Ever since the separation-of-church-and-state ruling in 1947, there has been an ever-intensifying effort to denude our public sphere of religious symbols and sentiments. The latest attack is a lawsuit to prevent "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance from being engraved on the newly-built Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C.

Filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the suit claims that the mere presence of such engravings is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. FoxNews.com reports on the story, telling us that the House and Senate passed resolutions earlier this month authorizing the engraving "in response to critics who complained Congress spent $621 million on the new three-story underground center without paying respect to the nation's religious heritage."

So now the other side is speaking. The question is, do they really believe what they're saying? I ask because their position on establishment strains credulity. The relevant part of the First Amendment simply states, "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion." It says nothing about the "separation of church and state"; in fact, the principle is found nowhere in the Constitution. Sure, the phrase had been mentioned during the founders' time — such as in Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 — yet many things were mentioned but never enshrined in the Constitution. And, like them, the separation of church and state never "made the cut." Why? Because it was a minority view when our nation was born.

Moreover, we should understand why Jefferson used the phrase. He was simply trying to reassure the Danbury Baptists that, should he ascend to the presidency, he wouldn't use federal power to impose his very unorthodox brand of Christianity on them. Jefferson's "wall" was a one-way filtration system. It kept government out of religion; it had nothing to do with keeping religion out of government.

Yet no amount of historical and legal argumentation can thwart the will of those bent on revising history and creatively "interpreting" law, and such sleight-of-hand will work if citizens consider suppressing public displays of religion a moral imperative. And people today do believe this for a simple reason: prejudice.

To understand this, consider the following example. Let's say that I'm obsessed with eliminating the many American Indian names dotting our map. And let's say that the cultural climate is conducive to this endeavor and I can thus find support and a legal basis for such a cultural rending. So I scour the nation looking for "offenses" and file lawsuits against Chappaqua, N.Y., Alabama, Illinois, and Kentucky as part of a long crusade. Would a clear-thinking person find this normal? Or, would he perhaps say I had a hang-up? In point of fact, it would be right to suspect that something very ugly, very secret — perhaps even sinister — drives me.

Now, if this would strike us as the ugliest of prejudice if the target were American Indian symbols and sentiments — or if it were Spanish or black symbols and sentiments — why don't we register the same revulsion when religion is placed in these crosshairs? 

"Ah," says the critic, "But this is religion, not culture." Yes, and the Indian is a red man, not a white man. So? This is precisely the prejudice of which I speak. I'll illustrate my point.

I would ask atheist critics the following: if religious ideas really are handed down by the Creator of the Universe, the author of all, don't we have a duty to infuse our public square with them? Aren't we obligated to instill children with them in school?

Of course, we know atheists will respond with eye-rolling as they say, "Well, you may believe these ideas are divine, but we don't agree. They are just man-made." And from here checkmate is easy. Simply retort, "Okay, but if they're man-made, why do you discriminate against them? Why do you say that man-made ideas we happen to call "secular" may be in the public square, but man-made ideas we happen to call "religious" may not be? If they're all man's handiwork, good fellow, wherein lies the difference?

The point is, unthinkingly subjecting something to discrimination simply because it's labeled "religious" is no different than unthinkingly subjecting a group to discrimination because of its basic skin color. Sure, there can be legitimate discrimination, such as favoring 25-year-olds over 60-year-olds when hiring police or disallowing the false religious practice of human sacrifice in deference to the valid religious injunction, "Thou shalt do no murder." But the obsession with pushing religion to the back of the bus is nothing but blind prejudice. If you want to make a logical case for this bias, go ahead. If you want to play Christopher Hitchens' tune and say that "religion poisons everything," present your evidence. If you want to explain why man, a creature who has believed in gods for millennia, should suddenly make atheism the public default, marshal your arguments. Let's have the debate. But don't simply cite constitutional principles (illusory or not), as legality doesn't determine morality. And don't expect me to accept second-class status based on being the wrong philosophical "color."

Really, part of the problem is that militant secularists have so long heard the separation-of-church-and-state mantra that they've come to believe their anti-theistic prejudice is justifiable. In fact, they fancy it a virtue. It's much like a man who is raised believing that those of a given race are second class and have no right voicing their beliefs. He may feel quite righteous about stilling their tongues, but the fact remains he has a hang-up, an obsession with no basis in reality.

This prejudice is evident in the Freedom from Religion Foundation's lawsuit. Their position is, Fox writes, that "engraving them [the religious sentiments] at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective."

Nonsense. Government institutions will always reflect certain values and ideas; it's just a question of what they will be. For example, most atheists have no problem indoctrinating children in school with multiculturalism, feminism, and environmentalism, which all involve values. Moreover, on what basis do secularists advocate them? If they would cite divine law, it would violate their own church/state separation principle. Yet, if these ideologies are just "man-made," why should we pay them any mind? It's a bit of a catch 22, isn't it?

In reality, value neutrality is a myth. And we won't determine what values are actually moral by denying the only one who could possibly be a credible author of morality: God. The Founding Fathers understood this, that only God can ordain with credibility. It's why, for example, they emphasized that people's rights are "endowed by their creator."

It's also why they had no problem with religious elements in government. What would have outraged them are the very things most atheists support, today's secular "isms," high taxation and liberty-robbing laws. And given that the founders launched a revolution over King George III's far milder trespasses, what do you think they'd tell us to do with our secular tyrants? I think I know, and they'd wish us Godspeed in our efforts. 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (92)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Re: Prejudice, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Ray Ingles said:

... It's a hilarious double-standard that you actually have to pick up a gun and kill somebody to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be considered a 'militant' atheist is write a book.

July 17, 2009 | url

Ray Ingles said:

... How about a quote from another well-respected Founding Father? "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin

July 17, 2009 | url

Good Reason News said:

Response part 1 "Because it was a minority view when our nation was born." If it was such a minority view, why is there nearly no mention of religion in any founding documents? Furthermore, when you draw a conclusion like this, seemingly made from whole cloth, why do you feel no responsibility to clarify it with evidence or at least a reason to believe it? Moreover, we should understand why Jefferson used the phrase... Once again, you've drawn a conclusion, that Jefferson was simply looking for votes, without really providing evidence. You're assuming Jefferson didn't believe what he said they way he said it, and that you needed to reinterpret it. It doesn't matter, this is an Ad Hom attack and you know it. Whatever Jefferson meant is irrelevant, the issue concerns whether this is a theocracy or not. And people today do believe this for a simple reason: prejudice. Are you familiar with the definition of prejudice? This isn't an issue of Christians being judged on their religious beliefs over the content of their character, it's about wanting to live in a country where I am free to say 'I think there is no god, and yet, I don't eat babies.' Should I appear in court or run for office, I want to be free enough not to be forced to put my hand on a magical book and play make believe. Atheists aren't asking Christians to give up their beliefs, nor are they calling for the destruction of churches. All we want is for the government to act in a manner that is rational. That serves the peoples needs without trampling our freedoms. Faith is by definition irrational. It may be right, it may be wrong, but the fact is our representatives shouldn't, in any regard, promote an irrational view.

July 17, 2009 | url

Keith said:

Prejudice, indeed "...false religious practice of human sacrifice..." It seems to me that you're committing the same crime you accuse atheists of. What makes human sacrifice a less valid expression of respect for the gods who demand it? Because it's not your religion? Hm.

July 17, 2009

peanut said:

religion != god Coming from both sides of this assertion: -Organized religion serves the purpose of perpetuating its own survival, just like every other organism or organization. Claims to be a conduit to god are simply advertising material. -I, and many, many other people, denounce organized religion but are not atheists. Atheists have some kind of hangup on the definition of god, and refuse to be creative in their own interpretation of what the concept could mean. I consider god to be the sum of all energy and mass in the universe, every last proton and photon. When I see "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill, I think "You're d**ned right! What choice do I have?" I do NOT think, "All you bible thumping mouthbreathers keep your bearded cloud hypocrite away from my laws" Do you see the difference?

July 17, 2009

rm1948 said:

Really Naive You say: "Of course, we know atheists will respond with eye-rolling as they say, "Well, you may believe these ideas are divine, but we don't agree. They are just man-made." And from here checkmate is easy. Simply retort, "Okay, but if they're man-made, why do you discriminate against them? Why do you say that man-made ideas we happen to call "secular" may be in the public square, but man-made ideas we happen to call "religious" may not be? If they're all man's handiwork, good fellow, wherein lies the difference?" Are you really so naive as to see the fallacy here? The problem is not with the values and ideas it is in saying they are from God and cannot be questioned. Look at the debate about teaching evolution to see a prime example of this. And you say, "It kept government out of religion; it had nothing to do with keeping religion out of government." Which has to be one of the most tortured pieces of thought I've ever seen. Of course it was keeping Jefferson's religion out of goverment. He told them he wouldn't use his views to surpress theirs. That is exactly the point of "separation of church and state". You can't use a govrenment position to support religious views. A non-religious person can see the benefit of religious values and accept them because they are useful. They reject the idea of accepting them because they are dogma from a God. And before someone has a knee jerk reaction, I am on the Board of my church as Treasurer. I organized and led the Father's Day service in June. I am a Unitarian Universalist. I repect your beliefs. Do you respect mine?

July 17, 2009

Simpleton said:

Atheists are prejudiced...against those who oppose the First Amendment The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states "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" When Congress passed laws to include the display anything related to religion on public property, it violated the Constitution. Duke should pay attention to the violation of the Constitution, if he is a patriot.

July 17, 2009

Good Reason News said:

Response part 2 In point of fact, it would be right to suspect that something very ugly, very secret — perhaps even sinister — drives me. Conspiracy theory, much? What exactly do you think atheists are after? World domination? Some kind of magic ruby? One Million Dollars!?

July 17, 2009 | url

Good Reason News said:

Response part 3 if religious ideas really are handed down by the Creator of the Universe, the author of all, don't we have a duty to infuse our public square with them? Aren't we obligated to instill children with them in school? Of course, we know atheists will respond with eye-rolling as they say, "Well, you may believe these ideas are divine, but we don't agree. They are just man-made." And from here checkmate is easy. Simply retort, "Okay, but if they're man-made, why do you discriminate against them? Why do you say that man-made ideas we happen to call "secular" may be in the public square, but man-made ideas we happen to call "religious" may not be? If they're all man's handiwork, good fellow, wherein lies the difference? Uh, have you read the bible? I don't think there's a single lesson in there I'd want to teach my children that can't be better taught through secular means. If we're talking about schools here, than: A) There are all kinds of secular ideas that have no place in school. Should we be teaching kids why white supremacy may be valid? Should we "teach the controversy" of the "hollow-earth" theory or "babies come from storks" theory? '5 jew bankers run the world,' there's a secular charge, should we teach that? How about that condoms cause AIDS? I mean, the pope said it, but the theory itself is secular, so is that valid? B) Kids can learn the Bible in a public school. I took a humanities course in a public high school and mixed in with philosophy, ancient myths and literature, were bible readings. It wasn't taught as fact, it wasn't taught as false, it was taught as a part of human history. You 'checkmate' is idiotic and based on fallacies, assumptions and poor poor critical thinking skills. the false religious practice of human sacrifice HA! How can you justify this being wrong but your religion being right? How about animal sacrifice? Some Christian denominations still practice this.

July 17, 2009 | url

Good Reason News said:

Response part 4 If you want to play Christopher Hitchens' tune and say that "religion poisons everything," present your evidence. www.goodreasonnews.blogspot.com - showing the harm of religious beliefs everyday. If you want to explain why man, a creature who has believed in gods for millennia, should suddenly make atheism the public default, marshal your arguments. Let's have the debate. But don't simply cite constitutional principles (illusory or not), as legality doesn't determine morality. OK, you do realize why you just explained why a good part of your own rambling argument is invalid, right? You know, it's a little unfair to think you can get away with citing something when it favors you, but saying it doesn't count when it doesn't. (although I know Christians are conditioned to do this with their Bibles all the time) But I agree, legality doesn't determine morality. First off, atheism is the natural default. Gods are usually used to explain misunderstood natural phenomena. For instance, when ancient Greeks saw lightening strike, they didn't understand the nature behind it, but they wanted to explain it. So they reasoned it out the best they could. But their reasoning method was not based on any scientific method or even on a good interpretation of what they perceived. It was based on imagination. And now that we do understand where lightening comes from, we have no need for this Zeus fantasy. If we apply the developed reasoning skills we have now to Jesus or whatever your favorite religious figure is, we come up with the same results. That the reasoning is imagined and the evidence is absent.

July 17, 2009 | url

Simpleton said:

... It says nothing about the "separation of church and state"; in fact, the principle is found nowhere in the Constitution. ... the separation of church and state never "made the cut." Why? Because it was a minority view when our nation was born. "Separation of Church and State" is a short form of the First Amendment. Any casual student of American history would know that. Just like the absence of the word "democracy" from the Constitution does not make America a monarchy, the absence of the phrase does not make it a religious cauldron. The Bill of Rights, Duke! But all you have to do to support your flimsy position is point out where exactly in the Constitution does it allow promiscuous mingling of Church and State? Regarding the assertion that "it was a minority view", I direct your attention to the Treaty of Tripoli 1797. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli Note that there is faux controversy suggested that the Arabic version is different. This does not matter, because the following passage existed and was read out in the version to Congress: "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, ..." Read that part I emphasized above? That was read, unopposed in the Senate, and published in leading newspapers of the day, and no one batted an eyelid. Now, if the founder wanted to include Church in the State, don't you think a. They would have included language for that b. Not include the above in ANY document signed and affirmed by themselves? c. Christianity was the prominent religion of those days, so if they went specifically to exclude it, what does it tell you about what they really thought. I would like someone to address what is on record.

July 17, 2009

Good Reason News said:

Response part 5 militant secularists have so long heard the separation-of-church-and-state mantra that they've come to believe their anti-theistic prejudice is justifiable. In fact, they fancy it a virtue. It's much like a man who is raised believing that those of a given race are second class and have no right voicing their beliefs. You're just wrong here. Secularists don't want to stop anyone from voicing any beliefs. In fact, we so don't want that, that we believe that the government and it's institutions should push the agenda of one particular belief over another. Because if they did, they would be stifling another's right to voice an opposing belief. Let's go back to kindergarten. I like green, it's the best color, But you like Orange. We could try to convince all our classmates talking about the virtues and faults of green and orange, but when the teacher weighs in and says "oh, well, anybody that likes orange is STUPID!" or, "everyone KNOWS green is the best!" She's unfairly influenced the class.

July 17, 2009 | url

Len_RI said:

Prejudice of the Uninformed Duke writes that, "it had nothing to do with keeping religion out of government." False. Jefferson said the following: "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800. And let's debunk this notion of "In God We Trust" and "Under God" having anything to do with any religious heritage. The founding fathers adopted the motto "E Pluribus Unum", which is Latin for "Out of Many, One." When the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 it did not contain the words "under God". Both were changed in the 1950s to make reference to God. "Under God" was added by an act of Congress in 1954. "In God We Trust" was adopted in 1956. These two acts were taken in the context of the cold war when fearful Americans sought to distinguish the United States from hte "godless communists" of the Soviet Union. I am a fervent believer in God, I attend regularly, in fact I often lead in prayer services and I'm a member of the board of officers of my congregation. With that as background, I want to say this to Selwyn Duke: I'm happy to have religion included in the classroom and in our government on one condition: I get to be the one person who says what religion it shall be.

July 17, 2009

Good Reason News said:

Len_Ri Thank you for showing that even people with faith can identify the McCarthyism behind those phrases.

July 17, 2009 | url

Secular Radicals, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Brandon The Skeptic said:

... Just because the majority of people in the U.S. are Christians does not give them the right to advertise their beliefs on government buildings. If Muslims were to one day out number Christians in this country there is little doubt in my mind that the Christians would be very upset at the addition of "Praise Allah" to public property. A democracy only works when the rights of the minorities are protected. “No democracy can long survive which does not accept as fundamental to its very existence the recognition of the rights of minorities.” -Franklin D. Roosevelt "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

July 17, 2009

Jolo said:

... Paladin, why isn't the Congress placing Islam, Hindu and Native American religious slogans as well? I think that to be truly inclusive, you need to have every religion represented.

July 17, 2009

Flu-Bird said:

Selfish atheists Look at this jerk MICHEAL NEWDOW now demands the whole nation live by his ideas or like using the terms BCE and CE instead of BC and AD are they afraid of offending those self centered atheists

July 18, 2009

Edward Williams said:

... Flu-Bird... You moron, learn to spell or at least put a period at the end of your dimwitted sentences. Are you stupid or do you have some sort of disability...a TBI maybe? Here, I got a solution for you! Pray for Literacy and an end to Shellfish Atheists.

July 18, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

The "good news" man publically embarrassing himself on his ignorance of where God is in our Founding documents Good news said:"If it was such a minority view, why is there nearly no mention of religion in any founding documents?" The "religion " as you put it, is "mentioned" here. http://jbs.org/news-center/birchtube/109- FP02+Purpose+of+Original+IntentEducation+Of+Our+Founder s+39+min?userid=95 In case you don't visit this archived presentation, which is replete with "religion," I'll point to one such founding document where "religion" is found - the Declaration of Independence: "We are endowed by our _________with certain unalienable Rights..." A. The King___ B. government____ C. the Democrat Party D.___ none of the above____ Why would the Founding Fathers use "Creator" and "natures's God?" Are those the words of ACLU lawyers? "We, Therefore the Representatives of The United states of America, In general Congress, Assembled, appealling to the Supreme Judge of the world...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence," These were a religious people and the foundation on which the Constitution is based on is the Declaration - a Declaration that "appeals" to God in Heaven that's Who. The Mayflower Compact begins: "In ye name of God, amen" Atheists are free to practice their religion in America. If they want to teach their theories they are free to start their own private schools. Those who believed that God ruled in their lives did start private schools to teach these views. Today, secularists, who practice secularism, (an errant religious cult), run the NEA, and push their views with the Department of Education. Nothing wrong with a total private schools system and competition among private schools.

July 18, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Brandon the Skeptic and his false premise Brandon, thank you for recognizing that the "majority" of Americans are Christian. But you also need to recognize that Christians founded this nation not muslims. Christopher Columbus came to the "new world" seeking a trade route and to teach the inhabitants the Gospel. The Muslims had conquered Constantinople and the overland trade routes were cut off to Christian nations. Christian sailers and explorers, Columbus in particular, sailed to America with ships bearing the Cross of Jesus. You quote FDr but right off the bat FDR was wrong. we aren't a "democracy" but a Republic. Look it up in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote a private letter to the worry warts from the Danbury Baptist church telling them that they need not worry that another reigious denomination was going to dominate political life. He told them that no religious denomination was going to dominate. The key word is particular denomination. Since Americans were Christian at the time Jefferson penned that famous quote, he did not mean to say that Christianity as a whole would be banned from our public and private lives. That would make no sense whatsoever! It had nothing to do with kicking God out of our public institutions. You need to look at the context in which he wrote those words and the communication from the Danbury baptists to get the clear picture not the obscured ACLU picture.

July 18, 2009

Edward Williams said:

... Lee Gonzales, Please be reminded, that Jefferson also said that religion was the chain that bound men’s minds and that religious institutions were the enemy of reason. He believed that Christianity was a myth and that its practice was an exercise of superstition. He believed that there was a creator of sorts. But, near his death, he was skeptical of even that. And thought that eventually, science would provide man with the ultimate answers to all of life’s questions. Do some research and try to be open to the larger picture of the views of one of the nation’s principle founders. Edward Williams

July 18, 2009

Robert said:

History revisionists are coming out of the woodwork in opposition to this article! Fact #1: The Founding Fathers certainly opposed the establishment of one denomination over another. However, they had no hesitation promoting "religion and morality". As Washington warned in his farewell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." Or as John Adams declared, "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other." Jefferson's clear meaning of "separation of church and state" was used by the Supreme Court in countless cases prior to 1947 to support keeping religious references in public! Jefferson's own words and actions clearly show he supported religious teachings even in the public schools, where he ensured they had plenty of bibles for school textbooks. Fact #2: According to the Declaration of Independence, all men are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights ...". In the philosophy of our founders, our rights are unalienable because they come from God. If we remove a recognition of God from the public sector, from whence can we claim our rights come? If government is the source of our rights (the philosophy of Marx and his followers), Govt. may give or take away as they please. What might the atheists be trying to accomplish? Those who try to remove religion and morality from public recognition, threaten the basis of our Liberty. This was part of Karl Marx's prescription for how to bring down a free people. Whose side are you on, Jefferson, Washington & Adams or Marx?

July 18, 2009

Good Reason News said:

Lee First off, it's Good Reason News (.blogspot.com) Secondly, none of those are founding documents. Third of all, I said 'nearly no,' so yes, there are some mentions of religion. Although good luck finding "Christ" in the constitution, an actual legal document we use today, unlike the mayflower compact, c'mon. Also, it doesn't matter if we figure out what the 'founding fathers' meant, that won't settle the debate. This country's greatness is in its ideals and its freedom. Because one's right to practice a religion, or no religion, in most cases doesn't interfere with the rights of others, we have that freedom. However, when the government promotes a religion or no religion, it interferes with my freedom. This is why government should remain mute on religion. If I want to be oppressed by a religion, I'm free to seek one out, without government telling me how to think. If I want to write about all the aspects of religions I think are dumb, I'm free to do that, without the thought police coming to get me. Oh, also, atheism isn't a religion. It's a position on one single issue. You wouldn't call pro-life or pro-choice 'religions,' even if you think they're like religions.

July 18, 2009 | url

Brandon The Skeptic said:

... Lee Gonzales, You apparently like to point out false premises. Isn't your unstated premise that since the country was founded by Christians that this somehow makes the government Christian. If this is the case then the government is also white, pro-slavery and patriarchal. It matters very little what were the personal beliefs of the founders of the country. What truly matters is the legacy of freedom that they left us. Your freedom of religion and my freedom from religion must be protected by leaving the government neutral and therefore silent on matters of personal faith or lack thereof.

July 18, 2009

Edward Williams said:

... As for as history goes, those who believe that the Bible has any historical value should not comment on any historical record.

July 18, 2009

SWEJ said:

God is nowhere in the Constitution ...so Why should her name be on Federal Buildings? http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/god-and-the-con.html The founding fathers had beliefs in slavery and psuedoscience, should we engrave that too???

July 18, 2009

Joe B said:

The New American? Sounds like the same old Christian Arrogance I had never heard of this news source before, but I am relatively certain I lost large portions of my brain by reading this. The weird part was I really liked the logo of your paper. Too bad your authors are brainwashing people in a "New" way that is exactly the same as the "Old" way. This article is historically inaccurate, legally illogical, and ethically questionable.

July 18, 2009

Lee Vegas said:

Unalienable rights. Those so fond of citing the Deceleration of Independence as evidence of our being a 'christian' nation always neglect to complete the sentence. Allow me. "...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." LV

July 18, 2009 | url

Robert said:

Unalienable Rights Lee Vegas, So what is your point? Mine is this; because our God-given rights existed first, governments are instituted among men to protect such rights. The fact that Government derives their powers from "the governed" for the sole purpose of protecting these rights, in no way cancels out the fact that these rights are God-given. (However, much of the power wielded today in D.C. was not derived "from the consent of the governed" but through usurpation.) As for references to Christ in the Founding Documents, yes there are a few. Some are subtle, some are more obvious. In the Decl. of Ind. we find the phrase "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world". This is clearly not specific to any one denomination of Christianity, but it does exclude a number of non-Christian religions, and certainly excludes atheism. I'm no expert on the whole of the various religions of the world, but the phrase "all men are created equal" in combination with Supreme Judge of the World excludes many non-Christian religions and is found in the doctrine of all Christian denominations with which I am familiar. From the Constitution, Christians readily refer to the closing "in the Year of our Lord" as further proof of a direct reference to Christ. Atheists counter that it was nothing more than a common unit of measuring years throughout Europe at the time. Why then is the Christian sabbath set aside in the Constitution as a non-work day (Art 1, sec. 7) in preference to the holy day of Jews or Muslims?

July 18, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

The atheists get shaken by the facts There aren't any atheistic documents that I am aware of that supports the position of the atheists. If there were I am certain that you would have cited them. However, since The Mayflower Compact proves that the Puritans were a "Covenant people, you atheists throw a hissy fit. You claim that these documents have no bearing on the Constitution. That's like saying that the writings of Blacksone, Montesquieu, John Locke,et al, did not have a great effect on the Founders. They quoted these men at length! John Locke, who the Founders greatly admired and studied, wrote in his Second treatise:"God , who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason... The same Law of Nature , that does by this means give us property,does also bound that Property too. God has given us all things richly, {1st Timothy versus 17.} is the Voice of Reason." Notice "Law of Nature." Does that sound familiar. Jefferson obviously read what John Locke said about "natural rights, and included it in the Declaration. The Declaration was the divorce papers that the colonists gave to the King of England. From that great document they built on those basic principles that if you re-read the D.of I. you'd understand that all of those principles are found in the Constitution too. Hey, SWEJ, GOD IS MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION. right after Article VII "Done in convention .....the seveteenth of September, in the year OF OUR LORD..." The "Lord" they referred to is Jesus.

July 18, 2009

Robert said:

Response to Edward Williams Like you said: Do some research and try to be open to the larger picture of the views of one of the nation’s principle founders. Jefferson was no mainstream Christian to be sure. But let's let Jefferson declare his own beliefs, rather than putting words in his mouth: "... very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others"

July 18, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

The Old Testament and the New Testament are historically accurate. The references are so accurate that only the most prejudiced and naive will not see that this is so. Here is a direct reference to Abraham 1. WRITTEN RECORDS FROM OVER 4000 YEARS AGO: Dr. Paolo Matthiae, Director of the Italian Archeological Mission in Syria, "hit an archeological jackpot" in 1975. He discovered "the greatest third-millennium archive ever unearthed." It included "more than 15,000 cuneiform tablets and fragments" and unveiled a Semitic empire that dominated the Middle East more than four thousand years ago. Its hub was Ebla, where educated scribes filled their ancient libraries with written records of history, people, places and commerce.[5] "These early tablets display an ease of expression, an elegance that indicates complete mastery of the cuneiform system by the scribes," said Dr. Giovanni Pettinato, former epigraphist of the Italian Mission, who worked closely with Dr. Matthiae. "One can only conclude that writing had been in use at Ebla for a long time before 2500 B.C." The Ebla tablets verified the worship of pagan gods such as Baal, Dagan and Asherah "known previously only from the Bible."[5] They mention "Ur of Chaldees" (Abraham's birthplace) as well as other familiar cities and places: "The names of cities thought to have been founded much later, such as Beirut and Byblos, leap from the tablets. Damascus and Gaza are mentioned, as well as two of the Biblical cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah. ... Most intriguing of all are the personal names found on the Ebla tablets. They include Ab-ra-mu (Abraham), E-sa-um (Esau)...."[5]

July 18, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

"the skeptic" is wrong again. "It matters very little what were the personal beliefs of the founders of the country." What is that Brandon! But their "personal beliefs" is the whole point of the settlers coming to America, (the new World)! They came here for religious freedom! They didn't come here to form a government devoid of the religious principles that they brought with them from the old world. The Founders looked to the heritage of a religious people going back to the time of King John who was forced by the Christian Noblemen to sign the Magna Carta. http://www.freedomproject.com/blog/24-magna-carta The Magna Carta has 63 points that the king was made to sign: The basis of our nation's laws come from the Magna Carta. Be thankful to those Christian noblemen! Magna Carta: #38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law", without credible witnesses brought for this purposes. 39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" #40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice" Those Christians that you atheists so dispise said to the king to give people a trial and not lock anyone up and throw away the key! The Skeptic continues with : " ... leaving the government neutral and therefore silent on matters of personal faith or lack thereof." Notice (if you read), the Magna Carta that the Christian noblemen weren't being "neutral" and silent" when making their demands on the government!

July 18, 2009

anon said:

True Concerning Environmentalism As a gnarly savage atheist I completely agree with you about the teaching of environmentalism in schools. It is forbidden by the separation of church and state.

July 18, 2009

Pluto Animus said:

... Why are you believers such pitiful, dishonest simpletons? Magical invisible friends are for idiots and small children. Period. Which are you, Selwyn? Keep you moronic fairy tales out of my government.

July 18, 2009

Quoting Duckphup said:

Quoting Duckphup ".. the USA is NOT a christian nation... DESPITE the lies that have been told to you by your religious puppet-masters. It is a 'secular' nation with lots of christians in it. Our Founding fathers went to great lengths to assure that would NOT be a christian nation. Our form of government was NOT based on any christian or biblical doctrine or writings... it is rooted in the secular humanist ideals of the 'Enlightenment' and the 'Age of Reason'... when mankind began to THROW OFF the yoke of christian biblical theocracy, and develop a reason and consensus-based concept of the 'rights of man', based on MORAL principles... not 'biblical' principles. The authority of the US government is derived from the 'consent of the government'... NOT from the christian 'divine right of kings', upon which the European governments were based. The authors of the constitution were not christians... they were Dieists. The 'Treaty of Tripoli' (June 7, 1797) specifically states, in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen (Moslems); and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation (Islam), it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams only a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, is taken by constitutional scholars to be a clear and unambiguous declaration of the intent of the founders. See: www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

July 18, 2009

Quoting Duckphup said:

More Duckphup "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and... know nothing but the word of God." ~ Martin Luther "Your ignorance is not entirely your own fault. There is a whole INDUSTRY (Christianity) whose BUSINESS it is to create whole generations of adults who are, at once, gullible, irrational, willfully ignorant, self-deluded, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and droolingly stupid... and willing to tithe 10% for the privledge of having their cognitive dissonance held in check through regular doses of pious and holy bullsh|t. Religious 'shepherds' KNOW that their 'flock' (sheeple) are scientifically ignorant and incapable of critical thinking... because they've been PROGRAMMED to be ignorant. They KNOW that they are suspicious of 'scientific' sources , and find them to be intimidating and incomprehensible... because they've been CONDITIONED to distrust them. These puppet-masters KNOW that their flock (victims) will seek their 'knowledge' from 'trusted' sources... these very-same puppet-masters. When the sheeple hear things like 'scientists claim that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, in the distant past', they experience 'cognitive dissonance'... this information is in conflict with the 'truth' that they have believed for their whole lives. So... where do they go to resolve this cognitive dissonance?... Scientists?... NO! They go to their 'trusted' sources... the sources who KNOW that they have been taught WHAT to think... they have not been taught HOW to think. Sources who KNOW that they can lie, obfuscate, misrepresent with impunity... with absolutely NO RISK that their minions will seek out independent, peer-reviewed corroborating information. "

July 18, 2009

Edward Williams said:

... Good Job Robert! But, don't be so serious...I just made all that Jefferson stuff up! If you want a good view of Christianity though, take a look at: http://rayhickslovesyou.blogspot.com/ Found it on SelwynDuke.com. I am humbled...Edward

July 18, 2009

Good Reason News said:

lame From the Constitution, Christians readily refer to the closing "in the Year of our Lord" as further proof of a direct reference to Christ.... Hey, SWEJ, GOD IS MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION. right after Article VII "Done in convention .....the seveteenth of September, in the year OF OUR LORD..." The "Lord" they referred to is Jesus. Does your arm hurt from reaching that far?

July 18, 2009 | url

Lee Gonzales said:

atheists when confronted with irrefutable evidence make believe there are no facts. It is denial of the truth to go on pretending that the Bible is not accurate history. To pretend that the people who travelled across an ocean to found a New Nation did not do so to establish a government based on religious precepts. The facts have been in for quite some time - America was founded as a Christian nation. "We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.." "God and nature's God" "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world."---The Declaration of Independence. Without the Declaration we would have no Constitution. The whole concept of the Constitution is to bind the government down with its chains to keep men from resorting to their age old habits of playing god. A world where men's passions are unchecked and in which they view no other god other than themselves is a tyranny. Their god is not reason nor enlightenment, since those virtues are Christian virtues. All Americans- believers and non-believers need to restore the rule of law- the Constitution. However, I am glad that our Founding Fathers were not atheists but Christians who believed what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "Divine Providence" would help them fashion a nation. And He did. The Founders understood the evil nature of man and in true biblical fashion set up a government to keep man's evil tendencies from gaining power over other men. They took man and broke him up into three separate powers. They knew that if anyone branch of government became law maker, judge and executioner that a tyranny would soon be America fate. John Adams said that this republican form of government is wholely inadequate for a non religious people. It is impossible for atheists to found a republican form of government. Pagans,founded the first republic in Rome, but they had many gods that kept the vast majority of Romans walking the straight and narrow. The Greeks tried but they were lost among the mob mentality of democracy. Atheists are just lost.

July 18, 2009

Jack Dance said:

Do you want religion to die? The Founding Fathers were seeking to protect religion from the state, not the state from church. Early settlers were escaping religious persecution – usually state imposed persecution. Americans think they are the most advanced society therefore pioneering in all areas. Culturally that is not true. You are treading old footsteps. If you want to see where you are going, look at the UK – littered with historic religious relics but the UK is the home of religious apathy. Most ‘believe’ something but only 5% have any religious affiliation or attend any church. A British church is ‘decommissioned’ and sold every week. Everyone celebrates Guy Fawkes bonfire night but few are aware they are celebrating a failed Catholic attempt to destroy a Protestant government. If you want a state endorsed church, ‘In God We Trust’, then recognise you are sounding the death knoll on organised religion in the US. If you want people to fight for their church, thank the Atheists for provoking Americans to do so! www.jackdance.wordpress.com for more

July 18, 2009 | url

Lee Gonzales said:

Jack Dance dances around the crux of the issue The First Amendment: "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." Congress,is banned by the FIRST AMENDMENT from creating a national church, period. The Constitution would never have been ratified had it meant to remove God from our national life. People would have thought atheists mad to think that the First Amendment was meant to ban all mention of God from our national life! Individual states had state sponsored churches long after the Constitution was ratified, so obviously the states were free to have their state church. It did not mean that God, Jesus, and the Holy Trinity, would violate the language of the First Amendment. They etched God and Bible verses onto federal buildings and monuments, and the states did likewise. Atheists are grasping at straws by using a private letter to a congregation who also misinterpreted the intent of the Founders. He clearly meant that all Christian denominations would be free to practice their beliefs. All churches would continue as before the ratification of the Constitution if the states choose to continue them. The historical facts are readily accessible to anyone who is willing to do the research. There were state sponsored churches after the ratification of the Constitution. Removing God from our buildlings and our coins was not what Jefferson was talking about. It certainly was not the intent of the Founders who crafted the Constitution while Jefferson tended to his duties across the Atlantic. How Jefferson's beliefs were in the latter days of his life has no bearing on what the Founders intents were regarding a Creator. Jefferson penned "Creator" and "Divine Providence" into the Declaration. The Founders were influenced by Christians like Blackstone, Locke and Montesquieu, and other great Christian philosophers. Who influenced you atheists? Hollywood comedians, "Mad Madalyn O'Hare?

July 19, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

A conversation near the city of Santa Fe - English translation - the Holy Faith Two archeologists sat discussing their day under a blanket of stars. "buenas noches," the male voice warmly greeted the two who were enjoying the warmth of the pinon embers in the fire pit. "Buenas noches," the two reciprocated."Can we help you?" they asked. "No, gracias, maybe just allow me to warm up by your fire. The orange embers are very welcoming on a cold night, no?" "We can put on some more pinon. Care for some coffee, uh, cafe?" "No gracias, manos," the still un-introduced man said as he raised his hand in a kindly gesture. I just over heard your conversation about my people who settled here in San Juan many years ago." "Your people? "Are you from around here? Please tell us, we're interested in artifacts mostly. Do you have information of artifacts?" "Much informacion, my dear amigos, much. Your shovels interrupted my prayers and I came over tonight to tell you that a very religious people came to live here in 1598. We built our little chapel over there, a few feet over there, before the big San Miguel chapel was built in Santa Fe. You see, senores, my family settled here 1598. Don Juan de Oñate became the first Governador Capitan-General of Nuevo Mexico. He established his capital a mile over there in San Juan. Don Pedro de Peralta,he founded La Villa Real de la Santa Fé de San Francisco de Asís." My English is not too good. Ah, it is The Royal City of the Holy Faith of Saint Francis of Assisi.You call it Santa Fe, but it means Holy faith in your engles, uh english, pardon me." The two archaelogists turned away to conspire to find an excuse to rid themselves of the stranger. As they turned back to where the strangely dressed man was standing he had disappeared. "Where'd he go? He couldn't have just vanished into thin air." "Why not," retorted the other artifact jockey. He disappeared quicker than the 'logic' of the atheists who claim that America was not a Christian nation.

July 19, 2009

Susan said:

... It's absolutely true that we Americans should not make any group feel like a second-class citizen. But I don't think you, Selwyn, know what second-class status would feel like. Removing religious sayings from public places would not cause you to feel unwelcome to enter them. What would cause you to feel unwelcome is if inscribed above the building it explicitly said “Good People Don’t Believe in God.” Would that be troubling to you? Now you know how atheists feel. Let's agree not to do this to each other.

July 19, 2009

Paladin said:

... Nice try, Susan, but no cigar. What you mention isn't like "In God We Trust." It's like putting "Good People Do Believe in God" on a building. So, no, I don't agree with you. You have no right to try to strip away American heritage just because you have a mental problem. You're hung-up.

July 19, 2009

Susan said:

... Paladin, so you see lying as part of the American heritage? If it is not, then I do have the right to strip away the lie of "in God we trust." I am part of the "we," right? Why must religious people force their views on the non-religious? Does it make it more real for you if you force me to lie? We are not "one nation under God." Some of us are ruled by logic and not god-beliefs. God-beliefs are faith-driven; they are not logical. Here's the secret. I'll let you in on it: You are a much more pure and sentient human being if you can be good because you believe in being good than if you are being good because you fear God's wrath. Oh, and the cigar? It's all yours. I don't have that vice either.

July 19, 2009

Realtorgal said:

Susan is hurt by Christioan symbols, boo - hoo I never knew that atheists cared what Christians thought or said or felt. My belief is not dependent upon whether I see "In God We Trust" on our coinage, or see a Bible verse enscribed on a government building. I have the firm belief in Jesus in spite of those religous passages. Atheists don't have any beleifs to speak of except to attach Christians for theirs and for making a fuss that our Christian heritage is visible in our public institutions. So you are hurt, my, my. Why don't you get upset about important matters like having Obama shove his un-godly high cost "health care" attack down your throat! Go to any moslem and Hindu country or where Buddism is universally practiced and you'll see religious symbols. When you travel the world you're bound to see them. You also see religious symbols on the interstate highways as you traverse on native-American lands. If the nations of the world become part of Obama's "One World Government" as the pontiff has wrongfully been advised to annunciate with an offical Vatican paper, all of those religious symbols will have to be removed and replaced with the United Nations religion of Gaia-ism - worship of earth. Then you'll really be upset! Maybe not?

July 19, 2009

Susan said:

... If you "have the firm belief in Jesus in spite of those religious passages" then you won't mind if we take down in public areas. Problem solved.

July 19, 2009

Paladin said:

... Susan, if you have a firm belief in "E pluribus unum," then you won't mind if we take it down in public areas. If your patriotism is assured, you won't mind if we take down the flag, right? Perhaps you wouldn't mind. But that's not the point. We don't have to strip away our heritage simply because some people are hung-up. Get a life. Duke's right. It's only your prejudice that makes you complain about these things.

July 19, 2009

Kevin S. said:

Incorrect analysis of history I was aghast when I read that Jefferson's view was the minority. The author either is misguided or outright lying! Jefferson was, as we know, in Paris at the time his FRIEND James Adams wrote the First Ammendment to the Constitution. Adams regularly consulted Jefferson while writing the whole of the Constitution. The two of them wrote what they believed to be right and the will of the people. Adams submitted it as the very first ammendment and it won the MAJORITY vote. Now we can say that the principle is not there - but clearly it is. Now for my real argument. If the author wants to take a Christian position to debase the principle of "Separation" then I tell you, he is no Christian. He makes a bold and false statement about the MINORITY view and I make a bold statement about his position - the fact is, my statement holds up and his doesn't. Simply read the words of the Christian's (and mine) Lord and Savior when He says "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:21) Shouldn't the author follow the words of the One he claims to be His Lord? Further, do a study of Romans 13 - we are to obey the law of the land. This law CLEARLY indicates an underlying principle that the author wants to deny. Jesus also espouse the same principle. When Jesus and other parts Bible tell us to obey the law of the land and Jesus we seek to deny them, we are not at all Christian.

July 19, 2009

Susan said:

... Paladin, I don't mind slogans about America as long as they are based on fact. We began as 13 colonies and now have 50 states. Our flag has no factual errors. We are a country of many who work together as one. But you are simply lying if you say all Americans are god-believers. Calling me prejudice just reveals you don't know the meaning of the word. I am not judging you without facts. There is no "pre" in my judgment of you. I have found you wanting. You have had 50+ years with the phrase "one nation under God," so how about giving up the next 50+ by pledging "one nation without a God"? You okay with that? I am not. Let's not lie and hurt each other. Let's be one out of many.

July 19, 2009

Paladin said:

... You're missing the point, Susan. Maybe I don't believe in being one out of many. Did you ever think of that? Not everyone believes in it. You're so dogmatic that you don't even recognize the dogmas you accept. In a healthy constitutional republic, the majority decides what pronouncements of belief will grace their public institutions. A minority doesn't get to decide that.

July 19, 2009

Susan said:

... Gee, you really ought to study your own government. Minority rights are protected in this country. You can say you don't believe America acts as one out of many, but you'd be wrong. America has many different people all ruled by one president.

July 19, 2009

Paladin said:

... Gee, Sue, you really ought to develop some logic skills (a testosterone shot, maybe?). Majority rights are protected too. The minority has no right to impose unconstitutional things on the majority. And whether or not America acts as one depends on how you define that. Anyway, you missed the point again. I was addressing the principle of E pluribus unum, a principle that not everyone embraces. But, hey, guess what? You can say you don't believe America is one nation under God, but you'd be wrong. America has many different people all living under one God. ;o)

July 19, 2009

Susan said:

... Okay, I think we are getting somewhere. You and I agree that both majority and minority views have rights and that neither side can trample on the rights of the other. 1) Is a government that advocates religion (i.e. a theocracy) trampling on my rights? 2) Is an atheistic government that outlaws churches trampling on your rights? There is a type of government that refuses to mess around with religion; it’s called a democracy. Government should tolerate religious and nonreligious people equally. It should advocate for neither. As to me living under a god? Try to prove that with logic. You’ll need some brain cells; testosterone won't help you.

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Susan, you are wrong. We are a Republic not a democracy "There is a type of government that refuses to mess around with religion; it’s called a democracy." Susan, if a majority of peoplein a democracy, (majority rule and all that), voted to take away your property would you consider that just,or correct or would you refuse to surrender your rights just because the democracy said you had to? Majority rule has to be checked by the rule of law or you end up with a lynch mob! I know that your concept of "democracy" is a system of laws and people voting and fairness and all the rest, but the system of laws that protect your God-given rights is a republic and not a democracy. Forget about what Charleton Heston said or who ever you heard it from, we are a republic. Read article 4,section 4 of the rule book- the Constitution; go over in your mind the words to the Pledge allegiance,; recall the muic and words to the Battle Hymnn of the REPUBLIC, and grab a copy of the Federalist Papers and read what James Madison, the "Ftaher of the Constitution" said about democracy. He hated everything about democracy. but he loved freedom and rights and the rule of law. That's why he championed a republic and so did the other Founders.

July 20, 2009

Realtorgal said:

Taking down Christian symbols won't solve anything Susan Thanks for sticking around and debating this issue Susan. First of all there is no "problem " with Christian passages, The Ten commandments, the cross of Jesus in public buildings. Removimg them won't "solve" anything. You can't remove the thoughts from people's heads for their need to enscribe their words and symbols on buildings, bridges, or the walls of caves. Removing all Christian related symbols and biblical passages from public buildings will only mean that the pagans, Gaia worshipers, enviromentalists, one worlders and the other religions of the world will put their symbols on public buildings. Like or not Susan we are a Chrisian nation so we need to put our symbols on them. There will always be those who despise Christianity. In the mid 19th centry in Mexico Benito Juarez made it a policy to wipe out Christianity from Mexico. His anti-church, anti-Catholic regime murdered thousands of priests and nuns and destroyed Catholic churches in his vane attempt at wiping the Christian religion from Mexico. He failed since the hearts fo Mexicans is one for the love of Jesus and Mary and the saints. They are proud to display their symbols of Chrisianity. I told you that my belief in Christ is not dependent upon seeing Christ the Redeemer high up on a hill like they have him in Rio de Janeiro. But I get goosebumps and emotional when I see his image portrayed in a statue, and it reminds me of His saving grace. Don't you appreciate the customs and Christian heritage of our Christian brethren? How is it hurting you to fly into Bangkok and see Buddist statues at the airport? They are our brothers too. I wouldn't want to start a campaign like the Reds did in Tibet or China.

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

A national referendum Susan says: "Government should tolerate religious and nonreligious people equally. It should advocate for neither." The government was created by "We the people." We the majority of the people acting through our representatives put Christianity at the top of our public life. If a national referendum was held to remove or to keep our Christian emblems, symbols and Old Testament and New Testament passages on all our public buildings, monuments, bridges, public libraries, couret, schools, etc, what would be the result? The result would favor keeping them. Would you go along with the results or would you continue sending money to ACLU lawyers to litigate for the removal of the Christian religion from We the People's public square? Referendums are not how we are supposed to make laws or run our government. We do it by electing representatives. These representatives have to obey the rule book as do the people. The people choose their representatives and these representatives are supposed to keep the government in check by not allowing Congress to make laws banning anything to do with releigion. re-read Amendment I. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." You've been conned by the ACLU's tricks that Jefferson's letter to a Baptist church overules the First Amendment. Jefferson said what he said in the context that no one denomination would have dominate other denominations. You've added things to Jefferson's words that clearly are not there. "Separation of church and state" is not constituional since that phrase is not in the Constitution. If it were you would quote from the Article or the amendment! You can't because it isn't there.

July 20, 2009

douglas said:

What!! The comments on this site should be disabled. It has been over run by nutty leftest.

July 20, 2009

Susan said:

... Lee Gonzales: “We are a Republic not a democracy.” Lee, we are both. Lee: if a majority of people in a democracy voted to take away your property…” You are making my point for me. The religious majority cannot trample on atheists’ minority rights. Lee Gonzales: “We the majority of the people acting through our representatives put Christianity at the top of our public life.” So you DO think it is okay to take away other people’s property? Luckily you live in a democracy and a republic. We don’t do that here. Lee Gonzales: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." What does “establishment” mean? How would a government act if it were establishing a religion? How would it act if it were establishing atheism? How would it act if were neutral? Lee: “go over in your mind the words to the Pledge allegiance” Which version? The new one with “in God” inserted? This is exactly why it needs to be removed. Realtorgal: “Taking down Christian symbols won't solve anything” It will solve a lot. It will stop people like Lee Gonzales from using these words and symbols as precedents to create more of them. It will make clear that the U.S. is not a theocracy and does not promote religion. Realtorgal: “We are a Christian nation so we need to put our symbols on them.” We are not only a nation of Christians. We are a nation that allows people to live together in harmony. I live across the alley from a church. I enjoy seeing their religious messages on their property. The point is our government should not advocate religion or atheism. Our government is neutral. Lee Gonzales: “You've been conned by the ACLU's tricks that Jefferson's letter to a Baptist church overrules the First Amendment.” Forget Jefferson. What do you want your government to act like? A theocracy? An atheistic regime? Or neutral in the area of religion?

July 20, 2009

Good Reason News said:

comments "The comments on this site should be disabled. It has been over run by nutty leftest." Haha, "What's this? Alternate viewpoints!? Quick, start censoring! Think of the children!!" loser.

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Susan find the word democracy in the Constitution The Father of the Constitiuon James Madison: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as SHORT in their lives as they have been VIOLENT in their deaths." (emphasis are mine.) The Federalist Papers essay #10 The fact that a majority decides whether a bill passes the House of Representatives does not make the USA a "democracy " or even a part democracy. The bill still has many hurdles before it becomes law. The "deliberative" body of Congress- the US senate- can do kill a bad bill by filibustering it; no majority needed there; the president can veto it and the Supreme Court can rule it un-Constitutional. The states can refuse to cooperate with a "Patriot Act," or an act that forces the states to spy on its citizens using the 10th amendment that powers not delegated to Congress , president and the Courts resort back to the States which created the federal system in the first place. There is no democracy- "majority vote"- in a jury trial. 7 out of the 12 jurors don't decide. Juries have to be all in agreement. So forget about finding "democracy" in our jury trials. Aren't you glad you live in a Republic where your rights are protected by the the rule of law? You aren't taking my advise to look at article 4, section 4. Maybe it says "democracy" so you better check for yourself. .

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Susan on that hypothetical referendum that Realty Gal made her point on Realtor gal asked if a referendum was held to have an up and down nation-wide vote to keep God's name on our coins or to remove Him. You didn't answer. Do you think that atheists would lose or win the "democracy" in action vote? Susan there is nothing to "solve." Most Americans- religious and non-religious don't have a problem with God on our coins, our pledge. You and a few others have the problem. Did you ever notice the word "republic" in the pledge? It's still there even though you are in denial. You don't have to say the pledge and you can be mum when it is recited at a Republican or Democrat meeting,a boy scout event or at flag raising at girl scout camp. It's ok with Christians that you don't recite it. It may hurt us to see you snub the flag and what it stands for but we are forgiving and a loving kind

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Across from a church Susan: "I live across the alley from a church. I enjoy seeing their religious messages on their property. The point is our government should not advocate religion or atheism. Our government is neutral." Susan don't just enjoy the religous messages on the church property from your house, go inside and enjoy them more, or discuss your concerns with the preacher or priest. Again, Susan, the people created the government. The government came after the states created it and the people created the states. The people decided to have ecumenical words and passages placed on their property- the federal and state monuments and everything else. Being neutral is a silly thing for you to recommend. The Ten Commandments says Thou shall not kill, steal, lie and dishonor ones' parents. Do you want our government to be neutral concerning an ungrateful son or daughter who has defrauded his or her parents? That is the sole purpose of government - to protect us from criminals and those who would murder and steal from us. Government cannot be "neutral" in such circumstances and that is one of the reasons that God is at the center of our government- because the rule of law came from His Commandments. Do you want Christians to take your be "neutral " advice and abandon Him now that we need Him the most? Paraphrasing Jay Leno: With our economy in shambles, our deteriorating infrastructure, the Iraq and Afghan war, rising crime, are we sure we want to remove God from our nation's motto?"

July 20, 2009

Realtorgal said:

Pagans have the days of the week named after Norse, Roman and Greek gods http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0z4yNxCgVs Sun worshipers have their day - Sunday Moon worshipers have their day - Monday Ever notice why Tuesday's are combatitive? It's named after the Norse god of cambat.ooooh! The French Quarter in New Orleans is famous for Marti gras. Marti is French for Tuesday, not for "throw up the beads!" The Roman pagan god Mars. Mars for men and women for Venus? Blue collar workers gave us "hump" day, which means over half way over the work week. German factory workers probably came up with "hump day" which means "mid week." The Roman god Mercury and the English pagan god "Wednes" dei meaning the English god Wodan, and the Norse god Ooinsdagr (Odin's day) Catholics have tried to change Wednesday to "fast day" but it hasn't caught on. Thursday is also pagan in origin and it means Thor's day from the Norse god Thor. And before the Norse we had Jupiter but Juptday never caught on either. Interestingly the Hindu use Jupiter for Thursday. They call it Guru. Early Christians warned believers not to fast on Thursday so as not to inadvertently observe Torah law. The Church has changed that ancient custom. Friday means "I'll see you at Joe's Sports Bar right after I cash my check" day! No it too has pagan origins. The Latin dei Veneris means day of Venus. The love or romantic goddess. Saturday in latin means day of Saturn another pagan god. Should we tell the ACLU to litigate those "gods" out of our lives? They are violating someone's atheistic beliefs. After all the Romans considered Christians "atheists," because Christians did not honor the Roman gods.

July 20, 2009

Susan said:

... Lee Gonzales: “Susan, find the word democracy in the Constitution” Lee, find the word republic in the Constitution. Lee Gonzales: “Do you think that atheists would lose or win the "democracy" in action vote?” We live in a democracy that respects minority rights. Would blacks have been voted equal rights in the 1950 when politicians put the religious sentiments on our money? Lee Gonzales: “Most Americans- religious and non-religious don't have a problem with God on our coins, our pledge. You and a few others have the problem.” Yes, and our rights are protected--unless we live in a theocracy. You don’t think you live in a theocracy, do you? Since you don’t want to be a hypocrite, you must respect my minority rights. Lee Gonzales: “You don't have to say the pledge.” I am a school teacher. We lead the pledge every Monday. Lee Gonzales: “we are forgiving and a loving kind” Lee, I haven’t experienced that with you. But it’s not too late. Lee Gonzales: “don't just enjoy the religious messages on the church property from your house, go inside and enjoy them more, or discuss your concerns with the preacher or priest.” Lee, I enjoy their right to write their religious messages on their property. I don’t enjoy their message. But you knew that. Lee Gonzales: “Again, Susan, the people created the government.” Lee, I am a person. My money shouldn’t say I trust in god. Your money shouldn’t say you don’t trust in god. Our mutual government should remain neutral.

July 20, 2009

Susan said:

... Lee Gonzales: “The Ten Commandments says Thou shall not kill, steal, lie and dishonor ones' parents.” Oh, you must really go through the rest of them. They are so silly. You know if you run a business on the Sabbath, you should be stoned? Let’s do delve into all 10--because only 3 are upheld by the U.S. courts. Lee Gonzales: “Do you want our government to be neutral concerning an ungrateful son or daughter who has defrauded his or her parents?” Defrauding ANYONE is illegal. They don’t have to be your parents. It’s called stealing and lying. Covered in 2 and 3: 1) murdering, 2) stealing, and 3) bearing false witness. Lee Gonzales: “the rule of law came from His Commandments” Actually, there’s no proof of that. The proof we do have comes from the Code of Hammurabi which predates your religion (1790 BCE) and even that is predated by others. Realtorgal said: “Pagans have the days of the week named after Norse, Roman and Greek gods.” I am not a pagan. But if a modern day pagan used the days of the week to further his/her religious agenda to trample on the rights of others, then you and I would work together to change the names of the days of the week. Funny how that works, isn’t it? It’s all about using history to give you power. If no one brings it up as a majority belief, it has no power. But you knew that.

July 20, 2009

Paladin said:

... Susan, I am a person. My money shouldn’t say e pluribus umum. It shouldn't fund multiculturalism and feminism in schools and abortion. Your money shouldn’t you don't like those things. Our mutual government should remain neutral. Except there's a problem, isn't there? Like it or not, part of living in a republic with other human beings is having your tax money go to things you find objectionable. This is true even under the best of circumstances. Grow up. You don't deserve special treatment.

July 20, 2009

Warren the Writer said:

Republic in the Constitution for Susan Though this was addressed to Lee, let me field this one: Quote: Lee Gonzales: “Susan, find the word democracy in the Constitution” Lee, find the word republic in the Constitution. Okay, Susan, here it is: Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...."

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Susan and context Susan the teacher says: ".. I enjoy their right to write their religious messages on their property. I don’t enjoy their message..." It was just a suggestion,made with good-hearted intentions.This however is sarcasism: Does the fact that Crosses and the Star of David decorate cemetaries keep you from visiting them? Warren: You are right and you know I knew it said "republican form of government." But it does not say democratic form of government. That is something Teach isn't going to admit. Susan, I am not the one making you lead the children in the Pledge allegiance. You have my blessing not to recite it. If I had the power to do it I would say that you shouldn't be made to do anything you disagree with so vehemently. But that would mean that we would have to do away with state schools, or "public schools" as they are called today. Those who won't or can't or don't want to recite the Pledge can have their own schools financed by them. I too shouldn't be forced to be taxed to support "government" schools whose curriculum I don't agree with. But until that day arrives and we go back the way it was before Horace Mann when the majority of Americans taught their children in private schools or at home, I'll have to feel the way you do when the principle or whomever, forces you to recite the Pledge allegiance with the words "Republic" and "God" in it.

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Too much fun to quit the "Teach" on the Ten commandments: "Oh, you must really go through the rest of them. They are so silly. You know if you run a business on the Sabbath, you should be stoned?" The Sabbath and stoning. Does that mean I can't operate a rock quarry,lay a cobblestone street or polish agate at a lapidary shop on the sabbath? As a Catholic I am allowed to fulfill my Sabbath obligations on Saturday- that would be god of Saturn 7th or 6th day of the week, Realtorgal? And no I won't get stoned for working Sunday or on the Sabbath at Hobby Lobby. Susan, I thought you were incorrigible, but I get the feeling that you are an ok lady.

July 20, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Len_ RI reaches out to atheists and trips on his robe Len the prayer leader: "I am a fervent believer in God,...to have religion included in the classroom and in our government on one condition: I get to be the one person who says what religion it shall be." Your sarcasm notwithstanding, Len you may just get your wish if you change religions! “...Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not...It should be known that adopting a malicious and offending approach toward the sensitive issues of Islamic world by hiding behind some democratic freedoms like freedom of speech and right of free publication is unacceptable.” “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.” “You cannot be secular and a Muslim at the same time. The world’s 1.5 billion Muslims are waiting for the Turkish people to rise up. We will rise up.” --- Recep Tayyip Erdogan http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/1460

July 21, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Susan has hang ups with American Coins with the word "God" stamped on them Susan the anti-God on our coins school teacher says: "I am a person. My money shouldn’t say I trust in GOD. Your money shouldn’t say you don’t trust in GOD." (EMPHASIS ARE MINE) Susan you are free Not to use coins or bills of credit-cash. The school pays you with a paper check without the word "God" doesn't it? Banks issue credit cards and they are quite handy for doing most of your business transactions. Just go totally plastic. For those rare occasions when you have to use other means- that dreaded money with "GOD", you'll have to use the barter system or force them to accept your personal check! Let's say that you hired a foreign worker who doesn't trust a personal check or a waiter who would prefer that you leave a few bucks on his table, or a talkative cab driver who puts who would rather put his trust in the "Allmighty" dollar, than a personal check or a live chicken,(or a cooked one from KFC). What happens then? Maybe you can swap your cab fare, plus his tip for teaching his children all the wrong things you've learned about what form of government we are? Do you think a cab driver will accept a live chicken or a terrible history lesson as a tip? I'm sorry you'll have to use cash to tip the shuttle driver. And the cab company as far as I know won't accept foul and farm animals. Not certain about Travellers checks or plastic(?. You can make arrangements with all of your business contacts that from now on you aren't using cash. You'll explain to them why, I'm sure they'll understand. (well, at least some won't walk away shaking their head!).

July 21, 2009

Susan said:

... Warren the Writer, I asked for the word “republic.” Don’t you think I word-searched the Constitution before I issued my challenge? Lee: “Does the fact that crosses and the Star of David decorate cemeteries keep you from visiting them?” Cemeteries are not owned and run by the government. In arguments, people do not point to the headstones of individual’s who have decorated them with crosses as proof that the government is Christian. Lee: That is something Teach isn't going to admit. I admit that it doesn’t use the word democracy in the Constitution. That is a verifiable fact. But that doesn’t preclude us from being one! What do you have against democracy? Lee, I have been crossing out the “god” word on all my paper money for years. So I got that covered. But why is it so important to you to have it on your money? You know how strongly I feel about it. What would be the problem of returning to tradition and taking it off? Would you faith really be affected?

July 21, 2009

Warren the Writer said:

Apparently Susan does not understand what a derivitive term is Comment Title: Author: Susan Email: bosvd@cpinternet.com Link to content: http://www.thenewamerican.com/...ution/1440 Comment: Warren the Writer, I asked for the word “republic.” Don’t you think I word-searched the Constitution before I issued my challenge? Either you are playing word games or you are more ignorant than you seem. I have found from experience that dishonest people often feign ignorance in order to get away with being dishonest. Guaranteeing a republican form of government requires that one first establish a republic. No other form of government, a dictatorship, an oligarchy, or a democracy can guarantee a republican form of government. Just as, If meat is certified as being Kosher, you know that only a rabbi did the certification. Did I think you word-searched the Constitution before you issued your challenge? It is impossible to determine from your steadfast adherence to your ignorance.

July 21, 2009

Susan said:

... Lee, I am thinking about your statement that you are not the one forcing me to lead my students in the Pledge. Actually, you are responsible, which is the entire reason I logon to sites like this and endure rude and disrespectful comments. The people of my state elected leaders who changed the law to require the Pledge. In a democracy people speaking up do make a difference. If religious people were to speak out against these abuses of our government, politicians would have no reason to make these laws. It’s ironic how republicans demand the government stay out of people’s lives except in the area of religion. Then, I guess, the government assumes religion can’t make it on its own and needs government aid. Now, if the tables were reversed, and our government was advocating atheism, I would be just as angry and disappointed as I am now. The only difference is I would have you by my side fighting for the separation of anti-church and state.

July 21, 2009

Susan said:

... Warren, I am totally playing word games with you. I teach etymologies. Can you tell me why you think it's important that the word "democracy" isn't in the constitution and "republican" is? When you and others place so much importance on what is written by our government, doesn't my demand to have god-phrases removed from government objects and pledges make complete sense.

July 21, 2009

Paladin said:

... Susan, you see, I'm not surprised to hear you say that you're playing games. And that's the problem with people like you. You're not honest. If you have a discussion with people, you owe them honesty. You mentioned rudeness. Well, it's rude to do otherwise. Anyway, you've just confirmed what I already knew about you. You're not someone who searches for truth. Instead, you just say whatever is necessary to try to promote what feels right to you. Given the fact that you've admitted dishonesty (which is disrespectful), can you explain why we spend any more time talking with you?

July 21, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

"The reason I log on to sites like this" Susan, No one is "forcing " you to say the pledge allegiance to our wonderful and marvelous flag. I am far away from where you reside in Fantasy land. No one is forcing you to accept coins bearing GOD on them. I suggested that you Go totally plastic." We are moving quickly in the direction of a cashless society in that the "In GOD We Trust" motto may become a moot point. I'd like to see gold and silver coins brought back and used in place of the slugs that we use today. Remember the "good as gold" saying? Gold coins and silver coins have been used as a medium of exchange since the time of Abraham. Gold coins maintain their value. The coins of today- US market- have no real intrinsic value since their real value,( silver content)has been removed, and even copper is being removed from them. If "In God We Trust" were to be removed from these coins by some miracle conjured up by the ACLU god, these coins, which have been denuded of precious metal, cannot be trusted to maintain their value. Therefore the removal of God from association with coins bearing little or no value may remind Americans that we had better get busy living in a free country or get busy dying in a Theocracy ruled by The gods at the Temple of Federal Reserve. It may well serve as a wake-up call to sleepy-eyed Americans,(perhaps like the ones across the alley from your house), to "occupy till He comes" and be the "salt of the earth," by helping to restore our freedom, our Constitution and our money! One question: If you are a teacher how do you find time to keep up with these blogs and to put out a string commentary? Isn't this extracurricular activity keeping you from your teaching duties?

July 21, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

"Word games" susan Self admitted "word game" commentator Susan "the teach" keeps referring to the government ... " When you and others place so much importance on what is written by our government,..." claims the "teach." This isn't a "word game," The Preamble of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States,..." The "we" means the people. We are the government. In the meantime the foolishness that you have exhibited in your "word games" is more proof of the reason to abolish the public school system. You aren't interested in knowledge or in debating an issue but in entertaining yourself. The fact is that the more times that you visit "sites like this" the more traffic they get and the more revenue they raise. Keep visiting.

July 21, 2009

Susan said:

... Paladin: “Given the fact that you've admitted dishonesty...” I do not admit to being dishonest. My playing a word game with Lee was in response to his playing a word game with me. He suggested that a word had to be in the Constitution in its exact form and not just with its meaning. You see, the words "republic" and "democracy" are for all intents and purposes interchangeable. Most people, including our presidents, do not make the distinction in meaning. I assumed Lee knew that and was playing games with me. What do you think about the words "republic" and "democracy"?

July 21, 2009

Susan said:

... Lee: “No one is ‘forcing’ you to say the pledge allegiance to our wonderful and marvelous flag. I am far away from where you reside in Fantasy land.” Well, good. You describe my state as Fantasy land. Sounds like you agree with me that states should not do this to their citizens. Lee: “It may well serve as a wake-up call to sleepy-eyed Americans,(perhaps like the ones across the alley from your house).” Those are very nice people who attend the church behind my house. My only problem with religious people is when they force their religion on me. Lee: If you are a teacher how do you find time to keep up with these blogs? Isn't this extracurricular activity keeping you from your teaching duties?” What makes you think this activity is not related to my teaching? I teach rhetoric. Lee: “In the meantime the foolishness that you have exhibited in your "word games" is more proof of the reason to abolish the public school system. You aren't interested in knowledge or in debating an issue but in entertaining yourself.” Lee, can you tell me what was foolish about the word game you started? It actually is pertinent to our argument. Words do matter. But you may not equivocate and say that in the context of the Constitution the lack of the word “democracy” means our government isn’t one and then turn around and say in the context of money or buildings the use of God-phrases doesn’t mean our government supports religion. If our government supports religion, it is a theocracy.

July 21, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Paladin Have you seen this slogan? The Last Time Atheism Ran The World There Was This BIG Flood!

July 21, 2009

Susan said:

... What is so beautiful about what I am asking you is that I am not demanding that atheism "run the world." I am simply asking you that neither theism nor atheism run America. If theism does, we are neither a democracy nor a republic. We would be a theocracy. Since the 1950s we have been moving in that direction.

July 21, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

Warren the writer On those derivitive terms; Piltdown man was a fraud perpetrated on the evolutionists. Fraudulent is a derivitive of fraud. So if a Darwinian make up artist made up Piltdown man was he given a DNA facelift? Counter punch to the evolutionists slogan: " In Darwin We Trust" Darwinism is taught by trusting monkeys

July 21, 2009

SWEJ said:

God is nowhere in the constitution ... so why should he be on our government buildings?! (Lee, "in the year of our lord", was common parlance, and does not imply the constitution is a religious document!) Did you know that "Under God" was placed on our money, not by the Founders, but by the Knights of Columbus in 1956!!"

July 22, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

SWEJ and his in state of denial syndrome Mr. SWEJ says: " God is nowhere in the constitution ... so why should he be on our government buildings?! He (GOD) is there. He was there from the beginning of the words of the Preamble: "We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,...secure the blessings of liberty,..." Where do you suppose "Justice" comes from? It comes from God. The Founders declared in the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation upon which the Constitution stands, that rights come from God. Those are God's ideas not man's.The Founder's repeated reference to the "Creator" should give you some indication of where rights come from. The Constitution without the Declaration would not have produced a republic- a republic that demands that people living in it be a moral people. Morality is an incorporeal gift to man from the "Creator" say the Founders when they wrote "The blessings of liberty" in the Preamble. Atheists have a problem with this due to being instutionalized by the false philosophy of secularism. Nevertheless, we would not have the "Blessing of liberty" had not the Founders declared it and fought for it. Had the Founders emblazoned God with the very first word to the Constitution would that make you a believer in his loving Grace? God the "Creator" "Nature's God" "Supreme Judge of the world." Who do you suppose the men who signed the Declaration were referring to? The "common parlance" of their was that Men of their intellect and virtue did mean what they said and wrote. The Founders looked for guidance to men of religion like Henry Blackstone, John Locke, Montesquieu and others whose enlightened minds influenced the Founders and the Bible. You have confined yourself within a corporeal jail cell.That is not my doing but your own.

July 25, 2009

Brody said:

The closing statement... SELWYN DUKE- Your closing statement was perfect. It shows us what you are REALLY thinking... which of course is.. "Kill the Infidels!" That mentality, bares the true ugliness of religion, (delusions aside)....

August 05, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

"The Lord indeed is God" 1 Kings, chpt. 18 "At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again." Elijah was following orders. Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil,.. When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!" "Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there."

August 09, 2009

Lee Gonzales said:

... Selwyn Duke writes: "Okay, but if they're man-made, why do you discriminate against them? Why do you say that man-made ideas we happen to call "secular" may be in the public square, but man-made ideas we happen to call "religious" may not be? If they're all man's handiwork, good fellow, wherein lies the difference?" The elected officials in the New Mexico county of Bernalillo, (pronounced: Bern- ah- lee-oh), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/i...id=3075485 were sued by an atheist to have the cross of Jesus removed from the Bernalillo county seal. One pathetic little creep atheist complained it bothered him and the ACLU, being atheistic prone, made the cowardly county officials remove the Christian cross. It was replaced by another religious symbol- the Zuni indian symbol. So it was not religion per se that atheists hate -they just hate the Lord. The Zuni sun god symbol is on the State's flag. Brody, religion still remains part of the county of Bernalillo. Does the Zia symbol mean that paganism is part of Bernalillo county's offical religion? http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local News/Pueblo_pleas_for_respect_for_Zia_symbol

August 09, 2009