home
RSS
October 10th, 2012
12:01 PM ET

Congressman draws fire for calling evolution, Big Bang ‘lies from the pit of hell’

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

Washington (CNN) – A U.S. congressman is attracting attention and criticism for an online video that shows him blasting evolution and the Big Bang theory as “lies from the pit of hell” in a recent speech at a church event in his home state of Georgia.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun said in an address last month at a banquet organized by Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun, a medical doctor by training, serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Speaking at Liberty Baptist Church’s Sportsman’s Banquet on September 27, he said that “a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old,” Broun said in the speech, which Liberty Baptist Church posted on its website via YouTube.  “I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Scientists say that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and that the universe dates back 13.7 billion years.

In his speech to the church group, Broun called the Bible the “the manufacturer’s handbook. … It teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in our society.”

“That’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the congressman, Meredith Griffanti, said that Broun was not available for comment on Wednesday and that the video showed him “speaking off the record to a large church group about his personal beliefs regarding religious issues.”

The congressman’s remarks about science have drawn attention online, with critics taking aim at his role on the science committee.

Bill Nye, the popular science personality, told the Huffington Post in an e-mail that "Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest."

"For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," said Nye, a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program "Bill Nye the Science Guy." Broun "is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."

Talking Points Memo reported on the church video over the weekend after being tipped off by the Bridge Project, a progressive group that tracks conservative activity.

Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world and everything in it in six days.

For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution.  Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years.  In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

– CNN's Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Evolution • Politics • Science

soundoff (5,886 Responses)
  1. TheVocalAtheist

    Oh yes, one has to love the religious right in America. Not!

    They perpetuate incredibly false and unproven beliefs that at the core is the most destructive force facing us now here in the United States. Their agenda of control and self-delusion will be fairly destructive if allowed to gain the attention in the majority. In other words, it could have legs if left unchecked. I would have to agree with the so called "new Atheists", Dawkins and Hitchens that say even the moderate right is a danger to our democracy as it gives the fringe a place to live and coagulate.

    This situation has gone beyond acceptability, as it clearly shows its ugly head as racism, hom*ophobic hyperbole, misogyny, child abuse, psychological abuse and downright vigilantism. They are murderers of the mind, heart and spirit of the individual's free thought and they want nothing more than your diligence in protecting and pursuing their perversions. A perverse sense so blatantly wrong and backwards that it should be labeled as against the law.

    If they provided any resource, any figment of hope for our species that would be something we could contend with but that is not the case. It's just the opposite, they want to kill us with ignorance, the wrong kind of ignorance. When we allow this so called freedom of speech to threaten our people this is where freedom ends. They need to shut-up or leave.

    October 15, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • Chad

      Christians created this democracy, how do you figure you can make a case that Christians now endanger it?
      lol

      October 15, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • midwest rail

      America was never intended to be a theocracy.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @midwest rail "America was never intended to be a theocracy."

      =>dont make the mistake of believing that any piece of legislation that agrees with a religious viewpoint demonstrates a move towards a theocracy.
      We have an elected legislative body. The US isnt a theocracy. Elected officials acknowledging the God of Abraham and asking for guidance has been the norm since the birth of this nation, and we were never a theocracy.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      But any law made through only religious grounds with no secular reasoning is a move toward theocracy.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • mama k

      Well, Chad let's just check back and see how some of our Christian founders felt about their own kind and the dangers of religious control over their new country. Many people start with TJ. I'd like to start with James Madison, 4th POTUS and the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution:

      During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superst!tion, bigotry, and persecution.

      –A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785

      Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?

      –A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795

      October 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • mama k

      And I see Chad that you didn't answer my question from yesterday in the article about Emory. I know you were quite consumed with another poster. But that's OK, because if you just scroll down on this topic, maybe you can help this "Nii" character answer the same simple question that you also were not able to answer. I'll check back after lunch.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "But any law made through only religious grounds with no secular reasoning is a move toward theocracy."
      =>nonsense
      A. "only religious grounds" is almost impossible to gauge
      B. Consti tution expressly forbids any kind of "religious litmus test", in other words, you cant say "well, the only reason you are enacting that law is for religious reasons, so you cant do that"
      C. Most importantly, you dont understand what a theocracy is, and how it is different from a democracy. In a theocracy (such as Iran under the ayatollah), or Israel under the judges (prior to the switch to a monarchy), the priests rule. In a democracy there are elected officials.

      so, no..

      October 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      You want to know how to test the non-religious merits of a law? Ask what secular reasons would this law have to be passed?

      ". Consti tution expressly forbids any kind of "religious litmus test", in other words, you cant say "well, the only reason you are enacting that law is for religious reasons, so you cant do that""

      The constitution also states that no law shall be made respecting any establishment of religion. Not to mention, what you cited specifically refers to people running for public office. You should know that Chad, which means your just being disingenuous.

      October 15, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • the AnViL

      chad..... it"s NOT just xians who endanger our democracy.. not by a long shot.

      it's ALL religious thinking.

      ALL religious thinking is delusional.

      as our science matures, it is natural that we'll begin to push away from the table of religiosity.

      it may die slow and hard, as the ignorance among the delusional is seemingly all-pervasive... but it will... and this is how it begins. you can't do a thing about it. your ideology is founded on ignorance, it can never stand up to science – ever.

      religion always bends to science, it's never the other way around. even someone with a lesser-intellect like yours can look at the case through history and see.

      religion will continue to bend until it breaks – and it will break....and not bloody fast enough to suit many of us.

      you should be ashamed to be so ignorant.

      October 15, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "You want to know how to test the non-religious merits of a law? Ask what secular reasons would this law have to be passed?"
      @Chad "nonsense litmus test, again expressly forbidden by the const.

      ======
      @hawaiiguest "The consti tution also states that no law shall be made respecting any establishment of religion. Not to mention, what you cited specifically refers to people running for public office."
      @Chad "what???

      no.
      here is the actual amendment, you sound like you havent read it..
      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 as semble, and to peti tion the Government for a redress of grievances.

      "respecting an establishment of religion" means that govt cant establish a state religion, or grant one preferential treatment.
      "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that you cant make it against the law to practice a religion, including allowing public officials that right.

      there is not, nor has there EVER BEEN, any kind of "secular test" that a piece of legislation must adhere to. Utter nonsense.

      October 15, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Wow talk about disingenuous on your part. So tell me Chad, when the law means that you cannot give preferrential treatment to a religion, do you really think that has nothing to do with codifying religious doctrine into law? Are you really THAT dishonest?

      October 15, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "when the law means that you cannot give preferrential treatment to a religion, do you really think that has nothing to do with codifying religious doctrine into law? Are you really THAT dishonest?"

      @Chad "you really do need to do some reading..
      Example of a law that would be unconsti tutional: a law that says Catholics don't have to pay sales tax.
      Example of a law that was found const itutional: a law declaring it illegal to sell beer on Sundays.

      October 15, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Once again, you don't address what's in the post. Congrats, you at least are consistently avoiding subjects.

      October 15, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Chad

      you'll have to express your question a bit more clearly..

      October 15, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

      October 15, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Chad

      well, that's a problem then.

      October 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Chad

      For you perhaps. I don't really see how you cannot get what I said. You claim a proposed law does not have a secular test, which is complete idiocy. You cannot have nonpreferential treatment of religion and still codify their beliefs into laws that everyone would need to follow.
      When you cited "no religious test", that part of the constitution is specifically dealing with people running for public office. Check Article VI paragraph 3.

      October 15, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @hawaiiguest –

      Of course you're correct that Chad's statement, 'you cant say "well, the only reason you are enacting that law is for religious reasons, so you cant do that", is just more of Chad's nonsense. This point is made clear simply by referring to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and McGowan v. Maryland. But come on, this is Chad we're talking about here.

      Cheers

      October 15, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "You claim a proposed law does not have a secular test, which is complete idiocy. You cannot have nonpreferential treatment of religion and still codify their beliefs into laws that everyone would need to follow.."
      @Chad "then provide an example of a law that was ruled unconsti tutional because it had no secular function.

      Even the National Day of Prayer was determined to be consti tutional.

      October 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Suck it, Chad.

      October 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      Christians created this democracy,

      It is true that most of the founders professed some degree of Christianity.

      But they were inspired by ideas beyond their faith in God, ideas from people like Locke and Paine. They wanted to distance themselves from governing according to the 'divine right' of Kings and created a government for humans by humans,

      Their accomplishment is remarkable and it begins with "We the people" and not "By the Grace of God Almighty" as was otherwise customary at the time.

      how do you figure you can make a case that Christians now endanger it?

      Because 20th century Christian apologists want to undo the humanist foundations of our Const;tutional system of government, and no, I don't find this to be an exaggeration.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Because 20th century Christian apologists want to undo the humanist foundations of our Const;tutional system of government, and no, I don't find this to be an exaggeration."

      =>"humanist foundations" that one made me smile, thanks!

      so, here's the part I know you hate: give me an example of where Christians are attempting to enact something inherently unconst itutional (the consti tution reflecting the belief system of the founders).

      October 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @hawaiiguest –

      There's another instance of Chad's idiocy and nonsense – "Even the National Day of Prayer was determined to be consti tutional.. You see, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in 2010 that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional; however, this ruling was overturned in 2011 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as they found the Freedom From Religion Foundation did not have standing bring action (they did not prove injury). Any reasonable person would understand that Judge Crabb's ruling was simply overturned and the National Day of Prayer was not ruled constitutional. But, again, this is Chad we're talking about here.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Chad, you are not a true Christian that believes Jesus' truth.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • Chad

      so.. you're saying that unanimously overruling a lower court determination that the NDP was unconsti tutional isnt the same as saying it is consti tutional?

      think you'll have to explain that a bit further :-)
      Especially since using that logic would mean NO law is "consti tutional", as the only challenges brought to court are challenges of unconsti tutionality.. A law is only ever deemed not to violate the consti tution, Courts dont review every law, they just rule on challenges to them.

      lol

      October 15, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Really-O?

      What an idiot.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Chad

      Think you're going to have to learn at some point that "what an idiot", or "you are stupid" or, "that's all nonsense" or one of many variations on that theme,, just dont count as refutation.

      To refute something, you need to provide data, just as I did in refuting your nonsense..

      October 15, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      I'm sure this blog's reasonable (and educated) participants understand that self-apparent idiocy does not warrant refutation.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • Really-O?

      It's always reassuring that the sun will rise and Chad will continue to be a douche.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...and that he will continue to misuse the term "data". That always slays me.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I never said *anything* about: "the consti tution reflecting the belief system of the founders"

      They created a government that was deliberately separate from the various doctrines of faith they may have had. It was certainly not incompatible with Christianity, but was not derived from Christianity.

      I see any attempts to legislate inequality as being in conflict with the spirit of the Const;tution. Defence of Marriage acts fall into this category. There is a massive industry that funnels money into lobbying for this kind of activity.

      You're reading way too much David Barton. His ideas are poison.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @N-GOPer –

      Barton is a discredited and disgraced hack. One would be best served not to waste time reading any of his work.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "I see any attempts to legislate inequality as being in conflict with the spirit of the Const;tution. Defence of Marriage acts fall into this category. "
      @Chad "you are free to view anything any way you want.
      The govt however follows the consti tution.

      "legislate inequality" is a utterly meaningless phrase, it can be applied to any situation, to support anything you want.
      "who are you to tell me that I can't marry a child? Who are you to tell me that I can't have more than one wife? Who are you to tell me that I can't use drugs. Who are you to tell me that I can't engage in prosti tution? You are treating me differently just because I have a different belief system, you are legislating inequality!!!!"

      nonsense.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Good job on
      1) Mining my post for a single thing.
      2) Not addressing anything in my post. Not even the single part you chose to quote.
      3) Keeping consistently dishonest.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @hawaiiguest –

      That's the irrepressible Chad – this blog's Eddie Haskell.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Chad

      it's simple, there is no such thing as a "secular test".

      As my proof, I ask you to cite one law that was ruled unconsti tutional because it had no secular function.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      clearly our laws should be consistent with the mores of the society at large. If we collectively decide that polygamy is a bad thing, we can revisit that. (I really don't care about that, one way or an other.)

      Clearly there are subject where consensus is unclear. In those cases the merits of personal liberty need to be weighed against whether the rights of others are infringed. Prost;tution is a good example of this. There are those who claim that this is a victimless 'crime' and those who claim the opposite.

      Inequality contravenes everything the laws of this country represent.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad, once again displays his cocksure dimwittedness when he states, "it's simple, there is no such thing as a "secular test". Obviously he is unaware of the Lemon test –

      The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
      The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
      The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again...what an idiot.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Chad

      define "Inequality"

      everything you said can be summed up by saying "sometimes society deems unequal treatment OK, and sometimes it doesnt, it's a judgement call"

      October 15, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...let the squirming and flailing begin!

      October 15, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      so to your 'examples':

      "who are you to tell me that I can't marry a child? – there is clear consensus that the informed consent rights of the child are infringed in this scenario. (It's predatory.)

      Who are you to tell me that I can't have more than one wife? – Presumably the logic is that with the perceived 'lower status' (and subsequent treatment) of multiple spouses are considered something people need to be protected from even with consent. (It's predatory.)

      Who are you to tell me that I can't use drugs. Indeed. An interesting question this one: Personal liberty vs. stopping people from hurting themselves with consent. (It's predatory.)

      Who are you to tell me that I can't engage in prosti tution? I think there is still a consensus that s-ex workers are victimized – even with consent. Would you like to legalize prot;tution? (It's predatory.)

      October 15, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Chad

      Wish I had a nickel for every time an atheist had posted something they were completely sure was true, accusing someone else of being stupid for not knowing it, then it turns out the atheist was completely incorrect in their view...

      =>The "Lemon Test" has to do with the legal requirements for legislation concerning religion. It DOES NOT impose any requirement that a law must have some secular purpose as stated above.

      do yourself a favor and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test

      then, as a homework as signment, try and find one law that was struck down because it had no secular purpose :-)

      October 15, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      And I'm citing the first amendment as proof that laws have a secular test.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      define "Inequality"

      I'd rather define equality:

      ------------
      AMENDMENT XIV
      Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

      Note: Article I, section 2, of the Const;tution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

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

      How do you define "equal protection"?

      Defence of marriage acts are a canard to avoid the equal protection clause. This is their purpose because the meaning of the Const;tution is clear.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • Chad

      everything you said can be summed up by saying "sometimes society deems unequal treatment OK, and sometimes it doesnt, it's a judgement call"

      that's the fact, it's a judgement call. Govt reserves the right to treat certain behaviors unequally and make them illegal. That's why it is against the law to marry children.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Really-O

      Barton is a discredited and disgraced hack. One would be best served not to waste time reading any of his work.

      Certainly. However, @Chad's an avid reader of David Barton. I think it was last week where he republished a number "quotes" from Mr. Barton – most of which Mr. Barton had publically admitted were either false or unsubstantiated on Wallbuilders.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Certainly. However, @Chad's an avid reader of David Barton. I think it was last week where he republished a number "quotes" from Mr. Barton – most of which Mr. Barton had publically admitted were either false or unsubstantiated on Wallbuilders."

      @Chad "you are lying.
      point me to that post.

      man, you guys.. never in my life have I come across such a bunch of self righteous weasels..

      October 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
    • Really-O?

      HAHAHAHA!
      Chad states, "The "Lemon Test" has to do with the legal requirements for legislation concerning religion. It DOES NOT impose any requirement that a law must have some secular purpose as stated above." Oh lord, that's rich! If legislation has nothing to do with religion, it is, by definition secular and not subject to a "secular test". Of course I wouldn't expect someone (Chad) who believes that overturning a ruling due to a procedural failing automatically means the other side's case is affirmed.

      Charge ahead with the semantics and equivocation! Keep diggin'!

      October 15, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • Really-O?

      N-GOPer – "However, @Chad's an avid reader of David Barton."

      Can you imagine the pulp that must occupy that boy's library! Yikes.

      Cheers

      October 15, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Chad

      I'm waiting for the light bulb to go on over Really-O's head :-)

      You have it confused, again.. Try and find one law that was ever struck down merely because it had no secular purpose.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "you are lying. Ummm, no, I'm not.

      "point me to that post" I anticipated your denial and I've been looking for it. It was sometime in the last couple of weeks.

      You had attempted to rebut something that @mama k said regarding James Madison;'s deism with a bunch of quotes – some of which were simply out of context from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1778) and several of which were publically refuted falsehoods from Mr. Barton. I don't think you noticed my commentary.

      I don't recall which topic and have no magic for searching the belief Blog. I'm sorry you missed it.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Blue laws.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "point me to that post" I anticipated your denial and I've been looking for it. It was sometime in the last couple of weeks."
      @Chad "yeah.. right.."

      ===========
      @GOPer "You had attempted to rebut something that @mama k said regarding James Madison;'s deism with a bunch of quotes – some of which were simply out of context from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1778) and several of which were publically refuted falsehoods from Mr. Barton. I don't think you noticed my commentary. I don't recall which topic and have no magic for searching the belief Blog. I'm sorry you missed it.

      @Chad "baloney
      you're a liar

      man.. unbelievable. never in my life have I come across such a bunch of weasels.. They feel free to lie, then spend their days accusing others.. simply amazing.

      you dont own a mirror??

      that's #2 for you, second time you've spouted some lie, followed with "uh, I cant be bothered to find where you said that"

      and I'm done with ya..

      October 15, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      here you go:

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/comment-page-17/#comments

      October 15, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, you said "Try and find one law that was ever struck down merely because it had no secular purpose."

      I'll be happy to. See Epperson V Arkansas for the gory details.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "Blue laws."

      arent unconsti tutional in the US

      October 15, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      you really are quite shameless.

      I've never been anything other than honest and direct with you. You may not have liked to hear what I have had to say, but that's your problem, not mine.

      Hoisted on your own petard.

      You'll find my rebuttals following this comment:
      ----------------------
      Chad
      @mama kindless, a great hatred of religious insti tutions does not a deist make.. that's what you see in those quotes.
      @Justice, no spin, just reality

      Dont mistake a hatred of the religious hierarchy that they had come from, with a rejection of Christ

      James Madison:
      "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." – "America's Providential History," by David Barton, pg. 93

      "Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government." – "The Papers of James Madison," by Robert Rutland, pg. 299, 304

      "It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage . . . before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." – "The Myth of Separation," by David Barton, pg. 120

      "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political inst itutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to government ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." – 1778, to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

      "Religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;" – "James Madison and Religious Liberty," by Gaillard Hunt, pg. 166

      "The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it." – "Madison and Witherspo on: Theological Roots of American Political Thought," by A.D. Wainwright, pg. 125

      "Christ's divinity appears by St. John, Chapter 20:2: 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts 9:33: 'And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'" – "Biography of James Madison," by William C. Rives, pg. 33-34.

      October 8, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
      ----------------------

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/comment-page-17/#comments

      October 15, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad is changing his argument to, "Try and find one law that was ever struck down merely because it had no secular purpose" from, "it's simple, there is no such thing as a "secular test", because he knows the later is PATENTLY FALSE and he's busted. More diversion and dishonesty.

      I listed both of these above, but, oh well, one more time...
      -Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District – Plaintiffs successfully argued that teaching intelligent design violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge cited the Lemon law in his decision (The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose). A government policy, not a "law", but struck down by a "secular test" nonetheless.

      -McGowan v. Maryland – in this case, the SCOTUS ruled that a blue law (closed on Sundays) did not violate the Establishment Clause because the law had a secular purpose. By extension, if the law had not had a secular purpose, it would have been struck down because it failed a "secular test".

      I'm fairly confident all, with the exception of Chad, grasp this.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Squirm, squirm. Flail, flail.

      hahahaha

      October 15, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I challenge you to compare the quotes you used addressed to @mama k, with Mr. Barton's own admission of misquotes here:

      http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=126

      If you're willing to hold that mirror up to yourself.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, guess how many of the "quotes" you gave were actually false or misattributed? I'll give you a hint, start with the ones you claim are from Madison.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "Certainly. However, @Chad's an avid reader of David Barton. I think it was last week where he republished a number "quotes" from Mr. Barton – most of which Mr. Barton had publicly admitted were either false or unsubstantiated on Wallbuilders."

      =====
      James Madison:
      "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." – "America's Providential History," by David Barton, pg. 93

      "Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government." – "The Papers of James Madison," by Robert Rutland, pg. 299, 304

      "It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage . . . before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." – "The Myth of Separation," by David Barton, pg. 120

      "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political inst itutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to government ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." – 1778, to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

      "Religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;" – "James Madison and Religious Liberty," by Gaillard Hunt, pg. 166

      "The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it." – "Madison and Witherspo on: Theological Roots of American Political Thought," by A.D. Wainwright, pg. 125

      "Christ's divinity appears by St. John, Chapter 20:2: 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts 9:33: 'And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'" – "Biography of James Madison," by William C. Rives, pg. 33-34.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • Chad

      So two of those quotes had Barton as the cited source, one looks correct, the other is not, namely: "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." – that one is mis-attributed (actually was said by Princeton university president James Dic kson)

      in any case, I was wrong in claiming I had not cited Barton, when I clearly had done precisely that (note that I have never read anything he produced, I am not an "avid reader", which is why I made that claim initially, but in any case it doesnt really matter, since I did cite him).

      October 15, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, very good guess(es).

      October 15, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government." – "The Papers of James Madison," INACCURATE (Wallbuilders)
      ----------------------
      "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political inst itutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to government ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." UNCONFIRMED (Wallbuilders)
      ----------------------
      The following quotes are from paragraph one of the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments James Madison [1785]

      http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

      They are both accurate, but out of context.

      "Religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence”

      "It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage . . . before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."
      ----------------------
      In paragraph 7 of the same docvment Madison writes:

      ”During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superst;tion, bigotry and persecution.”

      October 15, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • Chad

      - not shameless in any way shape or form. I'm not a reader of Barton, saw your accusation and overreacted. I admit when I'm wrong, one of those quotes was misattributed by Barton and others, and I should have checked..

      ============
      @Really-O, do some reading..
      The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.

      Many laws exist with little if any "secular purpose". The national day of prayer is a good example, and that was held to be consti tutional

      October 15, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad v. Fact

      Chad – 'it's simple, there is no such thing as a "secular test".'

      Fact – The Lemon law

      Damn those pesky facts are inconvenient!

      October 15, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
    • Really-O?

      "Lemon test", not "Lemon Law". We're dealing with bad legislation here, not bad cars.

      My bad.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      @Chad "you are lying.
      @Chad "baloney you're a liar

      So you quote David Barton yet you call me a liar because you have never read David Barton. How am I supposed to assume you never read David Barton when you quoted him TWICE in one post?

      Chad let me restate. I have never been dishonest with you. I don't need to be dishonest with you or anyone else here. Despite your juvenile ranting about supposed mendacity, I'm not about to start now.

      Please don't quote David Barton any more. He really *IS* a liar.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      - not shameless in any way shape or form. I'm not a reader of Barton, saw your accusation and overreacted. I admit when I'm wrong,

      OK, let's let it go then.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      The National Day of Prayer has not been ruled constitutional. The seventh Circuit court built the inability to bring lawsuit on a flimsy premise, and the FFRF are still going through avenues to bring the matter to an actual court.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • Really-O?

      The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. – The Chad

      Once again, all legislation not concerning religion is, by definition, secular; therefore, no "secular test" is required. The Lemon test can only test legislation that applies to religion. Why is this so difficult for Chad to understand? Or, perhaps, is he simply to juvenile to admit he's clearly wrong?

      The National Day of Pray was ruled to be unconstitutional ("an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function." – Judge Barbara Crabb); however, on appeal, the ruling was overturned, not on the merits of the case, but due to the fact that the plaintiffs did not prove injury and, therefore, were not entitled to have the case heard. The plaintiffs have filed for a rehearing.

      I'd be willing to bet Chad also doesn't understand the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".

      October 15, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Ahhh. Chad's squirming and flailing appears to have ended. Could it be because he's been cold-busted for the following nonsense he's posted in this very thread?
      "
      -B. Consti tution expressly forbids any kind of "religious litmus test", in other words, you cant say "well, the only reason you are enacting that law is for religious reasons, so you cant do that"
      -nonsense litmus test, again expressly forbidden by the const.
      -there is not, nor has there EVER BEEN, any kind of "secular test" that a piece of legislation must adhere to. Utter nonsense.
      -it's simple, there is no such thing as a "secular test""
      "

      The Lemon test (established 1971 by the Supreme Court of the United States):
      The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
      The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
      The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

      October 15, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "I stated that you reword things, and you do, regularly."
      =>utterly inaccurate, have asked you to supply evidence, you declined.

      @GOPer "How am I supposed to as sume you never read David Barton when you quoted him TWICE in one post?"
      =>well, for one thing, those were (supposed to be) Madison quotes, not quotes of something Barton said, secondly they were lumped with a lot of other Madison quotes, the topic of the post was regarding Madison not Barton. So clearly a stretch to call me an "avid reader", wouldnt you say?

      October 15, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O: keep reading my friend, it might make sense eventually..

      October 15, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • Really-O?

      "well, for one thing, those were (supposed to be) Madison quotes, not quotes of something Barton said, secondly they were lumped with a lot of other Madison quotes" – The Chad

      More evidence that Chad flits around the internet, copy & pasting "data" (I love how Chad misuses that term) he thinks support his position without actually taking the time to understand the material before posting. This shouldn't surprise anyone – the small portions of Chad's posts composed of his own words are rudimentary and poorly constructed. Without copy & paste, Chad would be mute. Get some education son.

      October 16, 2012 at 12:02 am |
    • Really-O?

      I wonder if Chad would care to support (or renounce, if he's willing to man-up) his assertion that follows?
      ..."there is not, nor has there EVER BEEN, any kind of "secular test" that a piece of legislation must adhere to. Utter nonsense."

      hahahahahahahaha!

      October 16, 2012 at 12:08 am |
    • Chad

      In Marsh v Chambers, the Supreme Court considered the constiutionality of Nebraska's practice of beginning each day in its state legislature with a non-denominational prayer. In an opinion relying to an unusual degree on framer's intent, the Court upheld the practice, reasoning that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also voted to hire a congressional chaplain and begin its legislative days with a prayer, and therefore could not have intended in the Establishment Clause to have prohibited legislative prayers.
      :-)

      keep trying

      October 16, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • Really-O?

      Chad's still avoiding addressing the idiocy of these statements:

      "
      -B. Consti tution expressly forbids any kind of "religious litmus test", in other words, you cant say "well, the only reason you are enacting that law is for religious reasons, so you cant do that"
      -nonsense litmus test, again expressly forbidden by the const.
      -there is not, nor has there EVER BEEN, any kind of "secular test" that a piece of legislation must adhere to. Utter nonsense.
      -it's simple, there is no such thing as a "secular test""
      "

      The Lemon test (established 1971 by the Supreme Court of the United States):
      The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
      The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
      The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

      October 16, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • Really-O?

      Chad, were you a pudgy kid, bad at sports, without many friends, who really wanted to be accepted? I really get that vibe from you. You can get over that pain and grow as a person, Chad. It just takes some courage and facing things the way they really are. Oh, wait, I've seen your posts...never mind.

      October 16, 2012 at 1:06 am |
    • redzoa

      Couple of points here. I don't think Chad understands the difference between a ruling on the merits and a ruling on lack of standing (this was the situation for both the national day of prayer case and the "under God" pledge of allegiance case, Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow).

      Second, I don't believe he understands the difference between practices (non-mandated civil body prayers) and laws mandating/coercing practices (national day of prayer presidential proclamation required by statute). This is still a sticky and inconsistent 1st Amendment area, particularly in regard to state-sanctioned displays of religious images (Ten Commandments, etc) which are simply practices, not laws requiring display. But where there is a legal mandate for a practice, Courts at all levels are quick to strike down statutes whose primary objective is an endorsement of a religious view (particularly in schools).

      Third, I don't believe he recognizes that Lemon does in fact target all legislation. That is, all legislation, if challenged, would be required to articulate a primary secular purpose. The first prong of Lemon is what decides whether or not a statute is primarily religious. In other words, this is a post-hoc legal determination. I'm not sure it's universally despositive, but a failure of this prong is almost always a death knell for a statute. Of course legislatures don't announce their intent is to favor a religious view. Lemon's first task is to determine if a law purporting to have a secular purpose is a sham, a pretext to effect a primarily religious, and thereby unconst-itutional, purpose.

      Lastly, add Edwards v. Aguillard to the list of cases where the SCOTUS found a law to be unconst-itutional because it failed the secular purpose requirement. Lemon's first prong sets up a dichotomy between those laws with a primarily secular purpose with incidental benefits/constraints on religion contrasted to those laws whose primary purpose is to advance a religious view. In Edwards, Louisiana passed a law forbidding the teaching of evolution unless creation science was also taught. The state argued the purpose was secular, to provide a balanced view and criticism of evolution. The Court found the law had no secular purpose because its primary purpose was to advance a sectarian religious opposition to evolution.
      The Kitzmiller ruling itself provides a nice history of cases wherein laws were subjected to the "secular purpose" prong of Lemon and failed. The entire opinion can be read here:

      http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

      October 16, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • redzoa

      Just a quick addition. Chad's reference to Marsh v. Chamber (1983) is an accurate reflection of the majority opinion. However, multiple subsequent state and Circuit Court (2d, 3d, 4th, 6th, 9th) decisions have found similar practices to be unconst-itutional when the prayer is overtly sectarian (for example, Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South Carolina, 2004, 4th Circ.: Reference to "Jesus Christ" in the opening prayer unconst-itutional). In some cases, they distinguished the Marsh holding, in others, they simply declined to extend it. There is an ongoing debate about "Ceremonial Deism" that will undoubtedly continue long after we're all dead. But perhaps we should all consider that evolving standards invariably result in evolving law. Originalism and deference to historical practice can be helpful, but is clearly not controlling. If it were, we'd see none of the landmark civil rights rulings striking down discriminatory practices that were wholly accepted at the time of the founding.

      Personally, I have no real objection to a "Ceremonial Deism" so long as it's not supported by tax dollars. I believe public bodies should be free to voluntarily engage in these non-sectarian activities as an extension and accommodation of their individual Free Exercise rights. However, if any one of the participants required to attend voices an objection, then that individual's right to liberty of conscience would be violated and the practice should cease. The best way to maintain individual religious liberty is to keep the practice within the individual. A moment of silence or reflection more than does this. Individuals are free to pray to whatever deity they wish, or simply take the opportunity for a leacherous ogling of the hot chicks.

      October 16, 2012 at 2:17 am |
    • Austin

      Oh yeah.. Ur probably just. Some fat slob too collecting social security. Because ur too lazy to work. Oh yeah most all Christians work bc Jesus Christ is their god not the government

      October 16, 2012 at 3:38 am |
    • mama k

      "Austin" made some claims about someone – I have to assume it is the original poster. Anyway, "Austin" here sounds like that "pervert alert" or "truth be told" character. Speaking of that homophic "truth be told" character – maybe it's just me, but I can't help but think of him as the little hunchback assistant to the mad Christian scientist Chad (you know trying, but not really helping).

      October 16, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • mama k

      typo correction for my last reply on the word that the word filter has problems with:

      homophic should be: homophobic

      October 16, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • mama k

      Oh – I made one more typo:

      Christian scientist

      should be: Christian "scientist"

      October 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @redzoa –

      Sounds like someone may have spent some time in law school. Well done. Thank you for elucidating the issue far better than I. Of course you are correct that the Lemon test can be applied to any legislation; I intentionally (and imprecisely) limited its application to religious legislation in an attempt to expedite the dismissal of Chad's equivocal and disingenuous (or, perhaps he really doesn't understand) assertion that 'the "Lemon test", ... details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.'. Debate with Chad is like trying to kick water uphill and one must occasionally accept his rules in order to make a point or risk being stuck in a mire of tedium.

      In the future I'll watch for your posts as you obviously have quite a bit to say. Once again, well done.

      October 16, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Chad

      @redzoa, very detailed write up, I'll digest and get back on this topic.

      October 16, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Really-O? Thanks for kind words, though I now see a couple of misspellings and some poorly articulated points on my part. Like the science, it's difficult to explain complex legal doctrines in limited space and after a long day in the real world. Your intent and self-imposed constraints were apparent as was your clear understanding of issue.

      @Chad – My intent was not to "gang up" on you or attack your understanding. I was only hoping to shed some light on what I saw as the disconnect between the arguments you offered and the responses they received. Nonetheless, the Kitzmiller decision is a useful doc for anyone interested in the intersection of evolution, religion and the law. One of its most important contributions and one which received scathing reviews from the Discovery Inst-itute was Judge Jones section on whether or not ID is science. This finding effectively precludes future attempts to insert ID in public school curricula throughout the country because even though Kitzmiller is not technically binding on other judicial districts, the conclusion represents a general example of "Res Judicata" and provides a virtually insurmountable legal obstacle for other ID proponents wishing to include it in public school science classrooms.

      October 17, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "there is not, nor has there EVER BEEN, any kind of "secular test" that a piece of legislation must adhere to."
      @Redzoa "Third, I don't believe he recognizes that Lemon does in fact target all legislation. That is, all legislation, if challenged, would be required to articulate a primary secular purpose."

      I dont see that statement by @redzoa is accurate.

      stare decisis doesnt demand adherence, the Lemon Test is not immutable and decisions made in particular cases are not laws which automatically apply to every piece of legislation. If a law is challenged, the court may choose to, or not choose to, use the Lemon Test. . There is absolutely not a "requirement to articulate a primary secular purpose of challenged".

      Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the Court stated that "[t]he 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pas s laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."
      P. KAUPER, RELIGION AND THE CONST ITUTION 13 (1964). See also Lynch v. Donnelly, 104 S. Ct. 1355, 1361 (1984) ("The real object of the [First] Amendment was prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.")

      Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court stated that "total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable." Id. at 614. See also generally Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983) (regulating conduct which may "harmonize" with certain religious tenets not prohibited by establishment clause); Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 676 (1970) (fire and police protection received by religious organizations are incidental benefits which are accorded all persons or inst itutions); Board of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968) (lending secular textbooks to children in nonsecular schools not a violation of establishment clause)

      Clearly, as you can see, there is enormous room for discretion in determining application of the test and as such I believe @redzoa's statement is incorrect. There is no secular test that legislation must adhere to, and my original statement stands.

      ====================
      God is mentioned in all 50 state consti tutions, the declaration of independence, and literally thousands of other official instruments of government including, homeland security, our currency, National Day of Prayer, etc. etc. etc.
      8 states have provisions in the state const itution which specifically disqualify atheists from serving in office or testifying under oath.

      The Kentucky Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to a ruling that allows a reference to "Almighty God" in the state homeland security law.

      The Courier-Journal () reports that justices issued a brief order last week saying they would not review the case, which was brought by several residents who were represented by the group American Atheists. The order means a ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals upholding the reference stands.

      The plaintiffs had claimed in a 2008 suit that the law was a violation of const itutional bans on state-sponsored religion.

      Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled in the group's favor in 2009, saying that the phrase violates the U.S. and Kentucky const itutions, but a 2-1 opinion by the appellate court reversed his ruling. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court said the reference is made to "a generic 'God"' and doesn't "seek to prefer one belief over another."

      Edwin Kagin, who is the national legal director for American Atheists, said the order was a disappointment. He says he will discuss with his clients whether to drop the case or appeal it to the federal level.

      "What's really frightening about this is it's increasingly clear that these people (proponents of such legislation) want to establish the Christian religion, and they're getting more and more blatant about it all the time," he said.

      The controversy arose because of two related laws pas sed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A 2002 "legislative finding" said the "safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

      And a 2006 act creating the state's Office of Homeland Security requires its executive director to publicize this "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials and through a plaque at the entrance to its emergency operations center. Language in the 2006 legislation was inserted by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville

      October 17, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Chad – You are correct that application of specific tests are not required by stare decisis. The Lemon Test was an attempt to articulate the various tests prior into a cogent, applicable framework. Lemon has run in parallel to the "Endorsement" test. As in Kitzmiller, they are often but not exclusively applied in parallel. What is common to both is the attempt to divine the intent of the practice's/statute's intent and the reasonable reception by an informed observer (Lemon prongs 1 and 2). Although subsequent courts are free to completely move away from these tests, it is a virtual certainty that their underlying considerations will continue to be applied simply because they reflect the principle issues at play when religion is introduced into the public square by a government body.

      Look at the dates of the cases and which are pre- and which are post-Lemon. Both Marsh and Lynch are post Lemon, but in both cases Lemon wasn't expressly applied because these were challenged practices not challenged laws. Still, in Lynch we find the court stating, "The narrow question is whether there is a secular purpose for Pawtucket's display of the crèche. The display is sponsored by the City to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of that Holiday. These are legitimate secular purposes." Lynch v. Donnelly, 104 S. Ct. 1355, 1363 (1984). They didn't expressly state they were applying the first prong of Lemon, but this is what they did in framing the issue presented.

      The case you reference is Kentucky Office of Homeland Sec. v. Christerson, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 371 S.W.3d 754 (2011). The lower District Court applied Lemon in invalidating the "statute" and the CoA applied the Endorsement test. The CoA noted:

      "The United States Supreme Court has a long history of applying the Establishment Clause to state legislation, drawing a line with reference to three activities the Establishment Clause seeks to prohibit: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) (citation omitted). From these cases have emerged two methods by which the court reviews legislation purported to violate the Establishment Clause. The first method, known as the Lemon test, establishes the following criteria to determine whether a law establishes a religion or religious faith: (1) whether the challenged law has a secular purpose; (2) whether the principal or primary effect of the law is to advance or inhibit religion; and (3) whether it creates an excessive entanglement of government with religion. 403 U.S. at 612–13, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. The second method, recognized in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2861, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005), looks to the relevant religious and historical significance, as well as the nature of the ent-ity affected by the legislation. In Van Orden, the Court noted that “[s]imply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not *758 run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” Id. at 690, 125 S.Ct. at 2863."

      Kentucky Off. of Homeland Sec. v. Christerson, 371 S.W.3d 754, 757-58 (Ky. App. 2011).

      The CoA went on to recognize that the primary purpose of the statute (which was simply a codification of a legislative "finding") was not to advance a religious view (a Lemon prong 1 in reverse), but was a recognition of historical reliance on faith. The CoA cited various cases from the Endorsement Test lineage allowing "Ceremonial Deism" noting prior findings that these practices/statutes, "simply paid 'lip service to the puissance of God' rather than seeking to or having the effect of advancing religion within the state."

      Kentucky Off. of Homeland Sec. v. Christerson, 371 S.W.3d 754, 758 (Ky. App. 2011). (Here, the Endorsement test is used to evaluate the related Lemon prongs 1 and 2, primary purpose and effect.)

      In other words, although the CoA's analysis isn't expressly based on Lemon's 1st prong, again we are seeing a primary purpose analysis for secular justification:

      "Here the legislative finding neither mandates exclusive reliance on Almighty God nor belief in a particularly deity. Rather, it makes reference to historic instances where American leaders have prayed for Divine protection in trying times. Accordingly, KRS 39A.285 and KRS 39G.010 do not violate the Establishment Clause."
      Kentucky Off. of Homeland Sec. v. Christerson, 371 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Ky. App. 2011).

      October 18, 2012 at 12:45 am |
  2. the AnViL

    washington post article from 10/12: http://goo.gl/5N0Q2

    freedom of speech is under fire... because ignorant, delusional, religious zealots don't appreciate the truth, and can't withstand criticism.

    religion has never done anything to earn the respect of humanity.
    no religions are above ridicule, parody, and satire.... none of them deserve our respect.... and all of them must be exposed for the absolute glaring frauds they are.

    tolerance of religious thinking has got to end....

    enough is enough

    October 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Chad

      Really?

      I guess you havent read the consti tution, which guarantees freedom of religion.

      you should consider emigrating to China, North Korea, Cuba.. sounds like you'll be much happier.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • the AnViL

      chadtard... your ignorance has reached a level that's stunning. you're yet another example of the dunning-kruger effect for the entire world to see.

      you probably didn't even read the article.... and if you had i'm sure you're too ignorant to understand it.

      it's ok, little one....

      your ideology is founded on ignorance.... it doesn't require a lot of brain power to beat... it's just going to take time and perseverance.

      look at hisotory... science always wins against religion – always.

      and yay for that!

      you should literally be ashamed to be this ignorant. i am ashamed for you.

      October 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      SUCK IT CHAD

      October 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
  3. Kindness

    Kindness
    kindness
    This is my experience... Thank you.

    MY personal testimony.
    A thought to consider without an ego response

    I Accepted Jesus christ as my lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
    The world denounces truth....

    Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.

    Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.

    The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.

    Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners. Even once we are saved by christs merciful grace we will still experience adversity to mold us to adhering to the truth.
    We will slip... But not fall of the ship ...carrying us onward to perfection in christs grace.

    We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
    It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .

    Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
    See the truth...
    do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from some other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..

    Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .

    Trancsend the temporal world.

    Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .

    Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.

    Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith ....above reason in Jesus Christ.

    Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....

    Read Ecclesiastes. Read romans or corinthians.

    You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.

    Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are by faith above reason in christ.

    I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .

    Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?

    Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.

    once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
    You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it

    You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
    I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
    Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus

    my testimony

    Romans 10:9

    "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

    Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door,
    And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
    The, looking in, I saw upon the floor
    Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
    “How many anvils have you had,” said I,
    “To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
    “Just one,” said he, and then with twinkling eye,
    “The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”
    And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s Word,
    For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
    Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
    The anvil is unharmed – the hammers gone.

    Truth.. Is exclusive..

    October 15, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • .

      .

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "The Truth" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "Kindness" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert"

      This troll is not a christian......

      October 15, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • the AnViL

      ha ha – must've hit a nerve.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • Anybody know how to think?

      Did you forget your medication?

      October 15, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Which God?

      T@ kindness.This has to be the biggest pile of dog barf ever upchucked. Truth is not what you say it is, and your experience is proof of zilch. You are delusional at the least. Dangerous at best. Seek professional help. Jeebus can't help you, your delusions are scary.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
  4. Kindness

    For you.
    My personal testamony
    I Follow Christ . I never wanted proof. I just had faith.

    HE WHO follows Me, walks not in darkness,” says the Lord (John 8:12). By these words
    of Christ we are advised to imitate His life and habits, if we wish to be truly enlightened and
    free from all blindness of heart. Let our chief effort, therefore, be to study the life of Jesus
    Christ.
    The teaching of Christ is more excellent than all the advice of the saints, and he who
    has His spirit will find in it a hidden manna. Now, there are many who hear the Gospel often
    but care little for it because they have not the spirit of Christ. Yet whoever wishes to understand
    fully the words of Christ must try to pattern his whole life on that of Christ.

    What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you
    displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous
    life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.
    For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the
    philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity,
    except to love God and serve Him alone.

    This is the greatest wisdom—to seek the kingdom of heaven through contempt of the
    world. It is vanity, therefore, to seek and trust in riches that perish. It is vanity also to court
    honor and to be puffed up with pride. It is vanity to follow the lusts of the body and to desire
    things for which severe punishment later must come. It is vanity to wish for long life and
    to care little about a well-spent life. It is vanity to be concerned with the present only and
    not to make provision for things to come. It is vanity to love what passes quickly and not
    to look ahead where eternal joy abides.
    Often recall the proverb: “The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with
    hearing.”1 Try, moreover, to turn your heart from the love of things visible and bring
    yourself to things invisible. For they who follow their own evil passions stain their consciences
    and lose the grace of God.

    October 15, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • .

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "The Truth" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "Kindness" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert"

      This troll is not a christian..

      October 15, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • the AnViL

      more copypasta... lazy mind.
      sums up most adherents to all religions... lazy minds.

      do you ever have any original thoughts?

      October 15, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  5. WS

    Read this article and advise:

    http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/

    Does this not prove evolution?

    October 15, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • ME II

      Interesting, thanks for the link.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      The followers of Evolutionism like to see it everywhere, and are hoping to make it a new world religion. 'Luk 21:35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.'

      October 15, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • WS

      Please advise how that doesn't prove evolution.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Evolutionism? Seriously?

      Is that anything like gravityism? Or germism?

      Why do wacky fundiot nutters, such as yourself, who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, come onto internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see?

      October 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • ME II

      @Anybody know how to read?,
      "The followers of Evolutionism like to see it everywhere, and are hoping to make it a new world religion"
      Evolution is not a religion; it is science. If you have a better explanation of how species developed on Earth, please provide the scientific evidence.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      '...........Michigan State University has been working to advance the common good in uncommon ways for more than 150 years.........' Ah, yes, progress in action. Can't hold a good progressive down, err socialist.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      '.......... MSU focuses its vast resources on creating solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges, ........' Right on bro's, save da world. Ya get what ya pay for with your vast taxes.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Anybody know how to think?

      So explain how that does not prove evolution and provide evidence for creationism. The myths of middle eastern nomads from thousands of years ago do not count as evidence.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • WS

      Anybody know how to think?,

      Do you get a flu shot every year? If so, you’re a hypocrite for criticizing evolution.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      The amazing adaptabilities of the modern corporations are evident for all to see. Their efficiency in shifting costs to the unwary is one of of their most prized traits for the profit seekers. A school in one pocket and a lawmaker in the other.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • WS

      Can you answer my question?

      October 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Spencer

      WS, we really don't have to "prove" evolution anymore, as at this point we have more evidence to support evolution then we do to support gravity.

      The problem is there are those that try to use evolution to "prove" that there are no gods and there are some that see evolution as an affront to their religion. Where as evolution makes no comment on deities, nor does it make any comments on why we are here or how life started. All it details is what has happened to life on this tiny rock since life started.

      October 15, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      spencer, don't you mean you have more than enough guns to support and spread your religion of Evolutionism? After all, it is public policy.

      October 15, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Spencer

      Anybody know how to read?, you keep calling an understanding of evolution as a "religion" for some reason.

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      October 15, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
  6. John the Guy

    GO-GOP–There is no answer you would accept to your silly circular question and you know it, so why bother? I assume you need a little attention as your jesus addiction is not fufilling enough for your ego. Right or wrong?...don't bother answering the question it does not require a response.

    October 15, 2012 at 7:59 am |
  7. GO_GOP

    Midwest: So you confess you don't have an answer. Tom: The book was written 1000s of years back. So none of the writers exist today. So how on earth does this book serve their(writers) purpose. You seem to be clinging to straws. Seek Jesus.

    October 15, 2012 at 7:38 am |
    • midwest rail

      Boring trolling.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:40 am |
    • Which God?

      @go_goop. Seek jesus? Under which rock?

      October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Nii

      MAMA K
      The problem here is you are asking for proof that Paul had a vision. From my personal experience someone as privileged as Paul will not spend the rest of his life in needless suffering if he didn't believe he saw something significant. I don't know how you think that I should give evidence. Before his conversion he obviously seemed emotionally unhealthy. After he converted he became a model of emotional maturity. If that is not proof enough then as I said it is not necessary to quarrel over them. I think it is hard to find what your are not looking for. That's why Christ said," seek and you shall find" and "knock and it shall be opened". What you seek you will find, Mama K.

      October 15, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • mama k

      Nii wrote: "Before his conversion he obviously seemed emotionally unhealthy. "

      And just what do you use that gives proof to this claim (or just about any other claim you've made for that matter)? I mean outside of the folklore book, the Bible, of course. Anything?

      October 15, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Nii

      MAMA K
      Just what is your problem? If the man thought be about emotional maturity and his path seems to work should I discard his learning to follow your bitter soul about? For what? If you call me bright for insulting people of faith and other non-believers does that make me truly emotionally mature, pure of heart, loving and good? Your rationality sounds like self-delusion to me. I don't know and don't care whether there is an after-life for me. I treasure the Bible for teaching me to become emotionally mature and happy at the young age of 25. How old will you be when you discover peace? I wonder? Christianity was not the answer for me and i know Atheism is not for you too as you sit here bickering with believers all day instead of enjoying the beautiful fall whether.

      October 16, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • .

      "I treasure the Bible for teaching me to become emotionally mature and happy at the young age of 25. How old will you be when you discover peace? I wonder? Christianity was not the answer for me and i know Atheism is not for you too as you sit here bickering with believers all day instead of enjoying the beautiful fall whether.'

      pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot

      October 16, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • mama k

      @Nii: I am almost 80, dear, and I think you assume that I am uneducated with respect to the Bible and Christianity, and I think you feel that I am unhappy being an atheist. Now, when I ask for proof of something in the Bible, I mean real proof, it comes from the the perspective of someone who has studied it for many years. So you still don't have a good answer? (That is, in this situation where you are claiming that Paul, "Before his conversion he obviously seemed emotionally unhealthy. ")

      October 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • Nii

      MOMOYA aka MAMA K
      How are things old girl you! I always tell you that it is not in the memory verses or theology books. Those are religious things. The Quest fr the historical Jesus is very different from the Quest for the Spiritual Jesus. I chose to replicate those of His Apostles. That is how I discovered the Spiritual Word of God. Your quest is pretty futile. You want my fruit to be Christian again but as I said the Bible is a Psychoanalytic text allow it to do its work rather than worry about the lettering and all that.

      October 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • mama k

      @Nii. I won't argue your process for arriving at your beliefs. It just too bad that you choose to make use of something that has no foundation – you know – rehashed folklore.

      October 16, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  8. GO_GOP

    What people who bash us Bible lovers forget is that the Bible is the word of the Lord. No question about it. All the opposition to the Holy Bible stems from atheists who in turn are controlled and directed by Satan. I find it shocking that the Bible bashers forget this basic truth. I mean it is obvious that people controlled and owned by Satan will bash the Bible. So why listen to them in the first place? I never got a convincing answer from an atheist on my above question.

    October 15, 2012 at 6:41 am |
    • midwest rail

      Try framing it as an honest question rather than a strawman argument, and perhaps someone will take you (and your question) seriously. Though that's debatable.

      October 15, 2012 at 6:53 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      You'd have to provide the evidence that your version of god exists in order for your book to be taken as anything more than the word of man. Given that we reject your god, we also reject your satan and thus you sound like a tool for making assumptions that are completely false. What about the other religions that don't share your god or your satan?

      "I contend we are both Atheists, when you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."

      October 15, 2012 at 7:03 am |
    • GO_GOP

      Truth: The Bible clearly states that it it the word of our Lord. No other "religious" book says the same. What more proof you need about the Bible being the word of our Lord? Also most scientists now agree that all our morals have foundation in the Bible. How can that be without it being the word of our Lord?

      October 15, 2012 at 7:27 am |
    • midwest rail

      More disingenuous nonsense from GO. Next.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:29 am |
    • GO_GOP

      Truth: Nicely put. When you cannot answer a person's questions with logic, insult him. Way to go atheists!!

      October 15, 2012 at 7:31 am |
    • GO_GOP

      Sorry my last post was meant for Midwest Rail.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:32 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      GO_GOP-

      A book written by and for a self-serving religious establishment could well be expected to claim its own authenticity.

      Your claim about the thoughts of scientists needs something more than thin air to hold it up. I'm a scientist myself and I know few scientists who profess to believe in your Lord, so of course I would want a bit more from you on that.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:34 am |
    • midwest rail

      Ask an HONEST question and you might get a serious response. Until then, you're merely trolling for any response you can get. Next.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:34 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      "The Bible clearly states that it it the word of our Lord."

      That is purely circular. Is there anything else out there that provides the evidence to say it is the word of your god?

      October 15, 2012 at 7:34 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      "Truth: The Bible clearly states that it it the word of our Lord."

      And yet we know for certain that it was written by men. You can spout on all you wish to claim that it was inspired by god but you can't show any evidence to back your claim. The men who wrote the Bible had an obvious agenda to convert people to their point of view. It's self promoting propaganda of the highest order. Clearly you've swallowed that spin entirely which only proves your lack of discrimination. There is nothing in the Bible that passes the sniff test unless you've already bought into it hook. line and sinker.

      October 15, 2012 at 7:36 am |
    • WASP

      @gop: we have covered this before...........so let me explain it again.
      "jesus" died in the year 32 C.E.
      the council of nicea was held in the year 325 C.E. by constantine a pagan emperor of rome. he was wanting to unite rome under one banner to end the fighting between the "christian" sects. and to attempt to save a failing empire.................seeing he was the last emperor of rome before it's fall, i would say the romans were better off pagan. lmfao

      October 15, 2012 at 7:38 am |
    • LC

      GO_GOP
      And maybe I'm a Star Trek fan because I've turned away from the Force, or maybe I'm a PC because I turned away from the prophet Steve?

      The Bible is just a book. It has it's fans, some of them zealots like Trekies, Jedi wanabes, Mac lovers and PCs, but none of them can prove that their's is the only way to go.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:17 am |
    • John the Guy

      Men are still writing supposed religous tomes, Book of Morman, Scientology, Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are recent examples. Despite being absolutely absurd, they have a number of sheepie followers, much like you and your deluded faith that the bible is the word of god rather than a man written book.

      October 15, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • Primewonk

      What folks who bash science fail to comprehend is that science is based on facts, observations, evidence. What folks who believe in a literal bible fail to understand is science shows many of the things you proclaim as "truth", are anything but the truth.

      The ignorant fundiot nutters have every right to believe whatever crap they want. But they have no right to try and force that ignorance into our secular laws and our public schools.

      October 15, 2012 at 10:43 am |
    • mama k

      "Bible is the word of the Lord. No question about it. "

      Lol. Oh you gave mama a laugh. But really GO_GOP I would not quit your day job if you're thinking of becoming a comedian. I just don't think it will work out for you. The material is just not there I'm afraid. Of course, I just have to assume that you are not serious – because that would be a delusional disorder.

      October 15, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • Nii

      GO_GOP
      As a Christian it saddens me to think that the only defense you could offer to the Bible being the Word of God is because it said so and no other Holy Book says so. What? Are u serious? Every Holy Book and oral tradition says that! You should read up on religion, theology and history but most especially try to bear the fruit of the Spirit so that you are wiser and more learned. Remember King David said because I love your Law I am wiser than my teachers. Not that he was making cutting remarks about others without proof.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • mama k

      Well Nii, I understand why GO_GOP is missing a few marbles, but while we're at it, why don't enlighten us and tell us exactly what proof there is to any of your claims. You know something outside the Bible that would prove any of the magic that is in the Bible. For instance, Paul's ascension to his "apostleship". What is there from any source that proves his vision and conversation? I think you may know there is none. And a whole bunch of kooky tenets are based on Paul. We have as much reason to believe what Paul said as we have to believe what Joseph Smith told people. Do you believe what Joseph Smith told people, Nii?

      October 15, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Nii

      WASP
      You do the intelligent Atheists here a great disservice. Study more on Roman history. Constantinus Caesar or Emperor Constantine was not the last Roman Emperor who told you that. The Roman Emperor lasted till 1492 when the turks sacked Constantinople.
      Constantine did not hold the Council of Nicea to formulate the Bible Canon. The Council of Jamnia was held by Jews (which included Christians at that time) to formulate the Old Testament Canon in AD 79. The New Testament Canaon was formulated by a Bishop known as Irenaeus in the 2nd Century AD to combat Gnosticism a rival of Christianity mixing paganism with Christianity.
      Constantine was not born at the time the Canon was established. The Bible was around for nearly 200 years when He was born. Also there were many Christians outside the Roman Empire of different sects. The Jews and Christians were not all under Rome. He could not do what you say he did.
      Learn.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • mama k

      (to be more clear -my initial post was messy)

      Well Nii, I understand why we all might think GO_GOP is missing a few marbles, but while we're at it, why don't enlighten us and tell us exactly what proof you have for any of your claims. Can you tell us about something outside the Bible that would prove any of the magic that is in the Bible? For instance, regarding Paul's ascension to his "apostleship". What is there from any source that would prove his vision and conversation? I think you may know there is nothing. And a whole bunch of kooky tenets are based on Paul. We have as much reason to believe what Paul said as we have to believe what Joseph Smith told people. Do you believe what Joseph Smith told people, Nii?

      October 15, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • WS

      What I find most humorous of all is when I’m informed that my soul will perish eternally if I don’t believe in creationism or that I don’t believe dinosaurs supposedly walked with man.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • mama k

      Gosh – third time's a charm for mama – she is still keying in BC (before coffee). My first line should ask "why don't you enlighten us . . ."

      I asked pretty much the same question of this Chad character over under the topic of the Emory school, yesterday, and I have yet to get an answer.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Nii

      MAMA K
      I don't know why you should take such an arrogant tone with me seeing as I am not St. Paul. I will frankly say that a lot of people formulate doctrines and quote Bible verses to support these. This however does not indicate they are saying what the Bible said. We are still discovering the exact meaning of its words just as the Prophet Daniel said it will be. The full meaning can only be known at the end of time.
      What I do know is that its teaching on spirituality when practiced is truly liberating. I also know that the Tabernacle Moses constructed in the Desert for instance and hence the Temples of Solomon and Herod are based on the Functional Architecture of the human brain from comparing notes with a Neurologist. These are some of the proofs that it is indeed a beautiful starting point for discovering spirituality.
      If you truly wanted to learn and follow its teaching you can without necessarily being a professed Christian. But that's just me. If being an Atheist makes you love your neighbor as yourself and enjoy your life knock yourself out.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • ME II

      @Nii,
      "The Roman Emperor lasted till 1492 when the turks sacked Constantinople."
      I'm not certain, but isn't that empire usually considered the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire?

      October 15, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • mama k

      @Nii – I guess since you are avoiding my question, like Chad, then I have to assume that you have no proof, nor can you point me to any proof (in other words outside of his own words) that Paul had a vision of the "Lord" that contributed to his ascension to apostleship.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Nii

      Officially it was never called the Eastern Roman Empire and the Emperor in Constantinople(also Roma Nova or New Rome) was considered as the legitimate Roman Emperor with his subjects known as Romans not Greeks. He considered himself as a direct descendant of Augustus Caesar the first Roman Emperor.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Primewonk

      " I also know that the Tabernacle Moses constructed in the Desert for instance and hence the Temples of Solomon and Herod are based on the Functional Architecture of the human brain from comparing notes with a Neurologist. "

      More batshit crazy nuttery.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Nii

      Mama K
      What do you want me to say? I have read Paul and the Gospels and the other Apostles . They all agree on a position which the Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants in your country don't. Why do you want me to contend with you. I have my path to God and Enlightenment you have yours. I chose the Bible and Christianity but not any particular denomination. What you have chosen is Atheism I think. How do you want me to prove you wrong when that is your way. Unless you want to learn about my way I cannot teach you.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The 1492 date is absurd.

      First of all Constantinople fell to Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II in 1453. (1492 is important for a different reason – it is the end of the Reconquista in Spain.)

      Significantly Constantinople was taken and sacked in 1204 during the fourth crusade by Venetians and Franks, establishing the "Latin Empire of Constantinople, which was certainly not the Roman Empire of anquity.

      While Constantine certainly moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople, but the empire fractured. The Roman Empire (as distinct from the Byzantine Empire) is generally held to have fallen in the 6th century.

      There is a nice description on wikipedia:

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

      The decline, seen in retrospect, occurred over a period of four centuries, culminating in the final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Nii

      Primewonk
      Yes, those who use such abusive language for no apparent reason are usually not getting out of a mental inst.itution any time soon!

      October 15, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • ME II

      @Nii,
      I don't disagree that the label "Byzantine" is a modern one, I'm just saying that, historically the final separation of east and west Roman Empires and the move from Rome itself is often considered the end of the "Roman Empire" as a whole, regardless of the continued use of the name by the Emperor of the eastern half of the old Empire.
      Just saying that I don't think either position is completely wrong.. or right.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • mama k

      Nii wrote: "What do you want me to say? I have read Paul and the Gospels and the other Apostles . They all agree . ."

      I have read them as well, Nii. A simple answer of "yes, there is no proof outside of Paul's words in the Bible that he actually had a vision of anything supernatural" would have sufficed. Also, do you know what circular reference means? That's when you try to prove something, like the Bible, only using the Bible. It's not a proof – it's just circular thinking. That's why where you start with "They all agree. . ." has no value in terms of proving anything. I'm not asking you to refute what you believe. I just want to clarify how little, if no proof we have of most things regarding religion.

      Also there are many other things in the Bible that are virtually unfounded, but I tend to concentrate on Paul, since many of the weird tenets that people fight over today have their basis on those parts of the NT.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ooops – not 6th but 5th century.

      This is a nice description of the chaos in Constantinople in the centuries that follow the fourth crusade:

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

      "Constantinople had been an imperial capital since its consecration in 330 under Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. In the following eleven centuries, the city had been besieged many times but was captured only once: during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The crusaders established an unstable Latin state in and around Constantinople while the remaining empire splintered into a number of Greek successor states, notably Nicaea, Epirus and Trebizond. These Greeks fought as allies against the Latin establishments but among themselves for return to the Byzantine throne.

      The Nicaeans reconquered Constantinople from the Latins in 1261. Thereafter was little peace for the much-weakened empire; it continually fenced off attacks from the Latins, the Serbians, the Bulgarians and, most importantly, the Ottoman Turks. The Black Plague between 1346 and 1349 killed almost half of Constantinople's inhabitants. By 1450 the empire was exhausted ..."

      October 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • Nii

      ME II
      The Emperor Justinian or Justinianus Caesar ruled over both sides of the Empire even when Rome fell to the Visigoths and the Western part of the Empire was taken over by the Germanic peoples. However it is to be noted that by the dictates of Theodosius Caesar it was not a clean division since there were actually four capitals with Rome and Constantinople being the highest. However the Emperor in Constantinople was the seniourmost so the loss of his territories to the West did not entail a demotion for him. Charlemaggne could at best be rated second-best by the Emperor. There was the Emperor , the Emperor of the West and the two junior Emperors. If the Western Emperors territory is lost it does not mean that the Emperor in Constantinople becomes Emperor of the East. He was still the Emperor.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • WASP

      @nii-tard: "in 1492 columbus sailed the ocean blue." lmfao
      constantine emperor of rome held the council of nicea (the first council) in 325 C.E.
      your jesus accourding to your bible died in the year 32 C.E.
      almost 300 years later they finally got around to writing a single accepted "holy book".
      constantine won a war against a another roman "leader" vieing for control over rome. once the conflict was over he wanted to unify "his" empire under one religion, thus they took jewish text that were being argued over and decided quite a few thingas, main thing coming out of it was the founding of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
      then we know what happen after the roman catholic church started losing power and influence, you had the creation of the protestants. so my suggestion NII, get your facts straight before you come at me again. you couldn't even get the fracking year correct, but you want to tell me to study. ROFLMFAO.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • ME II

      "However the Emperor in Constantinople was the seniourmost so the loss of his territories to the West did not entail a demotion for him. Charlemaggne could at best be rated second-best by the Emperor. There was the Emperor , the Emperor of the West and the two junior Emperors. "
      Seniority and "second-best" are judgement-based assessments of who you think had the most right or justification to be Emperor. You are welcome to your opinion.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Nii

      WASP
      Fine 1453 ok! As for you sad lack of historical knowledge I don't blame you. The Roman Catholic Church only came about as a result of the Great Schism. Before Constantine the Church was a mass of sects all vying for doctrinal dominance with Arianism and Orthodox the strongest sides. To quell the violence the Emperor sat down with Church leaders and asked them to formulate the basic tenets of Orthodox Christianity not the Bible. The part that I admire most is that after being told the actual history of the Roman Empire you still insist on Constantine's "crimes".
      The fairy-tale you relate is heartening. Who was that Roman leader? lol. I couldn't wait for you to name him and his rank.
      Sometimes you meet a Christian who is not cowed by the intelligent Atheist fallacy and these are the results. In Constantine's day the Church was not a Roman Catholic Church so you can't insist he founded it. Constantine made five Bishops Patriarchs-Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, ROME and Carthage. They are listed by rank with the highest rank being the Ecu.menical Patriarch in Constantinople. All five had the ti.tle of Holy Father. All could be rightly called Pope. All bishops were autocephalous. Same functional rank with the higher ti.tles indicating Episcopal Succession ranking.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • mama k

      OK, so if I'm keeping score correctly, let's see – oh – we still have no proof that the special things Paul wrote about, like his visions of a higher being for instance, are true. OK. well I was just checking in. Carry on.

      October 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Nii

      MAMA K
      There is a simple experiment that can help you find out?
      Christ said if you hear His words and obey them and practise them He will show Himself to you. Why don't you try it. That is what we call the Scientific Method. Testing what someone says. I did and I found my evidence. Are you brave enough or you are afraid you will lose your faith in Atheism. Paul's experience is his. I have mine. You can have yours.

      October 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • mama k

      @Nii: You may call listening to your god a scientific method, but I assure you, atheists are not the only people who would say you are completely nuts to think that has anything to do with science. And there is nothing brave about encouraging delusion – it just shows laziness to truly investigate claims that have little or no foundation. But that's OK – I just wanted to confirm that things had not changed – you still don't have any credible proof of Paul's "special time" with his god.

      October 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Keeping It Real

      mama k,

      Paul of Tarsus didn't even know the "The Lord's Prayer" - supposedly directly from the lips of Jesus! Paul even said, "we don't know how to pray."

      October 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Nii

      MAMA K
      I knew you would chicken out of it. I am not even asking you to listen to him as a God. You said you wanted proof that Paul saw what he said he did. Fine then just do what made him see. Encouraging delusion. Well I don't know about you but the Early Christians were very emotionally healthy. I am emotionally healthy. You seem to think that rationality is failsafe but illusionists prove every day that it is not. The mind has more facets than you care to admit. Judaeo-Christian spirituality is very efficient at what it does in helping people like Mother Theresa and St Francis of Assisi help people and become heroes. If Atheism helps you do that fine. However I will prefer that you keep your unfounded psychiatric diagnostic kit out of public. The doctors might get to know and they won't let you go till they have cured you. No sane doctor calls Spirituality and religion a disease.

      October 15, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Nii

      MAMA K
      The brain sciences have proven beyond reasonable doubt that a human is an emotional not a rational animal. it has proven beyond reasonable doubt that charitable love, joy, tolerance, humility, self-control, and honesty are healthy atti.tudes to life and help a person to think more rationally. This was taught by St Paul as the fruit of the Spirit. What should i have against such a man? Don't be blinded by hatred, prejudice and factionalism. I don't have time for religious wranglings. If you think I have avoided your question, fine but note that until you start seeking answers will be hard. As the illusionist will tell you it is what you want to see that you see because you are emotionally unbalanced by them.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Nii,
      "Christ said if you hear His words and obey them and practise them He will show Himself to you. Why don't you try it. That is what we call the Scientific Method."
      This is in no way scientific. It is strictly subjective and un-falsifiable. If someone follows the instructions and does not see Jesus, then the response would be that that person did not perform/believe/act correctly or well enough, i.e. no possible false outcome.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • ME II

      @Nii,
      "The brain sciences have proven beyond reasonable doubt that a human is an emotional not a rational animal. "
      What does this even mean?

      October 15, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • mama k

      @Nii. I didn't "chicken out" of anything. I grew up with and studied Christianity extensively as an adult. That I choose not to waste my time on your silly deluded suggestion is conscious rational decision for me. I don't doubt the power of illusion – but I find it silly that you bring it up. You are simply dancing around the question and that's all you have been doing to this point. You still have no credible proof of Paul's "special time" with his god that resulted in his "apostleship". The basis for Christianity, as are with most major religions, is rehashed folklore. Folklore is folklore. Rehashed folklore is, well, obviously less credible.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • WASP

      @nii: seeing there was too much to copy and paste on creation of the bible.
      "The Bible does not have a single author – it is a collection of 73 books which were written by many different authors over a long period of time. It is divided into two main sections – the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament is the Jewish Scriptures which were used by faithful Jews before the time of Christ. The New Testament consists of books and letters written by the early Christians."

      old testement:"Christians have the current 46 book Old Testament because this was the canon used by the leaders of the early Christian Church; the apostles and their followers. This canon was found in a Greek translation of the Scriptures known as the Septuagint. This was the version used by very many Jews in the first century."

      new testement: "The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Initially, local canons were assembled by individual bishops. These canons were lists of books which could be read aloud in Churches at Mass. Despite the fact that these canons were independently assembled they bore a great deal of similarity to each other – because the Catholic bishops were all using the same criteria to determine which books should be included. They looked to see if the books were written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle. They checked to see how much the book was being used by other bishops and priests in their Masses, and also looked at how often the book was quoted by the Church Fathers in their writings. Only those books which “scored” favorably on all three of these criteria made it into their canons.

      In the early fourth century Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and it became possible for the bishops to meet without being imprisoned or killed by the pagan authorities. Beginning in the late fourth century and continuing until the very early fifth century the Catholic Church met at a number of councils where the canon of the Bible was debated. These councils produced canons which were identical to the current 73 book Roman Catholic canon."

      October 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • WASP

      @nii: emotions make humans irrational. example you come home and i'm banging your wife, your immediate reaction is anger. in most instances that anger leads the person to mur/der or violently attack those two people.
      rational thought would dictate logic, it would be illgoical for me to attack a male sleeping with my wife due to the fact it would harm my financially, legally and would harm any children involved. logic requires no emotion. if emotion is added into a logic based situation then the outcome can be almost anything based on that individuals emotional responce.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Nii

      WASP
      I have to admire your persistence though you are unlearned. Emotions do not make you unlearned. It is emotional immaturity that does. If it was emotions then love or especially charitable love will not be a helpful quality we humans admire. It is one of the qualities that make a human more rational. If you discard the Bible's learning due to your poor reading of History then definitely you will remain uneducated. It is the easiest way to achieve emotional maturity and wisdom which you sorely lack.

      October 16, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Nii

      WASP
      The Bible's history is online so I don't know which source you quote so authoritatively. It is sad that just a simple google search about the Council of Jamnia was blocked. How could they do that to you? lol
      I told you that the Roman Catholic Church is not the oldest Church. Swallowing Roman Catholic propaganda is actually silly. None of the Bible authors quoted the Septuagint directly or indirectly whether Christian or Jew.

      October 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Nii

      Mama K
      You seem to think that deluded is an insult. has it been used on you often enough to generate such negative feelings towards that word? Sad but it is a word that describes being trapped in emotional immaturity. You do sound immature too.

      October 16, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • mama k

      @Nii: Well Nii, I won't attempt to reason with you, as all you have done is avoided answering my question. You have yet to show any reasonable proof. If you have something, then it would be obvious to anyone reading this. Alas, you have shown nothing.

      October 16, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • Nii

      MAMA K
      You don't have to run. Stay for the fun! What are you talking about? Just show me the love you had for your first boyfriend. How do I know that your story is true? You are using a false name and maybe false gender. So why shud I believe you are not a computer program. I studied the Bible. It has given me knowledge. How do I prove that those guys who wrote the Bible existed? Because what they said will happen if I follow their teaching happened and I hope for more. Ignorance is bliss so keep yourself ignorant. Religious people are Atheists anyhow so you have not made a giant leap. You only clarified your beliefs.

      October 16, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • mama k

      Nii wrote: "How do I prove that those guys who wrote the Bible existed? Because what they said will happen if I follow their teaching happened and I hope for more."

      OK, Nii – you just stick with that as a proof, lol. I just wanted to see if you thought you really had something substantive.

      October 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  9. Things Drunk People Say

    Snooze feast. =_=

    October 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
  10. Things Drunk People Say

    It's a good read. check it out, you may find something you have said.

    October 14, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
  11. CoAvs

    It is crazy that this man made it to the House much less the Science Committee. As a nation the United States is falling behind other industrialized nations in math and science, because they are not accepted. The entrainment industry turns out mad scientists and every sunday fire and brimstone preachers discredit secularism, the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, and science itself. Since the beginning of the scientific revolution we have gone from horses to landing vehicles on anther planet, discovered the standard model and quantum mechanics, eliminated many fatal diseases, going from a few pages of information in the average home to near limitless information though the internet. Can you honestly say that a book that was originally written by a nomadic and bronze age civilization, that mis translated many times, has more merit and knows more than the work down by thousands of scientists for over a century. Open up your mind to something other than bronze age book.

    To all of the ID and Creationist folks there is no grand coverup for evolution. A scientist that would discredit evolution using the peer reviewed system would knock down one of greatest scientists in Darwin and establish himself within an elite circle with men like Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Mendel, Franklin, Bacon, and Watson. Evolution is fact it has been observed. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, the only difference between seeing small changes and big changes that would create a new species is time. I find it simply amazing on how much we know. It is very grand when your think about the all the science that occurs around you everyday. Science is great and sadly many within America do not share the same view. Throw off the chains of religious fundamentalism, embrace progress. I often have wished that Evangelical and conservative Baptists believers numbers would have never grown large. Thanks to them they dragged all of Christianity into crazy territory if not for them the Catholics might have a common sense view on social issues. For the last time a bronze age text is not a science book.

    October 14, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • ElmerGantry

      Well stated.

      October 14, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      That sums it up beautifully. Well-stated.

      October 15, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      '.......falling behind other industrialized nations in math and science, because they are not accepted..........' Oh, I see now. Blame it on the Christians. That's an old rationalization. Been used before, ya know.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      '.........Throw off the chains of religious fundamentalism, embrace progress...........' Yup, those progressives sure did know how to mess with the const itution. Care for another amendment with your coffee, sir?

      October 15, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • .

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "The Truth" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert"

      This troll is not a christian..

      October 15, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • midwest rail

      No thanks, another amendment wont be necessary. The very first one will do just fine, thank you.

      October 15, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • CoAvs

      Anybody get this through your mind. America is a secular country, that was inspired by secular ideas it is not a Christain nation founded on the Bible.America should not turn into Iran West. If your God was truly omnipotent all knowing could he not have known how everything would turn without having to design anything? Children can still pray in school the school can not make students pray.

      October 15, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
  12. Brian

    Is there much difference between Broun and the Taliban?

    October 14, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Only in their methods – goals, pretty much the same. Theocracy.

      October 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      The Taliban speak primarily Pashto and use an array of tactics to push an ignorant and narrow-minded worldview into politics in order to establish ultra-conservative religious control over society.

      The Christian right speak primarily English and use an array of tactics to push an ignorant and narrow-minded worldview into politics in order to establish ultra-conservative religious control over society..

      October 14, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • CoAvs

      The name of the religion is the only difference. The religious right is more dangerous than radical Islam ever was. People elected the Christian fundies to high offices.

      October 14, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • Franklin

      The only difference is that we have secular laws that would prosecute the Religious Right if they behaved like the Taliban. Remove those secular laws and the difference would disappear completely.

      October 14, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
  13. No. I am Goodbye

    think outside the box.

    October 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
  14. Your Welcome

    Rufus T. Firefly
    Here is the link:

    http://science.house.gov/contact-us/email-us

    October 12, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
    a reasonable atheist
    Thanks for the link – message submitted:

    "Subject: Rep. Broun's place on the committee is an embarrassment

    Message:
    To whom it may concern,
    I was astonished to read of the public views expressed by Rep. Broun regarding evolution, modern cosmology, and other forms of scientific endeavor. If he truly believes what he espouses, his total ignorance of the scientific method demonstrates that he should be immediately removed from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Perhaps there is a Committee on Superst.ition and Ignorance that his expertise would be better suited to? If, on the other hand, he was merely pandering to a church-going audience, he has amply demonstrated his lack of moral fort.itude through his disingenuous public proclamations. In this case, he should not only be removed from the committee but also from the House. We cannot afford to have our leadership espousing this superst.itious garbage. The United States needs to lead in Science, not wallow in ignorance while other countries pass us by."

    October 14, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • *

      * It's You're Welcome

      you're = you are
      your = belonging to you

      October 14, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • evolution is a cop out for the non-believer

      Very presumptuous of you to assume that evolution is proven.

      October 14, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • sally

      "evolution is a cop out for the non-believer" is crying out in desperation and out of stupidity.. awwwwww...

      October 14, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Very stupid of you to pretend anyone said it was, dumbfvck. The evidence is quite convincing. No one claims it's proven, you stupid git.

      October 14, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • OTOH

      sally,

      And I think that saying, a "goddidit" (and it's MY "God") is the biggest cop-out of all.

      October 14, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • evolution is a cop out for the non-believer

      evolutionists-are the above two the brightest specimens you have to defend your theory?

      October 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Science proves evolution.

      Religion just makes unproven claims.

      October 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Evolution is a cop out. Actually, evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact because, well, it is easily observable. The theory is science's best explanation of how it works.

      October 14, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • CoAvs

      Evolution is Cop out. Evolution is fact and in no way discredits the idea of your God. Do not give me the stuff about the soul if truly there is such a thing God could have added at our present species.

      October 14, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • Franklin

      CoAvs
      If "evolution is a cop out..." defines his God as the designer responsible for the diversity of life on this planet then evolution does discredit his deity. No god just "poofed" all the species fully formed on the planet all at once. Evolution proves that.

      October 14, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
  15. GY

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj0m6GrFR3A&w=640&h=390]

    October 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
  16. Creationism is Unhealthy for People, Their Pets, and the World We Live In

    Unfounded, rehashed folklore, ignorance and stupidity stifles progress.

    This rep. needs to be booted from Congress.

    October 14, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • GY

      Even the pets!!!!!

      October 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
  17. John Thomas Tolbert

    If we are honest with ourselves, we know that evolution and the big bang are just lies. Look deep within yourself. You have a soul. You know you didn't come from a monkey.

    October 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I know I didn't. You almost certainly did.

      Evolution isn't even a debate among scientists, you moron. Grow a brain.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • midwest rail

      No one says we did. Your belief that anyone has said that is based on deliberate misrepresentation.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • === o ===

      The only kind of "trickle-down" that actually works:

      "John Thomas Tolbert" degenerates to:
      "Taskmaster" degenerates to:
      "Ronald Regonzo" degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert" or "...." where he writes such lovely posts as "Qu eers the people who gave the world AIDS"
      and many other names, but of course I prefer to refer to this homophobe as
      the disgruntled Evangelical Fortune Cookie Co. writer boot camp flunkie.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • Veritas

      All the science points to evolution. That more than outweighs the superstitions of middle eastern nomads from 7 or 8,000 years ago. Do you have flu shots? Will you only have one in your life? No, then if evolution were not a fact you would only need one. Have you any proof that DNA does not identify descent? Why are the simpler life forms found in the older rocks?

      October 14, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      You have no proof for your claims and I did not come from a rib.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I wonder who "we" is. Do you have a gerbil up your butt, JTT?

      October 14, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • John Thomas Tolbert

      Oh, that's right ... we came from a common ancestor with the monkeys. That is, we came from something even more primitive than a monkey. Yeah, I'm sure I buy that.

      The fact is that man was created in his present form by God about 6000 years ago.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Nope

      John Thomas Tolbert: "The fact is that man was created in his present form by God about 6000 years ago."

      Nope. Satan did it.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Simply calling troll now. No one is that willfully ignorant.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      What is your evidence?

      And if your answer contains the word "bible" you automatically lose the argument.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yup, troll. Uncommonly stupid.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And yet, this moron is not as stupid as Turd Topper.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • John Thomas Tolbert

      Lol. I express a religious opinion on a belief blog, and I'm called a troll. No, I would be a troll on an atheist blog, not on a blog for people of faith.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're a troll whether you're posting here, there, or anywhere.

      You'd be a troll if you were standing on a street corner in Des Moines hawking bibles. You'd be a troll if you were teaching Sunday School in Idaho. You were born a troll and you'll die a troll, and no one will even cry at your funeral.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and JTT, that wasn't a "thought," it was a brain-fart. I suspect you have a lot of those. In fact, they probably const itute most of the activity that occurs inside that abnormally small skull of yours.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • OTOH

      John Thomas,
      " a blog for people of faith."

      Where does it specify that fact in the specs for this blog?

      There are many blogs and web sites which do specify that, though (and they even ban atheists from posting). Perhaps you would be happier on one of them. It's the real world here.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Gadflie

      What's this "we" stuff fundie?

      October 14, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gadflie, he has a gerbil up his tailpipe. It's giving him all sorts of sensations and he's mistaken them for facts.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • tallulah13

      JTT: calling you a troll is actually a compliment, because it's incomprehensible that anyone with even the most basic education would doubt evolution. Calling you a troll is much nicer than calling you ignorant or just plain stupid.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Tally is spot-on, as usual. JTT, you ought to be grateful for small favors.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • the AnViL

      there is actually precisely zero evidence of "souls". biophysics is hard, that's why everyone doesn't have a doctorate in it. religion is easy, it doesn't even really require you to be able to read.

      science works to dispel and remove ignorance
      religion is predicate upon ignorance

      i don't care if you're sincere or a troll... i am happy to correct you and/or ridicule you at my leisure.

      tolerance of religious ignorance has to end.

      enough is enough

      October 14, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
  18. Kindness

    Kindness
    kindness
    This is my experience... Thank you.

    MY personal testimony.
    A thought to consider without an ego response

    I Accepted Jesus christ as my lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
    The world denounces truth....

    Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.

    Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.

    The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.

    Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners. Even once we are saved by christs merciful grace we will still experience adversity to mold us to adhering to the truth.
    We will slip... But not fall of the ship ...carrying us onward to perfection in christs grace.

    We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
    It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .

    Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
    See the truth...
    do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from some other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..

    Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .

    Trancsend the temporal world.

    Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .

    Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.

    Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith ....above reason in Jesus Christ.

    Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....

    Read Ecclesiastes. Read romans or corinthians.

    You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.

    Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are by faith above reason in christ.

    I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .

    Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?

    Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.

    once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
    You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it

    You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
    I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
    Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus

    my testimony

    Romans 10:9

    "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
    Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door,
    And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
    The, looking in, I saw upon the floor
    Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
    “How many anvils have you had,” said I,
    “To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
    “Just one,” said he, and then with twinkling eye,
    “The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”
    And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s Word,
    For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
    Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
    The anvil is unharmed – the hammers gone.

    Truth is..exclusive

    October 14, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Spamming nonsense bespeaks desperation.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • mama k

      This is my experience – too much time listening to or reading junk like this from nutcases like you. My goodness.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      This is my experience,

      I have talked to many theological "experts" and not one has shwn that what they claim about god are anything but baseless assertions.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • ElmerGantry

      Just an example of the religious equivalent technobabble.

      October 14, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • the AnViL

      this is just one of the regular crazies who haunt this blog. if you google a paragraph from this insane rant, you'll get a bunch of hits. it's been posted and reposted so many times.... this time though – the nutter added the john clifford poem.

      tolerance of religious ignorance has to end.

      enough is enough

      October 15, 2012 at 6:08 am |
  19. Gadflie

    Here's a dose of reality for you folks. In the entire history of science, not one single scientific advance was made by a scientist who settled for "God did it" as a sufficient answer to the question he was trying to answer. Not one. Ever. This doesn't mean that there aren't some scientists who are believers. But, it does mean that "God did it" is nothing but a place holder answer until we can find the correct one.

    October 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
  20. Bibletruth

    Wonders, as do some of my scientist friends, how belief in creationism...creation by the spoken word of God about 7,000 years ago... has any negative affect re physics training/research, biology training/research, medical training/research (by the way, over 90% of the physcians I know-dozens-firmly believe in creationism and it has zero negative affect and much positive effect on their practice of medicine), energy fields research/training, chemistry training/reserch, computer sciences training/ research, archeology/anthropology training/research (know people in this field who are staunch creationists ), mathematics (like the kind for space research, moon shots, rocketry), etc., etc. Those scientists and engineers I have contact with tell me that they see no reason whatever that anyone should beleive there will be less innovation, discovery, usefulness in the sciences if every scientist in the world were a creationist. So exactly, really, is so many folks problem with creationism, except they do not want God?

    October 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Bibletruth

      last sentance should read "So exactly, what really, is so many folks problem with creationism, except they do not want God?

      October 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Nothing in science confirms creationism and science directly disproves that the earth and/or universe is 10,000 yeas old. Yes there are scientists that are creationist but very few are young earth creationists and they hold those views for purely religious reasons and have no basis in known reality.

      October 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Franklin

      The physicians you know may say that they believe in creationism back in their Bible Belt practices, but how many of them do you think say it when they're at conferences in California, or New England? They play the game, or guarantee that they don't get any patients.

      October 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • the AnViL

      the problem with believing in creationism is

      1) it isn't true
      2) it's based on a delusional concept.

      yeah there are a lot of people who are "generally" educated in "sciences" – that still cling to the delusional concept of an imaginary man in the sky.

      it's ignorance. you may not feel like there is anything wrong with embracing ignorance in your life... but it isn't for everyone. namely – people who do not suffer from delusional thinking.

      the problem is – people who suffer from the xian brand of delusional thinking believe they can legislate their morals onto the rest of the planet. they work hard to mix their idiotic, ignorant, retarded xian ideals into all of society to the point where people have their rights stripped and their equality nullified.

      no – people who suffer from delusional thinking should NOT be allowed to hold public office, vote, purchase firearms or teach public school.

      tolerance of religious ignorance has to end.

      enough is enough.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The problem I have with creationism is that there's not a shred of evidence to support it as a theory, whereas there are mountains of evidence to support evolution and the Big Bang.

      Show credible, widely accepted scientific evidence that goddidit and I'll be happy to concede. Otherwise, forget it.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • === o ===

      Bibletruth? Isn't that an oxymoron? Well, to be fair, morons have to claim something.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I suspect Bibletruth doesn't have a single "friend" with a science degree who is employed in any field of science whatsoever.

      October 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.