November 6th, 2013
12:18 PM ET
Let us pray? Supreme Court divided on God in government
By Bill Mears and Daniel Burke, CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Should prayers to God open government meetings?
That's the controversial question a divided Supreme Court debated on Wednesday.
At oral arguments about whether public prayers at a New York town's board meetings are permissible, the high court took a broad look at the country's church-state history and even the Supreme Court's own traditions.
Two local women sued officials in Greece, New York, objecting that monthly Town Board public sessions have opened with invocations they say have been overwhelmingly Christian.
But the case's implications extend far beyond upstate New York and could have widespread consequences, according to constitutional scholars.
"This is going to affect communities across the country," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center.
The frequent court battles over public prayers, Ten Commandment memorials and holiday displays might strike some Americans as silly, but they touch on deep questions about national identity to reach back to the Founding Fathers, Haynes said.
"It's a long struggle in our country about self-definition and what our country was founded to be. That's why we keep circling back to these emotional and highly divisive questions."
At Wednesday's oral arguments, the court's conservative majority appeared to have the votes to allow the public prayers to continue in some form, but both sides expressed concerns about the level of judicial and government oversight over prayers presented by members of a particular faith.
"We are a very religiously diverse country," said Justice Samuel Alito, who worried about the town officials setting up binding guidelines. "All should be treated equally. So I can't see how you can compose a prayer that is acceptable to all these" religions.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried about the effect on local citizens who choose not to stand and bow their heads when asked during a public prayer. "You think any of those people wouldn't feel coerced to stand?"
MORE ON CNN: Atheist gets her day at the Supreme Court
The high court began its public session Wednesday as it has for decades, with the marshal invoking a traditional statement that ends, "God save the United States and this honorable court."
The town outside Rochester began allowing prayers to start its meetings in 1999, after years of having a moment of silence.
Co-plaintiffs Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway challenged the revised policy, saying officials repeatedly ignored their requests to modify or eliminate the practice, or at least make it more inclusive.
"It's very divisive when you bring government into religion," Stephens said.
"I don't believe in God, and Susan is Jewish, so to hear these ministers talk about Jesus and even have some of them who personally question our motives, it's just not appropriate."
The town of about 94,000 residents counters that after hearing concerns from the two women and others, it sought diverse voices, including a Wiccan priestess, to offer invocations.
Officials said they do not review the content of the remarks, nor censor any language.
"The faith of the prayer-giver does not matter at all," said John Auberger, Greece's board supervisor, who began the practice shortly after taking office 1998. "We accept anyone who wants to come in and volunteer to give the prayer to open up our town meetings."
A federal appeals court in New York found the board's policy to be an unconstitutional violation of the Constitution's establishment clause, which forbids any government "endorsement" of religion. Those judges said it had the effect of "affiliating the town with Christianity."
Congress and state legislatures regularly open their sessions with prayers.
One question before the Supreme Court is whether local government bodies are different, in that there might be more active involvement with local citizens, who may want to personally petition the town in zoning, tax, and other matters.
MORE ON CNN: Town prayers need less Jesus, more Krishna
Justice Elena Kagan explored the limits of permissible government action by using the Supreme Court as an example.
She asked whether the court could suddenly invite a Christian minister to invoke the following prayer, inside the ornate marbled courtroom: "We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross." "Would that be permissible?" asked Kagan.
Attorney Thomas Hungar, attorney for the town of Greece, suggested courts were different, and that the national legislature had had similar prayers since the nation's founding.
"Whatever line might be drawn between nonlegislative bodies and legislative bodies," Hungar said, "it would be incongruous, if Congress could have legislative prayers and the states couldn't."
But the lawyer for the plaintiffs, supported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said unlike legislatures, Greece had no official policy on prayers.
"The policy should give guidelines to chaplains that say, 'Stay away from points in which believers are known to disagree,'" said Douglas Laycock, who represented the two women objecting to the prayers. "And we think the town should do what it can to ameliorate coercion. It should tell the clergy: 'Don't ask people to physically participate.' That's the most important thing."
But some justices on the high court expressed doubts about the extent to which lawmakers - and later courts - should advise various faiths about what to say, and parse what is sectarian or not.
"Give me an example of a prayer that is acceptable to all of the groups that I mentioned," said Alito, whose list included Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists.
When Laycock suggested something like, "The prayers to the almighty, prayers to the creator," Alito and others were unconvinced, saying polytheists might object.
"What about devil worshippers?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, bringing laughter to the courtroom.
"Well, if devil worshippers believe the devil is the almighty, they might be OK with it," responded Laycock, smiling.
"Who was supposed to make these determinations? Is there supposed to be an officer of the town council that will review?" asked Chief Justice John Roberts. "Do prayers have to be reviewed for his approval in advance?"
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who may prove to be the swing vote in his petition, was especially vocal.
"It just seems to me that enforcing that standard involves the state very heavily in the censorship and the approval or disapproval of prayers," he said. "I'm serious about this. This involves government very heavily in religion."
He also suggested small towns deserve as much right to allow a brief prayer in public sessions as federal and state bodies.
"In a way it sounds quite elitist to say, 'Well, now, we can do this in Washington and Sacramento and Austin, Texas, but you people up there in Greece can't do that.'"
Several members of Congress were in attendance at the argument, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida.
"Every day before the Senate meets, the Senate chaplain comes out and gives a prayer, and that's important to us," Rubio told CNN just after arguments ended.
"It's part of our country's tradition; it's also our constitutional right, to be able to exercise that. And I thought it was important to defend that here today."
Nearly 120 members of Congress, mostly Republicans, along with 18 state attorneys general, have filed supporting legal briefs backing the city. The Obama administration is doing the same.
Stephens and Galloway, the two plaintiffs, said they have faced harassment from their community and even vandalism of their property.
"The pastors face the people (in the meetings), they don't face the town government, so it's like they're praying over us," Galloway told CNN after the argument.
"When they all stood and I sat, and I have a hundred eyes looking at me, and questioning what's going on, they think I'm being disrespectful. It does put a lot of pressure on you and it makes you very uncomfortable. It singles you out, and that shouldn't be in my town government, and it shouldn't be anywhere."
The high court has generally taken a case-by-case approach on determining just when the state intrudes unconstitutionally into religion, while generally allowing faith to be acknowledged in a limited basis in public forums.
"In God We Trust" remains on currency; the Pledge of Allegiance and oaths of office mention a divine creator; and menorah and crèche displays are permitted in local parks.
But the justices acknowledge the tricky line they must walk - politically, socially and legally - when deciding church-state cases.
"It's hard because the (Supreme) Court lays down these rules, and everybody thinks that the court is being hostile to religion, and people get unhappy and angry and agitated," said Kagan near the end of Wednesday's oral arguments.
"Part of what we are trying to do here is to maintain a multireligious society in a peaceful and harmonious way. And every time the court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better."
The case is Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway (12-696). A ruling is expected by early summer.
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.
Instead of a religious prayer, an invocation of higher reason, logic and the goal of attaining a greater good should be read at the beginning of every government function. That excludes no one, and it would certainly be valuable reminder to those doing the work. And those things are certainly "higher" abstract concepts, though not mystical or supernatural.
rabbitetc, fantastic post. I support that suggestion.
I don't understand the debate whatsoever. SEPARATION of church and state. Show me the grey area.
There is a debate because those words are not in the const itution. Jefferson's phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947, which does give it weight.
I think the problem is that religious people want to argue whether or not there should be separation of church and state rather than how it should be interpreted . We all know how well theocracy goes over in past and present. I don't understand why Christians want this.
They want it because they are emotionally connected to their faith. Most were indoctrinated at young impressionable ages and as a result psychologically damaged and can't get past their own personal ego when looking at the issue. They so strongly think it's true, so to them they think they are doing what god wants. This position lacks empathy for other beliefs and is quite selfish, however.
What an odd faith some people here have.
Your god requires you to pray in public, and to force others to listen, in order to exercise your faith? What religion is this? I know it's not Christianity – because in the Bible, Jesus says you should pray in private, in a closet, not in public in order to be seen, as the hypocrites do. So, not Christianity, but what is it?
Contradiction and the inevitable consequent hypocrisy are strong indications that it is Christianity.
But look for the Christains, they are the diagnostics marks of Chrisanity.
Excellent, excellent question, Susan. Also, how does it not occur to those that they're inevitably doing poor PR for their religion every time they coerce a crowd to passively participate in it. Why do they suppose there's some good that they're doing that outweighs annoying and putting off those who don't already subscribe? And what's so wrong with any of the proposed 'workarounds' – such as all those who want to have a prayer, gather outside the official function beforehand or after and have their group prayer without spending the time during the official function? Seems a perfectly conservative alternative to me.
YES definitely Yes the government should say a pray before they have their meetings, maybe the good thoughts of how to run this country would enter their minds easier, God should be first in everything, when you pray god will show the way
Okay so you think Jews should have to pray to Jesus? Would you be fine being forced to pray to Zeus every meeting?
people pray to alot of things, jews if they have a problem they could pray to jesus, Hilter, alla, budda. or shut the f–k up, or go home.
Too bad your god couldn't show you the way to halfway decent grammar. If you want to convey a message, you need to learn to communicate effectively.
So after your god's Tsunamis, you think your congregation should go and drown a whole bunch more innocent folk who live by the sea?
It's because people put "god" first in everything that there are so many problems in the world when it comes to people coexisting!
A moment of silence is sufficient. There is no need for spoken prayer. Good heavens, all the way to the supreme court because the mayor of Greece, New York wanted to impose his will on the city and include a spoken prayer when a moment of silence had been successfully in place for years. The supreme court will side with the city in this case, but they shouldn't. What is wrong with a moment of silence so each person can say their own prayer or think about whatever is important to them. It is a win-win in my book. No need to involve a bunch of attorneys in it.
Heads bowed, hands crossed, perhaps? So the survelliance cameras can later identify those who don't?
I think I said this in another news site thread about this. My suggestion would be to move the whole "prayer" thing to the END of the meeting. Basically, say "Meeting adjourned. Those who wish to partake in a [religion-of-the-day] prayer can stay around. The prayer will start in 5 minutes". Or something like that. That way the meeting is just a meeting, and anyone who doesn't want to do the whole religious thing can just leave.
Problem solved. You're welcome. 🙂
It should be just a meeting in the first place. Why do they have to inflict religion into a government proceeding?
I and I am guessing most non-believers would not have a problem with a prayer "after party"
but if you think that will make the Christians pushing this happy I think you are mistaken.
A prayer after-party? Lol.
Yeah, sounds more fun than it would be I know...kind of like church camp.
Hey, the tax-payer funded overtime pay of all the gov't staff members involved could at least be stopped at the official end of the meeting. Unlike now. . . . . .
Wiggly – problem with this stuff is that by demanding people either display their religion publicly, or lie to hide it, you encourage discrimination. You put a line between those who stay, and those who leave. It inserts religion into our government, and our country was FOUNDED to avoid that.
There are many Christians who are outright bigoted against those of other faiths. If one of those is on the council – and sorry, but there are many like that – then anyone who doesn't stay for the prayer can expect to have their input into the gov't taken as meaningless.
It's better than the prayer before – but why do the prayer?
Up to 1999, they had a moment of silence, and all could do as they chose during that. Meditate, pray, solve algebra problems, compose your thoughts.
I largely agree. However I don't expect the evangelicals, to whom the very thought of compromise and getting along with others seems to be anathema, will be so receptive.
Jesus f in Christ! even Jesus himself said( had he really existed) pray in private!
He also said not to pray by repeti.tion....and then gave us the "lord's prayer"....
Big book of mutiple choice.
I think there is a Congressional prayer before each session. Is that accurate? When did this begin?
As soon as they got campaign contributions
Yes, and I think that's going to have to go before they can attempt to enforce any extension of the EC. Madison felt that the congressional use of chaplains was unconsti-tutional. It has been contested several times, last in 1983 where the Court caved to "tradition".
Quite a few people oppose "In God We Trust" where religious people have managed to have it installed. I don't speak for everyone, but what you do in appropriate places or in private does not offend me. Prayer is inappropriate in the public processes of government, like town council meetings. Why? Because it polarizes the participants from the start into those who pray and those who do not.
Now apply that same polarization that religion causes in a town hall meeting to how it affects society at large and you can start to see why many of us Atheists are done playing nice and tip-toeing around the precious beliefs of religious people that they think are more important than other peoples' rights.
Hey Christians! SPOILER ALERT! God isn't real!
The concept of needing "missionaries" pretty much proves that the "current" god ain't up to much in the way of marketing communications. Makes you wander what "all-powerful" means.
Go get professional help. Once you say keep your God out of this and that business, next you tell people your beliefs. And btw, if you decide to sacrifice a goat ...blah blah bla... do you hear yourself ? How in the million years does that have anything to do with my comment. Again, get over it. don't pray for God's sake.As far as I'm concerned believe in snakes and turtles. As long as it doesn't hurt me, be my guess you idiot.
Your reading comprehension skills need work. I was pointing out double standards. We are talking about PRAYER (a religious ritual) in a government meeting. You support it because you think Christianity is true. Well I think that Horus is real and that sacrificing a goat to him will give us good fortune. Why is your ritual allowed in a government building while mine is not?
And insulting me, really? Is that what Jesus would do?
Reading this blog it is amazing to me that there are people that actually think that a person must be without morals, must be evil, out of work, etc. if they don't believe in god. That level of ignorance is scary. Bad news for them, other primates exhibit altruistic and moral behavior and work hard in life, do they have god?
Your fatal flaw is that you assume the crazy devout posters have the ability to comprehend and understand reason and logic. They do not, they only have a limited view of the world.
All aminals, birds and fish should be armed. Then they might develop "freedom" and even "religion" as well
They are armed.
Only to the teeth. Doesn't help deer much vs. "responsible gun owners" who prefer sauges to steak.
tony, not sure what your point is. There are predators and prey. Deer are not endangered. Most hunting is not an issue. Where man pushes a species (or an ecosystem) to the limit is an issue.
If you are the deer, it's a hell of an issue.
Actually I was just doing some thought doodling thinking around the US conservative religious harping so much on the concept of "freedom" needing guns, and whether the linkage somehow works backwards as well.
I don't think atheists are immoral. There are plenty of Christians that are immoral.
The real question is, what is morality? It's a subjective subject, but there has to be some sort of a foundation. An individuals viewpoint must stem from somewhere. People would say it's common sense, but with so much disagreement on what is moral and what is not, that doesn't seem to pan out. How do you think civilizations over time have created a sense of morality? Some say morality can't be legislated, but you just have to think of what that means for a minute and you realize that it must be legislated somewhat. Where do you think we should get out standards of morality from?
Great questions Sonny. Scientists are finding that morals predate humans. Many are built in from our DNA. Human societies have elaborated on them. Just like genetic morals, cultural morals compete and the most successful survive.
I have seen my cat act morally, he is usually very timid and scared, not aggressive in the least. But when he thought the other cat in our house was being attacked, he sacfrificed himself to "help his friend". There is no reason to think "morality" comes from somewhere else (a god).
Most morality is common sense – and IMO a lot of what isn't – isn't morality.
Don't hurt others – that's morality. It includes stealing, murder, discrimination, etc.
Stuff that doesn't fall into this – ban gay marriage, don't let people do this or that that I find disgusting – those are religion.
"Don't hurt others" tends to only be an ingrained sense/reac tionin proportion to the "distance" of "them" fron your own family gene pool. Which is why drone technology (and bombs of all kinds) is dangerous to our species probably more than to the few targetd individulas.
Bonobos tend to share resources and form inclusive communities when given the choice. Chimpanzees tend to compete, kill, and exclude when given the choice.
Be like Bonobos.
Would arresting all of the liberal journalists be a good way to get revenge against political correctness?
Works for North Korea.
That's fine with me as long as you arrest all republican politicians to get revenge for abusing young boys in the church.
Religion and believers have always tried to control the flow of information...and you are right, that is the reason you will lose long term so I can see why you would want to arrest journalists you don't agree with.
You don't get it, man.
Everyone lives under the oppression of political correctness.
If you say something a minority group doesn't like, or ask a question, you will lose your job.
What I propose is simply turnabout for the climate of fear.
If they can cause a man to lose his job for speaking or asking the wrong things, then it's only fair that they can be punished, too.
Fred, what things do you want to say, that you fear you can't?
It's not political correctness. It is living in a civilized society where you just don't get to act on every stupid impulse.
Yes political correctness is a problem, but it is a problem of the entire culture, it is not just liberal or conservative in origin.
It is a much more complex issue than that. It is also beside the point as far as the seperation of church and state. You don't "get it".
I'm not the biggest fan of being PC either, but seriously. That is hardly a problem. It's not like it's tearing America apart. It is showing respect to all people equally.
Sure, as long as you arrest all of the liars at Fox news.
I am so sick of these people keep being offended by a prayer, by God, by Jesus, by Christmas, by cross, by whatever else. Obviously they are not offended by dollar currency bills. They all say "In God we trust", but nobody has a problem with that. Give them money, they'll take it, that's not offensive. What a garbage. Get over it. Use your life energy in something else, nobody's forcing anybody to baptize or something. This country was founded on Christianity, you have the right not to follow, not to change it. Creeps !
Who told you that our country was founded on Christian principles? Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachman? Mike Huckabee?
It would be very surprising if I country had been founded on Christian principles considering most of our founders were atheists. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Do some actual research rather than just repeating the lies of your extremist politicians.
The point is, get over it. It's not killing you, it's not hurting you. Move on. This country whatever however was built, it believed in God and it made it. What's your problem now? Notihng to do?
Get over it? So if I decided that I wanted to sacrifice a goat to Horus before city council meetings, you'd be okay with that? It doesn't hurt or kill you, so what's the big deal? Nobody cares if you publically display or promote your faith. They care when it interferes with government business.
It is time, long since time, really, for people to get over God. No god is evident. Get over it.
If it was, "In Odin we trust" – would you get over it?
Our country was founded for freedom from religious persecution. Not to continue it.
And my point was, based on your original post, you have no clue what you're talking about. You think the country was founded on Christian principles. That highlights the fact that you are uneducated on this subject and have not given it sufficient consideration to have an opinion that I'm interested in hearing.
How about 'In Satan we trust then" If Satan is someones 'god' they deserve equal rights also. Give it up or smarten up.
If Satan was already on the bills it wouldn't bother me one bit. Like I said, move on. Does it hurt you? No, then what is the problem ?
That was added during the red scare; it didn't originate that way. Why don't you realize that? It should never have been put on there in the first place. Why couldn't they leave well enough alone?
LOL at this herb.
No changes from the originals, right? So no "under God" and "in God we Trust", just like our forefathers did it.
Who cares, move on. Get a life. Go do something with your llife. It's not hurting you
Yeah, and who cares about black people having to use a different water fountain, right? Heck, same water, move on, not hurting you....
You should learn how to logically form an argument. You obviously do seem to care and that same exact argument could have been used when the phrase was first decided to be added. Who cares? Does it bother you that the phrase won't be there? Go do something with your life! The country was founded on separation of church and state, who cares? Does it hurt or kill you to not have prayer in public government meetings? Go do something with your life!
The problem with the devout religious is that they are some of the most uninformed people in society. Some even believe that Christmas is about Christ! How ironic.
Want to take a wild guess as to what we're sick of? I'll give you a hint – your self-righteous comment.
Terrible argument. Actually quite a bit of folks have a problem with "in god we trust" being on currency. Just because they take the currency, doesn't mean they support the phrase. They have no choice. It's not like there's an alternate form of money that can be used. Original currency did not have that phrase, it was added later. The country was founded on separation of church and state, not christianity. Do not cross Go, do NOT collect $200. Read about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the masons.
"I am so sick of these people keep being offended by a prayer, by God, by Jesus, by Christmas, by cross, by whatever else."
Only offended when you try and bring it into government, otherwise, you can believe whatever you want.
"Obviously they are not offended by dollar currency bills. They all say "In God we trust", but nobody has a problem with that."
Guess you haven't followed the news lately.
"This country was founded on Christianity, you have the right not to follow, not to change it."
This country was founded as as secular nation. Grade school drop-out?
"Obviously they are not offended by dollar currency bills. They all say "In God we trust", but nobody has a problem with that. "
Bull! I definitely have a problem with that, but like so many other religious perks there is no alternative.
It sounds like you'd prefer to live in country that WAS founded on Christian Principles. WW II Spain, most of present day Europe and The South Americas for examples.
To the contrary,Herb, if we do fully take prayer out of gov't, it will not hurt or kill you. You will still be able to practice your religion as you choose. Maybe YOU should get over it.
Dude, go do something with your life. 😆
Should the people responsible for political correctness be identified and arrested for curtailing free speech and inquiry?
Probably not. We are not (yet) on the level with North Korea.
The NRA already helps you shoot car accident vitims who merely knock at your door pleading for help. Their form of the "good samaritan", or "responsible" at least.
On a related note the "stand your ground" south park episode was hilarious.
Don't conservatives want LESS government? Don't they want more EFFICIENT government? Then why not leave religion to RELIGIOUS organizations and leave government to governing?
BOOOM! Argue against that! (and the first person to mention "tradition", remember that slavery was a tradition longer than having "In God We Trust" on our currency).
Let me ask you this Tommy, when the Founding Fathers said we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, what do you think thy meant?
Many were Deists, some were Christians, others – who knows. They wished to make an INCLUSIVE statement claiming that all people have rights that a nation must respect.
"Creator" is a deist word choice, BTW. A Christian would say God, Deists tend to Creator – they have the perspective that any god there was just created the universe, then left it – it's up to us to make something of it.
I think they meant that we are self-aware that our freedoms come from God, not governments, not man. This belief is the foundation for our political and economic system, so I believe it is relevant.
Bud, no. They said "Creator" to indicate whomever you believe is responsible for creation, whether you believe it is the Christian God, Allah, or nobody.
A lot of innocent folk got given the right to be burnt at the sake by the religious a--oles of their time. So I think the FF's wanted to prevent that happening here.
That reference to being endowed "by our creator" can easily be read as a rhetorical device to make the concept of civil rights, inalienable rights, easy to sell to people who subscribe to an arbitrary set of rules set down arbitrarily by a god they happen to believe in only because their parents taught them to. Lest that obscure my point, if they didn't provide a concrete reference to some god, they'd have to assert that, in words to this effect, "we all have a set of inalienable rights due merely to the fact that we are citizens and are human" and you just KNOW there'd be a set of obtuse concrete reactionary conservatives who find fear in things that sound a little too theoretical. They said "by our Creator" to sell the core concept, not necessarily because they all had similar concepts of such a creator or expected the government to behave as if it did.
Fill in the blank. The last republican president that actually reduced the size of the government was _______________.
It's just a catch phrase. They will NEVER reduce the government because they want power. Republicans have been promoting that lie for decades.
It's even worse than just lying about reducing government – they actually LOVE bigger government in the context that it is big enough to control your personal life, health care choices, etc...but if it even hints at the possibility that it may not benefit them somehow, some way, they are totally against big government!
Correct. Bush II gave us the Patriot Act and the DHS; a huge agency. Look at the NSA; huge. This hyperbole only works when there's a Democrat in the WH.
When you Americans can have Catholic prayer yet you blame Sri.Narendra Modi for 2002 Gujarat riots but you people have spoiled the beautiful Iraq.now judge yourself who is Secular & Communel better listen India going for polling and it is only one man army ie:-Sri,Narendra Modi he will swip all coming elections better may God give thoughts and let chriest give you good thoughts and we hope God will help you to immediatly issue Visa to the future PM of India Sri.Narendra Modi.
WHICH GOD?? Allah? Odin? Zeus?
WHAT's the TAX EXEMPT church for again?
Your post is proof positive that there is no shortage of ignorance in America.
Your comment is proof positive that the devout are strong believers in the term 'ignorance is bliss'
Yep and I am supposed to put my life on the live for Israel and Atheists. Take a hike. If this is all I got go the where it is super-hot.
And this is what you get when you legalize pot...Gibberish and the ramblings of crazies.
I find religion causes more incoherence in people than most drugs.
THIS EXACTLY. At least drug users have an excuse. What's the Christian excuse for believing obvious delusions while dead sober?
most atheists i no deal drugs and wind up in prison
Back to stealing my name? I'm glad you think so highly of me that you choose to steal my name.
i prey i never have to prey
Better hope you're a vegan then.