Enough! This Nation was NOT Founded on Christianity

restraining-order-constitutionConservatives seem to not quite understand that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two completely different things.  The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson.  The Constitution was put together by many different individuals and it essentially creates our government and lists the rights of its citizens.

Granted, the Declaration of Independence does say, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..” with “creator” referring to some form of God.  But, again, this document has nothing to do with our Constitutional rights.

Our Constitution has exactly zero mentions of God, Jesus, Christians or Christianity.

In fact, the First Amendment clearly states that we’re given the freedom of religion.  It also says Congress can’t make any laws based on religious beliefs.

But let’s just look at a few comments from some key Founding Fathers about the United States, separation of church and state and how this nation wasn’t founded on Christianity:

  • The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams: “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
  • Thomas Jefferson: “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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
  • James Madison: “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
  • Thomas Jefferson: “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
  • Thomas Jefferson: “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

And that’s not all of them – there are several more – but I figured those were pretty clear cut.

Now why, if our nation was founded on Christianity, would some of our key Founding Fathers speak so strongly against mixing religion and government?  Why would our Constitution never once mention God, Christians, Jesus or Christianity?  Why does our very First Amendment specifically say that Congress cannot make laws based on religion?

It makes absolutely no sense for anyone to logically argue that this nation was founded on Christianity when there’s overwhelming evidence that says otherwise.

These people who claim this nation was founded on Christianity are simply wishing that it had been, instead of facing the reality that it wasn’t.  The problem is, they’re trying to base laws on their wishes instead of the clear cut facts on what the Constitution and our Founding Fathers mapped out.

Image via Formidable Republican Opposition.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Fritz

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..”

    The reason for that argument being included is that the King of England was believed to have been given his right to rule by God. The idea that common people are equal to a king was revolutionary at the time. Democracy did not exist.

    • FD Brian

      You are referring to “The Divine Right of Kings”.

  • Rick Lewis

    At least as important as the points noted is Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which states in part, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    If this were truly a Christian nation, this clause would never have been in the Constitution, but it’s been there the whole time.

    • korhal

      There are, unfortunately, several southern states that violate Article VI and DO require a religious test.

      • deareg

        What? Which ones and how do they do it?

      • korhal

        Go to Google and search for “southern states require religious test”. There are several websites, but the first one that comes up hits on most of the offenders. I’d post a link here but it’s apparently being blocked.

      • Banjo

        There are states that have a law against spitting on the sidewalk. Tell me, when was the last time you heard that being used?

      • korhal

        Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1
        Maryland, Article 37
        Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265
        North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
        South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4
        Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2
        Texas, Article 1, Section 4

        There are likely others.

      • deareg

        Those say what? I have never heard of a test. NEVER! What do they say? I am serious. I live in Ga. and active politically and did not know of a test for religion! It may be listed but believe me it is NOT used.

      • Patrick Klocek

        This is something states and local units are allowed to do. The constitution bans the practice for federal offices only.

      • jenny_whyme

        The supremacy clause says otherwise…

      • Wolfpen Gap

        No it doesn’t. In fact, we the people in each of our respective states have been telling the feds to go f themselves lately and passing laws that will lock up any fed that comes to try and enforce fed law on its citizens

      • jenny_whyme

        Yeah… it’s called “nullification” and it violates the supremacy clause..

        You should go read the Articles of Confederation… figure out why it failed and why the very same people sat down and wrote the Constitution.

      • Banjo

        “State nullification is not a violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That clause says that laws made by the United States “in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land which means that acts not in “pursuance” of the Constitution are not laws at all. But who is to decide whether an act is or is not in “pursuance” of the Constitution? Some would say the Supreme Court. The Court may, indeed, express an opinion, but it cannot have the final say. That can only be vested in the supreme authority that ratified the Constitution and gave it the force of law, namely the people of the several states.”

      • Taz

        Banjo… keep in mind there is no mention of democracy in the constitution either. It plainly says republic, which is entirely different. That is how the corrupt government gets around the constitution. Article 4 section 4.

      • Banjo


      • David

        Do you understand the difference between democracy and republic? There a reason why we are a republic and not pure democracy. Pure democracy leads to PURE ANARCHY. If you don’t understand the definition of democracy, in comparison with republic, you would come to that imbalanced conclusion of corruption.

      • Taz

        I understand the difference very well. Sadly, most people do not know what either one is. They are actually polar opposites. A democracy being over the people and a republic being for the people. Hooking them together with a hyphen creates an oxymoron.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        there are only 18 legitimate functions of the federal government. Read up on it.

      • Patrick Klocek

        The Supremacy Clause has been being abused for decades now. That clause was only meant for times when two statutes were in conflict with each other. Now the Federal Government has been going on a statute binge in order force the states into uniformity.

      • David

        That’s right. The key word with the Federal Government is FORCED, as in forced down our throats. Let’s be clear people, the Federal Government has a CLEAR AGENDA and they are trying to get there as quickly as possible, wherever THERE IS. But, they are not telling the American People what that quick-time is to. They believe the people have been dumbed-down enough to not not even notice anything is happening. Are they right or wrong? We should seriously reflect, before it’s too late. If it isn’t too late now. What do you all think?

      • Marcella Peterson

        No it doesn’t. There wasn’t a federal separation when the constitution was created. Unless I’m mistaken I believe it was a single government with proper checks and balance but no federal vs state.

      • Kim Kee

        WRONG WHY do you think it required all 13 states to sign it and send the Declaration on its way

      • Banjo

        Key word “States”

      • Berlin Baby

        Key word: United

      • Wolfpen Gap

        10th amendment draws a line. What powers not delegated by the constitution to the federal government (18 legetimate Functions), falls to the states, and whatever powers that does not fall on the states resides with the people.

      • David

        There were forms of separation in the Constitution, between State and Federal. I don’t have the references directly, now, but, there is a reference in the Constitution which states Powers not delegated nor stated to the Federal Government are referred to the States. I believe that is why we had a Civil War, because there was apparently a difference of opinion there. Now,the present Federal Government is trying to washout as much as possible the powers delegated to the States. However, most of the American People are not catching the DRAMA be for their very eyes, in plain sight. There is something going on and no one is even realizing it.

      • Kim Kee

        for what ???
        name one and a test for what

      • korhal

        I named them 3 months ago, if you’d just scrolled down, fool.

        Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1
        Maryland, Article 37
        Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265
        North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
        South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4
        Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2
        Texas, Article 1, Section 4

    • Jim Bean

      Generally speaking, you cannot be a serial murderer or convicted thief and still qualify to hold public office. Do you want to tell me that is not a ‘religious test?’ And if so, what criteria are you using to distinguish what constitutes a ‘religious test’ and what does not in those instances where religious texts exist that support what you are support? If the constitution intended a complete divorce from religion, shouldn’t they have rejected the prohibitions against killing and stealing that were already established by religion?

      • Jim, you don’t need religion to have ethical restraints against stealing, murder and rape. I daresay a completely secular, atheistic society would also legislate against those things. To say that ‘godless heathens’ would allow their citizens to steal and murder with impunity is insulting and stupid.

      • Jim Bean

        To say that ‘godless heathens’ would allow their citizens to steal and murder with impunity WOULD be insulting and stupid. I would never say it.

      • Steve Kruzich

        if our society was truely without God there would be no morality to stop them from thieving, murdering, raping, and pillaging. It is a inherit trait of mankind without God.

      • … so @Steve Kruzich, the only reason you don’t kill and rape and steal is because god is watching you, otherwise, you jump to it?

      • AQ

        Steve, if you need a religion with a vengeful and abusive god to tell you that it’s wrong to thieve, murder, rape, and pillage, then the problem is not with religion–the problem is with YOU.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        I know a lot of people who are not church goers or necessarily religious at all and have very high standards about how to conduct themselves and their lives. Inside of each of us are qualities that make us who we are. As peterblaise said, if the only reason you don’t do bad things is because you think someone is watching you and will make you suffer then you don’t have any integrity to begin with.

      • logiboy

        Most people would say, our society is one with God, but he does not seem capable of stopping any of the nasty things we speak of here?

      • isitournature

        I practice buddhism, Im not a buddhist, but I practice what it teaches. I hold myself to a moral and ethical code not out of fear of some being greater than myself, but rather out of love for myself and everyone else that I am interconnected with. To me, that is what the constitution protects in this country.

      • garrynec

        You speak with truth and reason. Thank you.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        capable yes he is, but will he? Not necessarily. There is the matter of free will. Sometimes he will intervene when one of his children are attacked.

      • .

        Attacked by who? (whom?) — we’re ALL God’s children … right?

        Your logic evades me.

        (“… one …are …”?)

      • Kim Kee

        none of you are on the topic
        the old joke is right
        give them a topic and within 5 minutes they won’t remember what the heck it was they were talking about to start with

      • Wolfpen Gap

        No we are not all Gods children. sorry but thats a lie. Unless you follow and abide by his plan your not a child of God but an enemy of God.

        Obviously you haven’t read the bible otherwise you would understand this. How could you not be a enemy of him if your willingly choosing to do everything he said not to do.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        That cannot be true!! Do you think anyone is stopping thieves and murderers from doing their “thing”? They don’t stop and say “oh I’d better not kill this guy because a God says it is immoral”. Half of the people in Houston that get convicted for their crimes have relatives that say that they were GOOD PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS WENT TO CHURCH!! And look at the people of faith who KILL in the name of their religion!! Study the Crusades which were certainly involved with religion.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        did i say that no one would do anything evil even with God here? No i didn’t. I just merely pointed out that if there was no God, that it would be even worse. Your claims on the crusades being religious are false. It wasn’t religious it was a war between two power hungry cults, catholicism and islam. Try again.

        Just because you go to church doesn’t mean your a child of God. Just like living in a garage doesn’t make you a car.

      • Marcella Peterson

        That is also flawed logic. Just because you say it is so, does not make it so. Point of FACT, I know many athiests who are amazingly upstanding, wonderful people. Who also know murder and rape and all that is wrong and should be punished. So to say that without God ( who also hasn’t been around since the dawn of humanity) it would be worse does not follow logical FACT. Also… man created God. The Jewish people were his chosen people and that was only about 4000 years ago. Also the longest living religion by the way. Christianity is only 1500 years old with Islam/Muslim being the youngest at about 1400 ish years old. People have been around much longer than that without God.

      • Marvin R. Scott

        So your saying Adam and Eve were created 1500 years ago? Noah’s Arc 1500 years ago? No religion before Noah’s Arc and the 40 days and night’s of rain that brought the floods to wipe out all of God’s creation’s?

      • Wolfpen Gap

        Really? LOL. i seem to remember Cain and Able offering sacrifices to God. Long before any other religion ever appeared. And christianity has been present since the beginning. “Let us make man in our own image”.

      • Steve

        The Bible and Christianity were invented by Emperor Constantine in order to control his people. Edict of Thessalonica and Council of Nicea – look it up.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        wrong! Catholicism was invented by him, not the bible. the bible existed long before the emporer.
        As you know bible is a collection of books and letters from God to his people. The emporer did not write them

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus ,

        You MUST be a terrific religionist, because you just make thing up to satisfy and justify your preferences for the way you think things aught to be.

        “The Bible” as we know it today is the result of severe shredding, ordered by Constantine, written by religionists who were subservient to him … then it’s been translated and updated by unknown revisionists with every republication.

        What do they say — “… a horse designed by committee results in a camel …”?!?

        God, even your own God, had absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone calls “The Bible”.

        Spout all you want to ’til your well runs dry.

        Believe what you want to believe.



        This Nation was NOT founded on Christianity.

        Even if anyone could find what “Christianity” is, as if Christianity could be defined as one thing for all who call their behavior “Christian” — and don’t even try to define what Christians believe!

      • Wolfpen Gap

        So your claiming constantine shredded it? Then how did the Torah survive his shredding in such perfection that it totally and 100% agrees with the original which is still available today that predates constantine?
        Your grasping at straws that aren’t there.

        As far as founded on christian principles, the constitution clearly states and points it out that this is a christian nation. It names God himself (Creator is one of his 600+ names), The simple fact that it states Creator means it is the God of Creation spoken about in Genesis. You have to be a complete moron to not realize that.

        Is it still a christian nation? Yes it is, until God turns his hand of protection away from us and that is fast coming since we have a host of lawless, Godless people that are turning their back on him. They will regret it one day especially when they can’t feed their families and are hiding in fear for their lives from governments and or natural disasters.

        At least i don’t have to go through it.

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus wrote about The Bible, got tossed, then changed to The Torah.

        I wrote: “… “The Bible” as we know it today is the result of severe shredding, ordered by Constantine, written by religionists who were subservient to him … then it’s been translated and updated by unknown revisionists with every republication …”

        @Wolfen Gap wrote: “… As far as founded on christian principles, the constitution clearly states and points it out that this is a christian nation. It names God himself (Creator is one of his 600+ names), The simple fact that it states Creator means it is the God of Creation spoken about in Genesis. You have to be a complete moron to not realize that. …”

        The Constitution states: “… … …”

        Well, the US Constitution doesn’t state anything about a Creator.


        Maybe @Wolfen Gap meant the Declaration of Independence?

        The Declaration of Independence states:

        “… When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … [snip] … as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor …”

        Sorry for the long quote,but I wanted to include anything that might pin down a Christian God, the theme of this thread.

        @Wolfen Gap claims “The Creator” is one of 600+ names for God.


        Christian, however, believe in “The Christ”, “the anointed one” baptized by John the Baptist: Jesus.

        For any document to mention “The Creator” could leave the reader to wonder if there is a generalized acceptance of Abrahamic theology.

        Abrahamic theology is not exclusively “Christian”.

        Abrahamic theology includes

        — Jews,

        — Muslims,

        — Bahá’í,

        — Samaritan,

        — Yazidi,

        — Druze,

        — Mandean,

        — Rastafari,

        — Bábí,

        … and so on.

        Okay, not a lot of Rastafari signing the Declaration of Independence, eh?

        Maybe that’s the point — this country WAS founded on slavery, so maybe it’s a good thing to abandon all blind adherence to founder’s blindness.

        But wait!

        The Declaration of Independence takes great pains to say “… Nature’s God …”, as in:

        “… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …”.

        And The Declaration of Independence says nothing about “The Creator”, but instead, painstakingly calls on “… their creator …” for each separate and equal person, as in:

        “… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”

        Again, @Wolfen Gap, you believe what you want to believe, and probably believed it long before you read anything, and long before you started sharing and defending your opinion.

        You are wrong, and your specifics are inaccurate.

        But, no matter, we are free to bathe ourselves in our own opinion, and shelter ourselves from other’s, which we each seem to be doing.

        Evidence suggests that the founders were so pissed off at organized religion that they wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole, opting instead to think of themselves as “Deists”, that is, believers in some kind of higher power, just not a higher power of the lineage that the local Christian hierarchy inflicted on each other and on the populace.

        Pretty much, the founders were saying, “… keep your Christianity to yourself …”

        They stopped short of saying “… and take it with you straight to a hell of your own choosing …”

        Thomas Jefferson was so fed up with all that Christian noise that he was rewriting his own version of a Bible.

        Hey, we could have had an American Religion:

        — Jeffersonianity!

        Instead we got:

        — Baptists,

        — Shakers,

        — Mormons,

        — Universalist Unitarians,

        — New Thought,

        — Adventists,

        — Spiritualism,

        — Jehovah’s Witnesses,

        — The Theosophical Society,

        — Christian Science,

        — Pentecostsals,

        — Rosicrucians,

        — Moorish Science,

        — Nation of Islam,

        — New Age,

        — Scientology,

        — Peoples Temple,

        — Branch Davidians,

        — Westboro Baptist Church,

        — Eckankar,

        — LaVeyan Satanism,

        — SubGenius’s,

        — Heaven’s Gate,

        — The Creativity Movement,

        — Kemetic Orthodoxy,

        — Course in Miracles

        — The C-Street Davidians

        Add to that the 500 Native Nations’ beliefs.

        Add to that imports like

        — Judaism,

        — Buddhism,

        — Islam, and

        — Hinduism.

        So, what does it matter how many Fundamentalist Christian Conservatives can dance on the head of a pin as they discuss if this nation was founded as Christian or not?

        Heck, they can’t even decide which “Christian” they are themselves (there are reported to be 40,000+ Christian denominations in the US), let alone what the founders might have been.

        Give it up, @Wolfen Gap.

        We already have our credo, our wisdom documents, our creed, our references, and they ain’t Christian / Christ / Jesus: they are

        — “… Nature’s God …”, and

        — “… each equal person’s own Creator …”.

        Don’t be afraid of something new to you:

        — 200+ year old / new ideas are AMERICAN,

        — 2,000+ year old ideas are UN-AMERICAN.

        Get with the program.

        Or get yourself to the Middle East where you seem to want to reside.

        Oh, and time travel, too, because you seem to want to be there during the endless Roman crucifixions lining their roads, keeping the rabble docile.

        Send us a post card.

        Create some myths and fallacies about yourself, too.

      • politicalsanity

        The Creator referenced was the God of Nature, NOT the Christian God. Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists and Pagans, and held a strong contempt for the Christian clergy.

      • steve theman

        Do you know how stupid your comment sounds? REALLY? There is ONLY 1 creator. Even the pagans recognized Jehovah or El. ROTFLMBO.

        As for your claim that forefathers were pagan, name them. You can’t. I can however name several.
        ONLY jefferson and franklin supposedly were deists, which deism does NOT mean they did not believe in God but that they did not believe he intervened in mans affairs.

        Washington was a pantheist, but That too does not negate his christianity since God is the author of nature and is seen in his very creation of ever single grain of sand on the earth. IN FACT God said that even if you silenced the world from saying his name the very rocks will cry out he is God.

        Charles Carroll was the only RC, but some consider him christian as well.

        Sam Adams was MOST DEFINATELY Christian as I have some of his writings here and they all give honor and glory to God the father.
        Hamilton founded the christian constitutional society, as well as was a devout christian.

        John Hancock you know the guy who signed his name so big on the Declaration so that even ole king george couldn’t miss his name.
        He set aside May 11th as a national day of fasting and prayer.

        Patrick Henry, was a most devout christian, in fact he loved God even willing to go to his death for freedom and gave God the glory. You can’t mistake who he was referring to, as there is only one that goes by Almighty God.
        Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

        John Jay, Francis Hopkinson (church leader), James Madison all were devout christians

        This fella John Marshall, was a justice. He said
        In a letter to Jasper Adams on May 9, 1833, Chief Justice Madison wrote:

        “The American population is entirely Christian, and
        with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange
        indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose
        Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with

        ANOTHER JUstice Georga Mason, you know those guys who interpret the constitution said

        In his will, George Mason wrote:

        “My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty
        Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins.”

        Thomas Mckean, Dr. Benjamin Rush who said (“Let the children…be carefully instructed in the principles and
        obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part
        of education),

        Roger Sherman another one
        He said
        “I believe that there is one only living and tru God, existing in
        three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in
        substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the Old and
        New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct
        us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.”

        Richard stockton, ““First, I bequeath my soule into the hands of Almight God”

        George Washington
        John witherspoon was a presbyterian minister.

        And Noah Webster. I saved him for last because he recognized that OUR FREEDOMS were granted by God, the christian God, not some fairytale gnome or fairy flitting around in the woods. IN FACT it was Christianity that was the grand design for our freedom, it was crafted long before any of these men were ever thought of.

        “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of
        Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence;
        which acknowledges in every person, a brother or a sister, and a
        citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we
        owe our free constitutions of government.”

        Now wanna try and name your 1 or 2 that might not be christian? ROTFL

      • .
        Yer point, @steve_theman:disqus ?

        I like that you took many historical people’s inventory.

        Many people.

        Aware that they hated capital R Religion, and they hated each other, they created a self-governance where nobody’s “God” would rule the day.

        you show that they each were inspired in their own way to create a self-governance that did not inflict constraints on anyone’s inspiration.

        They believed that their God gave them life, and they then killed their God in order to give life to their new nation.

        Cool, or what?

        Let sleeping Gods lie.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        bullshit. LOL Prove it!

      • Kim Kee

        Did you study the crusades ????
        what were they looking for ?
        and what has this got to do with the topic
        now we are talking about criminals and not the declaration or the contstituion

      • niknakpaddywack

        I am an atheist and I have a very clear and strong moral compass. I would never steal from someone because with or without your God it is wrong. The only time I would consider a physical altercation or murder of any kind would be for self defense. I also have manners. I say please, thank you, yes ma’am, yes sir, etc. Morality and ethics are not inherent to religion. You think that simply because it’s what you’ve been taught. I recommend taking an Ethics class.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        Well that would be from Gods hand, not yours. Remember God wrote natural law on the hearts of man in the beginning, so you wouldn’t have a excuse to deny him.

      • Marcella Peterson

        Freedom of choice, given by God, taken away by man.

      • Kim Kee

        God gave you a compass
        or lets say
        we hope you were born with a sense of right and wrong
        and YES you do have the choice of being a good person or an asshole
        but NO if you ever watch kids that have never been corrected and how they interact with other kids socially
        how they grab the toy from one kid and run off with it
        pinching scratching biting
        watch the little ones
        you see the ones who have been nurtured and the ones who have been left to fedn for themselves or SPOILED SO ROTTEN they get or take what ever they want
        when they grow up to be the same way
        you see too many of these people on the news every day
        bet you have sat there and said WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE

      • Wolfpen Gap

        back at you, your doing exactly the same thing.

      • raysot

        You didn’t understand Marcella’s statement….

      • raysot

        wait… GOD wrote natural law on our hearts so we couldn’t deny him? WOW! It’s all so clear to me now!

        An Atheist

      • Kim Kee

        IF you haven’t taken a good look at what is happening in this country
        you are totally in la la land

      • politicalsanity

        So that is a fail of today’s parents, NOT of society as a whole.

        There’s a simple concept of morality– treat others the way you would wish to be treated yourself.

        No religion involved.

      • Jim Bean

        Morality is defined by what you would NOT do if the opportunity was present and you knew with absolute certainty that no one would ever find out what you did. Most American’s, under those circumstances would be millionaires.

      • Marcella Peterson

        That also doesn’t make sense. There are many people who do not currently amd who have not previously believed in God and they have great moral and ethical standards. Please do not insult athiests by saying they would all rape, murder, and all that nonsense. Please also note, there are TONS of Christians who merder, steal, rape, beet their spices and children, and so on. Do not say to me that everyone would be evil without God when so many are evil with God.

      • Paul Julian Gould

        Marcella, please don’t take this with offense… (hey, my birth mother was named Marcia Peterson, so how could I intend you offense? /*smile*/

        Just a pet peeve of mine… I’m not an atheist, but I would imagine an atheist would be a bit bugged… the word is spelled a t h e i s t… otherwise, it’s a common internet error, but it makes your dead-on comment one that some might decide to skip… and the other word is spelled b e a t… b e e t is the root vegetable, and it’s murder, not merder, and spouses, not spices.

        Seriously, no offense intended, but I find that cogent points of fact tend to be dismissed if they’re placed in a comment that has grammatical issues.

        Well-said, anyway, you speak truth, and glad to see you here.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        where do you get the idea they are christian. they’re not. And the only reason anyone doesn’t do what they want to do is the result of Gods influence in the world. BUT You will soon get to see what happens when he removes himself from this world. You can read about it in revelation

      • Steve

        In Revelations Jesus murders a single mom and her kids for following the wrong religion – so much for the so-called “morality” of the Bible.

        Jesus Will Kill Children: Revelation 2:19-23 – “I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” This is Jesus talking, and the commentator in this ‘King James Study Bible’ admits as much, saying “2:19-23. There was a self-proclaimed prophetess at Thyatira whom Christ calls Jezebel. She was leading the church into false doctrine, idolatry, and immorality just as the Old Testament Jezebel had done to Israel (cf. 1 Kin. 16; Kin. 9). She refused to repent, and therefore would be judged along with her followers and her children.”

      • politicalsanity

        There are MANY instances in the Bible where God gives the commandments to murder, rape and pillage.

      • steve theman

        Cite one where God said to murder and rape. Just one.

      • politicalsanity

        NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is stoned to death at the Lord’s command.

        NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord.

        DT 20:13-14
        “When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males …. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.”

        DT 21:10-13
        With the Lord’s approval, the Israelites are allowed to take “beautiful women” from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has “no delight” in his wife, he can simply let her go.

        EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: “… slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ….”

      • raysot

        If you need a god to tell you not to do those things, you are an evil person.

      • Kim Kee

        well its clear you aren’t a very good MYSTIC
        take a look around you and you will see just HOW WELL AN ATHIESTIC SOCIETY IS DOING ON GOVERNING ITSELF
        Either you live in a totally different corner of your own little world….
        so far I can not see in any way shape or form how the country is better off not being allowed to teach the GOLDEN RULE even in the school and baby cakes that has nothing to do with religion
        but you idiots scream and hollar that it should be taken down and to stop pushing religion on your kids
        it has been around LONGER THAN THE CHRISTIANS and you ignornatn fools have no clue where it came from
        but man
        make sure these little institutinalized little brain dead kids get to school at the ripe old age of 3 and learn all about being the little bots their mommy’s and daddy’s have no time to raise themselves and teach right from wrong

      • Most people are well aware that murder is wrong without needing to refer to a “holy” book. The buy-bull was not the first reference to murder being wrong.

        Morality exists independent from religion; without it, the early humans would never have cooperated and created civilisation.

      • Jim Bean

        The ‘morality’ that exists in the absence of religion (belief in a higher authority whose wishes are understood) is just your opinion vs. mine. You may believe your opinion carries more weight because you are confident you are smarter or better than me/anyone who disagrees with you, but that is an entirely unsubstantiated belief that ultimately causes you more grief than it brings you in smug satisfaction. Human cooperation doesn’t reach the contextual threshold of morality until the human is confronted with having to inconvenience himself to advance the interests of others. Examples of that kind of behavior on the Left and from Atheists are exceedingly rare. They are most commonly observed demanding that others inconvenience themselves to facilitate their own selfish interests.

      • Mollysmom

        I respectfully have to disagree. I was raised Catholic, and still consider myself to be, if not exactly a “Christian”, at least a theist. Part of my distancing myself from any organized or institutional Christian church is because of the immoral, unethical, and just plain unkind behaviors that seem to be so inherent in those that actively belong, participate, and especially lead the overwhelming majority of churches.

        As an adult, I have found that the least judgemental and compassionate people I know are those that are either agnostic or atheists. They also seem to possess a higher standard of morality and ethics than the vast majority of “religious” people I know.

      • Michael Bowen Roberts

        I do agree with you, many denominations and churches are lead by mob mentality rather than by the Gospel as written. The world is to be in a constant state of improvement and that part of the ministry

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Amen (so to speak) to that!! I agree completely!!

      • John Masters

        If you kill me Jim, you have deprived of one of those inalienable rights. When you steal from me, you take away my right to pursue happiness. When any group of people chooses to organize into some form of society, they establish, either implicitly or explicitly, a set of rules that all members of that society must follow for the common good. Here we chose to form a republic, and build society around that. If you want to stand as a complete individual, completely free from any participation in that society, and acting solely on your own free will, you don’t get to live with the rest of us. You have to purchase your own island, and somehow become totally self-sufficient.

        The rules you claim come only from some sort of religious belief system actually come from a position of respect for each person’s inalienable rights. The old adage about “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose,” applies here. No one, who lives in a society with other people, enjoys an absence of restrictions. Societies, with or without religion, have, since time began, recognized the need for a governing structure.

      • Jim Bean

        -So then when Russia and Uganda society establishes a zero-tolerance-for-gays policy you stand up in full support of their right to establish the rules of their society? Or do you blow the dust off the Bible and find something in there that say’s ‘that’s wrong’ to substantiate your opposition to that which is NOT ‘wrong’ in their social establishment? Read the posts dude. Its not at all hard to see liberals jumping between dismissing religion and embracing it depending on whether or not it hurts or helps them. Heck, you just did it yourself when you brought ‘inalienable rights’ into it. ‘Inalienable rights’ are not the ones that society establishes – they’re the ones society lacks the authority to take away. Use your dictionary.
        -Me? I’m just sitting back and watching and offering annoying observations of the theatrics on display.

      • John Masters

        I can’t follow your logic at all, and don’t put words in my mouth. Read what I write. I never said that society establishes unalienable rights. What I said, very clearly, was that our rules come our society’s respect for each persons inalienable rights. We have a law against murder, because we believe people have a right to life. It’s not hard to understand, and since you don’t get that, then there’s really no need to continue the discussion with you.

        It’s my experience that when a person has no position left on which to stand, they do as you have done here, and simple try to make up the other persons position so as to argue it.

        I don’t have to be at all religious to hold in reverence the unalienable rights of which Jefferson spoke. They are basic human rights. Thus, I oppose in the strongest terms the discriminatory laws recently passed by Russia and Uganda, and do so not because of a Christian belief, but because the laws are a clear violation of basic human rights (unalienable rights) recognized as such by civil people throughout the world. Some of those people, me included, happen to be Christian. Some of us believe the Bible supports our opposition to violations of basic human rights…but I don’t have to go to the Bible to find it or it’s not a right.

        As I said previously, this is not difficult, but you apparently can’t find a sustainable argument for your position that everything has to be the in Bible or just ain’t so, or that non-believers are somehow less than you.

      • Jim Bean

        No, you didn’t say that society establishes unalienable rights. You also didn’t say who does because you haven’t yet figured it out. A male grizzly bear will kill grizzly bear cubs to cause the sow to come back in heat and feel no guilt. Most humans would recoil at thought of killing their children to make their spouse pay more attention to them. Reason? Humans, regardless of how they label it, sense that life is sacred. ‘Sacred’ means of divine creation. So any atheist who senses killing is wrong, is not really an atheist. He’s just confused.

      • Again, you are throwing out absolute nonsense. Honestly, where do you get this crap?

        I believe at one time you said you were an agnostic? If that’s still true, why are you pontificating about life being ‘sacred’? If life evolved–and the weight of scientific evidence says that it did–there’s nothing ‘sacred’ about it.

        Also, you have no business telling an atheist s/he is ‘confused.’ That’s insulting. You’re assuming they don’t know their own minds. Most atheists I know are a helluva lot less confused than you.

      • Jim Bean

        Look at all the unique breeds of dogs. They all ‘evolved’ into what they are today – but only because a higher power (humans, in this instance) intervened in the evolutionary process. That same analogy extends to all domestic animals and plants. Its the idea that humans coincidentally evolved into what they are while every other non-domestic species stood still that defies the weight of scientific evidence. I’m agnostic simply because there is insufficient evidence to provide the intellectual basis to be anything else.

      • Steve Kruzich

        Its not confusion, its because Gods LAW was written on mans hearts from the day one of creation long before societies developed and long before the law was written on tablets of stone.

        Remember cain? first murderer. Even with the law written on his heart he managed to kill. So what hope is there if God did not exist of mankind ever being moral

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        OMG! Just shut up!

      • Jim Bean

        No, you need to hear this stuff so you can draw informed opinions.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        I wouldn’t say that the majority of middle eastern radicals feel that life is sacred in any way. I don’t know who gave you all the so called “knowledge” that you pretend to have but I don’t think an atheist is confused at all if he feels that killing is wrong—–any thinking, kind and loving person knows it is wrong to take another’s life.

      • k9icepick

        Ok. I have to jump in on this one. Society apparently does not make up the “Rules” as you say. Society has said over and over again, that they do not want to see same sex marriages, they do not want to be held to observe homosexuality as an equal, and they dont want to accept it as a way of life. Just to name one sore topic… However, religious belief or not, Society is NOT getting what they want, ergo, you touting that the laws are created by society. Society believes people have a right to live therefore murder is illegal…You cant have it both ways.

        The fact is, the “rules” as you stated were based on the simple facets of some type (in this case majority) of christian ethics stemming from the bible. You can have freedom of religion, but it does not say you are allowed to have freedom FROM religion.

        The founding fathers based the constitution from the bible and the declaration of independance. Remember, they fled England because of the religious reign and monarchy. THEY tied religion and laws together and forced peoples hand to follow protestant and catholic rules. Im not saying we need to tie our together again, but keeping the principles close at hand sets the moral compass. Without that moral compass, we can see through history the failings of cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah.

        Simply put, we dont follow history, even in the biblical history, we will be condemned to make the same mistakes. Its not hard to see that our country is not following this “moral” Compass and we can see how we are failing our own country.

      • .

        “… congress shall make no law establishing religion …” is freedom from religion — we the people’s self governance cannot express or establish any religion.

        So we work from reason.

        In that vein, please show us any correlation between your bible and we the people’s constitution — I know of none.

        Regardless, if you don’t think that being gay is immoral, then don’t be gay — it has nothing to do with religion or the country going down, so to speak.

        Same same if you don’t think that divorce is immoral, then don’t have a divorce — it has nothing to do with religion or the country going down.

        The Constitution is our compass and reason is the wind in our sails, ship of state wise.

        If we think of your bible as an anchor, then, yes, we’d only use it to lock us down and hold us from moving forward, where, if stuck long enough, we would wither and die.

        Like a shark, the ship of state must move forward in order to grow: every living thing’s only choice is to grow or die.

        Throughout history, our country has grown stronger with the recognition and integration of more and more minorities of we the people, where once we ignored women, people of color, the handicapped, foreigners, people of differing faiths, and so on.


        Why not?

        Gays are people too.

        In fact, gays are our children, our siblings, our parents, our neighbors and friends, our customers, our co-workers, our bosses, our fellow tax payers, our service providers, especially our governmental and military service members, putting their lives on the line for all of us, gays are ourselves.

        Shame on anyone for thinking gays or anyone should be second class citizens, denied equivalent consideration, equal protection and due process, shame on any of us for inflicting our fears and personal choice of what is a sin onto others.

        No more second class citizens, ever, please.

      • A-frakking-Men, brother. 🙂

      • isitournature

        well said.

      • Kim Kee

        in that vein , please show us any correlation between your bible and we the people’s constitution — I know of none
        then YOU FAIL on all levels
        but then
        if you have never read the bible I guess you wouldn’t see it now would you ?
        its there
        the Constitution was based on Christian values
        not CHRISTIANITY
        they did not use the Bible word for word

        and they did not designate any religion as a national religion as the Kings tended to do
        shoot dude= even the Romans eventually turned to Christianity after the death of Christ
        and if you can not see the diffeence in how countries differ in the way they are goverened YOu are blind

        even at that early stage of the game they had their internal battles over slavery because THEY FELT that all men were created EQUAL
        you guys need to do more reading and learn to work on that comprehension
        your polotics are showing
        and each and every one of you think You have to be right
        imagine how they toiled over the Declaration and the constitution
        with all those miles between them and no telegraph
        makes you wonder
        How the Hell they got this thing passed
        they were MUCH smarter men than most of the nut jobs I been reading here tonight
        THANK GOD

      • Kim Kee

        in that vein , please show us any correlation between your bible and we the people’s constitution — I know of none
        then YOU FAIL on all levels
        but then
        if you have never read the bible I guess you wouldn’t see it now would you ?
        its there
        the Constitution was based on Christian values
        not CHRISTIANITY
        they did not use the Bible word for word

        and they did not designate any religion as a national religion as the Kings tended to do
        shoot dude= even the Romans eventually turned to Christianity after the death of Christ
        and if you can not see the diffeence in how countries differ in the way they are goverened YOu are blind

        even at that early stage of the game they had their internal battles over slavery because THEY FELT that all men were created EQUAL
        you guys need to do more reading and learn to work on that comprehension
        your polotics are showing
        and each and every one of you think You have to be right
        imagine how they toiled over the Declaration and the constitution
        with all those miles between them and no telegraph
        makes you wonder
        How the Hell they got this thing passed
        they were MUCH smarter men than most of the nut jobs I been reading here tonight
        THANK GOD

      • Sherri G

        Majority of the “rules” listed in the bible, including the ten commandments, are stolen from the 291 Laws of Hammurabi in the 1800’s B.C. along with the majority of the stories which belonged to “PAGAN” cultures who were around THOUSANDS of years before “christianity” was even created by man.
        “Not sure why so many people follow what was rewritten in 325B.C. by Pope Constantine & the all-male religious Ecumenical Council……
        176 verses were changed;
        3 chapters deleted and many agnostic books were removed as well;
        the word Reincarnation was removed 42 times;
        and there are currently 26 versions of the Bible….
        translated from Hebrew to Greek and then 16,000 other languages to compensate 41,000 versions of christianity…….”

        Someone wrote this as a response to the idea that agnostics and atheist (nonreligious but spiritual folk) are immoral and wrong….
        “Atheism is a belief without God–meaning they have a SRT of beliefs just like other religions but choose to believe in inner faith vs. an outside spirit that guides them. When they do wrong or right, fail or succeed and help their fellow man or the earth, they take personal credit/responsibility for their actions vs giving credit to a spiritual being who is observing and judging them. They don’t live in fear of self-righteous folks who judge based on a book written, rewritten, and interpreted by men to control the masses. They think for themselves and take personal responsibility based on personal values, morals, and ethics. I know many hypocritical Christians and plenty of nonreligious whose respect and caring for others I envy. Being spiritual and not religious does not make one less human or capable of right vs wrong!”

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler


      • Steve Kruzich

        LOL yep, inalienable rights are Granted by Natures Creator Aka Yaweh, God, jehovah. Can’t deny that one can they

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich,

        Those are man’s names from their imagination.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        You sure are—–annoying that is. And also way too wordy. There is nothing theatrical about any of this. But staying classy while you are being annoying would be a good idea.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        You sound like an idiot.

      • nena1bomb

        Thank you for this intelligent response. Many atheists try to substantiate their beliefs by hurling insults at Christians. Claiming that Christians are intellectually inferior due to their “faith.” Their claims gloss over the fact that science theories are not “proven” theories, yet whole heartedly believe these theories, and then they turn around and mock others for their beliefs. The very hypocrisy of their statements, demonstrates to me, that this has nothing to do with a competition of intellect. Think about the vanity, that their argument demonstrates. The pride and arrogance required to ascertain that everyone of “faith” is dumb and they are “superior” because they have this knowledge. Suddenly, this superior intelligence sets them apart. Suddenly everyone else is less than human for their beliefs. Sound familiar? Take a look at the Holocaust. Be very weary of atheist belief systems. Take a very close look at history and what it preaches and implies about our very humanity or the atheist “lack thereof.”

      • Jim Bean

        When you look around, no matter where you are, you see two types of things. Those created by man and those not created by man. It takes a much greater leap of ‘faith’ to think you know with absolute certainty that everything NOT made by man is the merely the result of a kazillion random coincidences than to think there is a reasonable chance that there is more to it than we know.

      • .
        @Jim Bean wrote “… It takes a much greater leap of ‘faith’ to think you know with absolute certainty that everything NOT made by man is the merely the result of a kazillion random coincidences than to think there is a reasonable chance that there is more to it than we know. …”

        There is no conflict in there for me (aside from the fact that you have everything all wrong, and you probably will never get it right).

        What’s your problem with not knowing?

        It seems that your impatience is killing you, so you denigrate anything in your path that does not support your itch to satisfy your impatience.

        Get over yourself.

      • Jim Bean

        What do I have ‘all wrong?’ Help me please.

      • .
        @Jim Bean,

        #1, assuing everyghing in the world fits into two categories: man made, and other.

        #2, anything is random,

        #3, kazillion (versus binary or quantum or multidimensional or …)

        #4, that you see anything when you look around,

        #5, that you know what you are seeing,

        #6, that you don’t know what you don’t see,

        … endless.

        I looked at one of your posts from another thread, and the numbers of what you get “wrong” tally up so quickly that I blew a fuse!

      • Laura Hurt

        uhm, what non-proven theories are you talking about? Despite being called a theory, evolution is a fact. It gets misunderstood because the scientific meaning of theory is not the same as the daily life meaning. I don’t have any issue with you believing in a deity, what I DO have an issue with is you setting aside science. It’s the christians who are claiming to be better because they know the so-called truth. Well, your truth comes from a book. Your Jesus, while a very charming and interesting character, is made up. There is, apart from the bible, NO mention of Jesus, nor of any of the circumstances around him. NONE. ANYWHERE. On the other hand there’s science. Proven, time and again, by facts, research and EVIDENCE. Facts that can be found each and every time research is done, no matter who does it. Objective. No leaps of faith necessary. Hard proof.

        Think about the vanity YOUR arguments state. You’re claiming that your leap of faith is of higher worth than objective facts.

      • Steve Kruzich

        Uh huh, NOTHING? NO source outside the bible then what about this? From the Tacitus of Romes own writings.

        Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the
        fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus

        Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their
        abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the
        name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of
        Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous
        superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in
        Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

        What about letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan.

        Then you have the accurate historical writings included in the bible itself, which if they had not been accurate, they would have been discredited 2000 years ago and would not have survived.

      • moi

        I think looking at history and how for centuries Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) have hurt each other and “heretics” is where a lot of distrust of them come from.

      • FireFox

        What does the holocaust have to do with atheism?

      • Wolfpen Gap

        It was commited by athiests

      • FireFox

        Failed history, eh? The Nazis were quite Christian and were very sure they were doing God’s work with his blessing.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        apparantly you must have failed history. Holocaust included stalin and lenin. But hitler was not a christian. LOL ROTFLMAO. He was a catholic. And not the two are not the same that converted to nazism, which is a Atheistic religion.

        Yes atheists have a religion and a god.

        They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that
        the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists
        view the world.

        They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of
        beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox
        Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it
        is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional,
        undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it
        cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
        They have their own brand of apostasy. Antony Flew was for many years
        one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the
        unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the
        “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified.
        Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
        They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
        They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles
        Darwin. Darwin

        They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking
        converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
        They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you
        believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith.
        Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a
        faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or
        disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for
        why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact
        (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why
        there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting
        for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness?
        What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense
        of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
        Then you have lenin, mao, pol pot, Kim jung il, now kim un il, all athiests that murdered somewhere to the tune of 100,000,000 people. Yes go back and re-read your history books. Those that haven’t been rewritten by the anti-holocaust people.

      • FireFox

        First of all, congratulations for typing the most ridiculous thing that I’ve read all week.
        Now, let’s get started, shall we? Catholics not christian?! It really doesn’t surprise me when a Christian has never even read his bible. Ever heard of Peter?

        Your comments about atheists has to be the most hilarious, though. I could spend the time to break it down piece by piece and show you your errors and blatant fabrications, but I’m willing to bed that I’d have better luck explaining it the brick wall of my house. Good luck in life, Bunkie and don’t burn yourself with the french fry oil.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        Yes catholics are not christians. they are catholic, a cult that orginated 300 years after christ, established by the government of rome merging paganism with christianity to attempt to distort and water down the teachings of christ. It is a common tactic used by satan in his war against God. We see the same thing in babylon, nimrod and sameramus with tamutz being the “son”, same thing in egyptology, same thing in greek mythology. It is all a cult.

        Peter a catholic ROTFLMBO, catholicism did not exist when peter was alive.

      • FireFox

        Peter was the first Pope. Read some history, Spanky. You ever watch any movies or TV or cartoons that show the guy at the gates? That’s Saint Peter. SMFH

      • Wolfpen Gap

        The catholic church wasn’t founded til constantine merged christianity with the pagan religions in 300 ad. Then it became a government catholic church.
        I know the catholics lay claim to being founded in 33 ad, but rotflmbo that is a lie. The church that was founded by jesus christ had nothing to do with what the catholic cult is. There were also gnostics in the day that laid claim to being the true believers. There was no catholic church around at the time, not even when John became the pastor of antioch and the line of christians that sprang up from that church ran parallel alongside of the catholic church throughout the ages, being persecuted by catholics and murdered and killed by catholics. Remember it was catholics that sided with hitler in the extermination of jews in ww2, and wasn’t peter a jew?

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus wrote:

        “… Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? …”

        Apparently you are the only one that believes any of that crap, or even thinks they think those questions exist or are important, or that answers have any way of being argued to the point of accuracy.

        You bring extreme prejudice when you claim the universe is or must be ours, is or must be orderly, is or must be predictable, or is or must be measurable (all by us, presumably, as if there is a universe, and as if it cares about us and our presumptions about it!).

        Who decides what’s accurate?

        Who cares?



        A universal sense of right and wrong?

        Are you nucking futs?

        Entertain, do your service, get paid, move on.

        Religion, atheist, who cares?

        There are as many people who are incapable of believing anything who go to church every Sunday as there are believers who never entered a church or heard a preacher of any kind ever.

        Let’s argue how many atheist’s can dance on the pin head of a theist.

        Are you blond?

      • JimNauseam

        On the belt buckle of every Nazi uniform were the words “God With Us”. Hitler feared the power of the Church but never spoke publicly against it — quite the contrary, in his speeches he often thanked divine providence for his victories

      • Paul Julian Gould

        Jim, prepare for the goalposts to be moved in 3… 2…

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus …

        The German Holocaust against Jews and others was committed by “atheists”?

        Wow, I had no idea — and neither did anyone else.

        I think it was committed by blonds, don’t you?

        Blonds are the real problem.

        Yes, that’s it.

        ( You are pure sh!thead, by the way, hardly worth even any entertainment value, you are merely a conversational provocateur with no contribution to make to the conversation.)

      • Wolfpen Gap

        I rest my case about liberals. It is impossible for them to have a conversation that doesn’t try to deried or name call someone. The reason is they know they have already lost.

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus ,

        The only thing liberals have lost is any possibility of wedging your mind open — and that is your choice, not liberal’s.

        You believe what you want to believe, hating that liberals believe what makes sense as they grow and learn and experience, changing all the time.

        Grow or die.

        Your choice.

        I’ve made mine.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        LOL you are dillusional Liberals are the most close minded people on earth, unless its about liberal ideology. Take for instance, that you’ve decided there is no God. And your mind is closed shut on that.

        Yes my mind is not open to the liberal lies. I am not that stupid to fall for it. How many of you dumbasses fell for liberal obamas bullshit hope and change mantra he gave ya in 2008 and again in 2012. ROTFL. hows that working out for ya.
        5 years of steady job loss, and its not going to get any better any time soon! thats hope you know all your doing is hoping it stops. The change is that you have lost your good paying jobs forever because he wants it that way. Its called anti colonialism and destruction of a nation.

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus ,

        So, do you get called names a lot?

        I think that when liberals call you denigrating names, that’s more about you than it is about them.

        I’m just saying.

        I generally get along fine with conservative and religious friends and web correspondents — I even correspond politely with Alessandra (sexual morals troll) in spite of her presumption about anyone who is different or who makes choices she would not make for herself.

        My point about you, @Wolfen Gap, is that your comments lack dialogical progress, and respect for your conversant.

        So, back at ya.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        Your probably right they do lack dialogical progress. Because i don’t submit to a liberal ideology that creates this pabulum. It is just like the delphi technique, designed with a already predetermined solution that you manipulate people into making the decision you have already decided on.

        I’m not that stupid to be led by the nose. And yes liberal do call me a lot of names because they do not possess the intelligence to do anything more than follow Saul Alinsky tactics expressed in his rules for radicals. A liberal is so easy to spot. Once they have been countered in their argument and can’t come up with a counter to the counter they name call. Then slander, then at times get violent, which is acceptable to liberals as per Cloward Piven model if it accomplishes their agenda.

        Here’s something that no liberal can deal with. I hold to a concrete set of principles and values that i hold so strongly they are convictions. Do you know what a conviction is? It is a idea or truth that one is willing to die before violating it. I say God exists, and that no man will ever be able to, or will ever coerce, manipulate, threaten me to deny him. I will never shut up about God even if the law demands it. What ya going to do to shut me up? Kill me? Good, go for it, this is not my home. 🙂
        BUT in the same breath and as God has allowed for i won’t make it easy for you to kill me either. I do have the right to defend myself and take with me anyone that successfully murders me.

        Your dialogical progress is used primarily in victim offender “conversation”. I’m no victim and i’m no offender, so it wouldn’t apply to me.

        Your Arguments don’t hold water since i do not recognize your god, nor do i recognize the authority of your “liberal” masters. I’m going to be the first one to tell them molen labe. I am a individual, not a minion of a social collective. You won’t find me in any group protesting anything, i’ll be out there changing what i like by manipulating social collectives into doing what i want them to do. Ever heard the term money talks bull**** walks? Thats the real power here, not the liberal ideology.

        So really, quit trying to manipulate the conversation to fit what you want it to be. It won’t work, and your wasting your time. You can’t bully me, you can’t call me names and it affect me. You can’t even kill me and make a difference.

      • .
        @Wolfpen Gap

        Thanks for sharing.

        I’m trying to dialog, but you’ll have none of it.

        Eh, I’ll try this nonetheless:

        It’s “… molon labe …” (not “molen …”), speaking of pablum, an ancient Greek (gay?) challenge to an opponent to try to come and take something away from the speaker, originally reported to have been spoken before a specific military defeat in 480 BCE — so … thank you for accepting defeat (haha), but what is it exactly that you fear anyone is going to take away from you?

        No one but the authors and Glenn Beck cares about Cloward’s and Piven’s theories from the “publish or perish” “controversy sells” universe — that is, other than the authors themselves, there isn’t a person in the world who has read them, and defends them, and lives by them — Glen Beck has to dig deep to find arcana to react “in shock” to, speaking of “publish or perish” “controversy sells”.

        There are no “… “liberal” masters …” — following a master is much more a conservative thing, and it would be a misunderstanding of what a liberal is for anyone to look for their “masters” because there aren’t any … there’s only each and everyone’s self-defined individual self in pursuit of their own life, liberty, and happiness, and supporting the equality of opportunity for others, even conservatives, to do the same.

        I can’t even imagine being a liberal and having a “master” — that’s a contradiction in terms.

        That’s one of the fallacies of thinking that, say, liberal talk radio would be as successful as conservative talk radio — impossible: no two liberals care about the same things in the same way at the same time.

        Liberals are like cats.

        Conservatives, however, seem to fall into social collectives all the time: The Ku Klux Klan, The John Birch Society, The T.E.A. Party — there ain’t no self-named liberal “ditto heads”.

        Conservatives are like dogs.

        Not only do you not understand what it is that you call the “Delphi technique”, but no one I know of in the political, governmental, or economic arenas cares about it.

        And in the real world, the closest thing observable is passively honoring the wisdom of the “crowd” contrary to whimsical, unscientific active predictions of self-named so-called “experts” regarding the likely success of new ideas.


        I never understand why anyone mentions God — it’s such a personal concept.

        I can’t see what anyone’s God has to do with anyone else … especially having nothing to do with we-the-people’s self-governance: this is not somebody’s god’s “god-government” (would you prefer to live in the Vatican?).

        If your God makes you happy, then write a happy song, and sing all you want to, nobody’s stoppin’ you.

        You don’t even have to understand that your God is as meaningless to me as you say my “god” is meaningless to you.

        Cool — that’s the way it should be.

        Is this a great country or what?

        Your use of the phrase (I paraphrase) “convictions to die for” is universal, and with merely a little creative interpretation, even the generalized functions and benefits of the word “convictions” whittle down to essentially the same-same for everyone — everybody’s got “convictions to die for”.

        For you to imply that liberals are unwilling to commit life and limb and property to noble, selfless causes is ridiculous, insulting, and embarrassing in it’s obvious inaccuracy.

        You write, revealingly,

        “… i’ll be out there changing what i like by manipulating social collectives into doing what i want them to do … Thats the real power here, not the liberal ideology …”

        Got it.

        Conservative = power by any means including manipulation, convictions to live for and make a profit off of others.

        Liberal = ideology, convictions to die for, and making life worth living for all, equal.

        Because of or in spite of you, I’m getting a lot out of our conversation — thank you very much.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        Ok, its molon. Thats another one of your liberal tactics if you have no answer attack anything you can find like spelling.

        Come and take em is not defeat it is a challange. Are you up to the challange?

        Who’s glenn beck? Gee then if i haven’t read and studied their theories then why do i have their literature. LOL. Are you saying liberals are too stupid to read about the exact same tactics spelled out in cloward piven that they themselves use every day? Overwhelm the system so that it collapses to get the socialist society that you want? Can you say illegal, diseased, kids being transported to your local community by the Government stooges? I’m just waiting for the Al Queda plants in these kids that has the ebola or small pox virus in them. It won’t take long since neither has a vaccine or has been administered in over 30 years.

        Thankfully it will take those who are bringing them in first and the idiots that are going awwe the poor darlings we need to rescue them.

        No liberal masters? Try Soros, Barak osama obama, Harry Reid, Liz warren, Stewart, Moore, Pelosi, boxer, Gates, warren buffet, Yeah your taskmaster. You march to their orders. LOL. OH and add ole McCain and that dimwit in kentucky to the list along with boner.

        ON the statement liberals are like cats, I will agree 100% with you. I hate cats.

        ARE YOU F***** kidding me? THe kkk is conservative???? ROTFLMAO, Your talking to someone who knows full well the history of the klan. THE KLAN IS 100% democrat/liberal/progressive! rotflmao. IT WAS CREATED by DEMOCRATS to fight the republicans in 1865. They didn’t care what color you were back then. It was political ideology that created it and it was used to run off the asshats from the north that came down and raped the land, people after a time of war when they were vulnerable and helpless. It also was disbanded in 1869 just before Nathan Bedford Forrest died, and ressurected again in 1886 by demorats if i remember right to be disbanded again later on around early 1900’s. TO BE RESSURECTED AGAIN by demorats in 1920’s to suppress the black population so that they could not vote, or assume any other rights granted to them. SO PLEASE Tell me where conservatives started maintained or were members of the klan. You can’t find one.

        On delphi i know full well and observe it being used in every day life all around the country. Ever heard of Foursquare communties. Yep thats delphi in action. Which btw was developed for warfare by the government.

        Good the message i hope you understand is, that i am going to live my life how i want to live it and don’t push your life on me. Don’t try to steal what i make, don’t mess with me, how hard is it for a liberal to understand leave me the hell alone. What is mine is mine i earn it, i create it, it is 100% mine not some collectives. IF I CHOOSE to give, and that is 100% my choice not yours not the governments, then I will give what and how much i choose to give.
        Take any law that would suppress my individual right to pursuit of happiness, AKA obamacare and shove it back up his taliban ass.

        IF y’all wanna insure the uninsured, which was not as bad as it is now since obamacare with millions upon millions more uninsured than there was initially then shell out your own money. I raised my own family, insured myself on my own nickle. Not my problem if someone else doesn’t want to do so themselves.

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus ,

        Got it the first time — thanks for sharing again.

        You perceive what you want to perceive:

        I did not “attack” you for misspelling, I merely corrected it.

        And looked it up.

        And, yup, someone long ago, not in America, effectively said, “… you want our weapons? come and get ’em, I dare ya …”, and so their enemy did just that, come and got ’em: a resounding defeat for the outspoken challenger.

        You can say anything you want to say, and have it mean anything you want it to mean, for you — have at it.

        I like that it’s origin is the opposite of what you mean by it.

        Cool — I like irony.

        It puts everything you write into perspective.

        I did not know you mint your own nickles — what country are you?

        Are you using the Internet at a free library in a neighboring country … because you are so independent that you do everything on your own and depend on no one?


        I’d like that … maybe.

        Though, I kind of like having cooperative friends who share and share alike the things we each can do to support each other, I like having a car somebody else built, and driving on a road that somebody else built, to visit friends that somebody else birthed and educated and employed, in buildings that somebody else built, and if I need help, there are other people to care for me and my car and anyone involved with me, and help insure that the cost of taking care of us is fairly distributed so that no one of us stands so alone that they die of disconnect right in our midst of plenty and riches.

        Pursue your life, liberty, happiness.

        I’m pursuing mine.


        And that included social participation same same from all of us.

        But, as I said, what country are you, where you create everything on your own, even the nickles are yours (not Caesar’s) — I’ll put you on a list for American foreign aid should anything unforeseen happen to you that you cannot survive alone.

      • because you are so independent that you do everything on your own and depend on no one?

        If Wolfie was truly doing that, he’d be living on his own island or in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness, growing his own food, chopping his own wood, and harvesting his own herbal medications.

        He’d also be: most likely starving to death or dying of a grizzly attack, or succumbing to some infection or other preventable tropical disease.

        Either way, he wouldn’t have an Internet connection, and we wouldn’t have to listen to his rampant nonsense.

      • .



      • Laura Hurt

        No, those are not called opinions, they are called laws. You DO know, don’t you, that the majority of the people in prisons are christians right? If atheists are so morally low as you claim, that would not be the case. If atheists are so morally low, they would not be able to overcome their primal instincts and they would not be able to abide laws. Christians on the other hand have a lot more problems abiding to laws. And not just the human laws, but also the divine laws that they say were given them by their god. So, the christians in jail are breaking two sets of laws, yet it’s the atheists who are morally low?? Try again…

        Also, the majority of good causes in the USA are not religious. As a matter of fact, the religious good causes are doing way less good than the non-religious causes.

      • Jim Bean

        The majority of people in the country are Christians so that stat means nothing. And lots of people find religion AFTER they enter prison. Its not smart to assume they were devoutly religious when they committed their crimes.

      • .
        Ahh, @Jim Bean, divide those who might disagree with you into devout and non-devout — devious way to try to win an argument.

      • k9icepick

        There are no atheists in foxholes. Conversely, while its safe to assume some are christian when they were arrested, many converted to christianity and islam or other religions because there is a lack of hope in prison. If you take hope from a man, he has nothing to live for. You cannot take a man’s belief of a higher power to aid him in his life. Its a hope….Simply put, if you are at the bottom of a barrel, the only way you can look is up…By “resetting” your life to follow God, you now have hope that he will lead you to a better existence, even if it is not on earth.

        My concern to many is this: Why would you bet your very soul that there is no higher power that affects our existence that wants you to freely acknowledge He is God in your life? If there is an eternal life (which I believe is true) and all I have to do is have faith in that life and have faith in the presence of God and follow his commandments to best of my ability (which consequently is what we do in society anyway), then why would I doubt, deny, or otherwise jeopardize my eternal life to Hell or the destruction of my existence?

        Theories whether scientific or “real world” still means Theory…Unproven guesses. Nothing has disproved them and nothing has supported them definitively. Jesus is a real man. History PROVED that. History proved the great things he has done both in the Quran and Bible as well as other religious text. Census proves Jesus existence, his death, and tomb. People have been trying for thousands of years to disprove him and yet has not been able to do so.

        It takes a higher power to create a tree from a grain of sand. Man can distort, alter, or change the design of the created item, but man cannot CREATE, a tree, a human egg, or even the sperm from nothing. Our bodies create the human form, but man cannot create an egg without taking from the human body what God created.

      • .
        Interesting theory there, @k9icepick.

        I don’t imagine there is a way to resolve it.

        Unlike science, your theory is unknowable, hence your need for faith.

        I am comfortable not pursuing the unknowable.

        But, hey, outside of our courts, legislature, and executive, if you want to chat about the unknowable around the campfire, go right ahead.

        Meanwhile, we’ve got a country to run, and keep it responsible to we the people, all of we the people, non Christians and non believers included — also including arguing Christians who disagree with each other.

        You are welcome to explore your unknowable outside of we the people’s self governance — the freedom of the press and freedom of religion are great places to start.

        Have at it.

        Oh, and your assessment of others is a waste of time, as it only reveals your lack of imagination and lack of listening skills — no one who disagrees with you meets your criteria of how they must be, in your eyes.

        Pass the marshmallows, and carry on — nice campfire here, eh what?


      • Melania Gulley

        Stories, handed down and written down after the fact are not proof.. period.. all myths had believers behind them.. some people just grow up and live in the real damn world.. the bible has multiple contradictions.. is lacking in common damn sense in a lot of instances and if there truly is a God who did all the things stated in said book.. he is a sadistic, asshole and not worth following.. period. If you need to believe in a happy ending after death,, you aren’t living your life to begin with.. you are trying to appease a diety who wouldn’t know love and mercy if it slapped him in the face. Hell being case in point anyone or any being who thinks anyone deserves to be tortured for all eternity just for not believing.. is sick and twisted and immoral

      • Tony Morris

        I have to jump in here. A majority of people in prisons are christians. Yes but why? If your going to give some of the information lets look into the whole story. Not that I’m taking sides as I see both christians and atheist as having a right to choose their beliefs whatever they may be. That said a majority of lol “christians” in prison are trying to get out on parole. Guess what is a huge influence on doing so? Yep, you guessed it to have been “born again”. Because of this most but not all of them are simply faking it. Well I’ve been born again they say I’m not that person anymore Jesus has showed me the errors of my ways and I’ve repented. Then what happens? They get out on parole and play it cool but once that time is up they go back to doing the same thing that got them in prison in the first place, if not before their parole is up. I agree mostly with what your are saying Laura but yeah, this that I pointed out needed to be said.

      • moi

        Soooo, Christianity holds the monopoly on good morals? Don’t think so. All faiths have and right v wrong, consequences, yin and yang, etc… I’m married to an atheist and have many atheist friends. All of them are good at cooperating and desire peace in the world.

      • Jim Bean

        Who said that?

      • Francine Anoia Price

        No one is smarter or better than anyone else. Religion is a man-made concept. It came in with man and will go extinct with Man.

      • Katrina Engel

        You are really going to argue “unsubstantiated belief”? Here? Slightly masochistic, are you?

      • Wolfpen Gap

        God preceeded early humans. Remember mark of cain? First murder, first punishment.
        Morality was set by him in the beginning

      • Laura Hurt

        no that is not a religious test, that is a law. That law is based on what everyone considers morally wrong. I, as atheist, consider it morally wrong to harm other people in any way. Why? Not because some book tells me to, but because I really believe that it is morally wrong. You can say that atheists have no morals, but that doesn’t make it true. You can say that atheists are just confused, but that doesn’t make it true. What IS true is that you can have morals without a god and that laws are based on those morals.

      • Jim Bean

        I didn’t say they didn’t have morals. I earlier used the grizzly bearing killing his the cubs analogy. The grizzlies don’t think its morally wrong. On other hand you would think it wrong to kill your children. Why do you think that? If there were no laws to punish you for it would you still think its wrong? Why?

      • .
        Humans never have a problem killing their young.

      • Jim Bean

        Now that the UK has figured out how to use fetuses for fuel, there’s all the more justification for it.

      • .
        @Jim Bean, right, abortion is the most efficient way to gather raw materials for fuel — not!

        Passive aggressive you are.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        No they do it every single day. So far i think the death toll is up to 55 million

      • .
        @Jim Bean, @Laura Hurt answered your question, you blithering idiot.

        Atheists and agnostics and other-gods folk have no problem behaving morally because it would be wrong not to do so.

        You are the one with the problem, not them.

        I like the example set by Number 5, the robot from the 1986 movie “Short Circuit”, who became sentient when struck by lightning, then explored the world and learned a lot … then the military lab (of course) came to collect it to decommission it:

        Newton Crosby, the military engineer who designed the Number 5 robot: Why did you disobey your program?

        Number 5: Program say to kill, to disassemble, to make dead. Number 5 cannot.

        Newton Crosby: Why “cannot”?

        Number 5: Is *wrong*! Newton Crosby, Ph. D. not know this?

        Newton Crosby: Of course I know it’s wrong to kill, but who told you?

        Number 5: *I* told me.

        … no god needed.

      • … so @Jim Beam, the only reason you don’t kill and rape and steal is because god is watching you, otherwise, you jump to it?

      • Jim Bean

        Hard to say. We only know that’s its not a problem for the lesser species because for some reason. And we know all liberals look for ways to steal from the wealthy and manage to manufacture some ‘moral’ explanation for doing it. You tell me. What is that thing inside you that discourages you from doing something evil even when you know you could away with it?

      • .
        @Jim Bean,


        F*ck “we”, I asked YOU.


        @Jim Beam, the only reason you don’t kill and rape and steal is because god is watching you, otherwise, you jump to it?

        Now, on to your question of me:

        Q: What is that thing inside you that discourages you from doing something evil even when you know you could away with it?

        A: None of those thing ever cross my mind.

        Me thinks I’ve found the problem, and it is you.

        Time for DNA tests in the womb before gestation has gone too far!


      • Jim Bean

        Does anything cross your mind?

      • .
        @Jim Bean,

        Yes, tonight I consoled someone who has had many recent deaths and losses, met with someone to explore the role of our community in dealing with an abuser in our midst (a rabid Catholic, by the way), and explored self awareness and healing with another couple of people, all in all, a good day.

        “Killing, raping, and stealing” only came up from you.

        I’m beginning to think it’s DNA, and behavior modification is important, but can only go so far.

      • Jim Bean

        Sainthood awaits.

      • .
        @Jim Bean,

        If anything, Bodhisattvahood.

        But I like that you got real quiet.

        Buddhist morality and ethics is not based on any god, precedes Christianity, and corresponds to and codifies my innate sensibilities.

      • Jim Bean

        You don’t know much about Buddhism which is nothing more than Christianity with a few twists and a different cast of characters. For example: Rebirths in some of the higher heavens, known as the Suddhavasa Worlds or Pure Abodes, can be attained only by skilled Buddhist practitioners known as anagamis (non-returners). Compare that to ascension into heaven can only be attained by true believers in Christ. Christians have commandments, Buddhism has tenants. Per The Dalai Lama, Buddhism is not only anti-gay but much more restrictive than Christianity regarding heterosexual practices. (The level of self control and deterrents against unrestricted pursuit of instant gratification would drive liberals insane.) Ever seen the painting ‘Twenty-five Badhisattvas Descending from Heaven?’

      • .
        @Jim Bean,

        Hence religion being such a personal thing.

        You don’t know anything about my religion, and I’m happy to keep it that way.

        And I couldn’t care less about anyone else’s religion, either.

        I don’t care what anyone believes, I only care how anyone behaves.

        Prosessionally, by the way, Christianity may be like Buddhism, not the other way around, because Buddhism is ~500 years prior.

        And, all the liberals I know have incredible discipline regarding delayed gratification, recycle everything possible, and are not consumers, rather, they are proprietors.

        It’s the so-called conservatives who can’t seem to conserve, consuming everything in sight, selfishly breaking the planet and anyone in their way in the process.

        The Tibetan monks I spoke with said reincarnation was not for America, only for Tibet, sort of the way Middle Eastern Muslims think god is local, and they can behave against all their rules once on the plane to the US or Europe.

        Back on topic, people here seem to think no one would behave if there wasn’t a god, or the god, or their god, in authority, and that’s just BS, considering how horrible god’s people behave — please don’t spread him around if the violence goes along, too.

        I’m curious, how many of the 10 to 23 Commandments do people see in the US founding documents? Lord’s name in vain, the Lord’s day, divorce, honoring your parents, coveting your neighbor’s everything, lying … anything? Anything?

      • Jim Bean

        I’m not defending or condemning anyone or any faith. I’m simply asking, “What is that thing inside most people that deter them from doing evil things, even when they know they can get away with it, and even when they stand to gain something from doing it?” We know its not socially dictated, because in our test case, we already established that society isn’t going to find out. So what is it?

      • .
        @Jim Bean, “it” does not exist just because you ask “… what is it? …”

        Just because someone has a question does not mean there is an answer, or even that the question makes sense.

        I have no idea what you are asking, and your explanations haven’t stuck, so why not move on?

      • .
        @Jim Bean, just address my question of you about you.

      • Steve Kruzich

        I would say that is the ONLY reason why anyone in this world doesn’t go and rape and kill and pillage. First of all if there is no God then your nothing but a animal living under natures law. the laws governing animals involve survival of the fittest and breeding the healthiest in the species.
        Being that man is set apart from animals in only 1 way and that is he was God breathed, Aka has a spirit, That is the only thing that separates us. And that spirit is that which he put in man and it knows the laws and morals of God. Being that he created all of us with free will gives us the choice to follow those rules and laws.

        We still have men that do not follow the moral laws and God says fine, be an animal, i’ll remove your conscience and you can live like them and be one. Its called giving one over to a reprobate mind.

        If i had no spirit, and there was no afterlife, and there was no |God I would live for myself, getting whatever i could get, anyway i could get it. Why not, i won’t live more than 70 or so years and if i am just goin to turn to dirt in the end, theres no reason for me NOT to take what i want. I might as well indulge myself in any and every pleasure on the planet. I most certainly would not be struggling to find food or shelter or have nice things i would just take them.

      • .
        @Steve Krizich wrote “… under natures law. the laws governing animals involve survival of the fittest and breeding the healthiest in the species …”

        BS, and you know it.

        Animals love, are social, have awareness of fair play, sympathy, altruism, sacrifice, family integrity, love, partnership.

        Everything you say is naive and self-centric and ill-informed, having nothing to do with actual knowledge.

        Stop speculating and learn some things.

        Your revealing how selfish and short-sighted you would be if there were no god reveals how shallow and non-existent is your own sense of self and connection with your environment.

        I see god behind every human suffering, including now the weather because god-people have broken the earth as they consume it, thinking they will leave it behind, so why not consume it?

        Horrible god people.

        And, no, with your attitude, you would not last 70 years.

      • Melania Gulley

        Some of us are not so damn selfish.. it has nothing to do with God.. period. you need a guarantee of an afterlife that is all roses or condemnation of being tortured for all eternity as a basis to be a decent human being.. that is pathetic in and of itself

      • garrynec

        You do realize that the “framers” of our Constitution were not Christian and were against Christian influence in government don’t you? If not,a bit of research on these men will enlighten you. Most people, Christian or not have a conscience that tell them some actions are wrong. Before you wonder or ask, yes I am Christian.

      • Marcella Peterson

        You are without a doubt the most backward thinker I have ever encountered. Murdering someone has been against the Law since before Jesus. In case you weren’t aware. And has been a part of almost every society since the beginning of humanity. Before Christianity there was democracy in Greece and murder was illegal then as well. Check your logic next time.

      • Jim Bean

        Every person raised in this country possesses a persona heavily sculpted by centuries of Christian influence on their ancestors. Morality needs to separated from practicality for you to understand the difference. Secular cultures establish laws for the common good – or, depending, – the benefit of ones in a powerful enough position to establish the laws. Morality is that right/wrong ‘its wrong to do this’ feeling people get deep inside even when they know they could get away with doing it. The grizzly doesn’t feel guilty when he kills the cub so the sow will come back in heat and the only thing that distinguishes us from the grizzly, outside practicality issues, is religion – that thing that makes us feel doing something would be wrong even if there is no man-made laws against it. The best example I can think of is the guilt that most would feel if they were neglecting an elderly, ailing parent who had been good to them all their lives. The source of that is not man’s laws. It comes from an inherent sense that there is a higher authority. That’s not backward thinking, its critical thinking.

      • .
        @disqus_7lyFibzcnw:disqus wrote:

        “… religion – that thing that makes us feel doing something would be wrong even if there is no man-made laws against it …”


        “Religion” is no guarantee of morality — think: priest child sex abuse, Crusades, genocide of aboriginals, Inquisition, and on and on.

        In fact, it takes great faith to abuse and go against one’s innate sense of right and wrong, hence the intense training organized religions put on their children to indoctrinate them against their innate human morals, think also: racism, sexism, nationalism.

        Man’s laws are hardly different — it’s perfectly legal to polute, to evict a family from their home, to declare war — is that any different from Bible stories?

        My point is that you are horribly mis-presumptive in the basis of your beliefs — you are blindly prejudiced and unable to objectively see your situation.


      • Jim Bean

        If you understood religion you would be aware that the religious are aware of their shortcomings – which they call sin’s. They don’t claim to be righteous they only claim a commitment to striving towards it. Atheists, on the other hand, cannot commit a sin because they don’t believe in any non-man-made consequence. And I’ve yet to hear a liberal claim to be anything other than unfailing righteous.

      • .
        @Jim Bean,

        At least we agree that religious people have their shortcomings.

        Yet, somehow, you find “religious” people who “sin” to be more acceptable than atheists at all (who may or may not “sin”, ever), or even — God forbid — liberals (who are majority religious, by the way) — I’m thinking of the stories of Jesus that paint Him as extremely liberal, accepting sinners, unmarried women, and what not, breaking all the rules, yet telling people to pay their taxes (unlike “good religious conservatives”), oh my.

        No one is absolved of their own personal responsibility for their own personal “sins” by any external influences or extenuating circumstances such as “religion; we all make and take responsibility for our own actions.

        Same same with someone claiming “… God made me do it …” and someone claiming “… I don’t believe in your ‘God’; I made me do it …” — they each made themselves “do it” regardless, only one is more honest than the other.

        While I appreciate some people think atheists organized together and did bad things like “The Holocaust” (they did not), truth be told, “religious” people have gotten together and dome more damage than any other identifiable group, ever.

        I have no idea where you are going with this, @disqus_7lyFibzcnw:disqus , other than to go back to the original opening topic and and confirm that the Founders were sick and tired of all that religious crap, and just wanted some kind of workable self-government without arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

        Otherwise, your speaking for atheists is laughable, inappropriate, and inaccurate — don’t waste everyone’s time with any more of that crap.

        Atheists are the most moral BEHAVING people I know; religionists are the most moral BELIEVING, but worst BEHAVING people I know.

        I don’t care what you believe; I only care how you behave.

        So behave.

      • Jim Bean

        Where we’re ‘going with this’ is where I began. There are no natural born people in the country – never have been – whose sense of morality is not the product of religious influences in his life. Whether you’re a believer or atheist makes no difference, and atheists subscribe, in general, to the same moral values that believers do. You folks hammer on religion as if morals can somehow be divorced from it. They can’t. Maybe another country. Maybe another time. But not now, not here.

      • .
        @disqus_7lyFibzcnw:disqus ,

        It’s great that the opposite of what you presume is as likely to be true in spite of your claims that religion is the source of good or desirable morals or ethics:

        “… There are no religious born people, no people whose sense of morality is the product of religious influences without exposure to religionists — they must be taught religion, otherwise, their sense of morality is natural, original, aboriginal, self decided without reference to religionists.

        Whether you respond to religionists by joining them or becoming an atheist, or if you are never exposed to religionists, makes no difference — you choose and are responsible for your morals yourself.

        Religionists subscribe, in general (if there be such a thing as a generalization that collects all religionists), to the same moral values that atheists and natural aboriginals do.

        Yet religionists seem to hammer on atheists and natural aboriginals as if only religionists have morals.

        They don’t — and sometimes religionists have less morals due to over-thinking it.

        Maybe they dream of another country.

        Maybe another time.

        But not now, not here, probably not ever …”

      • Jim Bean

        A recent poll revealed that most millennials would abandon their friends for a job promotion. Would you say that ethical deterioration is the result of weakening religious influence or weakening atheist influence?

    • Banjo

      The barring of a religious test as a requirement for public office is not to bar religion, but to keep people from being disqualified from holding an office if they do not belong to a certain religion, protestant for example. Most people holding offices from the very beginning were Christian including the majority of Presidents , that is an undeniable fact.
      That being said, the only president that I am aware of that has shown preferential treatment to a certain denomination is Barack Obama. He suppresses our Judeo-Christian values while praising Islam going so far as to say “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation” and “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities” or “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” that could be even be construed as a threat – if you slander Muhammad, you should not be allowed to live.
      If that is not promoting a specific religion, I don’t know what is.
      People on the hard left would never agree though!


      So why is God even mentioned in US legislation then?

      hm? Why? We does GOD have to grant men freedom?

      Why is it GOD than endows the man he created with rights?

      hmmm? Why? Why mention God at all ?

      Ya, just stay in your hole and hide old man.

      • Rick Lewis

        God isn’t mentioned in US legislation, as that would be tantamount to establishing a state religion, something specifically forbidden by the Constitution. God isn’t mentioned in the Constitution or any of its amendments, for that matter. In fact the oaths of office in the Constitution specifically allow for an “oath or affirmation,” an affirmation being a way of personally swearing that does not imply a god. The rights mentioned in the Constitution come from humans and are enforced by humans. They change as the years go by (extending voting to blacks and women, for example), and never refer to religious tenets that are not otherwise secular in nature.

        The US is not a Christian nation, nor has it ever been; it’s a secular nation in which most citizens profess to be Christians, that some people keep trying to make into a Christian nation.

      • Rick Lewis

        Wow, that’s a lot of nonsense in one little post.

        a) God is rarely mentioned in US legislation, and shouldn’t be. Our laws do not come from the Bible or any other religious source. Our form of government certainly doesn’t. Politicians only invoke God when they’re pandering to the biased or uninformed. They only include it in legislation when they ignore their Constitutional duties and the rights of those they ostensibly represent.
        b) You make the assumption that a god granted humans rights, but there’s no empirical evidence, nor even a sound philosophical basis for doing so. The Declaration of Independence mentions that “their creator” granted rights, but that concept did not make it into the Constitution a decade later. So as to freedom, humans giveth and humans taketh away. Besides, if a god granted something, do you think humans could really take it away?
        c) God is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (unless you count the date, which is a stretch), yet several places is explicitly says it’s secular. These include the various “oath or affirmation” clauses for taking office; Article VI, paragraph 3 (no religious test); and the First Amendment. It’s also implied in the 14th Amendment (equal protection).
        d) The Wall of Separation between church and state that President Jefferson so eloquently mentioned in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (assuring them the state couldn’t make an official state religion and subjugate them) is one of the main reasons the US has become such a great nation without falling into the religious wars that ravaged Europe throughout history. The Founders read history and worked hard to void repeating the worst parts.
        e) Old man? Really? Resorting to ad hominem is a clear indication that someone has no logical basis for real arguments. Thanks for underscoring what was already obvious.

      • Paul Julian Gould

        Hey, now… I’m just up the block from knocking on the door of my 60’s… as a pretty much official old guy, that’s not such a bad thing… it means one’s at least survived this long…

        Apropos of nothing, of course… carry on… *smile*

  • hybrid80

    The reason for the separation, I think, was because that King George was the head of the Church of England, and the Constitution’ers wanted to make sure that religion could not be used to gain power, even though the founders were all Christian

    • Melania Gulley

      they were not all Christian.. many were deists.. deists did not believe that Jesus was the son of god and did not subscribe to believing in one God..period.. read your history

    • Double Dukes

      Jefferson said several times that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. John Adams wasn’t a Christian either, neither was Thomas Paine or Benjamin Franklin.

      • Goofy58

        John Quincy Adams actually took the oath of office using a book of laws because he advocated for the seperation of church and state.

    • crabjack

      Say it often enough an people will believe it. You hope. Even if 99% of the people believed as you do, it would still be a lie. Our founding fathers were not Christian. John Adams, for example, specifically warned us not to let the “Christians” influence us.

      • Jim Bean

        You are confusing Christianity and a belief in God. The latter can exist just fine in the absence of the former. The Ten Commandments came 1300 years before Christ.

      • FD Brian

        that would make you Jewish.

      • Jim Bean

        No. It makes me agnostic and fully conscious.

    • Smart_Blond

      You need to study your history there. The founding fathers were deists.

      • hybrid80

        Dear Smart_Blond, Do I stand corrected?. Check Google on “Religion of the Founding Fathers”

        The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include *everyone* who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
        Religious Affiliation
        of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
        Fathers % of
        Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
        Presbyterian 30 18.6%
        Congregationalist 27 16.8%
        Quaker 7 4.3%
        Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
        Lutheran 5 3.1%
        Catholic 3 1.9%
        Huguenot 3 1.9%
        Unitarian 3 1.9%
        Methodist 2 1.2%
        Calvinist 1 0.6%
        TOTAL 204
        NOTES: The table above counts *people* and not “roles,” meaning that individuals have *not* been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed *all three*foundational documents
        *and* he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.

  • MLR

    I might add that religion has no place in public schools either. As a Catholic I believe that’s what church is for. I want my son to learn from our church and his Catechism classes, not from his public school which might have different beliefs. Atheists should not be the only ones concerned about religion in schools, it should be everyone of different faiths concerned about it.

    • Kitzo

      I would disagree. I believe that religion should be taught in schools if only for the impact it has had on numerous historical. That is a big problem with our schools. They teach the who, what, when but they fail miserably when it comes to the why. With religion as a driving force behind so many events in history, i feel that it is imperative to teach our students the basic principles of the world’s more influential religions.

      • syracuseny

        If you’re going to teach religion in schools, it should be all-inclusive and should only be informative.

      • Joe Rossetti

        Teaching is not the same as preaching. A course on religious studies is fine, or say christianities impact on XYZ….however teaching a particular religion….not okay.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Sex should be taught in schools, because most parents are not qualified to be parents because they don’t understand that intercourse is NOT an irrevocable contract.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        I’m wondering how many hours we would have to stay at school with adding both religion AND sex to our already jam packed curriculum!! I guess we could go on Saturdays and stay until about 9 on school nights. Maybe you should get on a school board and help work that all out.

      • Stephen Barlow

        How much of the sports budget would you be wiling to cut to implement it? I mean we cut the arts in schools to almost ZERO to pay for HS football! Which is the very inefficient and inaccurate sex education systems for most teenagers in America.

        And the curriculum every time they paint the locker room walls!!!

        Of course having a concrete and constructive conversation with a unrealistic prudish fascist has already taken up enough of My time.

      • Kim Serrahn

        But never taught at the lower grades Jr an Senior high school in sociology classes only and only as an elective.

      • Teach, yes; preach, no.

      • Edward Krebbs

        Kitzo, although I thing we could have a lively debate, I would note that even in teaching history, literature, music, and even poetry, the schools take what could be an enriching and greatly challenging discussion of motives and turn them into a dry collection of dates.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        That part of history IS discussed in Social Studies/History classes. We don’t do a whole unit on religion but when we study a country we would talk about the beliefs of that country’s people and how it affects their lives. In public schools there just isn’t time to teach an in depth religion class along with all of the other things we have to get through during the year. I never had a problem approaching that subject from the standpoint of how most of a country’s citizens believed in certain practices that really “drove” their country.

    • Edward Krebbs

      I went to a public school and occasionally there was a teacher who would sneak in some tidbit of their religious beliefs.

      Looking back at some of the things they said, there is absolutely no way I want my kids to get their theology based on the confused, incomplete, self-formulated mutterings that I heard.

  • Buddah Dave

    My American friends… The whole point the Founding Fathers had in separating Church and State was to avoid the religious wars that racked Europe for 2000 years and is still going on here in the UK in Northern Ireland. If you really want to know what the Tealiban want for the US, go study the English Civil War and the 30 Years War in Europe. Our own Civil war is the main reason why we in the UK would laugh idiots like Pat Robertson out of the room and why Pam Gellar is banned from even coming here.

    • Bine646

      every founding father had religious beliefs- the reason they separated church and state is because they wanted to be able to practice freely

      • Paul Julian Gould

        Well, if the Dominionists and their lumpen partisans in the Tea Party have their way, few will be able to practice any belief system not in line with the official statement… theists of any flavor and atheists in particular would not be able to live their consciences, so your point is?

      • John Masters

        Bine, I suspect, is in agreement with you Paul. The point he’s making is that the founders had a range of beliefs related to religion. Some were Christian, some Deists, and some believed in no religion. They wanted to ensure that all of those beliefs were given room in the new republic.

      • Paul Julian Gould

        And, if so, then I apologize for the poke… Accepted, Bine?

        Just one of those issues that, for a variety of reasons, is an extreme hot-button one for me… Freedom to practice one’s spirituality has been corrupted to an ugly form of freedom to set public policy based upon one’s chosen sectarianism. And with 50,000+ separate flavors of Christianity alone, even setting aside the rest of the world’s faiths, which sect would win out?

      • Bine646

        I accept the apology and the poke- how discussions work and im open to criticism

      • Michael Bowen Roberts


      • Bine646

        goodthing the tea party is such a small minority which has an inflated image do to the media….dont see that in our future

      • Jim Bean

        So incredibly simple yet so hopelessly far out of reach for the Left.

    • Michael Bowen Roberts

      than you, the separation is for unity of all citizens not just a group. Many of the arguments is the abolishment of traditions that involved religious actions. I do not expect schools to teach religion, and in many religions the responsibility is with the family, if there is an observance of a moment of silence then if you want to sit there then fine that is your freedom provided by choice if you want . nothing was forced on anyone at any school I attended or required except cooperation of observance

    • Steve Kruzich

      There is a second part to the government not being able to establish a state religion. They are also NOT ALLOWED to prohibit the free exercise of anyones religion anwhere in any way. That means i can preach on the street or in the school and they cannot infringe upon my right to do so, nor anyone elses right to do so.

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich,

        Let us know the precinct nearest any public school you choose to preach in so we can send flowers to your cell.

        Do you carry a US Constitution in your pocket so you can explain to a meter maid that you have a right to free whatever on the street?

        You are the reason the US was not founded on religion — because if it was, they’d still be arguing over who’s god is bigger, 200 years on, and we’d be nowhere!

      • Sue Roediger

        as soon as someone says you are disturbing their peace the cops will come to ask you to move on.

      • .

        Actually, preaching in a we-the-people’s self-governance’s public school would be establishing your filthy mouth and empty mind as a religion and therefore against the powers of the Constitution.

        But any grammar school child knows that.

        So you must still be in pre-school.

        Go and ask your parents to put you to bed, and stop playing with their computer.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        Again you don’t know what your talking about there peter, there is preaching going on in the public schools on a daily basis and its entirely legal. Try looking up the Equal Access Act of 1984. 🙂 thats why you have meet at the flagpole and bible study in public schools across america.

      • .
        @wolfpengap:disqus ,

        “… The Equal Access Act is a United States federal law passed in 1984 to compel federally funded secondary schools to provide equal access to extracurricular clubs. Lobbied for by Christian groups who wanted to ensure students the right to conduct Bible study programs during lunch and after school, it is also essential in litigation regarding the right of students to form gay–straight alliances; and to form groups focused on any religion or on secularism … ”

        … and cannot require or compel anyone to recite any credo at the flag pole, nor “… have to meet …” for your disgusting ancient misogynist inhuman un-American bible study.

      • Wolfpen Gap

        the only reason the carpet munchers and weenie washers are included is because they petitioned to be included in it. LOL. They never let a good crisis or opportunity to infiltrate go to waste.

        Doesn’t negate the fact that You cannot stop God from doing what he so desires. You are at his mercy not mine.

  • Michael

    I agree that the country is not based on any particular denomination of religion, but the country definitely has its laws based on what had already been written over a 1000yrs early in the Bible. Most of the laws written, came from the bible. Or are people that arrogant and stupid enough to actually believe that the founding fathers actually thought these up all by themselves. Also, if Thomas Jefferson actually indeed did say some of the things quoted here. That would make him an idiot. The nation of Israel from the Bible was a theocracy. That means they were God ruled not man ruled. That means all their laws were based on what God said. According to Jefferson, any people ruled by God would be ignorant. We will have to throw away all our laws and beliefs if we want to be free of any connection to God. Then we might as well say we are ignorant, for that is what we would become.

    • Lokari

      “The nation of Israel from the Bible was a theocracy. That means they were God ruled not man ruled”
      No, that meant they were ruled by men proclaiming to represent god. Not at all the same thing.

    • Mark G

      Most of the laws written are older than the bible.

    • Kathy Stuart

      Code of Hammurabi; look it up.

    • Mark

      Only two of the Ten Commandments are law. Can man not decide for him or her self, without a religious background, what is right and what isn’t? Your thinking is way to narrow, and you are misquoting. Critical thinking, my man. Critical thinking.

    • Sue Roediger

      Moses was struggling to manage his unruly people. he went up the mountain, and stayed a few days. When He came down he had some tablets he had carved. he looked at his congregation and told them. “While I was up the mountain I say God. He told me to tell you ………..” and they believed him and the rest is (as they say) history. And anytime any “holy man” in the rest of time had trouble getting people to obey He says “God told me to tell you” even today we have people who try to convince people they are speaking for God.

  • terry63

    It was founded on a creator, a God. God’s law. Religious freedom. Our founding Fathers were God fearing men. Outlaw’s and renegade’s. Destined to hang at the end of a rope on the command of King George.They fought a battle against the finest Military in the world and won. Later they would engage that same army. An Army that was fresh off the defat of Napolean, they would repel that Army again. Yes America was founded on a belief in an eternal God. You need only read the memoirs of those men. Its very easy to understand. So simple that even I get it.

    • Lokari

      Yeah… you don’t get it at all.

      • terry63

        Im not afraid to look at it. It doesnt scare me. It is not in the Constitution itself. But in the memiors of every single signer of the Constitution. You can read . Dont be afraid to go look. You can start with George Washington if you like. He is probably a good place to start.

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        I see very clearly why your response was collapsed. You can’t come up with any reasons why we should continue any longer with Republican/T-party beating the US down.

    • standbehindtheyellowline

      What they believed, as far as religion is concerned, had absolutely nothing to do with what they wanted for the new free America and the citizens. But even a more pressing question for you is… If the country was built on the beliefs that the eternal God that is praised today by the Republican/T-partiers, then why do they so strongly go against what is the “written rule” by judging the poor, who is mainly made up of the handicap, mental issues, United States Veterans and the elderly? Why do they not love one other as he loves himself? Why is it more important to continue (I do believe all sides do this) to give the biggest tax cuts to the largest corporations, oil corporations… when it has never come back to the poor and has ruined the middle class? If the country was to be ran by a religions bias, then those things (these are just a very few examples) would have never happened. It’s the hit of miss of the Bible that the right wants to uphold anyway, as they do the Constitution.

    • Kim Curtis

      You can’t open a closed mind. At least not with force. My number one argument against religious doctrine is what Dawkins said… It makes you intellectually lazy. If something doesn’t make sense in your World view, it was God’s will. You don’t have to think, or do the hard work to figure it out. You don’t have to compromise. You don’t even have to try. It’s also why Science scares true believers because the more we understand the Universe, the less space exists for God. I would prefer we place our faith in each other, to respect our differences and understand that if you fail, we all fail. If there is a God wouldn’t that be what she would want? To be Loved out of a job. A pipedream, maybe, but then that’s sor of what Faith is really all about. Working towards a dream until it’s a reality. If this makes me an idealist, a Liberal even then, why aren’t we all? Jesus was.

      • John Masters

        You speak eloquently Kim, and I applaud you for that, but I’d prefer to state one aspect of your statement a little differently. I’m a Christian, and believer in science. The more I learn about the amazing complexity and vastness of the universe, the greater my respect for a creator. But that’s the point, you can call the creator whatever you want…as a friend would say, call it peas and carrots if that’s what you want, it’s still the same thing.

        The problem today, as we seem to slip into a new Dark Ages of thought, is that too many people want to create a God in their own image, and nothing that can put together this universe (and maybe even other universes) can even be comprehended by our limited minds. Until we give up our small god for whatever the real God is, we’ll limit ourselves, and God too. As one comedian said (and I paraphrase), you’ll know you’ve created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do.

        A big God (THE big God) isn’t afraid of the questions. He was sure enough to give us free will and an inquiring mind. He made us explorers, but as you note so well, when we no longer want to ask the questions, when we no longer want to do the hard work of understanding, or deal with the problems we create, we actually blame God…”it is just God’s will.” To me, to deny learning and exploration and experimentation is the greatest blasphemy. We become intellectually lazy, as you note. We disabuse the mental powers God gave us.

        When I work to try to understand the creator from that grand perspective, it makes me want to know more about how the universe works, because in that grandeur and interconnectedness, I find what I call God (what some call the creator, or peas and carrots).

      • Michael Bowen Roberts

        science and time is man’s description of events we add the chemical listing and basic elements and the time schedules of history science and god exist the two are not going to fit mans schedule

      • Terry63

        You will find me to be very open minded. I as Mr. Masters has stated, I also lean heavily towards Science and evolution. My theory of evolution may be a bit different than yours. I also beleive in God. As did the founding fathers. I also beleive in seperation of Church and State as I understand why it was adopted. But still, your founding fathers were God fearing men. Religion has always played a heavy roll in American Culture.

    • The Walrus

      Tell me, when did they say they were God fearing men?
      When did they say America was founded on God, as you suggest?

      The facts are they didn’t. Wouldn’t you think men forming a government based off of the Christian God would have at least mentioned it? Yet they didn’t.
      Logic and reason would then suggest that what you are saying is false.
      The United States is not a Christian nation.

    • syracuseny

      Our founding fathers were atheists.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    I’ve known the premises of this article for quite some time. Even wrote a few Facebook notes about it. The GOP are full of Fascist Christian Theocrats who rail against “Sharia” Law while advocating for a Christian version of it.

    • Steve Kruzich

      The world is full of fascists period. They lay claim to being christian as well as liberal. Take obama for instance he’s muslim and a facist, then you have george soros he’s jewish and a facist, then you have clintons they’re facist and lay claim to christianity. So whats your point.

      • If you believe that nonsense you are absolutely, positively full of shit.

        But then again, I kind of got that impression reading your other comments.

      • ExRadioGuy15

        Ah, yes, Mr. Kruzich…using the old, tired and throroughly debunked “both parties are the same” or False Equivalency meme/argument, something you in the GOP use as “projection” to make yourselves feel better about the fact that your party is completely Fascist, greedy, etc.
        The GOP abandoned the truth, facts, logic, reason and common sense long ago, leaving only propaganda, BS, talking points, etc.
        Yep, Mr. Kruzich….projection and False Equivalence…nicely playing, jackass! LMAO
        P.S. by calling everybody Fascists, you also show us how incompetent you are, because you admit that YOU’RE a Fascist, as well.

      • Steve Kruzich

        No both parties aren’t the same. One is much smarter than the other one in that we will make it so that ghetto nigger in the white house has no power anymore. Happens every time you let one of them in a positon of authority. Should have put Allen west in the whitehouse now that man would have brought honor to the whitehouse.

      • I just flagged you, asshole. Hopefully the mods will take down your racist bullshit.

      • Steve Kruzich

        If it was racist i wouldn’t even be suggesting that Allen West be president there nimrod.

      • BB-Mystic

        Oh, bullcrap. Just because Allen West is also black doesn’t excuse your calling the President a “ghetto n*****r.” That word is not acceptable.

      • Steve Kruzich

        Sure it is, blacks use it all the time. Plus theres a little something called 1st amendment and free speech you know. And as far as calling obama who is NOT my president, whatever i wish to call him is in my freedom to do so. He’s a traitor, murderer, thief, liar, Warmonger, communist, liberal as well. The sooner he’s gone the better off we are.

      • BB-Mystic

        Are you African-American?

        Were your ancestors slaves, or lynched, or denied their civil rights?

        No? Then you have no business using that word.

        Forward Progressives isn’t the government. That means the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with this. Whether you LIKE IT OR NOT, Barack Obama is still the President and will remain so for the next three years.

        You’re still an all-around asshole, kiddo. And yes, I flagged you again.

      • .
        Hey, I’m getting ready to vote for Obama for yet another term — no one else offers anything butt atholes like @Steve Kruzich … sad.

      • Steve Kruzich

        Does it matter if I am? No I’m an AMERICAN, not some hyphenated whatever. You either are American or your not. Pick a country and go there. THis bullshit of being a hyphenated whatever you want is that. Bullshit. As far as race is concerned i could care less what race you are. But character is everything, and if your niggerish, then your niggerish. Doesn’t matter what race you are.

        And No osama is not my president. He is a usurper of the position and he only deserves contempt for his crimes against this nation.
        Keep a flaggin. ROTFLMAO!

      • Mr. Clifton:
        Doesn’t anybody pay attention to the threads here? Can someone please give this asshole the boot?

      • Sue Roediger

        “traitor, murderer, thief, liar, Warmonger,” ,,,, apply to Bush, Cheney and the gang

      • .
        Someone left the door to the Internet open, and let in some numb-skull, zero-IQ hateful bigot — @Steve Kruzich, specifically — who now is trying to ruin everything for everyone — quick, spray it with Raid!

        “… Oh, no, I’m not racist when I use the N-word …” said nobody but a racist.

        Where do people get this stuff?

        I can’t even imagine finding that word in my brain.

        I guess some people were raised in deficit city, abused and ridiculed day in and day out, left and right, so much so that they call others from a “ghetto” without seeing their own — it takes one to know one.

        Wow, we have some mean, sorry, sad people in the world, and so much work to do to prevent such damage from happening to any more people ever again.

        What to do, what to do?

      • .
        Thank you, @BB.Mystic, I flagged @Steve Kruzich too for hateful bigoted racism — some “science authority”, eh?

        On the one hand, deny them any platform, snuff them out, arrest them and put them into clearing camps to journal all day until they work out their wounds and evolve into social animals fit for social interaction.

        On the other hand, showing them for that they are — hateful puddles of puss — is a necessary and stark reminder of how fragile is our knee-jerk acceptance of everyone with equivalent consideration.

        Who hurt @Steve Kruzich so severely as a child — I can’t imagine these folks fell far from their tree, and there an overwhelming need for heeling going -w-a-y- back?

        Where do we start? Where do we start?

      • .
        Wow, now I know why butt-wipes like @Steve Kruzich don’t believe in evolution — because for them, there is none.

        Imagine combining the emptiness of racist white supramicist hateful bigotry with the emptiness of self inflicted religious intellectual blindness — could there be any more emptiness to pull out of someone’s potential for humanity?

        Probably drives a Chevy!

      • Hey, I drive a Ford… 🙁

      • Sue Roediger

        well you finally showed you true – pointy hat Klan – colors. Shame on you

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich,

        You can get on the Internet from Pluto?


        Come to Earth and visit some time to see how it really works — you seem to have a twisted, myopic impression from out there.

        Fascists by definition are not liberals.

        Obama is not Muslim.

        Capital letters are used to accurately reflect the respect we give each other and our proper names, like Obama, Soros, Clinton.

        It’s a fun place here on Earth.

        Tell us, what’s it like out there in space all alone?

      • Steve Kruzich

        Oh i use them correctly i have no respect for them. 🙂

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich, blinded by the three fingers point back at ya.


  • Jim Bean

    Unfortunately for Liberals, too many people DO understand that the constitution was crafted by people descended from England where the Church of England was, for all intents and purposes, the government. They understand “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was intended to prevent Congress from saying ‘We’ll require our people to be Catholics or Protestants” or any other particular religion. That knowledge is problematic for Liberals who want to pervert that into ‘no social standard that appears in a written religious text may ever be endorsed by our government unless we, the Left, specifically agree to it. We’ll agree thou shall not kill. We do NOT agree not to commit adultery. We do agree than you cannot steal from us but we do NOT agree that we cannot covet your house, donkey, or ox or that we cannot take it from you if we can find a way. We do NOT agree to love thy neighbor but DO agree the neighbor must love us, and share his wealth with us, and never criticize our genital activities.”

    • John Masters

      Unfortunately for you Jim, you paint with way too broad a brush for no purpose other than to malign progressives (whom you call Liberal). How about we paint conservatives like you with a broad brush:

      Jesus said, suffer the little children to come to me, and commanded us to feed the hungry, care for and the cloth the poor, heal the sick, but conservatives want to end the school lunch program that gives millions of children their only good meal of the day, they want sick people to die in the streets for lack of money for care, and they want to end Social Security and Medicare so the old and sick can die in the streets.

      Please, spare me the word salad you are trying to spew. The progressives/liberals I know act far more Christ-like than the vast majority of evangelical conservatives.

      And yes, Jim, since you have elected to live in this society, I will expect you to pay some taxes in order to support all of these social programs. Had you read your Bible, and understood, you would know that Jesus spent his entire ministry teaching villagers how to organize themselves to share everything with everyone in the village. We do that with taxes. Any time you don’t want to participate, by all means, buy you an island, and figure out to live self-sustained.

      • Leftcoastrocky

        I agree with you, John.

      • Jim Bean

        A Google search for “Republican bill to end social security” yields nothing. Politifact gives your claim that Pubs want to end Medicare their highest ‘pants on fire’ rating. Your charge that the Pubs efforts to better regulate nutrition programs means ‘millions of children’ will lose ‘their only good meal of the day’ presumes you somehow know their parents can’t afford, or won’t, feed them which is nothing more than emotionally generated static. As someone who was in grade school in the 50’s, I can assist you in leaving this conversation a little more enlightened. In those days, because there was no free lunch program, faculty was able to determine which children were truly neglected and in need by noting those children who had no lunch to eat at lunch time. Then social services were alerted and social assistance was distributed where needed rather than to everyone in the room, ‘just in case.’

      • John Masters

        Ah yes, the standard Republican fall-back of…these children are just welfare cheats, and are feeding at the public teet. Let ’em go dumpster diving for food (something which Rush Limbaugh did say).

        At first, I just thought you were just a jerk Jim. Now I actually feel sorry for you. You claim to be Christian, but have no actual clue what that means because you’ve likely been mislead. However, it will be you who will ultimately be called to account for what you contributed to the world, and that will be a sad day for you.

      • Jim Bean

        You can’t verify a single Republican who has ever said they are all welfare cheats. You also cannot verify that none of them are and you can’t make an intelligent argument why more shouldn’t be done to better manage these programs (except maybe that people gaming these systems are more likely to vote Democrat because its the Democrats who block anyone attempting to stop the gaming). When it comes wealthy tax cheaters, you’re all for doing more to stop that, aren’t you?

      • Steve Kruzich

        want to do something about wealthy tax cheats, why not go after jesse jackson, al sharpton the progressive liberal champion!

      • Sue Roediger

        or the Koch Brothers or Trump or McCain who wouldn’t disclose his tax returns.

      • Michael Bowen Roberts

        That is a self defeating statement many aspects of the government profits are with the social security program and with the defense programs many of the companies and contractors are members of the republican parties and the lobby groups that are driven by the political machine here the competiveness is usurped by the ungrounded unity that exists here
        and many recognize the obvious difference’s of democrats and republicans few recognize the similarities’ of these parties and the party’s will act in unison when encroached as past independent’s have discovered when running for office the encounter join such was the example of Ross Perot in the seventies and eighties and Ralph Nader. The DEM and GOP will work together to destroy competitor’s

      • Steve Kruzich

        You are correct kinda. Jesus said to take care of the widowed and the orphaned Not feed the poor or heal the sick, nor care and clothe the poor.
        Might need to brush up on your theology.

        HE also said that if you don’t work you shouldn’t eat. As well as anyone that does not provide for their family is worse than a infidel.

        You get your feathers ruffled at the thought of someone saying something negative about progressives. but they brought that on themselves. Progressives are nothing more than communist atheistic group that has NO RIGHT to even use scripture in its own arguments since they do not belive in the scripture to begin with. These same liberals/progressives use scripture to correct christians when they themselves (the progressives) commit and support genocide and murder as a way of life. Again you have no moral position in this and have no leg to stand on from a moral prospective.

      • John Masters

        So that whole Beatitudes thing about who Jesus considers the blessed doesn’t really matter to you “conservatives.” Also, in what verse does he say, “you don’t work you don’t eat?”

        And see, there you go with the judging. You don’t know me. I’ve been Christian all my life, and have, for quite some years now taught an adult Sunday School class, so I’ve studied the Bible, Old and New Testaments, probably far more carefully than you actually have. Even taken the time to learn some Greek, to be better understand the actual words used.

        You do realize you are commanded to not pass such broad judgements on other people…right? (Or do you just skip those verses you don’t like so much?)

      • Steve Kruzich

        First of all to answer your question where did it say you don’t work you don’t eat.

        [2Th 3:8, 10 KJV] 8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: … 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

        IT not only says that you don’t work you don’t eat it also says, that your not supposed to eat another mans bread for nothing but to work for it. It also says to owe no man anything (that we might not be chargeable to any of you).

        Secondly judging. You use one verse, and one verse only incorrectly and you dont’ even use the whole verse you cherry pick one phrase out of it.
        IT SAYS [Mat 7:1-2 KJV] 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

        IT doesn’t prohibit judging, just says that if you do whatever you use to judge another with shall be used to judge you on the same matter.

        The following verses as well cover the whole topic.
        [1Co 6:2 KJV] 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
        [1Co 11:31 KJV] 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

        You see, it never said to not judge it said to use it carefully. Everyone judges. You just judged me by your statement.

        Last of all, since we are on the topic. IF you are liberal how does one justify liberalism and claim Christianity? Seriously how do y’all do it. If your liberal you support abortion/murder/genocide. Yet sit there in church and sing how great thou art on Sundays. If your a liberal you support homosexuality, which is sin yet claim christianity.
        You guys seem to jump on me for calling someones actions as wrong as racist but have no problem with letting someone rush to hell without telling them that their actions are carrying them straight to hell.

        Why is racism wrong but its ok to for a person to murder their unborn child. The simple fact is that when one calls evil evil these days unless it fits the fluid definition of liberals it isn’t evil. If you are Christian, you can’t possibly be Christian and support those thing no matter how many years you’ve read the bible, sat under the top theologians, or know Greek and Hebrew.

        Christ spoke out against those things, he called the woman at the well on her being married to someone and living with another (adultery). He killed annanias and saphira for stealing and lying.
        And he called abortion murder. So why would a christian support any group of people that would support these things. The only answer to that is that one cannot be Christian and support those things.

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich,

        Okay, back on topic.

        Obviously, the US isn’t a Christian nation.


        Now, about that racism thing of yours …

      • Steve Kruzich

        what about racism. Racism is the belief that one race is genetically superior than another race. I never espoused such a thing.

      • John Masters

        Mat 7:1-2 is in fact a prohibition against judging others. Here, Jesus does what he often does, and emphasizes the point by attaching a warning about what will happen if you judge. Are you prepared to say you are so perfect in how you live that you are fine being judged against the same standards you seem to impose on everyone who does not believe exactly as you do? You’re absolutely certain you know the mind of God?

        How about the workers in the vineyard who all got paid the same regardless of how long they worked. How about that whole concept laid out in Acts 4, “32Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”

        You are certain life begins at conception. Others are not. I don’t any “liberal” Christians who support genocide, murder or abortion. All wish none of those things happened in our world, but they don respect a woman’s right to control her own body, and make decisions with her doctor about what is best for her.

        Any careful contextual reading of the Bible, using even a basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew, and you’ll find the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. Sodom was destroyed because of a lack of hospitality…that is reiterated several times throughout the Bible. Paul was talking about Temple prostitution and doing things not natural to a straight person. Jesus did brush against the topic. I’m sure you’re familiar with the story of the Centurion? Jesus pointed to him in front of his Disciples and proclaimed that the Roman had more faith than any of them. In fact the word the Centurion used in asking Jesus for his help is inaccurately translated as servant or slave. In fact, it is the Greek word used to describe the younger lover of an older male. So sorry, when the subject came for Jesus, he said the Roman had more faith than even the Disciples. Can’t find any condemnation there, can we?

        I can go back and forth with you for days proof-texting passages, and pointing out Biblical discrepancies and conflicting passages, but because I’m a “liberal” I come down on the side of the Prophet Micah, who said, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” And then there was Jesus, who said something about the Greatest Commandment being to love God, and the second being equal to that…to love one another. (nothing in there I can find about excluding and judging and condemning people).

        I’d like to recommend you read “The Case of the Missing Person: How Finding Jesus of Nazareth Can Transform Communities and Individuals Today” by Rev. R. Earle Rabb, PhD. What you’ll find is that Jesus spent his entire ministry going from village to village showing them how to organize to care for one another and build blessed communities. Yeah, unfortunately for you, Jesus was basically a liberal community organizer.

        So while you sit around figuring out who is less holy than you, we liberals will work to try to build a just world, where everyone is cared for, and cared about, fed, clothed, and loved. Because we happen to believe, we liberals, that what we have done unto the least of these, we have done unto God. I’m not big on condemning God.

      • Steve Kruzich

        It is not judging if you point out that somethings a sin. Even paul called the folks on their sins in his letters.
        The standard is not mine it is that of God. You see, the problem is that if you don’t point out that things like homosexuality is a sin and that you cannot be saved unless your repent and turn away from it then your lying to them. IF you blow smoke up their butts and tell them its ok its normal your sending them straight to hell.

        As far as your usage of the workers, Nice try. that is not about communism and the whole marxist ideology. If you really discerned the message from that you would have found that it is specifically talking about those who are saved as young people those who are saved in mid life and those who are saved at the last minute all getting to the kingdom of heaven.

        And acts is about offerings. First you must note that in no form shape or fashion did jesus every say to steal from someone to give to another as being right. Theft is theft. IN FACT he said he doesn’t want it unless its given freely of your own will and even puts a condition on that. You must be cheerful or he doesn’t want it. You also do not point out that they did not give to everyone only to the believers (there wasn’t a needy one amongst the believers) not the poor nor the sick nor the general population.

        You can love someone and tell them they’re on the wrong road and that what they are doing is wrong. To NOT Tell them what they are doing is wrong is to hate them.

        But then you don’t believe the bible is Gods inerrant word. IF you don’t believe it 100% true then why are you claiming christianity.

        As for liberals reshaping this country and world, you’ve done a pretty screwed up job of it so far. Just take a look at the 59million murders women have committed over the last 40 years. Thats genocide. ANd yes we have the right to tell a woman she cannot murder a child. We have the right to tell a woman or a man that they cannot murder their neighbor, so we have the moral and absolute right to dictate that Thou shalt not murder. Period.
        If it means locking them up, then so be it. If they don’t want kids get fixed. SImple as that.
        ANy woman that murders their child, should be sterilized

      • Bullshit like you’re spouting is the reason you need to move to Uganda, Iran or Saudi Arabia. You’d fit right in with the jackasses who think it’s a-okay to imprison and murder gay people.

        The United States is not a theocracy. It never will be. We are governed by the Constitution, and the Bible has nothing to do with it. Period. As far as that goes, if in your little pea brain you think God will condemn gay people merely for being who they are, or condemn women for asserting their humanity and bodily autonomy, you are showing a shocking lack of faith in your God for not leaving the punishment (if any) up to Him. I’m sure S/He is quite capable of taking care of it without your bigoted, nasty, Stone Age input.

        You need to leave your religion in your own home and your own church. You can spout Bible verses all you want, and if I don’t believe in the Bible, your threats of punishment and hell (which doesn’t even exist) won’t mean shit to me. Why? Again, because in this country we follow the Constitution, not any holy book.

        In short, you are a thoroughly despicable person, and every word you post here only confirms that.

      • Steve Kruzich

        Is that the best you can do? seriously you think i actually take you serious? LOL. ok. no i won’t leave my beliefs in my own home. I will state them wherever i am. And… You can’t stop me from it thankfully due to that wonderful constitution. 🙂 And your the one who said to kill gays, i never did. I never even said anything about them other than they are wrong. You made up all the vitrol on here. The fact is that God didn’t condemn anyone, Everyone on earth is condemned and unless they repent and turn to him, all would burn. Homosexuals adulterers, fornicators all of them are condemned by their own actions. I dont know anyone that lives perfectly do you?

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich,

        You are painfully hateful!

        Catholic Saints figured a child didn’t get a soul for about 2 weeks after birth, so your beliefs are a movable feast, generation to generation.

        Please identify what jurisdiction anyone else has over your body.

        Then let’s talk about other people’s bodies, and why you think you or anyone should be entitled to have superior rights over someone else’s body, over that person’s own rights over their own body.

        Oh how I wish you’d keep your religion and you personal god to yourself.

        You no more spout god’s words than a dog pissing: the only thing that comes out is what’s inside.

        As soon as you open your mouth, it’s your words, not god’s.

        Only if you shut up will I believe you.

        Anyway, who cares?

        The nation was not founded on Christianity, as if there were such a thing.

        And you’re not even entertaining.

        About all you can be used for is a horrible example.

      • Steve Kruzich

        catholic saints? what do they know. first of all they had no way of knowing when a woman was pregnant til at least 21 days or more. that’s long past your 2 week argument. Secondly you assume that Catholics are Christian. they’re not. their catholic and a cult.
        Basically its a bastardization of Christianity mixed with Roman gods and goddesses and ba’al worship.

        As far as jurisdiction over ones body, rights of the child supersede that right when they are inside. its temporary and doesn’t last but 10 months. The ONLY exception would be if life of the mother were in jeopardy but that would rarely happen and not even a viable defence when the baby is over 6 months old in gestation since they can survive outside of the mother.

        On the jurisdiction over my body? Sure thats easy. Why should I pay for the childs support? I should have the right to not have to use my body, or mind to make money to support the child. Same exact thing there. It requires use of my body to earn the living. But then that would be selfish now wouldn’t it. ooops did i point out the flaw in womens autonomy over thier own bodies? It is all about me me me me and NO ONE man nor woman who is not willing to take care of their own child should ever have a child. Period. That can be done you know.

        Theres a old saying about wishing, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets full first.

        It won’t be long before the law will protect the unborn, its already happening in several states who have declared the unborn baby a person. Once this happens it will invoke constitutional rights for the unborn. Once that happens you will have to give that child due process before you can take its life.

      • Yes, and those pesky early abortion bans keep getting struck down by the courts, don’t they?
        As far as that goes, Mississippi (a deep red state) decidely voted down a fetal personhood amendment. By double digits.

        Roe v. Wade is still standing. As long as it is, your barbaric attempts to regulate women’s bodies will get precisely nowhere.

      • “NO ONE man nor woman who is not willing to take care of their own child should ever have a child. Period. That can be done you know.”
        Yep. It happens when a woman steps up, takes personal responsibility, realized she can’t support and/or care for a child right now, and has an abortion.

      • Steve Kruzich

        No it isn’t taking responsibility its avoiding their responsibility, and taking the easy way out. If they were truely responsible they wouldn’t get pregnant or they would fulfil their obligation to that child. there is no excuse for murdering a child just because your to lazy, to immoral to raise them.

        As for mississippi, they solved that problem very creatively. Now you can’t get one unless you go to a approved doctor that has patient admitting priveledges.

        We got rid of one abortion doc in kansas when someone sent him to the eternal dirt nap. Roder shot ole tillman in the eye and got rid of that scum. he’ ought to be out in about 10 years. When he is, we’ll give him a parade down mainstreet.

      • You know, I’m not wasting my time with you anymore. You must be a troll. No sane person could be this relentlessly over-the-top stupid.

      • .
        @Steve Kruzigh,

        Typical hypocrisy to murder because you are against murder — and you murder the language, too.

        Name one law you accept where the government has superior rights over the inside of your body.

        Didn’t think so.

      • Steve Kruzich

        Its not murder to kill someone defending another person. 🙂 Thats
        why mr. roder didn’t get the death penalty. he was defending unborn

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich,

        “… On May 31, 2009, Dr. Tiller was shot through the eye and killed by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder, as Tiller served as an usher during the Sunday morning service at his church in Wichita, Kansas, US …

        … Roeder ran, but was arrested 170 miles away, three hours after the shooting …

        … Reports and evidence then came forth that he vandalized a women’s clinic the week before and the day before …

        … The judge allowed Roeder’s defense team to argue for a voluntary manslaughter conviction, which in Kansas is defined as killing with “… an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force …” …

        … Under questioning by his attorney, he attempted to describe abortion practices in detail but was repeatedly halted by objections based on his lack of medical expertise …

        … Roeder was convicted of murder — the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three charges after less than 40 minutes of deliberation, the Judge sentenced Roeder to a “Hard 50″, no possibility of parole for 50 years, for the murder of Tiller, the maximum sentence available in Kansas …

        … he will be eligible for parole when he is 112 years old …

        … Roeder’s ex-wife claimed that Roeder was diagnosed with schizophrenia and offered her own diagnosis of bipolar disorder …

        … She said that he started reading the Bible and, after they were divorced, his religion took on a whole new right wing of itself …

        … Roeder’s brother said that Scott suffered from mental illness, and he sent deepest regrets, prayers, and sympathy to the Tiller family during this terrible time …”

        That was cold blooded murder — the doctor was ushering in church, hardly an act that threatened anyone, so this sociopathic psychopathic filthy chiken-sh!t runaway murderer and misogynist vicious mean-spirited vandal was not defending anyone.

        Even his own defense lawyers had to admit he was “… unreasonable …”, otherwise his conviction would have warranted the death penalty.

        Gosh, in the US, anyone can pick up a phone and dial 911 if they truly believe anyone is at risk and needs to be defended — no need to take matters in your own hands extra-legally.

        So, your squirmy slimy puss-pool athole murderer obviously had nothing of value on his mind — if he has a mind at all, I presume it was brainwashed away in the church of Steve-Kruzich-zero-think.

        Spin your self-satisfying lies all you want, you live in an ever shrinking cesspool of self-induced hell.

        If your god believes in you, I hope he/she/it takes note of what you expect your god to do to hateful bigots like you who so severely denigrate your god’s works, including your own sorry self.

        Very sad reading of this murderer’s berserker life on the web, but if I’m around in 2070, I’ll be glad to contribute objections at his parole hearing.

        I find it morally shocking that anyone finds inspiration and offers adulation for such a broken piece of discarded and lost inhumanity.

        Ahh, but @Steve Kruzich is so deep in his own collection of scum garbage that Scott Roeder’s sorry life looks like “up” to Steve.

        Keep digging, Steve, your voice and any possible validity is getting fainter and fainter as you deservedly bury yourself deeper and deeper in the bowels of a hell of your own making.

        Oh, was that a diatribe?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        I lovd it!

      • 😉

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey sh*tbag steve.,……………
        go KILL an abortion doctor and see how u do socially and legally
        white trash regressive crybaby small dicked loser religious scum,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      • Wolfpen Gap

        I see your mother wasn’t able to teach you not to have a potty mouth. Need to go wash it out as nasty as it is.
        I think you need to worry about your own prick instead of focusing on mine. If its so small then why are you fantasizing about it.
        As far as religious scum, at least i am not a liberal. You know they are lower than a terrorist

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey crybaby– was I talking 2 U?
        awwww,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,poor regressive crying again!
        and; please edify me here: what E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. are u voodoo( see: religion) practitioners “conserving” other than NON equal rights for all americans?
        lemme know

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich wrote “… your to lazy …” … but you probably mean “… you’re too lazy …” … but you’re too lazy.

      • Sue Roediger

        a zygote is not a baby.

      • Paul Julian Gould

        Indeed… what it really amounts to, though few seem to really be aware enough to realize that which they seem to advocate, is that an at least constitutionally secular institution is to set binding civil legal precedence based upon a concept that’s been debated for thousands of years. Is there such a thing as a soul? If so, is this intangible, undefinable, and ultimately unprovable, quality somehow mystically imparted to an ovum the instant it’s joined with that one lucky sperm cell? Is that collection of self-replicating cells a discrete human personality? Yep, the DNA says it’s human, along with the fingernail I trimmed this morning. Is it life? Well, the fact that it’s self-replicating would indicate that it meets the definition of life, as differentiated from, say, a hunk of granite.

        But here, and follow me in this… is it a discrete, autonomous personality? Of what does that even consist? And why, for all that’s bright and beautiful, should one expect a law school graduate who passed some state’s bar and made good enough to wear a black robe in DC to make a pronouncement of such profundity and import? Yet that is exactly what has been permitted, with the added joy of investing an impersonal business entity with free speech (and for a corporation, the only language is money) and now religious belief?

        And people tell me I’m nuts… I most certainly am in some respects, and in some ways, I’m kinda proud of that… so… OK… I’m a little nuts, but I’ve not experienced such a psychotic break, unless there’s something someone’s not telling me.

      • .
        None of this matters until after birth because until then, it’s inside someone else’s body, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of we-the-people’s self-governance, or anybody else, for that matter.

        Get over it, people — your preference for no abortions and no birth control is preachy at best, and has nothing to do with legitimate law.

        I’m shocked — SHOCKED — at the men on the Supreme Court who do not get this.


      • Paul Julian Gould

        True, across the board… except that although none of this matters, a case made it all the way to the SCOTUS, and won, thereby forcing all of goodwill to make it matter.

        It’s not about BC or abortion… it’s about a mystical belief in a soul, and how and when it somehow makes its host a sentient being. It’s, as I’ve said, an effort to force a nominally secular body to make binding decisions based upon nothing more than intangible metaphysics and mysticism.

        I tend to lean more towards those last two things, but I sure as hell don’t want laws built upon my own philosophical speculations.

      • .
        @Steve Kruzich,

        Hey, I agree Catholics are stupid, but, as I wrote, 21 days after BIRTH, so knowing someone is pregnant had nothing to do with it, they were dealing with live births.

        Life is a movable feast, and a few hundred years ago, you’d agree with them, believing that babies have no soul for 20 days after birth, and killing them or letting them die is okay, yet now that they have whimsically changed their rationale, you think life begins at fertilization, no, you believe citizenship begins at fertilization.

        Go ahead and indict a zygote for not filing a tax form, especially the zygotes you call citizens who are stored cryogenically for later use, if desired, by a couple about to lose their ability to create sperm or eggs anymore because of impending radiation treatments … and they discard the zygotes if one of the couple dies, maybe, and certainly if both die, and no one else wants to “adopt” the left over zygotes, instead opting for their own.

        Oh, I see how equivalent it is to say paying taxes is equal to either prohibiting abortion or forcing trans-vaginal ultrasound (GOP/T.E.A. Party rape via medical equipment penetration) — not.

        Exactly how much energy have you put into preventing unwanted pregnancy, either by rape prevention activities or contraceptive training and supply?

        Not serious, are you, then?

        And god forbid you’d adopt an unwanted child — how many so far are in your care?

        It’s easy to talk and demand that others take action, not so easy to take action yourself, eh what?

        Pontificating hypocrite.

      • Sue Roediger

        !!!!!!!!!!! Thank you !!!!! A zygote is not a baby.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        unless its a BORN baby named ZYGOTE 🙂

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        so!!! U are annoying regressives again with FACTS???

      • Sue Roediger

        Catholics are the original “Christians” founded by the Apostles …….today’s “Christians” are heretics according to Catholics, since they trace back to groups that splintered from the Roman Catholic Church.

      • Sue Roediger

        and ………… they don’t get to make all of us live by their faith, no matter how many of them there are.

      • Sue Roediger

        this last sentence hinges on when a soul enters the fetus. In the Bible is it at the first breath, later the church said at quickening. Now some think it is at fertilization…….. the point is that “believers” don’t get to make law for the whole nation ….of they did it would mean we are a theocracy…………like, you know, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia !

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        note: bible? mad magazine times 100

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        any woman ” murders ” their child ; she is 2 be sterilized? which white trash scumbag loser littledicked Christian 21 st century MALE said that?????

      • Wolfpen Gap

        I rest my case on the morality of liberals. there is no morality in them.

        Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
        light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        wow— reading from a book made by drunken sheepherders ???
        ya got it goin’ ON—– dontcha!
        PRAISE jesus- and pass the tax free tithe
        when ur littledick loser religion cures an amputee let us know

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        sounds like u and the pastor have been hitting the wine frequently
        shall we look at the sexual misconduct of all those delightful Christian pastors and bishops with little BOYS?

      • Wolfpen Gap

        You mean catholics. And i agree with you, the catholics just sweep it under the rug.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        Christians and jews and Buddhists and all religions have “pastors/ rabbis/ etc” who pull this crap

      • Wolfpen Gap

        true but the christian churchs, not the catholics, lock their asses up and prosecute them not cover it it up and move them to another church where no one knows them. You can’t stop all the lowlifes, but you sure can make sure they are put away.

        But then again theres a ton of them out there that aren’t anything but good ole fashioned athiest and agnostic or don’t give a rats fanny. By far i suspect there are more of them that are these types than there are in the religions. They don’t believe in God or morality.

      • Sue Roediger

        oh thank you —- I am just to tired to type all that you just did .well done !

      • Sue Roediger

        in Thessalonians ? Those are letters from Paul. Corinthians – Paul again.
        What? Jesus killed Annanias and Saphira — reference please? Where are Jesus’ words on abortion

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        amazing how much voodoo U clowns believe
        where O where did CHRIST mention abortion,,,,or being gay???
        lemme know—I need 2 brush up on my superstition

      • Sue Roediger

        you are mixing up what Jesus said with what Paul said. Jesus said something like if you feed the poor, it is if you feed me. The not work and not eat if from Paul.

      • Paul Julian Gould

        Thank you, Sue, for this… the assumption is made and the straw man that is so frequently attacked is that all of us, who appreciate the spirit of the teachings attributed to the Holy Carpenter, must, by definition, accept the writings and personal letters of a guy that may have based his stuff on a concatenation of Hellenic spirituality and a possible grand mal seizure on the road to Damascus

        Straw men ill befit anyone, regardless self-professed labels.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,!!
        —————– ,,,,,,,,,,,, annoying regressives with facts :))

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        idiotic rant from someone who NOW claims to know what all liberals say and think!
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, regressive white trash religious scum cherry pick scripture to fit what they are yirning* about that day
        and yes,,,,,,,, YIRNING is spelled correctly

      • Wolfpen Gap

        You liberals are the ones who hate anything good, you allow the POS Nutless wonder in the white house to abandon our men and let the enemy kill them, you guys don’t give a rats ass about our marine down in mexico languishing in a prison for making a wrong turn, you folks celebrate the genocide of 55 million people, yeah really your trying to claim the moral superiority here? ROTFLMAO

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        sounds like the house of VOODOO( see: church) had a great impact upon U today
        shall we all praise JEEEEESUS about those stellar republican policies of the last 25 yrs?

    • I’m sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. You must be a fiction writer in your spare time. Or maybe you write for the National Enquirer? This lurid make-shit-uppery would fit right in.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        jimbo drinks alcohol 2 TRY 2 quell his socio- spiritual pain

    • Sue Roediger

      I was following you for a while there but you slipped into some kind of inane babel language

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        its his alcohol consumption

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      jimbo has been drinking excess alcohol again,,,,,,,,,
      I love when JIMBO “speaks” for liberals!! try AA jim,,,

      • Jim Bean

        I’m in your head, man. Sucks, don’t it?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        that’s some superb alcohol U have!!
        in my head? jimbo…………………………
        only 3 things dwell inside my skull:
        ( a) continued acquisition of tangible assets
        (b) continued ejaculation in slim big chested women
        (c) my keeping my athletic body healthy,,,,and athletic ( reason? see reasons a & b)

  • Warren Zeigler Sr.

    This article, like many from all groups, is very surface in it’s analysis of the Declaration and Constitution. The Declaration of Independance was commissioned by the Continental Congress, and there is a lot of “original intent” to be found related to that action. The federalist papers and other documents show the same about the Constitution. In ANY dispute on such issues those sources are considered by courts and others. Also, there were very specific things that led to the First Amendment, Those events are clear. England was trying to dictate the doctrines of religion in the Colonies, just like they did in England by royal edict. This is clearly the intent of the first amendment when the above mentioned papers and events are understood, not that religion should have no influence in public and/or private life.

    • Paul Julian Gould

      I agree with the last statement, only insofar as a person’s spiritual or at least existential views are inseparable from how one behaves.

      However, there are more than 50,000 separate interpretations/denominations/sub-denominations of Christianity alone… each with a particular firm viewpoint on certain matters of faith differing from all others. The so-called “great faiths” of the the world and nation each have their differing viewpoints, and certain aspects that separate them from all others. There are countless other interpretations of existence, some would fall under the label of “religion,” and others would not… yet a moment’s thought would show that there is a certain amount of everyone’s worldview that must be taken, if not on faith, exactly, at least knowing that it is unprovable.

      Religion is the merely the structure within which one lives one’s spiritual worldview, should one subscribe to such.

      My point here is that it is more productive and less time and energy consuming to erect the wall between the civil and the spiritual aspects of governing.

      We are not a Christian nation, nor are we expressly atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or any other faith or worldview. We are a nation of laws that are based on ethical standards that in various forms have enabled humans to coexist for millenia… any religious aspect is ultimately incidental.

  • Earlene

    I am sorry if you want to argue religion the right or the lack there of, Please read the first amendment to the constitution.

  • Gene

    I agree with your point, but your last question has an unexpected answer: the Amendment prohibits CONGRESS from establishing religion to keep it from interfering with states’ established religions. Only after the 14th Amendment did the Supreme Court apply the First to individuals.

  • Michael Bowen Roberts

    This nation was founded under the leadership of Christians, and only the non -Christians do not understand. that the guidance for this nation was the bible and peoples basis to religious freedoms where as the church and state should be separate, but the traditions have been changed that established this nation and should be kept not discarded as had in the recent past.. But the church has a part in any nations people as it should the dictation of laws and the basis of religion are different issues but many fight that for what reason ….fear…..or faith. WE read into the constitution and the declaration but the bottom line is freedom and the pursuit of happiness

    • John Masters

      You can make your claim all day Michael, but it just won’t make it true. Shout is as loud and often as you want from the tallest place in America, and it won’t change the founders stated over and over. Just read some Jefferson. He believe that a priest ridden society was inherently bad. He never wrote the word God in the Declaration…he said, “creator.” Lots of people don’t share your Christian dominionist view point, but might believe in a creator or creative force. The very fact that Jefferson chose that word of God makes it clear sought to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

      The laws you find in your Bible which you claim parallel U.S. Laws existed and written down long before the Bible was written or compiled. (The New Testament especially.) Why the Ten Commandments come from the Torah, and are Jewish, not Christian, although they certainly can serve as a good personal credo. Check out the Code of Hammurabi for example. All ancient civilizations had some from of law proscribing certain behaviors and prescribing others, and most of those were similar to our basic set of laws. In fact, the initial “laws” of this country were still adopted from British Common law, not “the Bible.”

      If you what you say is true, why do you kinds of Christian so cherish the King James translation of the Bible rather than Jefferson’s?

      Read the other founders. Washington and Franklin were Deists, and made that clear. Hamilton and others wrote frequently about there being no religious, Christian or otherwise, in the government or its founding documents.

      Just go read a little Michael. I know learning might challenge your beliefs, but it only hurts for a minute.

      • youmustgo

        Most Christians aren’t studying their Bibles in private, as they are wont to do. Their studying would reveal truths relevant to today’s issues, and they would be wise to take heed themselves, rather than preaching to others about what they should do. This would not be out of selfishness, as in “yes, because I’M going to heaven and I don’t care about what happens to the rest of you heathens.” Quite the opposite, because they would learn many of them have been led astray in their zeal of hate and exclusionary tactics. If more people knew the REAL truths, instead of mysticism and piousness, more would be drawn to what the Bible teaches. Christians have caused a lot of their own problems, being blind to these truths. It’s why their churches were easily infiltrated by Republican “preachers” sent by a coalition formed by Ronald Reagan. To indoctrinate the values (or lack thereof in the name of values,) we see being meted out today. I would challenge anyone reading to pick up the Bible or ask questions on online Bible sites, and learn the beautiful truth (even if it didn’t happen, there are undeniable truths in the messages and teaching,) if one seeks with discernment instead of an adverse mind. People are charged with loving one another, unconditionally. With valuing one another, loving each other as brothers and sisters of Christ, and have failed miserably in this vein. They instead choose to judge, and hate, and exclude. They also choose to hide their crimes against others under the cloak of God. Did you know that Revelations even says that churches will dissolve? They’d no longer be needed if everyone lived the truth of love. True morality has to do with helping, accepting, valuing and loving all other people, for the fact that they are human (presumed in the image of God.) The example of Jesus showed us that giving others dignity, supporting one another, and spreading the message of love within us are most important. There’s no room for judgment and condemnation within such a paradigm, if it’s done right, and from the very beginning. Food for thought.

    • The Walrus

      Where is your evidence?
      As of yet, I’ve seen none to suggest the claims you make.

    • Leftcoastrocky

      Everyone is free to follow or discard any traditions which they want to.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      and why O why does that have to be ( coincidentally??) YOUR superstition( church)??

  • OutruntheWind

    It should also be noted that the Treaty of Tripoli was not only signed by John Adams, but it was ratified *unanimously* by the Senate.

  • Richard

    Actually The Bible was the #1 quoted document in the constitutional conventions. The fact is, true Christianity and The Bible respect other religions and the freedom of worship. Take Joshua 24:15 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve The Lord, choose you this day whom he will serve…” Look it up for more context!

  • Stephen Barlow

    Sadly, neither truth nor reality will EVER have a bearing on Republican propaganda.

  • lynnd

    wow, nice editing…what say you about these?

    John Adams: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

    Thomas Jefferson: “No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.” “I tremble for my country when I reflect
    that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

    Those two alone don’t justify your position.

    As to this that you quoted by Thomas Jefferson: “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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

    Right…to make no law establishing ONE STATE religion like they had just endured in England and fled… it is pretty clear cut as you say…too bad you got it wrong. Secondly, no prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof…again, they had come from England where the Anglican church was the “state” religion and they were incarcerated or worse for not following the prescribed approved religion. They came here seeking the freedom to be able to practice their religion how they chose without government interference. Pretty simple…next up…treaty of tripoli.

    • lynnd

      Contrary to popular opinion in hanging to the Treaty of Tripoli as the basis for that statement “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” …the basis for this treaty was essentially blackmail. The Barberry muslim pirates were capturing ships and holding them for ransom as they sailed around Libya. They had to make this agreement with them to keep them from taking our ships and holding them for ransom. This treaty was only in force for 7 or 8 years in the late 1700’s, before Jefferson formed the Navy/ Marines to deal with them (hence the Marine fight song…”to the shores of Tripoli”). It was annulled and is as
      worthless as the paper it was written on…

      Amazingly, even the pirates in the document referred to us as a kind and “Christian” nation in a letter – “General Eaton,
      U.S. Military Agent to the Barbary States, in correspondence to Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, sent correspondence at that time to apprise him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes. He stated:

      “Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty, their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.”

      The pirates even thanked the U.S. for their extorted compensations by saying: “To speak truly and candidly we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation.”

      Source: Charles Prentiss: “The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt Through
      the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derna, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli” (what a lengthy title).

      Also: Jefferson and
      His Colleagues – the Virginia Dynasty, 1921. Yale Press, Vol 15, page 54 and

      • lynnd

        [I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support
        it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its
        citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders.
        Numbers of our people profess other
        religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all
        religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the
        leading Christian nation of the world.

        David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian
        Nation (Philadelphia: John C.
        Winston Company, 1905), p. 13.

        I have more if you need further ones.

  • MBDElf

    Religion, faith, belief systems — they are all, rightfully, VOLUNTARY AND OPTIONAL. No one dies, goes to jail, or is injured because they are without religion. Our Founding Fathers KNEW this truth, accepted and allowed citizens this LUXURY (that’s what it is, not a necessity of life) freely enjoyed, and demanded that it not be an institution of the state.

    It’s a PERSONAL thing — KEEP it personal. No matter HOW fervently, how DEEPLY, you believe, until it is a proven FACT, it is only OPINION. Mine is as valid as yours, so let’s just agree on THAT, and leave it alone.

    (The biggest issue I have with religions of all types is their insistence that THEY are the only correct one, and must spread worldwide by deity decree; if any WERE absolutely true, it’d be obvious, and it’d BE the only one.)

  • RJB

    I admire the article, would the writer please state his references? It would be nice to take the quotes in their entirety.

  • ConservativeDude

    When will the left stop generalizing that all conservatives are Christian or have these traditional Christian beliefs?

    • … when you speak up and prove otherwise.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      define traditional Christian beliefs,,,,,,,,,,

  • thapack45

    Any time someone says America is (or was) a “Christian nation” my first reply is “what do you mean?” If by “Christian nation” you mean we set up the country by directly copying from the Bible and what not, then that’s obviously not the case. But, if you mean in a more general way, such as founded using many Christian principles, I suppose one could say so…but the *sense* in which you are saying “Christian nation” makes a big difference. “Officially Christian,” no. “Influenced by Christians and Christian ideas to a given extent,” yes.

  • Susan

    Please pay attention to grammar. The subject of the sentence beginning the first amendment is Congress. Congress is limited–no one else. The founders were concerned with what government would do to the church; not the other way around

    • .

      “… 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 …”

      Of course we also read the Constitution, additional Amendments (equal protection and due process, blah blah), and case law.

      So I read it as “… we the people’s self governance shall make no law establishing religion …”, and that right there is freedom from religion — we the people’s self governance cannot express or establish any religion.

      So we work from reason.

      To hell with religion!


      In the common public marketplace of commerce, for we the people’s self governance to bend and twist regulations to steer clear of one person’s religion versus the next person’s religion, that would be, in constructive effect, establishing one of more of those so-advantaged religions.

      As as such, that would be unconstitutional.

      So we the people have evolved to understand that the function of we the people’s self governance is to prohibit, prevent, and prosecute anyone’s expression of their own chosen religious beliefs as superior rights over any other of we the people.

      You get to practice your religion on yourself.

      I get t practice my religion on myself.

      And neither of us gets to inflict our own religion on the other.

      Cool or what?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        unless u live and get voted in to a white trash state of zealots such as texas or Georgia or NC

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      really? U can speak for the founders?
      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sounds a bit bovaristic to me

  • djallyn

    This is something that I’ve noticed when talking to my Conservative friends: they seem to think that the Declaration of Independence is THE law of the land, and the Constitution — not so much.

    They refer to the Declaration whenever they feel that it might be time to take up guns and “take things back”. They refer to the Declaration as to how this country was “founded” on “Christian” principles. They only see the Constitution for one of its AMENDMENTS, that one being the Second one.

    The Declaration was and is NOT law. If anything, it is un-Constitutional.

  • Guest

    Let’s not forget what it says in the Constitution itself. Article VI, third paragraph. “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Also, if you look at the oath of office for the President, in the Constitution it does not say, …”so help me God.” That was spoken later when G.W. took the oath.

  • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

    I don’t know how much more to the point you can get than what is on this post! The problem is that the people that NEED to read it, DON’T!!!

  • Dan Francis

    America was intended as a democratic republic. Not a theocratic ecclesiocracy. We are not the Vatican. We are not Iran. We are not Saudi Arabia. You want that primitive shit? Go live there. NOT HERE.

  • Patrick Klocek

    Oh, good grief! The US Declaration of Independence is a foundational document. The bi-lateral Treaty of Tripoli is not. The Constitution states that the congress does not have the right to establish a religion and that it may not abridge anyone else’s free exercise thereof. The US is now, and has always been, a nation of Christians. Personally, I hope that continues and that all the while we retain our tradition of peaceful and happy co-existence with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and “Free Thinkers.”

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      would that also include moslems?

  • Nick D Waters

    Religious fanatics have also perverted the laws in financial and political ways to insinuate itself over time. It must be stripped.

  • Jon Fowler

    as you stated “freedom OF religion” NOT “freedom FROM religion” you don’t believe don’t go to church…. I believe don’t tell me I can’t………

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      and do NOT tell the non religious that they MUST adhere to the schizoid 21st century religious ( VOODOO) beliefs —–

  • Francine Anoia Price

    One other thing: we are a Nation of Illegal Immigrants–the Native Americans never invited us; they did not want us here; and we are equally guilty of ethnocide and genocide in such a way that Hitler looks positively amateurish.

  • Greg S.

    We are a democracy. The will of the majority determine our government and hopefully our laws. The constitution can be changed. I don’t recommend bringing religion into our laws but many are promoting this as if our Constitution stated it. It doesn’t, it is just the opposite. Our founding fathers wrote things so many different religions could co-exist. Let us not chose one religion or any religion over another unless everyone, in there own free will, agrees on one God, the same God, or no God.

    • nunvyabiz

      We are a republic.

      • Greg S.

        True, but do you see our representatives representing the people? They represent their campaign contributors. This not the way a republic is suppose to work. Hillary will fix it!

  • ImaMe

    Religion has nothing to do with morals. A WORKING BRAIN has everything to do with morals.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      correct,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, religion is man made; thus flawed

  • Bryce Corbin

    And yet the writer continues to ignore, as liberals always do, that the Constitution could not have been a religion-banishing document, as many of the states retained their official religions for many years to come. In truth, the founders sought to protect the states’ rights to keep their own official religions without interference from the federal government.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      unless those white trash regressive states use BS laws to discriminate against OTHER religions and minorities / gays/ women etc….
      the federal GOVT ” interferes” with scumbag trash states when those atavistic imbeciles in those states interfere with AMERICANS rights to EQUALITY

  • dawineguy

    Your whole argument is flawed. You cannot use Christianity and religion interchangebly. They are two completely different things. I canbe a Christian and not be part of a religion. My beliefs can be personal between my God and myself with no organized church or religion involved. Christian people with their beliefs and a set of standards and morals can get together and create an outline of rules and laws. This does not mean said rules and laws are dictated by religion, just by upright and moral people.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      good stuff,,,,,,,,,wish the tea party white trash acted the same way

    • .

      You yourself use the words religion and church interchangeably, so what’s the difference when others use the words Christian and religion same same?

      It makes no difference.

      It also makes no difference if our founding documents and current laws, regulations, and rules are written by upright and moral people, downwrong(?) and immoral or amoral or unmoral people, idiots (more like it), or monkeys (more like it still).

      The only thing of importance is the content of our documents regardless of their authors.

      The fact that they were deists hardly bothers me, because they intended to keep their religion to themselves.

      The Pope could write the laws for all I care so long as the laws themselves are religion-free, and consider everyone with equivalence according to their existence and their behavior, as appropriate.

      But, thanks for pointing out the challenge we all seem to have in suppressing the public spillage of our own personal religious based beliefs.

  • Kim Kee

    well now fool
    it was founded on CHRISTIAN VALUES not CHRISTiANITY
    AND for those of you that think you know what this all means
    should really study WHY they came here in the first place and it was because of religious persecution and the King making his personal religion the NATIONAL religion of the country
    you really have warped memories of those History classes you slept thru
    they wanted to worship as they wanted to
    without all of the demands placed on them by the king
    and when they got here it had not changed
    read up people you don’t know it all
    and the guy writing this post isn’t telling it all NEITHER

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      would those “Christian” values include the scumbag white trash “values” which include keeping gays and women and minorities from having EQUALITY?? does it? lemme know

  • Banjo

    It says freedom OF religion, not freedom From religion.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      correct,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which means crybaby white trash pseudo Christians must adhere to that principle; learn 2 live with jews/ atheists/ moslems/ Buddhists and others who practice their form of superstition

      • Banjo

        That’s a two-way street…which means crybaby (whatever adjective fits) trash pseudo Americans must learn 2 live with others as well

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        considering that Buddhists and moslems and other religions do NOT scream so loud as CHRISITIANS do about getting THEIR “jeeeesus” god (??) into legislation,,,,,
        it seems the white trash regressives attempting to ruin and control OTHERS with THIE VOODOO/superstition need to learn how to ” drive” that 2way street first
        religion is as a penis: be glad U have one; enjoy it and have it give U pleasure—
        do NOT show it or talk about it to anyone else unless they ask

      • Banjo

        That was an…interesting reply.

        If that rant was supposed to bother me, it only made me laugh.
        Considering that I don’t go to church and haven’t been in one for nearly 20 years, that’s not going to work.
        I don’t know what sitcom you are watching when you talk about “CHRISITIANS…getting THEIR “jeeeesus” god (??) into legislation”, there is no legislation containing such a thing, nor is there any attempts to do so.
        Perhaps you are referring to the contraception mandate in Obamacare that was struck-down by the SCOTUS that IS in legislation, there no mention of GOD in that one either.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        how about white trash regressive religious scum who want to bring anything ( ANYTHING) religion-oriented into legislation??
        gays cannot marry? religious
        women MUST have invasive ultra sounds b4 abortions? tinged with religion
        prayer in public schools? religious
        no mosque built NEAR ” ground zero”? religious BS
        …….the list is longer; but I suspect a 100 items will not alter ur ” thought”

  • Robert Small

    Old news and very tired. The Danbury Baptists were told by Jefferson to solve their problems themselves because he, as president, could not intervene because there was a wall of separation between the “presidency and state” not “church and state”. The government has no business meddling in the affairs of the church and cannot deem a certain denomination as the official religion of the government. The first amendment ensures than when spiritual truth is brought to light the government cannot legitimately keep it from the citizenry.The Article VI, paragraph 3, aforementioned by the illustrious Rick Lewis, confirms this.

  • Steve

    The Bible and Christianity were invented by Emperor Constantine in order to control his people. Edict of Thessalonica and Council of Nicea – look it up.

    In Revelations Jesus murders a single mom and her kids for following the wrong religion – so much for the so-called “morality” of the Bible:

    Jesus Will Kill Children: Revelation 2:19-23 – “I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” This is Jesus talking, and the commentator in this ‘King James Study Bible’ admits as much, saying “2:19-23. There was a self-proclaimed prophetess at Thyatira whom Christ calls Jezebel. She was leading the church into false doctrine, idolatry, and immorality just as the Old Testament Jezebel had done to Israel (cf. 1 Kin. 16; Kin. 9). She refused to repent, and therefore would be judged along with her followers and her children.”

  • Tim McCormick

    I disagree. If we examine the systems of thought that were prevalent at the time of the birth of this nation, Christianity stands alone as allowing for independent thought and individual freedom. Other systems referring to a “Creator”, as stated in the Declaration, are missing one or both of these components. Try telling an Imam that you are allowed to worship Allah any way that you want. Try telling a Rabbi that you don’t feel you need to attend temple gatherings.
    In my opinion the principles that this country was founded on could only come from the logical out workings of the principles prescribed for mankind in the Bible. But then again this is my opinion and I’d like to hear others’ thoughts.

  • Michael Bowen Roberts

    the constitution is designed to provide for religious freedoms, whether you have a religion or not is your choice the same goes for being a Christian it is your choice, choice was what the Hobby Lobby was all about, and some groups interested it into a religious issue because of the owners beleifs into an pro-life issue that did not pertain to the problem they wanted to purchase their insurance with exclusions for which they would not provide to their employees

  • charlieholmes

    Any right-minded Conservative KNOWS that the United States wasn’t founded upon Christianity or any other religion. The Constitution was written with the morals spelled out in the Holy Bible as it’s basis. Laws telling the government what it cannot do (NOT what it can do, as liberals/progressives seem to think) are given to us based on what the God of the Bible told us thousands of years ago about how we should behave towards one another. Right and wrong are not human concepts. Without guidance towards right living, we’d have had nothing but despotism, totalitarianism, tyranny and anarchy from time immemorial. Because the Torah/Bible were given, it has not been as such.

    • .
      Welcome to the discussion, charlieholmes .

      How interesting — could you share some examples of Constitutional and Biblical writing to show us why you think they are related.

      Also, could you explain how the portions of the Constitution that assign responsibilities and powers to we-the-people’s self-governance — “… provide for the common defence … legislative Powers … granted … in a Congress … The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments … The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …” and so on — are not “… telling the government … what it can do …”?

      While I appreciate that you think right and wrong are not human concepts, I have two follow up questions for you:

      (a) if they are not human, what are they?

      (b) if they are not human, what do they have to do with we-the-people’s self-governance?

      Finally, for now, I’m wondering if you have missed all the “… despotism, totalitarianism, tyranny, and anarchy …” committed in the name of “… the Torah/Bible …”?

      I’m looking forward to a terrific discussion with everyone — thanks.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        good luck getting him to reply to that wonderful writing of urs!

      • .
        All I can do is try.

        Very provocative postulations from @charlieholmes:disqus , so I’d like follow up.

        Otherwise, I’m just guessing what they mean.

    • Louis Cypher

      For one thing, it is clear that there is no obvious and unequivocal statement in the Constitution which specifies the importance or even relevance of Christian principles or morals — at no point is Christianity in any way singled out as a basis for any provision, principle, or institution. Therefore, anyone who wants to argue that Christianity is indeed present in that text must provide well supported and reasonable interpretations.

      Another problem with the claim that the Constitution embodies Christian principles lies in Article VI, which stipulates that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” If the authors of the Constitution did indeed wish to create a document designed to favor Christianity, why would religious tests (common in the colonies at the time) be specifically forbidden?

      Ur a typical #fucktard hypochristian stooge.


    • .
      ROTFLMFAO — good satire “… without the Bible, there’d be despotism, totalitarianism, tyranny and anarchy …” — hahahahaha.

      Good one.

  • jimbynum1

    The “Virginia Declaration of Rights” changed the religious views in America. The May 1776 draft included the separation
    of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary. While it granted “freedom
    of religion” for the incoming immigrants, it also meant freedom from the
    Virginia state sponsored religion. It is evident that Jefferson used this
    document in the June 11 and June 28, 1776 drafts for the nation’s “Declaration
    of Independence”.

  • littleblacksnake

    Is anyone else having issues with the Disqus format on this site? It’s not loading correctly and very difficult to read posts.

    • .
      Hi @littleblacksnake, ( @littleblacksnake:disqus ?!?)

      Slow as ever because free webpages are monetizing and connecting with advertising servers all over.

      I hate / love Disqus — it’s the best dialog out there, but it sux,

      — is hard to get Disqus on one -l-o-n-g- page of all comments to save or print(!),

      — if a web site deletes your post, it also deletes form our own Disqus archive, so we have to make copies of our own posts if we want to review them later (I use free Evernote),

      — I have NO condifence that our Disqus posts are easily Google searchable and responsive to Google searches by topic, so I don’t know if our dialogs are findable by srearchers.

      That said, they seem to be okay at the moment on this web site using Firefox 32.0.3 on Win 7 on a 2350×2 4gb system, your mileage may vary.

      Clean all temp files, update all we utilities (Flash, browser), and reboot often.


      • littleblacksnake

        Disqus is, apparently, loading correctly today. I do use Firefox and I’m pretty sure it’s the latest update. As for my “nom de plume,” it was assigned to me when I signed up and I like it.


  • Cooper

    More people need to read this. Forwarding it to Roger Ailes would be a good start. Of course most conservatives would read those quotes from the founding fathers and still find a way to deny they ever said that and then they would claim it’s some kind of liberal, atheistic, conspiracy.

  • Ginger Taylor

    puritans founded here not Christians they came much later


    This article coming from forwardprogressivedotcom is a joke LOL.

    Truth is our founding fathers were lying politicians just like the ones we have today.

    When Jefferson wrote a letter to Virginais Baptist Assoc or to Mass’ Ministerial Council He was a DEVOUT Christian Lol. When he hung out with doctors and scientists he was NEGATIVE towards Religion.

    From Jefferson to Adams to Franklin to Lincoln. They ALL said what they needed to get support from whoever they wanted support from.

    Its impossible to know WHAT their true views on Christianity were. All their statements conflict. AND THAT IS THE TRUTH.

    Why are liberals always such bad liars?

  • Katherine Appello

    You cheery pick the Constitution and ignore the last paragraph of what we adopted as our national anthem, state Constitutions referring to our Lord, or Christ even, as well as inscriptions on monuments, universities first founded here, and liberals, progressives completely twist the Constitution, which only says no government church allowed, like in the Uk. and that no government may restrict anywhere free practice of religion, and that the first freedom we have in our Constitution is Religion. If God and Christianity, Faith didn’t matter then all this wouldn’t be. Liberals have it wrong. As for the founders not being Christian, Washington attended St Paul’s and the founders did attend church, did believe in God, even if not always agreeing with every word of the Bible. To try and make the US a purely secular nation is a punch in the gut to the colonists and all those who first came and founded this nation.