…..

        • macgyver1948

          Jana,,, That is what lawyers do, complicate and confuse but they know what they are saying, lol.

          • WTS/JAY

            ROFLMAO!!! You’re on a roll, mac, keep going! Superb comedy, btw!

      • TML

        The phrase can be used to support the error of claiming a freedom from religion, but only when taken out of context of the actual words in the 1st Amendment that established the barrier. It was not a Court concept, it was first stated by Thomas Jefferson which necessarily includes the proper context of that barrier, as I included above.

        “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802

        • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

          There have been Supreme Court Ruling…the first of such was in 1947….on a very Narrow per case ruling that the Left has distortorted to blanket what they now refer to as the Seaparation of Church and State…Since this time there have been more rulling to that effect….that further distort the intent of the First Amendment…

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

          The “Separation” principle and the Supreme Court

          Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).[39] In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”

          The centrality of the “separation” concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

          While the decision (with four dissents) ultimately upheld the state law allowing the funding of transportation of students to religious schools, the majority opinion (by Justice Hugo Black) and the dissenting opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Justice Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a “wall between church and state” or a “separation of Church from State”: their disagreement was limited to whether this case of state funding of transportation to religious schools breached that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: “Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia’s great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth.” Writing separately, Justice Jackson argued that “[T]here are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters.”

          • macgyver1948

            FreedomTrainUSA … Interesting read. I hope you are letting us know there cannot be any interferences or influences on either side with the other side. It has to be a two-sided wall in that or we would not really have Liberty when it comes to Religion.

          • WTS/JAY

            mac: It has to be a two-sided wall in that or we wpould
            not really have Liberty when it comes to Religion.

            ROFLMAO!!!! Are there one sided walls in existence the rest of us don’t know about, mac? Lol!

          • macgyver1948

            Jay… You really do not believe in liberty for others who do not agree with you, do you? That is some American attitude, NOT.

            I combined a couple of your laughing posts because you aren’t worth the effort.

          • WTS/JAY

            Mac: Jay… You really do not believe in liberty for others who do not agree with you, do you?

            If that were true, Mac, i would be siding with you on this issue.

          • macgyver1948

            Jay, you haven’t got a clue in how you contradict yourself, do you? Good little Tea-thinker you are, :-)..

          • macgyver1948

            Jay, you have a two-sided mind and it cannot be agreeable even with each other. LOL or should I too say ROFLMAO!!!!??? lol

          • macgyver1948

            Jay… you have to go for the sarcastic joke when you cannot find a good reason to put down a Liberal, you do that a lot. You are so inane in your Tea-like thinking. I like referring to your Tea-like thinking, you are so open to it. LOL.

            I meant we have to keep the two, Religion and Government, totally separate and I bet you knew that.

    • Quester55

      Please T.M.L., don’t confuse those Socialist/Liberals with the TRUTH, It’ll confuse the H – E – L – L – out of them!

    • macgyver1948

      TML… I bet the SCOTUS will rule appropriately too either that or they
      will hear for so many different religions al at once. My concern is
      with “Freedom From Religion” as defined by the speaker. We
      do have freedom from any religion or denomination which differs from
      the one we choose for ourselves and that means we do not
      need to hear the specifics, words or scriptures, of any
      other religion if we do not want to. Try doing that if you are in a
      public forum and language that is specific to a religion is
      spoken out loud, you are subjected to it if you are in hearing range.
      That should be left to the home or a specifically designated religious place.

      • TML

        Mac says, “We do have freedom from any religion or denomination which differs from the one we choose for ourselves and that means we do not need to hear the specifics, words or scriptures, of any other religion if we do not want to. Try doing that if you are in a public forum and language that is specific to a religion is spoken out loud, you are subjected to it if you are in hearing range. That should be left to the home or a specifically designated religious place.”

        You seem to missing the fact that there is no law which supports that claim, and in fact, to create one, or for SCOTUS to rule in favor of such, would clearly be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment which states no law may be created that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

        Your claim we have freedom “from” religion (other than the fact that government can create no laws which respect a religion) has no basis, or precedent, and the claim that a person saying the prayer, wherever it may be, somehow violates a right to your own beliefs is utterly nonsensical. That line of thought, if foolishly accepted, could be used to abridge any freedom of speech based on flimsy claims that you have a right not to be subjected to any philosophy you disagree with, and so anyone who utters it within hearing range should be silenced. Good luck with that.

  • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

    It is time that “We the People”…Appeal the So Called Judges in the Federal Courts….and remove them…

  • Quester55

    O.K., Lets see if I got this Correct. If My Congressman Is Sitting at his Appointed Seat & Decides to utter a little Prayer, then he’s in direct violation of some ATHEISTIC/MUSLIM Law??
    Golly gee wiz, my oh my, what shall we ever do about this outrageous criminal?
    30 Years to Life, Seems a bit harsh, so how about making the offender, Speaker of the House as Punishment for his wayward ways?

    • macgyver1948

      Quester55… You do realize the Muslims, who have their ways of believing in God and have as much right as you, can say you are an “ATHEISTIC/whatever you are” and not care any more than you do about it. But your exaggeration is measly amusing.

  • http://batman-news.com Jim B

    Nuts!

  • colleen friemuth-betsinger

    ATHEISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS THEY ARE CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. THEY HATE GOD AND DON’T BELIEVE. THEY WANT TO TARE GOD FROM ALL OF OUR HISTORY, INTERESTING FACT HOWEVER, ATHEISTS ARE STARTING THEIR OWN CHURCH, ONE ON GENEVA ROAD GOING EAST TOWARD GLEN ELLEN ILLINOIS ON THE RIGHT SIDE CALLED ATHEIST CHRISTIAN, CAN’T MISS IT. STARTING THEIR OWN RELIGION!! I WOULD CALL THESE PEOPLE HYPICRITS. AMAZING!!

    • TheSilverRanger

      You know, for your argument to be credible, you might want to utilize spell check more often, and secondly, GET THE GLUE OUT OF YOUR CAPS LOCK!

  • Justin M.

    I think a few of you would have different opinions if the majority of the prayers were from a different religion. Also, on a site called “personal liberty” you should probably support the views of the 2 women even if you enjoy the prayers.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Do you understand the concept of Liberty, Justin? It means for Government to leave people alone to control their own bodies and their own property.
      Government meddling can in no way be construed to be related to Liberty.

      • macgyver1948

        TheOriginalDaveH … What are you saying here? With you saying “Do you understand the concept of Liberty, Justin? It means for Government to leave people alone to control their own bodies and their own property. Government
        meddling can in no way be construed to be related to Liberty” are you for abortion? I mean if the government stops women from getting abortions doesn’t that mean the government is denying Liberty? I am just wondering how far you will go with it and if “Government meddling” to your side is only when you see reality differently from how you want it to be for you. Just asking.

        • WTS/JAY

          Is this a good example of your, “two-sided wall argument”, mac? Btw, i didn’t think it was possible to double-speak in argle bargle.

          • macgyver1948

            Jay, was that too complex for you too? It appears that you are on automatic to not only disagree if you are seeing a Liberal but also to be on auto-angry “no matter what”.

            If we do not have total separation of religion and state and you approve how can you be a believer in Liberty? I think there was an over site on the part of the Founders, as they talked about it and decided to leave it up to the states. I mean “Separation Of Church And State” should have been included in the Constitution along with Freedom Of Religion since people like you do not see the need for the liberty of it for all.

            I also see you as a “double-speak”ing oxymoron because I see you often saying in your intent and arguments “only the liberties I approve of for you are right”. That way I see you is Tea-speak.

          • WTS/JAY

            Mac: If we do not have total separation of religion and state and you approve how can you be a believer in Liberty?

            Good lord, mac, i wasn’t aware that we had a state-religion. When in the blazes did this happen? We must do something about this, mac, and quick, before these religionists, who are somehow able to pray in no specific religion, overrun this country. Or better yet, RUN, mac, SAVE YOURSELF, don’t look back, just RUN!!! LOL!

          • macgyver1948

            Jay… We do not have an official state religion and we never should. As I have been saying any religion which dominates, especially in influencing laws, will negate Freedom Of Religion, and then we could
            have Government more than “influencing” religions other than the dominate one. I am not talking about the law in that but I see there are people in our country who claim we either already do (for example
            by saying America is a Christian nation), because they misinterpret the Constitution when it comes to the freedoms of religions, or they want theirs to be.

            Jay, your sarcasm su*cks and is not funny as it also is not applicable. I hope you are enjoying laughing and playing with yourself. What a Right Tea-thinker you are.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          I do believe it is not the Government’s business to legislate against abortion, even though I think abortions are a mistake for the mother. It should be the mother’s choice and nobody else’s, especially since her life is at risk in childbirth.
          But what does abortion have to do with praying, Joe?

          • macgyver1948

            TheOriginalDaveH… We are together on this. I too am personally against abortions, especially when used as a birth control. But I too will not tell other people what they can and cannot do with their bodies denying a liberty that should be between a woman and her doctor. Government
            should stay out of it.

          • Jana

            I agree with this too.

          • macgyver1948

            Hi Jana… Its a tough subject but not in allowing Liberty to all equally. It is a Human Rights thing with me.

  • Chuckb

    This country is still b

  • Chuckb

    This country is still basically a Christian Nation by majority.So please tell me why we have to abolish our standards to pacify a Muslim orJew who are offended by our prayers.

    • macgyver1948

      Chuckb… if we went by a majority we would be negating Freedom Of Religion. In the minds of those who might want America to be a Christian nation the Constitution says otherwise. No where in the Constitution does it say or imply or suggest that America is a Christian nation. It mentions the Creator and God but no where does it say Christian, Christ or Jesus. This is a nation for all religions or, again, we would be negating Freedom Of Religion.

      Now I know the Founder were Christian but they knew how so many nations in History with a dominant religion, including predominately
      Christians nations, those who weren’t Christian, or not Christian
      enough, were not treated fairly by those who were and in many cases
      the authority as well. Do you remember why the Pilgrims felt the NEED
      to Leave England and from whom they were fleeing and why?

      I remember during the Republican Presidential debates for the
      nomination there were certain Christian candidates who stated Mormons were not Christian enough for them, trying to [put Romney down. Who is to decide who is or isn’t. These are some of the reasons the Founders deliberately did not make America a Christian or any other kind of religion but instead a nation for all religions.

      Aren’t many on the Right saying they are for the Constitution? If so why negate Freedom Of Religion by saying what you say with “So please tell me why we have to abolish our standards to pacify a Muslim orJew who are offended by our prayers”? Sounds a little bigoted to me.

      • Chuckb

        Mcgyver, The Christian people who founded this nation considered Jesus Christ as their God, so when they use that term, they are is essence referring to the Christian God.

        • macgyver1948

          See above.

          • WTS/JAY

            Above where, above the two-sided ceiling?

          • macgyver1948

            You turned the room on its side Jay, LOL

      • Chuckb

        this country was not acceptant to all religions and did not place them on an equal basis, why was it unthinkable for a Catholic or a Jew much less any Hindu or Buddhist to be elected to the Presidency until 1960. A Jew would have a hard time seeking the office of President today, even though our country is being run by a Jewish Administration. It wasn’t until late into the twentieth Century before we elected a Catholic Candidate.

        We are a nation free from any dominating religion like the Church of England or Catholic.nor can one be allowed by our Constitution.

        • macgyver1948

          Chuckb… Nice try. Is that how you are twisting the spirit of the Constitution? Well, many earlier settlers in American were as you say but later the Founders wanted liberty for all of us when it came to how we each choose to relate to God. The Founders knew it would not work in a Liberty way doing it your way other wise they would have put Jesus or Christ or Christianity in the Constitution. Your ways would negate Freedom Of Religion so the Constitution doesn’t speak as you do. You cannot just make up Constitutional meanings just to claim it is how you want. God and Jesus are not interchangeable to the
          majority of the world. For example, the idea of the Trinity is a violation to Jews when it comes to their belief in Monotheism, it always was and always will be.

          By the way Chuckb, Jesus is God only to Christians if they do not see a difference. The rest of the world’s religions, including Judaism, do not see Jesus even as that special son of God as Christians do. Jews see him only as a man, totally mortal as the rest of us. Are you
          going to deny all American citizens who are not Christians their Constitutional rights? If you do so much for your belief in Liberty or the Constitution in general.

          As far as you last sentence goes “We are a nation free from any dominating religion like the Church of England or Catholic.nor can one be allowed by our Constitutio n”. Then we have to keep it that way by defending the true spirit of the Constitution and it may not be so easy if some denomination(s) gets their way by insisting and demanding that America is a Christian nation. How would you feel if the Muslim American population grew greater in number than that of the Christian population and they demanded whatever of America? That could happen if we forget the spirit of the Constitution and allow “the Majority” to dictate religious or any other kind of liberties.

          • Chuckb

            Macgyver, I’m not concerned what the rest of the world thinks about Christianity , I’m not concerned whether the Jews believe in Jesus Christ.

            I am concerned when these minority religions want to erase the traditions of this nation to pacify their belief.

            If the Islamic people were the majority, you can bet we would be living under Sharia Law and the only prayer heard would be from the Quran and the same would go for Judaism.
            It is my belief the fore fathers of this Nation were Christians and meant for this country to continue the traditions of Christianity,

        • macgyver1948

          Chuckb… “…why was it unthinkable for a Catholic or a Jew much less any Hindu or Buddhist to be elected to the Presidency until 1960?”. your question.

          That was not a Constitutional thing it was a bigotry thing. You cannot legislate morality, it must be learned and felt. We are not born with hate but we can be taught it. There were plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who dreaded a Catholic president when JFK ran. There were many in our country who hated the idea that Obama is
          black, yeah I know half, when he ran and there are many still who hate the idea. It is ignorance and bigotry. You do not have to tell me about Antisemitism.

          I never could balance/understand bigotry with any of the religions who put God first but it is in there. Those ignorant contradictions always bugged me.

          • Bob666

            Yo Mac,
            You know those conversations with Nut-Case Charlie? Chuck will have the same type of conversations about Zionist & David Duke.

          • macgyver1948

            Bob666… Thanks for the warning, I will watch for it…

          • Chuckb

            Bob666. “The same type of conversation about David Duke & Zionist Jews?”

            I can come up with more than that, Don’t cut me short.
            When you people don’t have an answer, it;s necessary to revert to slurs such as bigotry or racist.
            I don’t know who nut case Charlie is, however, he has a right to speak his mind as well as the next guy, he also may think your are a nut case, so mind your manners.

  • macgyver1948

    I am so ok with prayer if it is not specific to any religion. That goes for in schools (yeah, I want silent prayer back in schools) as well as in government sessions and buildings.

    • WTS/JAY

      mac: I am so ok with prayer if it is not specific to any religion.

      Then to “whom” or to “what” would you be praying?

      • macgyver1948

        Jay… What are you assuming here? I mean each person should pray to whomever they see as God according to their chosen religion and beliefs. But to answer your specific question I pray to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Not a what. Do you want to deny me that?

        I would assume many Conservative Christians would not want to hear about Muhammad during their prayer times so why would anyone assume Jews and Muslims would want to hear about Jesus during their prayer times?

        If we are legal citizens of America, of whatever religion, we have that right according to the Constitution. The Constitution, with Freedom Of Religion, also means Freedom from your religion if I choose.”Don’t tread on me”. I would never deny you your religious rights.

        • WTS/JAY

          You said: I am so ok with prayer if it is not specific to any religion.

          How could that be possible?

          • LZ

            Only possible in a liberal’s mind. I have nephew who says this kind of stuff all the time!

          • WTS/JAY

            The public education system has destroyed more lives than all wars in human history.

          • WTS/JAY

            The public education system has destroyed more lives than all wars in human history.

          • LZ

            I’ve always wondered why they call it an “educational system”!! I’m not sure if that actually falls into the category of oxymoron, but it sure brings to my mind things like “jumbo shrimp”,

          • WTS/JAY

            Break it down, LZ.

            Educational System.

            System: A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

            2. A functionally related group of elements, especially:

            An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or function.

            What function, or for the function of what, as it relates to the education system? http://www.ordination.org/dumbing_down.htm

          • LZ

            Jay, I was just trying to be a little bit facetious…..relax!

          • macgyver1948

            Jay… Aw you caught me as I typed it wrong or incomplete I guess. I should have said “I am so ok with prayer in ‘government arenas/places’ (which is what I figured considering the article’s subject) if, ‘what is spoken out loud’, is not specific to any religion”. I guess I “assumed” (I am not a fan of the word assume) you would have known what I meant considering the article’s subject, my bad. I apologize. Is it clearer now?

            All religions in government meetings, government buildings and publicly funded arenas, such as schools, should have equal rights to their liberties and not have anything imposed on them religiously from other religions/denominations. If you want specific religious chatter (including anti-evolution), sermons and prayers out loud go to your religious places. Why should all taxpayers be imposed upon by other people’s religious messages/scriptures, unless they ask, in a tax paid function and arena?

          • WTS/JAY

            Mac: Jay… Aw you caught me as I typed it wrong or incomplete I guess. I should have said “I am so ok with prayer in ‘government arenas/places’ (which is what I figured considering the article’s subject) if, ‘what is spoken out loud’, is not specific to any religion”. I apologize. Is it clearer now?

            Hate to tell you this, Mac, but not only is your statement not any clearer, it’s essentially the same as your previous. With the noted exception that, “only prayers spoken out loud are not to be from any specific religion”…? But your demand still creates the impossibility; what prayers/words could possibly be spoken out loud that would’t identify a specific religion?

          • macgyver1948

            Jay…When I read you the first time on this I wondered if this is what you meant but I thought I was wrong, I thought you were being sarcastic. I thought I answered you respectfully. I will try again but with your words this time in mind.

            Religious differences are greater in different religions than they are between denominations of the same religion. I never understood that
            difference between the many different protestant religions, considering there is only one Jesus, but being Jewish I didn’t need to understand.

            Being Jewish I do not need to be exposed to prayer where Jesus is the subject. I do not want my kids to either but it is fine for me or my kids to make inquiries. I want silent prayer in public venues. Why
            should anyone be subjected to religious intents other that their own unless they are inquiring? No religious people should be exposed to other people’s religions, or specific wordings, if they do not want
            to be and at public gatherings, such as public schools and government public meets, that should be constitutionally respected.

            Now I ask you “How is it impossible to suggest to an audience, school kids or adults, to take a few minutes to pay their respects to God in silent prayer”? No mention of Buddha, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus or any other deity but it is done often enough to prove it is more than possible. If you are atheist/agnostic think about your stock portfolio in those few minutes.

            If this doesn’t do it for you this time, answer your “what prayers/words could possibly be spoken out loud that wouldn’t identify a specific religion?” question we need to move on because I do not think you will accept any answer.

          • Stuart Shepherd

            The “serenity” prayer, for example (“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change….”) is intended to be “non-denominational” and succeeds fairly well. I’m Christian, my daughter is Jewish, and I have Muslim friends. The word “God” is used fairly frequently in my conversation and, although these people I just mentioned (of other, different, specific religious beliefs) know full well that we are not really talking about the exact same “God,” the general concept is mutual and acceptable. Thomas Jefferson was a “deist,” I believe, not a christian. The concept is that of a morally virtuous, supreme immaterial power/intelligence/creator that is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. It is the same concept that has been common to mankind as far back as there are any intelligible records and undoubtedly before that. It’s such a pervasive concept probably because it’s true!

  • Nana Monster

    I’m not too far from Greece, NY and we had the same thing in Mexico, NY not too long ago. They complained about Christmas stuff and got their way. So sick when one or two people can ruin it for hundreds.

  • http://www.rt.com Alondra
  • WTS/JAY

    What’s most interesting about all of this, Halabaloo, Mr. chip, is that it took only but (2) persons to mobilize the attention of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and have beseeched them to reconsider the Supreme Court ruling that the “legislative prayer” is perfectly OK, as long as the prayer does not promote (or disparage) a particular religion.

    More interesting still, or rather, perplexing, is that the 2nd CCA, no doubt comprising of Constitutional-scholars, and all, fully understanding every jot and title of the law, for how else could one qualify for the installation, would, after a cursory investigation, even bother giving this matter a second thought, much less, applying themselves to second-guess and possibly overturn all of the previous rulings by the SC regarding this, what should be, a settled matter!

    But they will have at it again, it would seem, which begs the question; who are the ignoramuses here, the (2) women, or all the parties concerned in 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      Well said and keep up the good fight fellow patriot. Give no quarter and receive no quarter. Here is a video showing how Christmas is under attack again by wackos.

      http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-palin-christmas-hijacked-by-angry-atheists/

      What else is new with the godless left? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

      You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.

      “That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testiments, who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

      North Carolina Constitution
      Article XXXII
      1776

  • BHR

    The CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA IS THE GREATEST DOCUMENT WRITTEN. But there Is one serious problem, when liberal people of power, turn from the true meaning of the constitution, their is no one to enforce the Constitution. Adams and Jefferson realized this. They both wrote about the consequences. They agreed as long as America stayed a Christian Nation, there would not be a problem, they both new a Godless nation would destroy America.

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      True that! True that! Keep up the good fight fellow patriot. Give no quarter and receive no quarter! And even Ronald Reagan said,

      “If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.”

      He was also right. The libturds, progturds, secularists, and atheist groups have been trying to turn our country into something it wasn’t founded to be. Here is a video showing how our country is being hijacked from within.

      http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-americas-decline-an-inside-job/

      Here is one describing the war on Christians in our military.

      http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-a-clear-and-present-danger-christians-face/

      FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

      You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.

      “It is recommended to set apart Thursday for solemn thanksgiving and praise, that with one heart and with one voice the good people may consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor and their supplication (PRAYERS) may please God to secure for these United States independence and peace.”

      Continental Congress
      November 1, 1777

    • Deerinwater

      Thomas Jefferson, at the age of 33 was one of the youngest delegates to the second Continental Congress, was know to be an enlightened thinker and a talented writer. Congress “appointed him” to the “committee” to draft the Declaration of Independence. In just 17 days Jefferson produced an inspiring document that expressed the reasons for America’s action and gave it’s soldiers and citizens an eloquent statement of what they were fighting for.

      “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are, Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”
      The document also listed the wrong doings of King George and Parliament . Going on to say, because the king would not listen to the colonist complains that the colonist were going to form a new independent nation.

      Congress did edit Jefferson’s draft, ordering 43 changes and deleting 630 words. The revised document was adopted on July 4th 1776.

      It wasn’t until 11 years later, in late May of 1787 that the Second Congress reconvened to shore up the lacking seen in the Articles of the Confederation that work started on the United States Constitution.

      The work was done in secrecy, with posted guards at the doors and with windows closed in spite of the summer heat. It was James Madison , a delegate from Virginia that took the most notes through out the convention and is called “The Father of the Constitution” because of his leadership role at the convention.

      Congress adopted the Constitution on Sept 17, 1787 but it had to be approved by at least 9 of the 13 states before it could go into effect.
      Americans were almost evenly split between those who favored strong Federal Government and those that favored States Rights.

      The first nine states to ratify the Constitution failed to include Virginia and New York. It wasn’t until the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 and added to the Constitution that Virginia and New York were convinced to ratify.

      North Carolina and Rhode Island were the last two states to ratify the Constitution after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were already in full effect.

      I have left out the “slug fest” ~ as the debate was heated. ~ those 52 delegates were quick to discover, notions of freedom and independence varied greatly among them. ~ There was much compromise that took place to draft and ratify this document. Issues like slavery were sweep under the mat. While for state representation purposes, a slave was accept as 3/5 th of a person.

      They did what we can’t seem to do today ~ agree on something ~ but then ~ we are attempting to come to terms with what they sweep under the mat 247 years ago ~ today

      • Stuart Shepherd

        deerinwater- That was really well said in a straightforward and accurate sort of way- and true, I believe. I like the way you summed up the whole situation. Well said.

        • Deerinwater

          Thanks, ~ I had the help of a wonderful small book written by Kenneth G, Davis , American History. I attempted not to plagiarizer or copy and paste while I borrowed heavily. I bought the book at a garage sale for 50 cents this summer and have really enjoyed it.

          I just pulled him up ~ here is a link ~

          http://dontknowmuch.com/

          He seems to write in a very pointed yet condensed fashion, filling in with wonderful humanly details that so many times are ignored or omitted completely

          Like I didn’t know that Thomas Jefferson lost his bid for President to John Adams, ` which made Thomas Jefferson the Vice President in the very first American Election. ~ or that he held no appreciation for the title and stayed away for the most part during John Adam’s tenure and left to criticize. `

          • Stuart Shepherd

            Thanks, again. I’ll take a look at it and appreciate you directing me to it.

          • unbridled

            Well, It would seem as if their is hope for you after all. I enjoyed the post. Credit earned is credit due….Thanks.

  • KennyLLC

    My problem with public prayer is group chiding toward those who don’t participate, or whose personal beliefs do not allow for interfaith. The first amendment provides for non-conformity in it’s implications, so if local laws try to overstep and enforce religious involvement on the individual, it would be expected for him to appeal to his 1st amendment rights as a cause of non-compliance. Let’s face it: people have been tarred and feathered and even killed for non-involvement in established local religious rituals, especially if nationalism is mixed into the equation.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Oh come on. If that does occur, it must certainly be a rare event as I haven’t heard of any such modern occurrence in my lifetime. Unless you are talking about the events at Waco under Clinton:
      http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/chapter9/waco.html
      Speaking of Waco, here is its predecessor which some believe led to Waco as an attempt to cover up Ruby Ridge:
      http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remember-ruby-ridge
      Imagine this:
      “The solicitor general told the judicial panel that even if the evidence supported the charges, the case should be thrown out because “federal law enforcement agents are privileged to do what would otherwise be unlawful if done by a private citizen””.
      In other words, the Biggest Gang in the Land will do whatever they damn well please.

      • KennyLLC

        It was worse in the 20th century in the U.S. than probably either of us have seen in our lifetime. A local county in Ohio where I was from used to tar and feather this group:
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses

        Quebec was terrible toward them, and the Nazi’s ?
        Forget about it !

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Imagine those people (the tormentors) in Government positions. Actually, you don’t have to imagine, just read this:
          http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/beware-the-psychopath-my-son/
          And that is why we need to shrink Government and get us back to Free Markets where people can make voluntary transactions without Government meddling.

          • KennyLLC

            Interesting study:
            I always found similar views as his truthful.
            “It is not power that corrupts, it is that corrupt individuals seek power.”

            Some bible verses say similar things, although psychiatry then declares basic Christian beliefs in other-worldly existences and beings as a form of psychopathy.
            In such cases, I find many psychiatrists to be psychopaths themselves ! LOL

            “Man has dominated man to his injury.”
            “The wicked one is a man of oaths and of deception…he is lying in wait for someone innocent…”
            “Our war is not against blood and flesh, but against the…wicked spirit forces in the heavenly(governmental) places (in reference to govt’s and authorities)
            , the world rulers of this darkness.
            None of these descriptions fit into modern psychiatric terms, and the quoting of which may land you in a psychiatric ward.
            Psychopathy is in many walks of life, including psychiatry.

  • KG

    What about the Masons? Wasn’t George Washington a mason? Was Madison a Mason? And what do Masons believe – Weither you call G-d YHWH, Alla, Baphomet, or Vishnu, we are all praying to the same thing – the Creator of the Universe.

    While it may seem silly, let the town have a vote. And make it a majority vote to ensure that the town is secure in it’s actions concerning public prayer.

    • Bob666

      KG,

      “What about the Masons”?

      What people don’t realize is; Freemasonry helped provide the structure and decorum by which that debate took place. Freemasonry provides the concept of brotherly love and mutual respect that set the stage and provided the framework along with the foundations of Christianity to produce those documents from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      Ordo ab Chao, or Order out of Chaos.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Our Founders established a Republic, not a Democracy, for a reason — So the raw majority of people couldn’t run over the minority of people. Did they anticipate that we would someday have the Minority overrunning the Majority — A day where 20% of the population would be determining how to spend the money of the rest of the population?

  • Stuart Shepherd

    Just a couple MORE evil witches trying to demonstrate their evil powers- like the ones who orchestrated Roe v Wade by manipulating Norma McCorvey and also manipulating the courts well in advance (“Right” to privacy). There are legions of them. They call themselves “feminists.” As the devil was described in 1 Peter 5:8, they “prowl around like a lion (witch, in this case), seeking someone (Godly institutions- traditional marriage, prayers in public or school, etc etc) to DEVOUR”! If that isn’t an accurate description, I don’t know what is! The word “legion” is appropriate, also, which is why our country is doomed. Evil women. It is their “career.”