Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Constitution Culture Faith History Politics

Dr. Voddie Baucham Destroys the Liberal Idea of the Separation of Church and State

Dr. Voddie Baucham is a brilliant thinker and a passionate man of God. He is the Pastor of Preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas, just outside of Houston. Dr. Baucham gave a wonderful interview to the folks at “Speak Up Church” about this idea of the separation of Church and State that seems to permeate our American culture today. Sadly, he notes that it has also infected our church culture as well as modern American culture.

There is a lot of great stuff in here.

“You talk to people about Pastor’s addressing political issues and their immediate response is ‘the Church doesn’t have any business in the political arena.’ That’s a very new idea. You know anything about the history of America, the history of the church, you know that that’s not been the case. We’ve always understood that as our culture faced these issues, that it’s the church that is uniquely equipped to face these issues. But there’s an irony there, I believe, in our context. And that irony is, Pastors stand up now in their pulpits, in our culture, and spout psychology left and right and nobody ever says, ‘Hey, this is not the place for psychology.’ Why do we believe it’s not the place for politics but that it’s okay for it to be the place for psychology? I’ll tell you why. Because the other side has been effective in causing us to believe in this mythological separation of Church and State that somehow makes it inappropriate for the church to have any say in what it is that the State does or thinks. Or how the State acts.”

“If the church is not going to speak to the issue of truth and be a herald for the state and point the state to where truth is – then what’s the only other alternative? The only other alternative is that man finds the truth in himself or in his courts. That’s an untenable position. We cannot allow it.”

The Bible does speak to every issue in life, and our political issues are informed by our theology. There’s no such thing as a politician or a political issue that is not theological. You cannot do politics without theology! So we have to break this false dichotomy.

“Let me put it this way. Nobody would have 50 or 100 years ago, shied away from dealing with homosexuality in those passages in the Bible that deal with homosexuality. Nobody would have shied away from dealing with marriage in those passages that deal with marriage. And nobody would have said that those passages were somehow political. Well now all of a sudden, the government comes in, walks onto our territory, and because the government has walked onto our territory, we now say that it belongs to them… They don’t get to do that! They cannot come into our territory and then say that we’re wrong for speaking about it. These issues are not just political issues, these issues are Biblical, theological issues, but beyond that, even issues that are political issues have Biblical and theological underpinnings.”

Dr. Baucham gets right to the heart of several different issues inside of the skewed perspective on separation of Church and State. Our Founders viewed the separation as a way to protect the church from the government – yet today, it is used as a tool to diminish the role of the church in government. That was never the intent. For the church not to be involved in politics means that Christians must become a subjected people – because our political beliefs are all born out of our religious beliefs. They are inseparable!

Therefore, we must not be cowed by the secular progressive left. Our rights as Americans demand that we speak out for what we believe and that we fight to improve our nation… even if our views are not culturally popular.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He's also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. You can read more of his writing at Eagle Rising.
Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children.

  • anne

    LABobe, don’t care about your idiotic views. What a poor lost soul! There is a heaven and a hell.

    • Leijona

      Where? That is correct. In your mind. They (Heaven and Hell) were planted there when you were a very small child, for a very specific purpose.

      • TroyCrowe

        Oh how so deceived you are. That is exactly what the devil wants you to believe. If you do not believe in God or Him then he has no concern as to whether or not you belong to him. You by default belong to him because you reject God. I feel for people who believe, and or have be taught, such nonsense. See you from the other side.

  • anne

    Where did you get your stupid beliefs? I really wonder how people can think the
    way you think. Please don’t spread your stupidity.

    • Lon M. Dugan

      Anne, From your comment I cannot tell which belief you believe are stupid. But I am sure that you are aware that there is nothing in our Constitution that talks about the seperation of church and state. This is a phase that had been promoted by judges. Usually courts use the first part of the paragraph, “Congress shall make no law … ” but they neglect the second half of the paragraph that says, “nor shall they prohibit the free practice thereof.” The founders did not want their religious freedoms to be controlled by the government like the state church of England. We now interpret that to mean that religion should have no have any influence or input into government.

      • Blessings

        Amen…

      • FrankC

        The phrase “wall separating church and state” is NOT in the Constitution, it comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Only liberals would take private correspondence and elevate it above the Constitution. We are supposed to be free to worship as we wish, without interference. Too bad Anne is one of the people who are incapable of actual tolerance.

      • smilee

        Courts interpret the Constitution not you so this is only your personal beliefs. They have said it means separation of church and state , a two way street,
        as the drafters of the amendment intended. The court’s opinion counts yours has no meaning beyond your person misinterpretation of the amendment.

        • John Gallion

          Courts do not write Constitutions or make laws. Legislatures do that. This is simply an “opinion” and nothing more. It can and should be ignored because even though Liberals replace God with Human courts, I and the Founders did/do not. Courts make mistakes because humans make mistakes. Any court “opinion’ that contradicts or adds to the Constitution itself is as worthless as the paper it’s written on.

          • smilee

            Bull$hitt, The courts opinions has the force of law even if you do not agree with them. God has not been replaced that to is just your opinion. God cannot be replaced, no human has that power. Your right humans do make mistakes and you make a lot of them. Do not equate yourself with the founders as they are way out of your league.

          • TroyCrowe

            The courts are not supposed to make law. That is congresses job. The courts are only supposed to determine the relevance of a case in conjunction with the law and rule in agreement of or against the plaintiff of defendant. This is where our system has been turned upside down. Judges usurping their rights under the oath of their duty. The law creates the boundaries but we the people have the right to push our “Representatives” to overturn law as we see fit, again within the constitution.

          • smilee

            Your opinion and I disagree. Courts are the arbitrator as to weather government wrote a law that is supported by the Constitution and weather it is not and if not they overturn it when doing as it many times has the effect of creating law. but that is not creating law.

          • TroyCrowe

            What you are speaking of is in fact what is considered case law. Which was never intended to be. Case law was formed by the courts and became a practice that in all reality does not pass constitutional mustard because case law puts the power to create law in the courts hands instead of the congress. Never should a ruling become a law but only a ruling. It should never set precedent for a form of law. Our system was not created that way. If a ruling is to become law it is supposed to be taken up by congress and made law otherwise it is just a ruling. As I have stated. Political powers, to include driven by men in black robes, has twisted and turned the system upside down.

          • smilee

            Your so confused!! You have no understanding of our Constitution or of our laws.

          • TroyCrowe

            Sorry, but I do understand the constitution and I actually spent a couple of terms in the school of jurisprudence at an official school of law. You might want to learn a little about the evolution of legal system before you start to tell me how much I don’t know.

          • smilee

            I’m not impressed as you did not learn very much or you would know you are full of BS

        • TroyCrowe

          It is not a two what street. Look up the Danbury address, which is where the creation of the phrase comes from, and it specifically states that it should be a one way wall. A wall separating the government from religion only.

          • smilee

            The courts disagree with you so that address has no bearing on it except in your mind which ignores the court opinions which is what counts.

          • TroyCrowe

            A system turned upside down would not agree. That is why there is the fight to turn it upside right.

          • smilee

            In your mind and a few like you but not inmost peoples.

          • TroyCrowe

            There is no such thing as a completely just system. You do have a values system guideline however. And fortunately the majority of Americans agree. The majority of Americans are against it. The problem however is that Government, who are to be governed by the people, are standing against the will of the people. This is where the fight is getting rough. It will not remain peaceful forever.

          • smilee

            The Constitution in many ways protects the will of the majority from imposing its will on the minority. That is one of the beauties of the Constitution.

          • TroyCrowe

            You are correct but only in the form of law. However, if law is made outside the constitutional structure it is an unjust law. That being said, laws are formed via the people pushing the senators to follow their direction to create law that is within the constitutional framework. The constitution protects the minority from bodily harm from causing harm to ones ability to live free. There is no bodily harm here and their is not a loss of freedom either. Everyone is free to marry under the fabric of definition that is acceptable to the people. This is where majority in our system has the upper hand. Protecting someones feelings is not part of the picture. There has to be a defined moral ground or their is not one. Just as states in the fight against Gay Marriage, people are now trying to fight for the right marry animals and all sorts of things in the name of love. Love is not a feeling it is a result of truth. Truth does not always feel good but that does not make it wrong. Truth is that the acts of sodomy and other forms of abnormal sex shorten the lifespan of people who participate. Truth identifies that HIV/AIDS is most prevalent in Homosexual males, which kills. To love is to tell someone, albeit in a nice fashion, that someone is risking their life by living such a lifestyle. Not to mention risking damnation. When you live under deception you never see the big picture because if feels better to just ignore the truth.

          • smilee

            The freedom of gays to marry is their freedom under the 14th amendment and the constitution in no way limits freedom to bodily harm, that is pure BS. HIV is prevalent in both sexes and also in children. The fourteenth amendment says the laws have to be equal that means two people have been defined as marriage by state laws and to make it equal they have to include any combination of two people this does not mean three or four or animals just two people. No state law allows for any more than two people. The law only has to be applied equally to two people that’s it, so your fears are unfounded. What goes on in anyone’s bedroom is nobody’s business but their own if it mutually agreeable to the parties and this is no business of the governments or yours so quit trying to butt in.

          • TroyCrowe

            Since you keep spouting the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment, then you provide where it provides freedom to gay marriage. If you are talking about equal rights, which is what is covered there, you are applying your interpretation incorrectly. Gays have the right to marry. They have the right to marry under the confinements of marriage as defined in the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Just because the definition does not suit does not mean they do not have the right. You are stating that they should have special privilege and that interpretation should be as someone sees fit. That the limitations that were set long ago should be changed to suit the unnatural lifestyle that people choose to live. I get that. Second. There are two cases right now, I don’t remember which states but I do believe one is Florida, that have other forms of “Marriage in the name of love” being fought for. One is a polygamist group fighting for the right to marry as many as they choose. The other is a man who wants to marry his horse or donkey. It is not a fear. I don’t fear this. Yes HIV is prevalent in both sexes but that is not what I said. Prevalence and predominance are two different things. You cannot deny the facts. Just look it up in the centers for disease control. The statistics are there. Deny it if you will but Gays live at least 10 years shorter life spans because of their lifestyle.

          • smilee

            My interpretation is the same one the courts that have ruled on gave in every case that has been heard to date and it is the reason CA, Iowa and others by order of the court have to now to marry gays and all the reasons that I gave the court has already given so you just full of BS.

    • Daniel Gray

      please take your own advice and hush

  • TPS12

    We need the Black Pastors to bring this to the main stream media and government.

    • TroyCrowe

      Agreed, however we also need them to teach their congregations how our system is designed to keep black people subjugated to the system, hence slaves of the system. Pastor C L Bryant has a movie called “The Run Away Slave”. This needs to be viewed among every black congregation.

    • Seldena

      Amen to that. He sound intelligent and wonderful!

    • AG Dot Com!

      Amen.

  • KingofBeers

    Fine…start paying taxes, then.

    • John Gallion

      …and if churches start paying taxes will you then shut up? I somehow doubt that.

      • JRT12

        Don’t expect ole barry’s convenient Idiot, the Drunken Slob to quit spouting his mentor, ole barry the Illegal Incompetent Socialist LIAR in chief’s Swill and Lies!!

      • Seldena

        I hope not! The founders protected us from the government, not the other way around. You need to wise-up John. Every person in the church pays taxes, so get over it!

        • John Gallion

          You talking to me Seldena? I think your angst is misdirected!
          If it takes paying taxes to get the government off our backs and have the independence to say what we want, then maybe we should! This tax-exemption should not be the barrier that keeps the churches from speaking out on every issue! Too many pastors are more concerned about keeping their tax exemption than preaching the truth!

        • smilee

          Your wrong it was a two way street to protect one from the other and the courts have repeatedly made that clear and that was the intent of the first amendment when it was written and your spin has never been supported by the courts.

        • smilee

          The Constitution gave the government a lot of power over you and does not protect you from their power you are subject to it. So you be a nice little citizen and you pay your taxes, right. Every person pays taxes but not he church itself.

      • KingofBeers

        The Supreme Court has upheld the separation of church and state numerous times. I guess Dr. Bauchman is anti-constitution? No church should be in the business of endorsing political candidates.

        • John Gallion

          I think you need to stick to drinking because your ability to reason is shot.
          The Supreme Court cannot overturn the Constitution or the history of the United States with one “opinion”. It is after all, only their opinion and not law. Courts do not make laws. legislatures do.
          While it is true that the government “cannot make any law respecting the establishment of religion”, there is nothing in that founding legal document that proscribes those in government from praying in public, from recognizing religious ideas of people or proscribes in any way people of faith from involving themselves in the political life of the nation. To say anything else is to torture the Constitution so that is says what you wish it said.
          This so-called “separation of church and state” was only mentioned once and it was letter of Thomas Jefferson, NOT in the legal founding documents.
          If I were you, I’d give this thing up and have some more beers. That’s about all you seem capable of understanding.

          • KingofBeers

            Maybe I’ll buy you a beer sometime and explain how the Supreme Court has changed rulings numerous times. In effect, saying, “Opps, we got that wrong, so were changing what was previously said.” And spare me the insults. You only appear childish. The Supreme Court has upheld the premise that churches NOT be involved in politics. Don’t like it? Run for a seat on the bench…the black robes would match your political heart.

          • smilee

            And your point is??

          • smilee

            Their opinion is the law as 225 years of practice has proven and your saying otherwise is meaningless. You can pray in public you just cannot disturb others with it. As an individual you can do all those things and this is not about the individual but church organizations known as religions which have the freedom to exercise their religion but not the freedom to impose its will on government and government cannot impose its will on it. That is what the courts have held and that is all that counts your opinions do not as far as practice goes.

        • John Gallion

          Essentially what you are saying is that only those that pay their taxes should be allowed to talk politics in public or private. That IS what you are saying. Fine. Let’s take this bit of mindless “reasoning” to it’s conclusion:
          I’m sure that every pastor pays income taxes in his income so he IS paying taxes. So pastors CAN talk politics.
          But I know of many Americans on welfare who don’t pay taxes. This means they should not be able to talk politics or even vote! Gotcha!
          You know, after thinking it through, this sounds like a pretty good idea! 🙂

          • KingofBeers

            I’m not saying anything of the kind. The USSC has upheld this principle. You’re taking it to extremes. The IRS isn’t going to come down on a pastor because he mentions politics in a dinner conversation. It’s a church, actively promoting and campaigning for candidates, which can pose the risk of losing tax exempt status.

            As one republican recently said, only land owners should be allowed to vote, which you’re also probably in favor of?

            And I’m sure you’re also aware people on welfare pay taxes, in one form or another, everyday.

      • KingofBeers

        “Conservative evangelicals, as a small and noisy minority, are one of the most dedicated voting blocs, but their size and organization is too often exaggerated. A Pew survey from March found that the number of Republicans expressing unease with the amount of politicians’ religious talk has increased to 24% (from 8% in 2001), and 44% of Republicans say churches should stay out of politics, compared with 60% of Democrats and 58% of independents.

        The bottom line, supported by Pew research, is that a growing number of Americans — 66% this year — believe that churches and other houses of worship should not be involved in political elections, openly favoring one candidate over another.”

        The Supreme Court has upheld the separation of church and state on numerous occasions.

    • TroyCrowe

      Each and every member of the church does, even the pastor. The church itself does not. Just like every other non-profit organization. And by the way, all those organizations who fight to destroy our rights as a church are also non-profit organizations. Don’t see them being threatened to lose their tax exempt status.

    • ZACAL

      How many black atheist do you ever see. How many blacks do you see wanting to get rid of Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter. Blacks by percentage of Americans are deeper christians than whites. With just that one issue, blacks should drop the democratic party. Another reason. Lincoln, a republican fought the south to end slavery and win freedom for blacks. Another reason, unemployment is almost 5 percentage points higher under Obama than Bush. Among black teenagers it’s doubled. Liberal progressives are walking a very thin line, which borders on being flat stupid. Blacks will eventually see the light, as many already have. Obama is using reverse psychology by making rich people richer, and blaming it on republicans. “Bush did it” Bush did it”

      • TroyCrowe

        Bush did do it. And he is from the same crap house as Obama. We need to overhaul the Federal Government. Most all of them are crooks.

        • ZACAL

          The famous AAA “Alcoholic” saying – “god give me the power to change those things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference”. My friend, politics isn’t going anywhere. You have to use your gut and try and cast the best vote you can. People voting for free stuff are going to be our downfall if it isn’t stopped soon. Politicians don’t even get it.

          • TroyCrowe

            They get it. They are just more concerned about being the ones in control then they are the demise of a system that makes them the servant.

          • smilee

            I believe you meant AA

          • ZACAL

            My fingers stutter at times.

      • smilee

        It is precisely why Blacks are mostly democrats and are not dropping from it. Lincoln was a progressive republican and today his beliefs line up with the democrats. This was gradually happening and with the passage of the civil rights acts democrats became what he republicans once were and visa versa, during Lincolns time the southern states was dominated by Democrats whom supported what the far right does today and today the Far right again dominates the southern states with the same belief as the democrats of old did. Bush and the GOP dominance of the first decade left the hugh mess that Obama was charged with cleaning up but then the GOP said lets not help him and all their No’s have made that almost impossible as it takes laws to get the money to clean up a mess that size and the GOP has done nothing but say NO to that and despite that there has been much progress but could have been much more progress if the party of NO would have wanted solutions and they clearly did not.

        • Army Retired

          The GOP wanted solutions just not the wrong solutions. It is the Dems that have enslaved the less fortunated including some of the minorities through their social welfare programs. It has taken away some of thier incentive to be successful and created government dependency. I would bet that it is hard for some to to vote against someone who provides their daily needs. The Dems believe that success is getting citizens on welfare programs, the GOP see success in getting them off of welfare programs.

          • smilee

            What solutions?? The only thing they offered after they no longer supported Obamacare which they first drafted in the nineties as their version of reform and have now abandoned was medical savings accounts and private plan competitions which we have had for years and they have not gotten the job done and the savings account help those with incomes large enough to be able to save but so many now underpaid this would not be a solution for them as they do not now make enough without gov assistance to pay the housing or feed themselves. You ignore that most of our welfare programs that cost so much today became law in the welfare reform of the nineties under GOP design and lobbied hard for by Corporate america so they could then not pay enough so their employees could exist without them paying enough. The earned income credit became law in 1986 and bears Reagan’s signature so to day the democrats forcing welfare on Americas is simply BS most welfare programs today are of GOP design and since the nineties with welfare reform costs have skyrocketed but still a small amount when you look at the corporate welfare and welfare to the rich in tax deductions not available to the poor. The democrats are for higher wages and unions which both drive down welfare costs that the GOP refuses to do so as they are the real welfare pushers today. Put the blame where the blame belongs. We now have welfare for working people, the war on poverty that the GOP destroyed was not for working people and much much cheaper for the taxpayer. Most of the federal dollars spent on welfare today go to states that voted GOP in recent years. Check it out. GOP blames welfare on the Democrats when it was them that designed and passed our welfare programs we have today.

          • Army Retired

            How this, smaller government. What the GOP and Dems have done in the past is increase government. There are current members of the GOP who will no longer tolerate this. You like quoting the constitution so tell me where in the constitution does it say the federal governent is responsible for:
            Education
            Medical Care
            Retirement
            Welfare
            Jobs
            Energy
            Environment
            Unemployment
            etc……………………….
            Oh and unions, ask Detroit how the greedy unions worked out for them. If as an employee you make yourself an asset to an organization you don’t need a union. Companies are in existance to make a profit not to provide jobs.

          • smilee

            They are not required to do so but have the power to do so and have done so. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

            This is what the court cited that made Obamacare constitutional and this would apply to all you state if Congress so chooses as it
            says here the Congress shall have the power to do so and as general welfare is not defined here it can be defined as general welfare by the Congress which it has the power to do if it chooses. That is what the court said and that makes sense based on this clause. Some of the GOP do not like this as they prefer smaller government but the Constitution does not require it be small and government has always been involved in huge undertakings starting with the Louisiana Purchase and all the laws that followed that allowed for its development. The GOP is simply wrong in saying that it requires a small government and Congress has often chosen to not make it so and that is our reality and it is constitutional.

          • Army Retired

            James Madison’s words in Federalist Paper No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
            The Founders believed very strongly in states’ rights because they understood that the surest way to maintain individual liberty was to instill safeguards against centralized power. Not only would establishing several smaller governments (the states) afford people the ability to move elsewhere, but they would also have more of a say in the public affairs of their surroundings. More simply, citizens would be closer to the people who were making decisions on their behalf.

          • smilee

            The federalist papers were the sales pitch to sell the states on ratification and not an easy sell at the time and as all sales pitches they where not fully true. but they do not replace the Constitutions itself which Madison also signed and where a difference lies the Constitution itself is the only one that is law. The Constitution took many (not all) powers away from the states and where it does the Federal government laws are the supreme law of the land. See Art. VI cl. 2. The tenth amendment was ratified after the Constitution was ratified by amendment process which further defined powers not given congress or denied to the states are federal domain. No ones opinion supersedes the words actually in the Constitution or its amendments except the opinions rendered by the courts which is their job.

          • Army Retired

            Really, the constitution is about 30 pages long, most of the SC rulings are interpretations and opinions. The federalist papers have been used as a foundation for interpreting the intentions of the founders many times in rulings. The clause you mentions simply binds judges to the constitution and laws of any STATE.

          • smilee

            They have been used as reference but they have never been used as a substitute for the Constitution a itself. There was many differing opinions among the founders as the Constitution was a big compromise in the end. It does that but also

            This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
            thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
            States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
            bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
            notwithstanding.

            The supreme law of the land, you ignored that part in addition to binding the state judges to it.

          • Army Retired

            All parts of the constitution are equal so you can’t dismiss the 10th Amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now to say that much of what the government is doing was delegated to the feds in a 30 page document is not logical. The feds have taken those powers and the stated have allowed them to do because they want federal tax (bribes) dollars. The powers of the president is listed in one paragraph yet he thinks he can (illegally) issue executive orders and change or make laws. He has done this many times concerning Obama care alone. It is indisputable that our founders intended for us to have a limited federal government and a strong state and local government.

          • smilee

            That is right if the power is delegated to the feds then it supersedes the state law as it is the supreme law as defined in Art VI of the Constitution and thus trumps state laws and if power is denied to the states then thy have do not have that power. The only thing that is not logical is your thinking and your denial of reality. Presidential executive orders were first used by President Washington in the beginning and every president since as directives to his subordinates as to how things are to be administered within the law so that is not new or unusual or illegal. Obama has been accused of this by those who operate propaganda mills but they or anyone have not produced one iota of evidence to support their bull but it does feed suckers like you who care nothing about the truth. The Constitution defines the limits of government but the far right has mistakenly interpreted that to be a small government and the Constitution does not define the governments size and actually allows for many big things such as Obamacare which the court said Art. I sec 8 cl 1 gives Congress that power to do so and this was in the original ratification of the Constitution so the founders intended for Congress to have that power. They are not required to use it but where given that power and nothing prevented from using it and in this case they did not until 2010, 221 years after the founding fathers gave it that power. You can deny it but the court has shot you down and I understand what the court did and I see nothing they did here as being wrong.

          • Army Retired

            The fed assumes its power from the constitution. Executive orders are issued by a president to employees of the executive branch, they are not to be used to NOT enforce laws signed passed by congress and signed into law such as the Obama care laws he is not enforcing or the immigration laws he is not enforcing to name a few. I know that many of you cannot function without an all powerful centralized government telling you what to do and providing for you. I am sure that many people would rather have a king to make all of the decisions for them. I like many people prefer a government that is invisible, that stays out of my business. I am fully capable of feeding my family, providing them with shelter and healthcare even though the affordable care act increased my premiums by 25%. I never thought of going on the Obama care website to see if I can get other taxpayers to pay some of my premiums for me. Oh and before you pass another judgment and decide that I am just a wealthy republican I did not reach what you would call a middle class wage until my mid thirties, I got my college degree in my early forties and worked two jobs to support my family until I was in my early thirties.
            Liberalism: moochers electing looters to steal from producers!

          • smilee

            Would you feel better if send you a sympathy card??

          • Army Retired

            Heck no, unlike libs who think the government should provide and don’t understand individual responsibility we conservatives are proud when we achieve success on our own with out the help of feds and we are examples to show that if all of the true whiners, feeling sorry for themselves, thinking that if the government doesn’t take care of them they won’t survive, can see that if they get out and work they too can be independent and successful. No one ever got rich or became successful waiting on a government check. Of course that is what you want, government dependency. You may want to send some of those cards to those who can’t or won’t survive without big brother, they are the ones who need sympathy. Maybe keep one for yourself. Unfortunately I can’t continue this conversation since I am flying off on a great vacation with my family that someone receiving a government check could never experience but at least as long as the libs keep them down and dependent the airports will be less crowded.

          • smilee

            There
            you go again, all assumptions and no ability to comprehend reality. I achieved
            my own successes without the help of the feds and am not whining like you are
            or feeling sorry for myself like you are. I believe if you were army and
            retired at lot of your income and pension comes from our government, none of mine
            did. I never said anything about wanting government assistance and I have never
            received any and never said I wanted any.
            I offered to send you a sympathy
            card because all you do is whine and complain so I thought that might
            make you feel better. I have traveled all over the world and every time on my
            own dime so you see you are just a big jerk feeling sorry for himself
            and assumes everyone whom does not believe as you do are all irresponsible, what an arrogant a$$
            you are.

          • Army Retired

            Last response, I have to turn my smartphone off before I board. You may want to re-read my last post, no where in the post did I say anything about you personnally so for some reason it must be you with all of the assumptions. Unless you think I was referring to you when I said “MAYBE keep one for yourself” but that would be up to you to decide not me since as you falsely claim that I was assuming what your situation was. As for the Army, I was Army Reserve which means I worked a civilian job and don’t receive a retirement check for another 8 years. Of course I think that a few combat tours justify my future benefits. I just wonder how or if you have served your country? As for feeling sorry for ones self I am not going to assume that you can’t understand that is is possible for an individual to feel proud of their achievments and believe that they should be an example of what an individual can do if they are motivated enough to go out and be successful. That is what I tell youth in my community when I speak to them at events. Typically it is the unsuccessful that blame others for their lack of success that feel sorry for themselves. You see I mentioned my situation to you because in previous posts it was you who made assumptions about others and it was almost obvious that had I not said anything it would be you that again assumed that I was a rich person born with a silver spoon. Unfortunatly I don’t have time to paste all of the assumptions in your prior posts. As for making me feel better, I appreciate your concern but as an independent person I can take care of that myself. One last note, I realize sitting behind a computer gives people a courage they would not have in a face to face conversation. This is why I never resort to name calling when trying to have a conversation in an adult world, no matter how much I disagree with them. As much as I would like to continue this conversation Ireland awaits. Have a good day.

      • http://treeofliberty14.blogspot.com/ Irredeemable Gary

        Almost a non-sequitur, but I must correct:

        “Lincoln, a republican fought the south to end slavery and win freedom for blacks…”

        “…The first thing to appreciate is slavery was, from the very first, a national enormity, an American sin for which every section of the Union bore some responsibility. This, however, is not how we have been trained to think. We think of slavery as an alien and “un-American” practice confined to the South in the 19th century. But an honest look at American history reveals a quite different picture. Slavery was woven into the economic, political, and cultural fabric of the Northern states from the beginning. The first African slaves were brought to New England in 1638 in exchange for enslaved Indians. Boston began importing slaves from Africa in 1644. For 164 years New Englanders sold slaves throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Puritans who settled in New England were part of a larger group, the rest of whom settled in the West Indies and began sugar planting which required an especially brutal form of labor with a high mortality rate.

        New England slave traders supplied the demand for labor and formed marriages and other alliances with their Puritan kinsmen in the West Indies. By the end of the Revolution, slavery had been a respected institution in New England for around 140 years. One out of four families in Connecticut owned slaves. And there were slave plantations in the region. One out of fourteen people in Rhode Island was a slave, and around 50 percent of ministers owned slaves…”

        Why The War Was Not About Slavery-
        Donald W. Livingston PhD, Professor of philosophy, Emory University

        • ZACAL

          I don’t claim to be a historian. However; many of your facts as you claim took place before our nation was born. That is not an excuse for slavery, just a fact. Slavery did tend to move south on large plantations. I’m from the north and many homes in the north had tunnels and caves to hide slaves. Ours built in 1885 had such tunnels, eventho we never used them for that purpose. My parents sold that house in 1947. We owned it for 8 years. Also Lincoln was instrumental as a “republican” president in helping end slavery. And the KKK were democrats. Blacks are christians. You can’t change those facts from a college campus. That’s known as history. You should know that. I did enjoy reading some of your dates. I was not aware of them. Even at 77 years one still enjoys learning.

          • http://treeofliberty14.blogspot.com/ Irredeemable Gary

            Those aren’t my dates; those are provided in the paper written by Dr Livingston, and I only provided a short snippet of the entire article that should be required reading. As with everything, the civil war history is subject to revisionists with their own agenda.
            And as a side note, the original KKK was formed after the civil war by confederate soldiers to provide policing in southern states because the Union Army had outlawed and disbanded all forms of southern law enforcement. That left the southern states vulnerable to rape and pillage activities by returning blacks who fought for the north, and Union soldiers who saw the south as ‘the spoils of war.’ I am sure you’ve heard of the Kansas City Redlegs.
            It wasn’t until several years later the KKK became the notorious hate filled group we’ve all learned about in grade school.

    • Bulletbob3

      No. The reason churches don’t (and shouldn’t) have to pay taxes is that they provide services to the community that the government would otherwise have to provide at a cost. Such as soup/food kitchens, thrift stores, hospital and home visitation, counseling and even repairing/building homes.

      • KingofBeers

        I agree…churches do great work! If they start preaching politics, they should lose tax exempt status.

  • TroyCrowe

    This pastor is right on.

  • me1952

    Check out history. Slavery was abolished, segregation was ended, and our involvement in Vietnam was challenged largely because people of faith stood up, spoke out, and acted. No one screamed “separation of church and state” when Dr. King led a civil rights movement.
    Separation of church and state is the battle cry of liberals when people of faith speak out against their sacred cows, like abortion and gay marriage.
    It boils down to one dictum: “Who’s ox is being gored”?

    • smilee

      Dr. King was fighting for civil rights not religious rights even though he came out of the church he never advocated that the separation of church or state be repealed. You simply do not understand the Constitution and you totally ignore that the fourteenth amendment protects gay marriage as every court that has ruled on it has said and the fourth amendment that guarantees privacy which the courts have upheld. The Constitution is not either liberal or conservative and neither has anything to do with it. I am person of faith and I do not buy your baloney, you do not speak for the whole faith community.

      • me1952

        Try to get your history straight youngster,
        Dr. King was a clergyman leading a movement, initiated from the pulpit of his church, to overturn state laws and change federal law. The entire movement was a religiously motivated movement with clergy of every faith marching and preaching from the pulpits. Ministers were its leaders. Yet liberals weren’t whining about “separation of church and state”.
        Clergy, ever hear of the Berrigan Brothers, protested the Vietnam War and openly criticized our involvement. Again, no liberal whining about the clergy trying to influence social or gov’t policy.
        We only began hearing this liberal battle cry during the fight to legalize abortion, when liberals wanted to shut up the Catholic clergy. Of course it was fine when clergy supported abortion, THAT didn’t cross any sacred church/state lines.
        So as you can see, liberals have been highly selective as to when and under what circumstances the line between state and church can be crossed. In other words, who’s ox is being gored.
        My point isn’t to argue gay marriage but to point out this, like abortion, is a liberal sacred cow.
        BTW, since you have such knowledge or our Constitution, tell me exactly where it says anything about separation of church and state, or for that matter, gay marriage.

        • smilee

          Religion was its motivator and its source of strength but not its goal that was civil rights and no law was sought by them to change the first amendment or any law based on religious beliefs was sought by him or his followers. His activities had nothing to do with separation of church and state that is but your spin on it. Abortion became legal by interpretation of of the court by a document written way back in 1791 and not enforced until 1973 not by any law enacted by congress and some states had laws allowing it before that but after the court’s ruling it then became legal all over. This again shows the separation of church and state. Gay marriage protections were written into the Constitution in the fourteenth amendment way back in 1868 as every court has ruled on it to date has said and some states have acknowledged this and written their laws to allow it most have been ordered to do so by the courts and when a case gets to the SC and they uphold it as they most likely will then it will be legal across the US. Do you really believe that way back in 1791 and 1868 and this was a what you call a liberal idea, no it was all about the rights of some of our citizens and you apparently do not care about the rights of those citizens you do not approve of.

          • Army Retired

            You need to tell all of the gays that were (wrongly) institutionalized because it was believed that they had a mental illness that the constitution protected them in 1791. Even in 1971 there were states with laws that said homosexualtiy was grounds for imprisonment. In Calfornia they could be put away in a mental hospital for life. I would take a look back at the laws before I said that the constituition said something.

          • smilee

            The fourteenth amendment that made gay marriage legal was ratified in 1868 not 1791 and many times things do not get to the court for many years after to be enforced and now that they finally are we are finding out these laws you speak of are unconstitutional so your argument no longer exists.

          • Army Retired

            Really, I think you should look at the court cases then., I don’t believe the Supreme Court has decided that states must allow or recognize gay marrage.

          • smilee

            How many times do I have to tell you the Supreme Court has not ruled on this yet before you get that through your thick skull? District courts , State Supreme Courts and Appeals Courts have and they have all ruled in favor of gay marriage as it violates the 14th amendment and that is what they have all said and that is all I have said. Seldom is an issue so agreed on by so many courts, many times they come to different conclusions but not on this issue and that is why most experts feel that is but a matter of time until the supreme court hears it and also agrees with the rest.

          • Army Retired

            About as many times as it takes you to realize that your citing of the 14th amendment is just yours and the opinion of the lower courts and until the SC court rules on the issue your arguement is not relevant on a constitutional basis.

          • smilee

            It sure is just not for the whole country as yet, that will come from the SC but never the less all the lower courts based their decision on the 14th amendment.

          • Army Retired

            Then as you have said: “Here you go again substituting your own interpretations over the courts, when you going realize their opinion is law yours is only your own with no meaning.”

          • smilee

            Dummy, I never offered an opinion, to date this has been the courts opinion (14th amendment) and the SC has not yet given one. You seem to have a real problem with comprehension.

          • me1952

            We have separation of church and state, right? BTW, you have yet to show me where in the Constitution that exists. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either religious leaders, and that included Dr. King, the Berrigan Bros. can influence public policy or they can’t. Not just when certain people decide they can.
            My issue is not gay marriage. I have no issue with gay people either way. My issue is when something is the sacred cow of liberals, then its fine for clergy and churches to SUPPORT it. A definite double standard.
            Oh and remember, segregation was found to be constitutional by the SCOTUS. I suppose that means Dr. King should have kept silent, right?

        • Dissenter13a

          You seem to forget the opposition within even the black Church, and that Malcolm X was a Muslim.

          me1952: “BTW, since you have such knowledge or our Constitution, tell me exactly where it says anything about separation of church and state, or for that matter, gay marriage.

          With respect to gay marriage, you find it in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The right to contract is fundamental (the Ninth equates enumerated and unenumerated rights), and marriage is a contract. In order to lawfully impair that fundamental right, the State must establish that it has a compelling interest in so doing, which no state has been able to show in some thirty-plus court cases on the matter. This was Scalia’s assessment in his Lawrence dissent; you can take it up with him if you disagree.

          With respect to separation, the 1Am Establishment Clause is sufficient. This was included at the behest of smaller sects, who were concerned that some other sect would become our de facto Church of England. This has actually served to protect religion in America, as compared to what happened in the Commonwealth at large.

          • me1952

            Where did I mention Malcolm X?
            However the Constitution says nothing specific about gay marriage, is that correct? That was my point. Remember that segregation was also found to be constitutional by the SCOTUS. For that matter, so was putting American citizens in concentration camps. Seems like we can find just about anything we want, right?
            Wait a minute, where does the Constitution specifically mention the separation of church and state? Please quote in the Establishment Clause where this is specifically stated.

          • smilee

            The courts have held more than once that the interpretation of the first amendment separates church from state and unless or until they reverse that there will remain a separations of church and state and that is not likely.

          • me1952

            Where does the Constitution specifically mention the separation of church and state?
            BTW, the SCOTUS ruled segregation and placing American citizens in concentration camps was Constitutional as well. See if you can find the basis for that ruling.

          • Dissenter13a

            I maintain that there is one principled and Framer-approved way to interpret the Constitution.

          • smilee

            Your wrong and every court who has heard it and ruled on it disagrees with you it has nothing to do with the ninth or tenth but with the 14th which says no state shall make a law that deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, thus gays have equal protection as straights. That is what the courts to date have said.

          • Dissenter13a

            Looks as though I’m the only one in this discussion with a law degree. Marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. VA); what I told you is the originalist theory behind the decision, which that wild-eyed rabid LIBERAL Antonin Scalia confirmed in his Lawrence dissent.

            Gays have the right to marry who they want. Straights have the right to marry who we want. From the Iowa decision on down, every state AG who has tried to argue that they had a compelling reason to prevent SSM has failed.

          • smilee

            The AG was not involved in the CA case

          • Dissenter13a

            And his decision was responsible.

            The AG is the people’s attorney, and s/he has a duty not to waste the resources entrusted to him or her. If a provision is patently unconstitutional, defending it is a needless waste of those resources.

          • smilee

            I agree

      • Army Retired

        The constitution does not guarantee or protect anyones right to marry. Marriage is a religious act that is governed by the states. I don’t care who gets married but in a free society an official should not be forced to marry them. The left claims to be tolorant but only if they are in agreement. They say that there should be a separation of church and state but they want to the state to tell the church they have to marry someone. They can’t have it both ways.

        • Dissenter13a

          No, it isn’t. Marriage wasn’t a sacrament in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1516 made it so (the Church of England only made it so much later), and common law marriage (no ceremony at all!) is still alive and well in wide swaths of the West. Rather, it is a mere contract, with default terms written by the State.

          Churches don’t have to marry anyone. The State, however, must recognize even common law marriages between couples of the same gender, as there is no constitutionally adequate argument for denying them that right.

        • smilee

          Here you go again substituting your own interpretations over the courts, when you going realize their opinion is law yours is only your own with no meaning. No law or court order has ever said a church has to marry anyone and they do not have to marry Gays unless they want to so that is a bold faced law on your part. The courts that have ruled on this have said under this amendment equal protection must prevail in any law the states write so they have to give equal protection to both gay and straight marriages, many courts have now ruled that way and many states now by court order must marry gays but no church has to so lets be honest and quit spinning this,

          The Fourteenth amendment

          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.

          • Army Retired

            Did I say that there was a law or court order? I stated that they were leftest views like this couple:
            Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.
            I live in a state that has a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage and there has been NO Supreme Court ruling against it. There has been court rulings requiring states to recognize gay marrages in other states. The law is not settled yet so it is unrealistic to say it is.

          • smilee

            YOU SAID: “The constitution does not guarantee or protect anyones right to marry.” I believe the Constitution is law so you said there was a law.

            That legal challenge to force church cannot survive as it would be against the first amendment, I do not know if their views are what you perceive to be leftist are or not but I know of no Democrat that agrees with them or supports them.

            What I said was no court who has ruled to date has ruled in favor of not allowing gays to marry and states with constitutional amendments have had them overturned as in CA and that went to the supreme court and even though they heard it they only found the challengers had no standing and so th appeals courts ruling was invalid and the district court ruling now stands and it to was based on the 14th amendment. Some appeals courts and state supreme courts have also held that view. I have said many times the SC court has not heard it as yet so of course it is not fully settled but that will happen in the not to distant future as there are lawsuits in the pipeline now. Yours state law apparently has not been challenged as yet.

    • Dissenter13a

      Actually, it was us long-haired hippie freaks who got Vietnam done.

      While Dr. King’s movement took advantage of the organizational power of the black church, the Islamic Malcolm X was a major player, as well. Segregation was not ended because of conservatives; it was largely a liberal movement.

      You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

      • me1952

        Don’t flatter yourself. Not all people, myself included, who opposed that atrocity were “long-haired hippie freaks”. Many were religious leaders, including the Berrigan Bros. Even the Pope called our actions into question.
        Certainly Malcolm X was a major player, but it was Dr.King was the one to get the laws changed and fought to do so.
        Civil and voting rights were ended because Republicans came to the aid of LBJ. The Democrats were filibustering.
        You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

        • Dissenter13a

          As I recall, the religious community was split on the matter, with conservatives supporting the government. The counter-culture was united. I’m old enough to remember, but not so old as to have forgotten.

          • me1952

            Well, LBJ who rigged “The Gulf of Tonkin” incident to get us into that mess was liberal. So I don’t know that this was so much about conservative and liberal. I recall Dr. King opposed it, the Berrigan Bros., and clergy of all faith criticizing our involvement, and involved in helping kids flee to Canada to avoid the draft.
            The point is clergy were involved trying to influence policy either way. Where was the separation of church and state?

          • Dissenter13a

            No one would suggest that the wearing of a clerical collar is a requirement that one withdraw from public life. Certainly, not me.

            What the Framers had in mind was avoiding the scenario we saw in England and more pointedly, an Iran-style theocracy, where every law must comport with their reading of Islam.

          • me1952

            I couldn’t agree more. That has been my whole point.
            The problem is liberals are highly selective in their “concern” for separation of church and state.

          • Dissenter13a

            How so? Engel v. Vitale could have been brought by Baptists, as opposed to Maddy O’Hair. After all, Jesus counseled HIS followers to pray in private….

          • me1952

            The only time liberals holler “seperation of church and state” is when their sacred cows are being challenged. There was no such battle cry when Dr. King led a civil rights movement or clergy opposed the Vietnam War. However we heard it when the Catholic church challenged abortion.
            They tend to be highly selective in their “concern”.

          • Dissenter13a

            The Boyfuk Church can say whatever it likes, and no one I know is stopping it. If someone were, I would oppose them. As Blaise Pascal once said, “I disagree with what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it.”

            Dr. King’s movement was entirely secular, in the sense that he never advocated the mingling of church and state.

          • me1952

            Dr. King attempted to influence state and federal policy from the pulpit. That’s where he initiated the bus boycott from. Clergy took an active role from their pulpits and in the streets.That’s mingling church and state.
            It was a secular movement initiated by and heavily influenced by religious conviction and action.

          • Leijona

            The clergy that brought the end to the war in Vietnam were the Buddhist monks that burned themselves alive, and were viewed right in the living rooms of the Ma, apple Pie, and Hot dog homes of the class of 46 that believed everything that the government of the USA shoved down their throats. Up until then, they saw the long haired hippies as revolutionary trouble-makers that were afraid to fight for their country.

            Johnson was a Blatant Liar. McNamara was a treasonous, no good capitalist pawn of the Military Industrial Complex that made a fortune on the blood of the good young Americans that fought and died in that mess.

            I fought there in 66-67. We knew the war was total BS back then. I was honorably discharged in 68, and protested the war and became a photojournalist that went to Washington to shoot the protests, yet the war went on for 5 more long years after I left the Military, and thousands more young people died.

            Every one of the “We The People” were against that war by 1969, but the government that was supposed to listen to us could give a crap less what we thought.

            Nothing has changed.

          • me1952

            I didn’t say clergy brought an end to the war, I said they were involved in the efforts to end it.
            You will get no argument from me concerning the rest of your post. Johnson rigged the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” to give him unlimited power to fight the war, thinking a few bombs and a few bribes would end it. Don’t even get me started on McNamara.
            Thank you for your service.

  • Seldena

    WOW! This pastor has it correct. The Freedom to speak is for everyone even in the church. We do not pay taxes, but that does not mean we cannot have a voice of truth!

  • Zoe2010

    the freedom From religion crowd is out of Madison, WI… Megyn Kelly last night had Kyle Olson on and he’s doing a 4-part series about the White Privilege Conference for educators!?! held in Madison, WI yrly for last 15 years and it’s got to be that same crowd… it’s shocking the tripe these people spew about this country and its citizens… here’s the site to see some video of the conference: http://www.progressivestoday.com/

    • empty pockets

      the site http://www.progressivestoday.com will make your eyes bleed. We have got to stop playing the Left’s game by using “liberal” as interchangeable with “progressive”. They are not the same. Some–perhaps many–are both but there are progressives in the GOP, too, folks. And it’s the progressives who are the real threat. They are communists, statists, globalists. And religion–Christianity first (perhaps because it is their biggest opposition)–is their target along with full indoctrination and control.

      • Zoe2010

        yes, also heard Kamal Saleem talking about how muslims have infiltrated our country thru the 7 spheres of influence – media/press, gov’t, finances, education, etc. – the Saudi gov’t thru Prince Talal bin Abdulaziz owns CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc., plus muslims own publishing cos of school books… Saleem has a dvd out called Unveiling the Ugly Truth…

  • Army Retired

    The constitution protects religion from government not the other way around. There is nothing in the constitution that mentions a “separation of church and state” this was mentioned in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and has been intrepreted incorrectly in the favor of the non religious.
    Here is something to think about, the constitution says that our rights are given to us by god and not man. That which is given by man can be taken away by man. Religious or not wouldn’t you want a government that believes that it can’t take away your rights no matter where that belief comes from?

    • smilee

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

      You are wrong as the courts repeatedly have said that this means separation of church and state even though it does not say so in terms you wish it to. You then misinterpret it to mean what you want it o mean and not what it actually means. , it protects government from religion and religion from government and they have held that was the intent of the founders. There are hundreds of religions in this country with a wide range of beliefs and control of government by religion has through history proven time and time again that religious interference with governments have been disastrous and the founding fathers knew this after they first tried to sell the Constitution without this clause and had to promise to add these ten amendments to get its passage the people made clear they wanted this and it was added soon after by this amendment. It is the one clause that has kept religious dominance over government from happening and also has kept one religion from dominating another as we see do much in the world today and in history but the least in our country because they by law have to be kept separate. GOD did not write the Constitution and it only contains the signatures of man and was ratified only by man. How do you account for so many religions and their inability to all believe the same thing. You only see this through the lens of your own religion which shows disrespect for other religions as by our Constitution this is not allowed.

      • Army Retired

        First off you should not presume or judge when responding, I do not follow a religion, I have not been to church in 30 years, however I do believe. You say that there are “hundreds” of religions in this country. please tell me where you got those statistics. You quoted the constitution but I did not read anything about a separation of church and state in the text. The constitution prevents the government from, for example; saying that all citizens must be catholic. In fact the most of the original states established state religions. The founders insisted on the bill of rights to ensure that the bulk of power was reserved for the states and people. As for disrespecting other religions, you must not know my Christian or Muslim friends like the ones I met while serving in the Middle East. They will tell you I am more than respectful.

        • smilee

          There are over a hundred religions identified in our metro area by the school districts. By religion I mean your beliefs on it and you have some so that is your religion even though you do not practice it. I said “the courts repeatedly have said that this means separation of church and state even though it does not say so in terms you wish it to” You completely ignore what i actually said. Your interpretation has no force of law and the courts does so your misinterpretation is all there is left for you.

          • Army Retired

            Again, where can I find those statistics? You are truly amazing to be able to determines ones beliefs by reading a paragraph. Was it my sentence on Jefferson that gave me away or was it the fact that I like the idea that man can’t take my rights away?

      • Athanasios1

        Dear smilee, if brains were gold, you would be in debt. You are confusing God with false religions. Congress used to pray before convening, and the Constitution does not establish God or the Ten Commandments. Our laws are NOT based on Islam. They are based on the Christian-Judaic Bible. If our laws and Constitution were based on Islam….you would have already been beheaded. But analpores like you shall continue to argue against yourselves and the reason for our Constitution in order to push your gay agenda, Islamic hate and to further diminish our 1st Ammendment and every citizens’ assimilation into our society as one, with common goals and objectives. You have followed the path of dividing a nation… Last time we fought and 650,000 Americans died. This time it will be 20 million illegal aliens, 60 million liberals and 8 million Muslims. The FEMA camps are up and waiting. We are coming and hell is coming with us.

        • smilee

          Your opinion, a very sick one too, your delusional!! The gay agenda is guaranteed in the fourteenth amendment and it was ratified way back in 1868 and just recently is it being enforced. Sticking up for every american is not divisive and you sure do not stick up for everyone just those with whom meet with your approval. Your a bigot.

          • Ted Crawford

            This should be cute! Just where, in the Fourteenth Amendment do you find a “guarantee” for Homosexuals!?!?

          • Dissenter13a

            Asked and answered, I find it in the Ninth and Tenth, as applied to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth.

          • Army Retired

            The ninth and tenth guarantees them the right to be gay it also guarantees others the right not to accept it as normal behavior. Some people are not satisfied that they can be tolerated they must be accepted and force it down everyone throat. By the way those amendments say that whatever is NOT in the constitution is reserved for the states or the people. Where is the line drawn on this subject? Should you be allowed to have more than one spouse? Should you be allowed to marry family members? Should you be allowed to marry pets? If you disagree with someones objection to gay marrage how can you disagree with these other forms of marrage?

          • smilee

            The 14th “…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”.

            If you would have read any of the court opinions you would have known the answer. but by the Constitution no state can write any law that does not provide equal (meaning same) protection of the laws so they have ruled that marriage laws must be the same for both gay and straights or they violate this amendment and every court to date that has ruled on this has said this and when the SC court gets a case it most likely will rule the same given no court has done different and then gay marriages will be legal across the US

          • TroyCrowe

            You are not sticking up for every American when you force people to act against their belief system. I say live and let live but I also believe that I should have the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. I will let you live as you see fit but I do not want my children forced into accepting something that I see as sick, nor should I be forced to allow it. There are many situations you see as sticking up for everyone causes someone else to be trampled on.

          • smilee

            Your not being trampled on that is but your perception which is not real. You advocate you have a right to trample on others whose belief systems are not respected by you as as you say they are against your beliefs systems but how about their belief systems which you want to trample on.

          • Athanasios1

            Hey smilee “Your a bigot.” is spelled “You’re a bigot.” You are an imbecile. Just pick the spot where you want to lay down, curl up and die.

          • smilee

            How childish!!!!

      • Kay

        Unfortunately, it seems that we are heading closer and closer to allowing at least two religions to dictate to us and remove our religious freedoms because of undue pressure on government. Our freedom of speech has been greatly hampered by Islam, by Gay Marriage (nearly a religion) and by Atheists. This is all through PC crap that says the former groups can say any nasty thing about Christians, but Christians must stay silent or be blamed with hate speech, sanctioned by government intervention into Christian beliefs. We can no longer state our beliefs out loud and not be persecuted as haters. A belief is not a belief unless you actually believe in it. Those other groups are actually encouraged to spew hate towards Christians with no repercussions, and if Christians even say they disagree (like on Twitter), they are fired or fined or sent to re-education centers to change their beliefs.

        • smilee

          Baloney, Christians or those claiming to be speak out very loudly in this country every day as you are doing here so stop your whining, you cannot compare being denied speech with not getting your way though it.

          • Kay

            Example: If anyone should be offended and let it be known publically, they are sent to re-education, fined, and threatened with loss of jobs. Happened this week. We can speak of our faith and are ridiculed for it. Example: Tim Tebow. I am not asking to get my way through it. I am saying I can’t even tell someone how I believe without ridicule publically and well as threats and being called names or being told I’m “whining.” I don’t like sin. I am a sinner. We all are. Doesn’t mean I don’t like the sinner who presents the sin. If I say I don’t agree with homosexuality, it doesn’t mean I don’t love the homosexual. I am attributed with HATE. I also don’t agree with Atheism. But they have the right to their belief. Doesn’t mean I HATE the Atheist. I just don’t agree with them. However, I have just as much right to agree or disagree as they do, but it seems to be OK for them to call us names and ridicule us, but we had better not rebut it, or we can actually have visible and substantial consequences.

          • smilee

            Your just feeling sorry for yourself. No one has ever said you have to agree with anyone not a gay or atheist either, you just cannot interfere with their rights though and that is what think you are advocating for and that is probably why you get this negative feedback. They perceive you as hating them by your actions. I speak openly about my religious beliefs and only on sites like this one do I get ridiculed for it and I just consider the source and mostly ignore it. It is called freedom of speech and I have many that make claims such as you make here but when I have seen the whole story it is usually more to it than the spin I have been given and I suspect that is true with your claims here to.

          • OKCPatriot

            Another LABobE boyfriend and NYC bathhouse member.

          • smilee

            Another rude crude jerk unable to say anything intelligent.

  • Dale Putnam

    This Pastor has it… and it isn’t a tuff concept at all. What is tuff for me to understand, is that this is, to me, a logical, historical, balanced, and tested concept. We select our representatives, in local, state, and fed positions. We pay their wages. Where is the disconnect that inserts their greed and self desires before ours, while they are working for us? Where is the disconnect that, because we pay their way, we can’t dictate, YES, dictate what they do, while representing us? It’s time for a reset. A reboot. A re-alignment. To get back to the Freedoms and accurate representation that this country was founded on.

  • PhilByler

    Insist on discussing the First Amendment’s actual text stating Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridge the free exercise of religion. That has a different meaning than what present day secularists have spun into Jefferson’s phrase from a private letter to a Danbury, Connecticut Baptist congregation.

  • sammy13

    Amen!

  • Marty

    “I have frequently amused myself with silently remarking the specious errors of those who speak without reflecting.” —Thomas Paine from Common Sense

    • Daniel Gray

      You are correct, this fits the separation of church and state crowd perfectly

    • Army Retired

      Heres a couple more from Paine:
      “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”
      “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
      We have to stand up now or our children will not enjoy the freedoms enjoyed by our forefathers.

      • Marty

        Of course you are correct. If any man’s birthdate ought to be made a national day of celebration, I would submit February 9th, Thomas Paine’s birthday.

  • AG Dot Com!

    The phrase liberals & socialists hate “Freedom OF Religion” – They want it re-written “freedom FROM religion”. The dishonesty & idiocy of the left is absolutely staggering. “Congress shall Establish No Religion” was meant to prevent a forced state religion like Church of England. That is is, full stop.

  • Mys77

    No one who is a Christian seperates their belief when they go to school, work or walking into any government building. It is who we are. What tge government seems determined to do is eliminate Christians. Government is an enemy of the people.

  • blackhawk132

    This great pastor is a true man of conscience . Unlike who are so like Sharpton and Jackson and of course Obama’s so called pastor. Has MLK returned to America?? I say yes in this man he has.

  • monacall

    Love this guy….. he and Adam west and the rest of the black conservatives should ban together and start their own party…I bet that would shake up the GOP and the democrats….. ha….. take all the votes from the blacks…. ha…..

    • Athanasios1

      Adam West the Black Conservative or the star of Batman? Maybe you mean Allen West…the Great American.

      • monacall

        OMG ill say what I want to say when I want to say it…… its called freedom of speech….. and it wasn’t a racist remark….. only those that mention racist are the ones themselves racist….

      • monacall

        Yep you got it…. fat fingered it…. or spelled it wrong and the computer took over….. that’s my blame game …..and so glad you knew who I was referring to…I’m sure no one else on this site did… thanks…

    • axmickl

      I don’t think I heard him mention race once. That is the beauty of the mind of Dr. Voddie Baucham. Please don’t screw up the thought by turning it into a racial issue.

  • t

    Great stuff this man is right on….pastors have allowed the government to effectively shut them down and the freedom to teach what’s in the bible. The government has violated the constitution of having respect to religion by forcing its own “theology” or doctrine if you will upon the pastors and suppressing what they say in the pulpit!!!

  • Burton Pauly

    Pastors, Priest, and other religious people have just as much right to talk politics as any person in our nation. And the liberals have tried to take this freedom away from Christians. Don’t give up your rights Christians.

  • Joe

    I didn’t read the whole article, but wanted to say that the constitution does NOT separate church and state. The first amendment merely prevents Congress from establishing an official state religion and forcing everybody to join like Henry VIII did in 16th century England. Moreover, the 1st amendment emphasizes that “CONGRESS shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.” That means states are not bound by the language that restricts congress. The constitution does not prevent kids from praying in school, nor judges putting statues of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, nor a cross on a mountain in a public park. Separation of church and state is a liberal/statist/atheist ideology that is tantamount to propaganda.

  • jd1958

    I hope that this is taught a “pastor conferences.” OR we are living in the church of Laodicea. The lukewarm church that “We made GOD sick.”

  • http://treeofliberty14.blogspot.com/ Irredeemable Gary

    I’m sure I’ll take some heat for this post…

    “…Pastors are held in less esteem than they were in the past…[sic]”
    Dr Bauchman

    He is correct; however, his reasoning is wrong. Pastors are held in less esteem today because in general, they have turned ‘Ministry’ into a business. In other words, they have stepped away from being full time Ministers to part time businessmen and part time preachers. They run their church like any corporation; complete with a chain of command. But they rely heavily on volunteers, so persuasive sermons are what’s on the menu. Guilt for not contributing is subtly sprinkled into each message from the pulpit.
    __________________________________________________________________
    This is a bit scary-
    “…helping the world think…[sic]”
    Dr Bauchman

    4. Promoting Moral Improvement
    “Improving the lives of the poor by improving their personal behavior”
    Fourth goal of the Progressive (communist) movement
    __________________________________________________________________

    “The government comes in and walks onto our territory and says we’re wrong. You don’t get to walk onto my land and then say that I’m wrong when I wanna plant something in my own field.”
    Dr. Bauchman

    The straw-man he sets up is silly. I’d suggest he try and plant opium or Marijuana and then tell the government they can’t tell him what to plant… but I digress.
    __________________________________________________________________
    The overarching fear Pastors face is the threat of losing their Faith Based Non-profit 501c3 tax exemption status if they speak directly to political issues. (Part time businessmen again).

    I recall NO examples in the new testament of any leader engaging the government. Christ directly addressed the corruption within the religious leadership, and Paul addressed each New Testament church.There was only the dissemination of truth to those who would listen.

    What I am saying is simply teach Truth. Don’t try to build your “little world or kingdom” to rule over. Pastors are not called to rule; they are called to lead.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Dr. Bauchman has a commanding voice that tends to sway his listeners… not unlike our President.
    But haughtiness and hubris are evident… also, not unlike our president.

  • Sunshine Kid

    The only “separation of church and state” is the requirement that the government may NOT dictate what religion is to be used. The idea of getting the church and religion out of education and politics is simply the ravings of the lunatic left.

  • axmickl

    Thank you Dr. Voddie Baucham. Thank you for putting the seperation of church and state in the right perspective. Thank you for speaking to the issues of the government takeover of all our rights and thank you for telling people to think, think, think.

  • jimof ct

    The best perspective on church ans state I’ve read in a long time.

    The Constitution was very clear that government’s political actions were not to interfere in any way with the free exercise of religion.

    There was no intent whatever to limit religious entities from the political arena.

    Quite the opposite it is the religious foundation that is cited as the basis for the freedom of all that was to be protected by the Constitution as the highest law of this country.

    The government has no authority to declare religious entities unable to act in the political arena and must in fact avoid taking action that denies the free exercise of religious belief or mandates action that is contrary to religious belief. That is what religious freedom is all about. Unfortunately we are now seeing radical secularists seeking to undermine the concepts of our constitution.

    Today in America we are seeing that there is also the serious threat of other violent religions that deny freedom to all and allow the imposition of violent punishment upon any others that do not adhere to their belief. This is also contrary to our Constitutional protections.

    Further, the atheists seem to think that because they do not accept the existence of God that they can reject the existence of religious freedom for all others and therefor remove all symbols of those beliefs.

    Sadly these notions are increasingly being advanced and we need more push back by others with as much fervor as this pastor.

  • zrevtom

    THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

    Never was, never will be. People who believe this are ignorant of the facts, this separation was only discussed in a letter. Please pass this on to everyone you know

    On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that “the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state.”

    His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential “religious” activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of “religion,” then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

    People took one sentence out of this LETTER not a law or amendment in our Constitution or any other U.S. document.
    WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT it is not Obama’s or any other Government employee or official, they all work for US.

    • Mad as hell

      An th Leftist’s still found a way.

  • downs1

    Amen, Brother! Thanks for your openness and clear talk! Unless this nation turns back to God and His tenets, it is finished! God has already removed His sustaining grace from America! Those in power are just too dumb to recognize it!

  • nick

    Pastors are afraid to speak up so as not to bring scrutiny on their own lives; especially their outlandish lifestyles and opulent homes in many cases

  • ChicagoThunder1

    In life some lead some follow and some get out of the way this man leads without any doubt.

  • ONTHEROAD

    Dr. Bauchman without a doubt has hit the nail on the head. But it is up to us to follow through and take the power of the government away and stand up for what is right. By telling the truth and voicing our opinion is the course of action. Elect individuals that understand the position of the church in the scheme of things. This fall is election we must look at all issues not jus the ones that affect our little world, and focus on us as a whole. This administration has done nothing but foster racism and hatred and they wish to pass laws that inflicts punishment on those that do, well I would suggest that is you live in a glass house do not throw stones. God gave us a standard to live by and we should stand up for that system and voice our concerns and beliefs and not be pushed to the side. My hat is off to this fine man Dr. Bauchman. WAKE UP AMERICA.

  • OldVeteran

    This country needs a lot more people like this. He makes a great point and his words should be shown every where. Dr. Ben Carson and now this man are just two of people who can turn this country around.

    • LC

      I add Allen West to that list as well. And Mia Love and so many others. We just need enough people with common sense that will listen and vote.

    • TIMedWork

      Individuals, however great, cannot turn this around alone. We The People, by our votes, can do that. We The People are the only sovereign authority and power in this country, by virtue of the terms of our Constitution. The more we wait for one or two great men like Carson, West and Dr. Buchannan, to lead us from the dessert, the longer we will wander there.

  • threeball

    If we the people continue to allow pelosi-obama and coharts to turn our once great nation into a liberal-faithless state,we along with the 14% atheists{who now dictate what we can/cannot practice} deserve whatever we reap.

  • LC

    What a great speaker! I know there are many more like him out there and the church needs to stand up again and lead its people rather than cowering. He says it so well.

    • TIMedWork

      Many among us agree with him. But far fewer have the courage to stand and be vocal about it. All that evil needs to succeed, is that good men (and women) remain silent. And so we see proof of this, daily.

  • Dissenter13a

    By its actions, the Church has abandoned any right it might have had to serve as our national moral arbiter, because it can’t even police its own. Case in point is Dr. Terry Smith, a Dallas-based minister who was caught shoplifting condoms, and was outed for porking a parishioner not his wife who was seven months’ pregnant. Despite earning a segment on Inside Edition for his peccadilloes, he remained in the pulpit.

    The nation has moved beyond the need for the Church. Like the rest of the West and Oceania before us, we have evolved into a post-Christian culture. The culture wars are lost, and rightfully so. (The radicals in Islam started fighting back earlier, which is why they remain a force to be reckoned with.) Like E.F. Hutton, the Bible had better days.

    • WesTexan

      The Church, the Body of Christ, has not abandoned anything. A preacher living in sin, by definition, cannot and does not speak for or represent the Body of Christ. Your myopic view of the Church does not make it so. Your carnal view of the church makes you unable to see the spiritual reality. Spiritual things can only be seen in the spirit by the Spirit. The flesh is blind to spiritual realities. Christians have always stood for righteousness and against the tide. Just because a congregation somewhere has opted out of the fight, does not mean we all have. The Church is more relavent than ever and remains on the front lines around the world. That can be seen in the rapid spread of the Gospel among Muslims, but it’s not something you can find out about in the New York Times or on Nightline. The coming Kingdom is still right on schedule.

      • Dissenter13a

        The Church may be relevant to you, but it is increasingly irrelevant to society as a whole, and rightfully so. You anti-science troglodytes have essentially killed the planet, and your grandchildren will despise you for your stupidity.

        • John Gallion

          Where do I start?
          First, the Church is the entire body of Christ, not an organized entity. While people attend physical buildings called “churches”, they do not necessarily represent Christ’s “Body”. As far as Y’shua is concerned, His body is entirely relevant. It is his Bride. It is all believers from all ages. In fact He’s coming back for his Church before he plunges this planet under His judgement followed quickly by his return to rule and setting all his enemies under his feet. When you see what terror is coming upon the earth at that time, silliness like global warming will be the absolute least of your concerns!
          Second, this “science” you are so enthralled with is merely socially constructed. It has no reality apart from our social agreement reality. This “science” you worship is nothing but a simple methodology as a means to help understand the material mechanisms God put into place in our three dimensional reality. You mistakenly elevate this “science” to a place it does not deserve. Since God sustains and holds everything together, science is merely our limited human means of understanding the mechanism. You’d do better to get to know He who made it and holds it all together by His will.
          Third, the Planet is not dead. In fact it is doing quite well. Climate and earth changes are a regular part of it’s function. Sorry that these normal mechanisms are bothering you but all the political catterwalling isn’t going to change the Sun’s or the Earth’s way of doing things.
          Fourth, I seriously doubt those (like yourself, apparently) who have rejected God’s mercy, love, justice and holiness will be cursing anyone but themselves from Hell.

          • TIMedWork

            Further, “…This “science” you worship is nothing but a simple methodology as a means to help understand the material mechanisms God put into place in our three dimensional reality.”
            Science, by definition, is a methodical process intended to eliminate ignorance. When all ignorance is removed, science has no purpose, as all will be known, and further discovery unnecessary.
            As you say, to elevate ‘science’ ( the process, by which we eliminate ignorance) to the point that the process itself becomes the also the goal, and the authority, then the ignorance which science set out to remove, becomes self sustaining and is therefore, permanent.

        • TroyCrowe

          Hey guys, we have another Climate Change believer on our hands. And he/she calls us stupid. Go figure. The world has only be shifting ranges of temperature and climate since he/she was ever thought of. The system of climate change has been admitted to be only a source of controlling the masses. Either you are part of the system or you are just too ignorant to realize it. The UN itself stated that climate control has nothing to do with climatology. It has to do with managing resource as they see fit. Can you say slavery. Wake up.

          • TIMedWork

            The total record of climate is only 100 years old. In a system that is so much older, 100 years doesn’t even qualify as an acceptable margin of error.

          • Army Retired

            He/She should watch this:

            http://aninconsistenttruth.com/

        • Armyvet24years

          Intelligent design is a better fit for what the universe is now. Science is always changing it’s mind on things it once believed because errant man makes up things to support his own agenda that prove to be verifiably false. Real science is supported by real truth, not this politically correct mumbo-jumbo that the left promotes with lies as “science. Case in point Climate change. There has been no rise in global temperatures in fifteen years, more real Scientists are beginning to think we are headed for a mini ice age of a decade or more. Marxists do not believe in Global warming because people like gore have not changed there so called carbon footprint one iota. He uses more energy than my whole town. The Progressive/Marxist liberals want to tax the air we breathe to further control us, and expand their money. Carbon dioxide is a life gas not a pollutant, it is tasteless, odorless, and transparent. how can it cause warming? It does not and there is no scientific proof that it does by the way. Go ahead and believe all the lies, your blind eyes can not see the truth because you do not know the truth-Jesus Christ, John 14:6. I feel sorry for you brother, I hope you ask God to show you the truth and He will!

          • Leijona

            If we are the result of intelligent design why does our urthra run right through our Prostate Gland? Please do not repond “It Depends” lololol

          • Dissenter13a

            AV: “There has been no rise in global temperatures in fifteen years

            You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. NASA respectfully disagrees: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

            AV: Science is always changing it’s mind on things

            It is the way science works. There are no sacred cows in the laboratory. That having been said,99-44/100% of the peer-reviewed papers disagree with your conclusion, and all of the others were funded by the Koch brothers. Here is an article from the well-respected Christian Science Monitor about a prominent Koch-funded scientist who turned state’s evidence: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video

            AV: “Carbon dioxide is a life gas not a pollutant, it is tasteless, odorless, and transparent. how can it cause warming? It does not and there is no scientific proof that it does

            We’ve known that it was a mild greenhouse gas since the 70s. Personally, I think we do the subject a disservice if we talk exclusively about CO2. Changes to the planetary albedo alter the amount of solar radiation, triggering a series of problematic feedback loops. Whereas snow has an albedo of about 0.50, water’s is closer is closer to 0.10. The less sea ice, the more radiation is retained, melting more ice, precipitating more heat retention, and we are about to lose the bulk of the Antarctic’s ice shelf. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/04/04/massive-ice-shelf-about-to-break-away-from-antarctic-coast/ I don’t think we can stop it at this point.

            AV: “Intelligent design is a better fit for what the universe is now.

            ID is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig, masquerading the “Godidit” argument. It’s not serious science and even if it were, it would prove nothing. After all, you can still have a god as an absentee landlord and postulate ID.

            I’ll trust in education; you are free to trust in superstition.

        • WesTexan

          How can I be anti-science if I’m a scientist and engineer? Are you simply a fool? Or do you just pretend to be one on the internet?

          Deflection from the argument is no argument.

          Your epithets seem to be more a mirror of yourself than of those that you attack. I pity you. The window for repentance and forgiveness remains wide open regardless of your condition. I pray that you will take advantage of this unique opportunity.

          • Leijona

            As a scientist, and an engineer, do you beleive that the world is 6-7K years old, and man was made from clay? Please state where your degree was obtained.

          • Dissenter13a

            WT: “How can I be anti-science if I’m a scientist and engineer?

            Henry Morris. Duane Gish. Enough said.

        • Army Retired

          I don’t know if you are liberal or not but you are using their tactics. If they don’t like or agree with what is said they resort to name calling.

          • OKCPatriot

            Dissenter13a is another one of LABobE’s boyfriends and a member of Bob’s bathhouse in NYC.

          • Dissenter13a

            Those who believe that the Flood is real and global warming is a hoax fit the description. Sad fact is, thanks to you, it is probably too late to save the planet. When the oceans die, we die.

          • Army Retired

            You should run out and see if the government will sell you some carbon credits. Things are so bad that your presidents used 39,000 gallons of jet fuel to fly to California to talk about it. The air is made up of less than one half of one percent of carbon dioxide and by the way plants need carbon dioxide to survive and provide us oxygen. The earth was warmer during the mid-evil warming period and the people thrived. I bet you are concerned about the ice melting at the North Pole but what about the increase in ice in the South Pole? It is a little arrogant to think that man has that much power.

          • Dissenter13a

            If ignorance is bliss, you must be multiorgasmic.

            We’re losing ice volume (that’s what matters) at an alarming rate in the Arctic Ocean, Greenland, and the Antarctic (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/04/04/massive-ice-shelf-about-to-break-away-from-antarctic-coast/ — you will accept news from Faux, won’t you? Plants simply can’t absorb all of the excess CO2, and neither can the oceans; the oceans are becoming more acidic, which is toxic to the organisms which constitute the base of the food chain.

            AR: “It is a little arrogant to think that man has that much power.

            Isn’t it even more arrogant to think that man is made in the image of God?

          • Army Retired

            I usually don’ reply to those that must use childish insults in what is supposed to be an adult conversation. The courage that people find sitting behind a keyboard sometimes amazes me. There is no consensus that climate change is manmade and there are many scientist who see no threat in a warming climate. You can find any data or information you want online. Some true some false.

            http://www.petitionproject.org/

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kevin-mooney/2013/11/18/97-percent-figure-global-warming-media-wont-tell-you-about

        • Tony Donaldson

          Not to the billions who believe in ever lasting life. You have every right to not believe in anything other than yourself. There are humble believers who know what the creator can do and does for them daily. You don’t get to speak for society. You can only speak for yourself. Science tells me that energy never dies. Energy transforms. I have never been anti-science. Many scientists believe in the creator or architect of the universe. The planet is long from dead. Your attitude toward life will change as you learn more from life. Stick around. The good stuff hasn’t begun to happen yet.

          • Dissenter13a

            You can pretty much forget about the planet you knew, but it will go on. Nature will start again, but our current ecosystem is headed for collapse, thanks to you and your short-sighted ilk. At this point, it can’t be stopped or even blunted all that much.

            Your creator couldn’t do jack [excrement] for me. Couldn’t even return a damned phone call.

            Belief in everlasting life requires three parts hubris and two parts wishful thinking. We’re merely sentient animals on a small rock orbiting one of 300 billion stars in an ordinary galaxy (one of half a billion). The universe will get along just fine without me.

          • Tony Donaldson

            How soon can you leave?

          • Dissenter13a

            Won’t be that long. A couple of decades, I’d imagine.

      • Leijona

        If “Spiritual things can only be seen in the spirit by the Spirit” (Great Line, by the way) why are religions needed? If we all have a direct connection to the spirit world, or the supernatural, why do some people think they are better connected thereto than others? The only thing you lose by talking directly to your chosen god is the collection plate.

        • WesTexan

          I didn’t mention religion. That’s your assumption and your own concept. But since you asked, I don’t need religion. I’m not religious. You’ve fallen for the confusion between the Living God, Jesus Christ come in the flesh, who was resurrected from the dead and became the life-giving Spirit—and religion.

          Jesus is not a religion; He is the living God.

          Religion is man trying to reach God or some mystical spiritual plane—by human effort. Those who want nothing to do with God reject religion, believing they are rejecting God. Religion and God are not synonymous. Religion really is a crutch—for those who prefer ritual, ceremony, great lavish buildings, outward pomp and the clergy/laity system—and also a crutch for those who want to reject God by rejecting religion.

          When God reaches out to man, it has nothing to do with religion. He is above and beyond religion.

          As for being connected to the spirit world, there are all kinds of spirits that would love to hook up with you. But only one who is God—the one, unique, life-giving Spirit who lived on earth as a man named Jesus (the Christ)—who rose from the dead to give us eternal life.

          “For unto us a child is
          born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his
          shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty
          God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6

          This is not religion.

          • Leijona

            Sorry, I guess I assumed you were refering to a religion when you said “The Church” I agree, Religion is man made, generally with an agenda. Do you own a Mustang???

    • Leijona

      How about Ted Haggart? talk about a hypocrite.

      • Dissenter13a

        I’ve mentioned Haggard, too.

        • Leijona

          Damn, it is Haggard. To think that he has the same last name as one of the best country singers of all time. Think we can make this worm change his last name?

  • Myrtle

    The greatest thing about this man is the fact that he believes but not only that, “HE IS WILLING TO STAND ON IT!” There are so many that believe but are totally gutless and will not stand and be counted. Believing is simply not enough, what you do with is what is important. I am not fond of “Cowards, they are no good for anything. Read Ezekiel 3:17-27 to get a wonderful of what how we can and should stand up for what is right.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary reads like this- Congress “shall
    make no law respecting an establishment, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of theh press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, ant to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  • Nomore

    Wow! Such a well articulated argument.

  • Jim

    Dr. Bauchman is correct but did not go far enough. The entire purpose of the language in our Constitution that is used by the liberal, progressive, socialist, communist psycos to demand the complete abandonment of religious practices in any way connected with any government activity is completely misrepresented. What the First Amendment states in appropriate part is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” There is absolutely no language in this First Amendment that would prevent any person or group of persons who might happen to be involved in some way in government activities from practicing their own religion, whatever it might be. One only has to read the Declaration of Independence to discover that, because other governments from which our forefathers had fled had passed laws that not only established a national religion that everyone must adhere to, but outlawed the practice of any other religion within their borders. That is the sole reason for this First Amendments mandates on this subject. The current liberal, progressive, socialist, communist claims is an attempt to thwart the clear and concise restrictions against the government making any law that would control or establish a religious belief. You don’t have to be a genius to understand the clear meaning of the words in this First Amendment. The meaning is clear to anyone who can understand what he reads. By the way, the term “God” does not describe a religion – at all! There are many different theologies that utilize the term “God” within their religious teachings. Just as the term “Athiest” does not describe a religion but is used in a theological sense to describe a particular point of view concerning a religious belief. Please read your Constitution and you Declaration of Independence and make up your own mind. It is not a subject that requires more than normal intelligence to understand.

    • Leijona

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

      I see this as a very clear statement indicating that religion is not the business of the state, or of public governmetal bodies of any type. (This does not, of course include governing bodies of particular religions )

      When a person invokes a god in a public governmental forum by saying a prayer that is specific to a particular beleif system he/she is intimating that their decision will be at least in part influenced by their beleif in the god which is represented in that prayer. Is that a bad thing? No not at all, unless there are people of other beleif systems present that would be prejudiced by the inference, and the decision that might result thereby.

      This also “Is not a subject that requires more than normal intelligence to understand” is it?

  • Calvin

    Bless the good Doctor for his lucid and exacting explanation of the role of religion in our national affairs. The question then becomes the is Islam an “orthodox” religion? I suggest it is not and does not rate protection as such under the First Amendment. It appears to be a murderous cult that would make James Jones smile established by a pedophile. A misogynistic murderer. A Prophet–no way. What did he profess? Murder, of women, Honor killings. Defiling children. Calling him a prophet is a gross misuse of the true meaning of the word. Islam is a greater threat to world peace than all the other nut case dictators combined. The sooner we wake up to the threat the better chance we have to survive as a nation. Our current closet Muslim President is no help in this endeavor thus our survival is questionable.
    It is often said there are many moderate Muslims. I disagree. A moderate Muslim is one that has run out of ammo or lost his sword. There are no moderate Muslims.
    Thanks for your most prophetic words, Doctor.

  • oglet

    Pastor Baucham is a fine example of what a Godly Pastor should be. He is a true leader of men and his chief objective seems to be spreading the true, complete and unaltered word of God. Of course our Christian values apply to every aspect of our lives, including politics and every other area of interest. The Bible is the most complete “How To” book that has ever been written. It is meant to guide our lives in everything thing we do.

    I pray that other Pastors will follow the lead of Pastor Baucham and realize just what it is they are called to do and forget about the admonitions of the Politically Correct crowd. I have found that many men have opinions of interest but in matters of great importance I choose the enduring truth of the Bible.

  • John

    “They cannot come into our territory and then say that we’re wrong for speaking about it.”

    Uh, the minute the government paid off the churches by making them tax exempt, they bought themselves a say-so.

    I agree that the churches should not be afraid of ramifications for speaking out on issues, but he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    I think this is the thing that restricts the church in our society.

    • TIMedWork

      To be clear, *not* taking something from someone is *not* a payment of any kind, except as understood within the mafia.
      “I’ll be around on Friday to collect, so that your windows aren’t all smashed by Monday.”
      Letting people keep their own money is not a payment of any kind. So to suggest that tax exemption (letting people keep their own money) is payment, is a convolution of both logic and language.

      • John

        It is done to keep the churches quiet. They threaten them with loss of tax exempt status of they speak out in an unapproved way. It threatens to affect the bottom line. Therefore, our government is more like the mafia than you may realize.

        • TIMedWork

          To me, the parallel is blatant. I suppose that is why I chose that analogy so readily. Ignorance of the provisions of the Constitution, lead many to believe whatever they are told, regarding this or that about it. Though, indeed, Obama was a lecturer on the Constitution, it should not be inferred that he liked the document. In fact, he stated in a public radio interview in 2001, that it was flawed and needed to be re-written, as it failed to account for wealth redistribution. For him, the only question was to do it through the legislature, or through the judiciary. He went on to point out that the judiciary can be frustratingly slow at times.

          So yes, to the objective observer, the present state of affairs with our government, under this administration particularly (pen and phone to go around Congress, the People’s representatives) is very like the mafia. As close to a dictatorship as we have ever come. Don Barry Obama is not to be crossed.

  • http://WWW.SPIRITOFAMERICAPARTYRADIOSHOW.COM TOM P O’DONNELL

    THE ONLY CHURCHES LOOKING OUT FOR THE SOUL OF BLACK COMMUNITIES ARE THE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD BLACK CHURCHES. THEY ARE ALL THAT STANDS BETWEEN HELL AND HEAVEN. I MUST SAY WHEN NEIGHBORHOODS CHANGE COLOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHERS REMAIN TO HELP THE NEW FLOCK. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IS EVERYTHING. IT IS ALL THAT STANDS UP TO COMMUNISM. THE GOAL OF COMMUNISM IS NO GOD ONLY THE STATE. THANK YOU BLACK CHURCHES. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE JACKSON. SHARPTON RELIGION OF MONEY WORSHIP.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/spiritofamericapartybook/2014/05/13/only-one-side-is-fighting

    • Bill Johnson

      I hate, absolutely, totally, completely, thoroughly, etc, etc, etc, ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It makes it very difficult to read, so I don’t. I did not read what you wrote because you made it too difficult to read.

      • sparksnavy

        Bill Johnson—
        Difficult to read? Are you serious? I think you need an eye exam! Something is seriously wrong!

        • DaveM

          Just another webble complaining about nothing1

        • TIMedWork

          An eye exam might not work. It is administered in all CAPITAL LETTERS on the eye chart. Is this really a conspiracy among optometrists to increase sales, convincing patients that they need glasses, simply because they made the chart so hard to read? Hmmm
          Agreed though, that in common forum etiquette, all caps should be construed as shouting, not speaking. Many forums will not post comments, made in all caps, for this reason. No one who intends to converse in a civil manner, shouts at the person to whom they wish to speak. Shouting usually sends the listener away; as has been suggested here. But most people just get past it, absorb the content and move on.

          • Tony Donaldson

            I read it just fine. May god bless each congregation.

        • Leijona

          People recognize words by their particular shape. When you use all caps they do not have the shape that we are used to seeing. This is also true of serif vs sans serif fonts. Serif fonts are much easier on the eyes, and add flow to words. Unfortunately, the native font for this forum is sans-serif.

      • http://WWW.SPIRITOFAMERICAPARTYRADIOSHOW.COM TOM P O’DONNELL

        YES YOU DID. TELL THE TRUTH AND SHAME THE DEVIL. SPEAK UP. I CAN’T HEAR YOU.

        http://www.blogtalkradio.com/spiritofamericapartybook/2014/05/13/only-one-side-is-fighting

  • Julie A

    God bless this man. He speaks truth. He is a man deeply rooted in the word of God. May we all follow his example.

    • Mad As Hell

      It’s their choice, and not a civil right for these people, every single problem can be traced back to liberalism, leftists and their ultimate goal socialism.

    • http://www.comcast.net/ Rick

      Surely we will Julie.

  • William M Durham

    All men and women should read this and listen to what he says closely, as it is all true. Homosexuals, not my name for them, think their illness is ok and should be shared with all. As is said, misery likes company, and they are all miserable and wanting so badly to find something , who knows what. Why is it that they have so many sexual partners constantly, why have they always hidden their perversity until now when the liberals want to allow anything and everything. Why is drug use so widely spread among homosexuals, why is disease, why is filth. Homosexuals live horrible lives knowing the vast majority of Americas despise them and their perverse ways. The sickness in our government is widespread and must be eliminated by what ever means we can. Vote the trash out of our County and help spread the word and ways of God not perversion

    • http://www.comcast.net/ Rick

      Very well put William. I guess they have forgotten that AIDS kills. The drugs they now have don’t cure AIDS. When they get it, they will still have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

    • Leijona

      What county do you live in? I am not a homosexual, but I want to make sure I never move to a county, or a state for that matter, whose residents are dumb enough to consider homosexuality an “Illness”, or a “Choice”.

      • Tony Donaldson

        No, you post as a liberal who would not mind eating from the same plate, using the same fork, using the same towel or bathwater of a homosexual. What liberal state do you hail from? Never mind . Just stay put. They already have your number.

      • William M Durham

        Well what do you think it i? Queers say its normal cause animals do it, animals eat dung, animals kill and eat their young, animals kill for dominance, some animals kill for sport. If you consider yourself and animal of this nature I truly feel sorry for you. Animals do not love, animals do not care, they are animals. Please do not let the queers confuse you, queers are perverts doing things that have no natural function, just the human satisfaction of a sick sexual urge.they have sex with goats , horses, dog, and then brag about it and post it to the internet to show off their perversion. Don’t believe me, look it up on any computer and you will see and get sick if you are normal.

  • http://cogitarus.wordpress.com/ ★✩★ David ★✩★

    Bulls-eye! Amen brother!

  • sparksnavy

    There is no passage in the Bible that says ANYTHING about Separation of Church and State! Period ,exclamation mark! Nor is it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights!
    There was a letter written to the founding fathers re: that subject! I wish people would get over it an read what was actually written by a Baptist Minister etc.

  • Tasine

    One of the best presentations I have ever heard. Magnificent. Our GOVERNment has tried to over-ride religion, not the other way around. And I maintain THAT is unConstitutional! Thank you, Dr. Bauchman, and thank you Onan!

  • sparksnavy

    Why are most replies referring to Homosexuals issue? When the Dr.Baucham is talking about Separation of Church and State? There is no such thing in the Constitution or the
    Bill of Rights
    Read below for more!

    • colsooonscoorner

      Must be reading a different page. This page only has one comment re homos.

  • John J

    This guy is on the button

  • DaveM

    Direct and to the point! Anyone who disagrees with these facts needs better education!

  • Brian P.

    Oh man! Do we need many more like this guy in our country.

    • c69101

      The short answer is Yes!

    • Phoebe Isley

      AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!

  • guymacher

    Dr. Voddie Baucham for Prez!

  • Army Retired

    Unfortunately the headlines below shows the direction we are heading. The intolerant left redicules one man for his christian beliefs despite the fact that he has helped many people through mission work and charities and glorifies another for his sexual preference.

    Tim
    Tebow Responds to Mocking of His Faith: ‘Serve the Lord Faithfully’

    Brennan:
    Michael Sam most important football player in US Today, he is the most important football player in the nation. Sam, the first openly gay man to be drafted by an NFL team

  • colsooonscoorner

    Govt wants to be the religion. They do it with a baseball bat, just dictators!

  • grannie

    Amen and Amen Dr Baucham!

  • http://www.InformingChristians.com/ DebraJMSmith

    This is very well said. Absolutely ministers should be involved in political speech.

    And churches should not hold back on political speech over taxes. All a church has to do is the same thing the ACLU does, and that is have two organizations, one that is tax-exempt and the other that is non-tax-exempt. Then the church simply tells the congregation how it is being split and explains that they can give to either or both.

    Here is the thing. Many people do not file a schedule A with their tax-returns, and therefore are unable to write off church donations. Hence, they would have no problem giving money to the fund that is non-tax-exempt. This could also be explained to church members, periodically.

    The best way that I can see splitting the funds (organizations) would be to have one that goes to actual running of the church and one that goes to out-reach missionary-type work. Have the running of the church be non-tax-exempt and the missionary work be tax-exempt is the best, because the IRS cannot go after a church for talking politics during a church gathering, if the money to run the church (including paying the pastor) does NOT come from tax-exempt funds.

  • red nig

    the ruling by the court was based on what the KKK wanted for generations. Hugo Black was a Grand Dragon in the KKK and friend to FDR. FDR’s family in Georgia ruled the Klan there for quite a while and he put the man in at the demands of the KKK, his main supporters. this is a stark contrast to what even Jefferson, an agnostic, wanted. The entire Constitution was put in place to be a wall to protect the poor from the wealthy and the people from the government. A wall, not a living document like third world nations have.

    • me1952

      Hugo Black was also a klan lawyer who got more than a few klan lynchers off the hook. Very interesting piece of history that you present. Maybe this explains why FDR wouldn’t support anti lynching legislation and had no qualms about rounding up non white American citizens and putting them in concentration camps.

  • Gen. Black Jack Pershing

    pastors are a man made office, but to have an assembly you must have 1st Cor 12:28 Apostles 1st, Prophets 2nd, and teachers 3rd. Shepherds [given by God] aren’t even mentioned much less a man made office called pastors, or do believe God Almighty changes?
    if you aren’t afraid of the truth read this Christian book after you watch the video: http://youtu.be/n5Ol46kso2M

    http://www.amazon.com/Aphina-Vampire-Nexus-Secrets-Calendar/dp/1490728104/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395033055&sr=8-1&keywords=aphina+vampire+nexus

    • Jeffrey Liggens

      So if what you say is true, how does that square with, “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,…” (Ephesians 4:11-12; NKJV)? If there be no office of “pastor” in the Church, explain this scripture and its application to the Church today.

      • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

        The current Bible is full of conflicting information that would be impossible to use as you are attempting in a sort of comparative analogy or supposed proof ? Read a bit further and you will find a near opposite writing? The Bible is not intended to be taken ver batum? And my point is proof of that. It is full of allegory and intended to make one think and go inside for answers not questions ?

        • Jeffrey Liggens

          I’m not going to assume your religious persuasion, if you have any at all. The scriptures of the Bible are not illuminated in the mind of the unbeliever. Would it be fair to say you are an unbeliever in the scriptures? Based on your words, it is a fair assumption. That said, have you read and studied the scriptures to understand them, even as literature? From a spiritual standpoint, you are not going to understand them as an unbeliever, thus you do not qualify to judge them as you have. But I will give you a fair hearing. Copy and paste examples of what you say are contradictions in the Bible.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            You have no idea of what you speak . I may pray and meditate on such more than you do ? And perhaps have more understanding of it than you do ? Who are you to judge anything about my thoughts and experiences ? Many so-called Christians these days are very judgmental and some what clueless to the entire story . But you are free to think whatever you want ? So am I . It is just my experience and thoughts. I am NOT saying you must do or believe anything? I am simply saying there actually is far more to the picture and Bible than we currently have or appreciate. You have no idea of my grasp or faith or anything else ? You are simply making assumptions based on what you believe and what you believe may not be fact or even close because you refuse the information in its entirety because you were told not to question or ask anything ? The simple truth is that men have perverted the current Bible not God and all established religions? That is just a fact and it is verifiable history . If you want to think other wise have at it.

            All the info is readily available but many are afraid to seek the truth . And that is exactly what Jesus said to do ? I do not seek your kind of religion or understanding of God or Jesus. Because I know it is not what was intended and the answers are all out there. Do as you please . I completely agree the scriptures are NOT illuminated to those who are already deceived or not following Jesus. But you have to have all the information not just partial to understand the entire intentions and matters. Tye current eatblsihed reli8gions are not even close to what was intended and practiced prior to 350AD. Sorry, it’s just what happened.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            I may have a far greater and deeper understanding of the Bible that you and yet you say you will give me a fair hearing , hey ? So right out of the gate you are judging and throwing stones and casting negative aspersions? All I am saying is that there really is far more to the entire story. Simple as that. No need to complicate it.

            You and a few others completely misunderstand and refuse to consider anything other than your preconceived concepts. You have no idea of the depth of my understanding of the Bible .You simply assume that you do because I do not see it exactly as you do ?
            The Bible is completely full of allegory and metaphors that are intended to cause one to think and look inside for answers. It is a guide book to life to be sure. But to assume you can take every nuance as it is written is completely mistaken and misguided IMO.Real knowledge from the Bible comes from understanding this concept. There are far too many examples to try and show you anything since your mind is already made up to a completely different concept that may be misguided as well ? Stranger things have happened and will in the future.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            Let’s get this straight; you state, “The current Bible is full of conflicting information that would be impossible to use a…” I call you on it, by asking you to copy and past an example out of the Bible of what you are talking about. What you do instead is come back with some rant about how great your understanding is, and yadda, yadda…but nothing to support your claim. You are without grounds to make your argument. I have given you a chance at a fair hearing, and you squandered it, because there is no substance to your claim against the Bible. There is where you remove foot from mouth, and just walk away.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            There are far too many examples to try and use one. But here is just one ? Psalm 137 pay special attention to verse 8 and ? This is a clear statement of what most of us would consider a horrific act of violence? To smash tour enemies babies against the rocks? You have never heard one other person mention this have you ? The point is that the Bible does mention all manner of violence but Christians like yourself will not admit or consider this even if it is clearly pointed put to you ? As I am . The reason I do not and will not get into a match of verse with you or anybody else is that I already know there are many discrepancies because of the simple fact that the Bible was altered by men , not God . and you cannot admit that fact? All I am saying is that we do not have all the information and you are insisting that no matter what it is right and Gods word? I disagree because I know it is not all Gods word, but the words and actions of men? Simple !

            IMO you are stuck in false doctrine ? I am simply seeking the entire truth and nothing else. And it is all out there for anybody to seek as well. I am not saying anything negative at all as yo and other people stuck are trying to suggest ? The real issue is simply that I do not believe as you do ?
            Simple as that ! Just because you say something is so , does NOT make it so ? Ponder that. I am not saying you or anybody else must think or do anything ? But you are ? I am simply saying there is far more to the story and many people are realizing the same thing.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            I am well aware of the scripture you cited (Psalms 137). You don’t understand context very well. Nor do you realize God can do, and or authorize whatsoever pleases Him. He is God; He is the Lord; He is creator of all things, including your eternal existence. You might as well get to know Him…through His word that He has given us all to learn. That is how He operates. Is the 66 books of the Bible all God inspired men to write? Absolutely not. But to claim it is full of contradictions, yet provide not a single example to support your accusations is libel. If you are going to call error on scripture, you had better present evidence of this. So far, by citing Psalms 137, you have shown nothing about it to be in error. I mean, what are you saying about Psalms 137? This, as well as many other scriptures speak of violence. And…? What is the context of the violence you read in the scriptures? This boils down to you “cherry picking” what you don’t like in the scriptures, without any diligence to learn what the Bible is saying, and some how feel qualified to judge whether or not God inspired the writer(s) of such scriptures. Because of your ignorance of the Bible, as well as your half-hearted attempt at truly studying it, clearly you do not qualify to judge…of all things, THE WORD OF THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING GOD! This is beyond foolish.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            I am not cherry picking anything and I understand the scriptures quite well

            My point in pointing out that particular phrase was the violence it speaks to? And most do not realize such exist in the Bible. But it does . Of course one would have to actually realize the circumstance of the time and place to grasp the actual pertinence of the words. For what ever reason you simply cannot and will not consider anything except your own perspective? And that is your shortcoming in fully understanding. But as I have said already that is your choice. So again you go off on the same thing? If you do not believe as I do you are going to hell with fire and brimstone ? IMO that is pathetic thinking and quite backwards. All I have said is simply that there is more to the story and I know that is a fact. It is all out there for all to see and learn and grow from.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            My argument has nothing to do with whether you believe in the scriptures like I do or not. You are criticizing the scriptures for accuracy of truth, and do not qualify to do so. I am what is known as an apologist for the scriptures. I’m sure you do not know what that means, since you do not understand my position in this debate with you. But at this point, you do not know, nor understand enough about the scriptures to make your argument. You have convenced me of this by everything you have said. But keep on learning, and growing in your understanding. Note: When you come across any “alleged” doctrine of truth that contradicts the holy scriptures of the Bible, drop it like the excrement it is, and focus on the word of God. Your eternity depends on it.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            It is your eternity that depends on the entire story my friend and you are completely stuck in the partial story? I have a very thorough understanding of the Bible and many other ancient text although I know some of those will be a life long endeavor.
            You arrogance is overwhelming, you not me . Sorry to say.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            Good by “Down to Earth”; which you are anything but, when it comes to Biblical truth.

        • Seldena

          Wait a minute! There are no conflicts in the Bible. It says what it means and means what it says. God IS NOT the author of confusion-Men are. They try to interpret the scriptures to fit their lives. This does not work. remmeber in Rev. 22 do not add or take away from any thing in this book.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            All I am saying that the Bible was censored and edited by men not God . There actually is more information from the missing books and some very profound understanding of what was practiced and intended prior to Constantine? that has been eliminated by MEN ? That is simply a fact. I am NOT saying the BIBLE is wrong or bad or anything like that. You and others are making huge assumptions because you are stuck in partial information and afraid to seek the entire truth ? I am saying it has been altered by men. simple as that. Think and believe whatever you please and I will also.

          • Seldena

            No, I respectfully disagree with you. The Bible which is the inspired words of God were written in three languages, Hebrew, Aramic, And Greek. The Old Testament in the Hebrew and the New in Greek. Scriptures were translated into English from these languages. They are correct because the first Bible was translated correctly.I agree there have been ancient manuscripts found, but ig God wanted those in his word they would be there.Yes, you are correct in one thing; modern man has changed some scriptures. That is why I stick to the Old King James version that has not been altered. No partial info here. I have studied the Hebrew and Greek. I know what I am talking about.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            Me too ? You are overlooking a lot of material from prior times. And as far as God not wanting certain info in ? That does not hold water either. By that standard there would be no sin or bad acts or evil or any such things?

            What I am saying is that we have free will and men changed the Bible NOT God ? It is men that ahve perverted and polluted everything including the established Abrahamic religions. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Bible , just that it was altered by men and for political reasons of control. Sorry to say but that is just a historical fact. You are completely free to think or believe anything you choose, me too.

        • Tony Donaldson

          If it leads you to the creator in good conscience, it has done it’s job.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            Absolutely. I believe that is the real point is it not ?

  • foxxybey

    Glad to hear this, have heard this for years and totally wrong. God judged nations for their leaders and when many had a bad one they fell, well this nation is about to be judged because we have called evil good and good evil, Obozo is a example of coming judgment. He believes in a false religion and serves the little god of Islam and not the God who founded this country.

    • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

      And what about the 70 million infants murdered? Do you suppose God is good with that for USA ?

      • foxxybey

        God said He would judge a nation for killing babies, homosexual acts and destruction of the family, coming to America soon. God Bless Friend and Shalom:

        • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

          Shalom to you as well ! we need it for sure.

    • Seldena

      Very true!

  • Jeffrey Liggens

    The “Separation of Church and State” was created to protect the Church from undue influence and control by the state. However, that sword swings both ways; it also protects the state from undue influence from “anybody’s religion”. We as Christians feel great when we hear things like the nation was founded on Christianity, (which is not accurate), and as long as “our religion” dominates and influences the laws that are given for all to serve reflect our beliefs in our Christian doctrine, we are fine. We cheer, and virtually condemn others who do not accept, nor believe in our religion. Notwithstanding the fact that “Biblical Christianity” is superior to any other religion, the dangers in having laws favor any religion is that one day, our Christian religion will no longer be allowed influence in the government, while some other religion serving a false deity gains influence over the law makers, to the harm of Christians. The law(s) that govern our nation must be sterile, and totally objective; not favoring anyone’s religion, but rather everyone’s right to exist, providing their existence does not do harm, nor preclude anyone else’s existence. God gave us choice through our Constitutional laws. When that is not respected, there will be strife, because some feel according to their “religion”, certain others should not exist. This is neither the mind of Christ, nor the Spirit of God behind this attitude. Unfortunately, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ think it is. Politics is a total different concept from religion. If one who is religious cannot distinguish between the two, then they should stay out of politics, as their confusion and lack of understanding of politics will only steer them down the wrong path, ultimately harming themselves as an undue consequence. May God bless Dr. Voddie Baucham, but this applies to him as well.

    • me1952

      Not quite. Separation of Church and State can’t be found anywhere in the Constitution. The intent was to protect the citizen’s right to religious freedom and to prevent the establishment of a state religion. It was not to silence the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque on important social issues, nor did it forbid them from trying to influence social policy or politics.

      • Athanasios1

        me1952 WINS!!!! There is no separation of the Christian-Judaic teachings and our Constitution. All this “separation” jargon started with a bad Supreme Court ruling supporting anti-Christian and anti American sentiment used to tear down good principles. Which goes to show you that some members of the Supreme Court will also have to spend time in a FEMA re-education camp.

        • me1952

          I honestly can’t recall hearing anything about separation of church and state until the fight to legalize abortion began. Then it was an effort to silence the Catholic Church, which had been specifically targeted by the abortion movement as a common enemy against which all could rally.

        • Marty

          This “jargon” about Church/State separation was from a letter written by then-President Jefferson.

        • Seldena

          You need to read the Constitution of the United States.hen you can properly make sense of it all then re-post.

          • Larry

            Wrong, you need to read it and the writings of our founders, not your liberal thinkers garbage.

          • Seldena

            Sir, I assure you I am not liberal. I am a Conservative to the bone! I have read the writings of the founders and done an indepth study of the Constitution.Dr. Bachman had it right on the Church and state as put forth in the Constitution.

          • Athanasios1

            No Seldena…you need to get an education first, and read the Constitution again. For all the leftist liberal imbeciles, let me remind you that the biggest religious war was fought in the U.S. from 1860-1865. That war was about states rights regarding slavery versus our Constitution which stated that all men were created equal. The Koran uses the same word to describe a black skinned man/African, as for a slave.

      • TerryE

        Separation of church & state came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist church in Ct & to glean the meaning of its inference, one must read it in its entirety. Nowhere in the US Constitution can the phrase “separation of church & state” be found. In fact, Jefferson’s letter referred to “Maintaining the wall of separation between church & state.” Properly defined, the 1st Amendment’s exclusionary clause “Congess shall make NO LAW establishing a religion or PREVENTING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”. Plain & simple, our gov’t is Constitutionally prohibited from making any law concerning religion…..

        • me1952

          Exactly. Excellent post.

        • Shinoa

          Thus, the Freedom from Religion group has got it all wrong when they demand crosses be removed from public land because Congress did not authorize those crosses being put there nor did they make any laws regarding those crosses. Which brings me to ask why they have gone after all the permanent crosses on the US highway system. Those highways and crosses are on public land.

          • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

            I agree.

          • Leijona

            What permanent crosses on the US Highway System? I have seen several displays of the three crosses on private land that can be seen from the highway, but I have never seen permanent crosses erected by government agencies on public land?

          • Shinoa

            On Interstate Hwy 25 between Las Cruces and Albuquerque there are at least 50 permanently constructed crosses on the hwy median and shoulder access. There are also permanently constructed crosses on I-10 between Yuma,Az and the TX/LA border. I cannot tell you how many are on that stretch of road. I do not know who places these crosses in their current locations or who maintains them. But, these are not just little wooden crosses to show where someone was killed. They are placed in cement with many decorations, including boxes and other memorabilia that are also permanent. A good 60 mph wind would not take away.

          • Leijona

            Interesting. Could you explain your position on your previous statement?

            “Thus, the Freedom from Religion group has got it all wrong when they demand crosses be removed from public land because Congress did not authorize those crosses being put there nor did they make any laws regarding those crosses. Which brings me to ask why they have gone after all the permanent crosses on the US highway system. Those highways
            and crosses are on public land”

            It sounds like you are saying that the crosses you refer to were erected without authorization of any authority having jurisdiction, so no authority has the right to remove them ????

          • Shinoa

            What I am saying is that Congress did not make a law where these crosses were put, as in public parks, they did not mandate these crosses be put there. As for the monuments on the federal highways, I have no idea who puts them there or who authorizes them. I have seen the highway dept mowing around but not putting flowers or caring for them. I live just of US hwy 60 and there are 4 that I can see from my house and have never noticed who is caring for them. Does this help? Who has the authority to make laws regarding our religious freedom? I think this all comes down to morality. Who has the moral authority to tell a group they have no right to their beliefs.

          • Leijona

            Nobody has a right to make laws regarding your beliefs. It will be interesting to see what happens if someone runs into one of these and is killed as a result, although I have no idea whether they represent a traffic hazard. You would know this better than I.

          • Shinoa

            I didn’t mean, literally about making laws regarding my beliefs. There could be problems if someone runs into them if they ran off the road onto the side access area. That is the wide strip that runs along both sides if the highways or run across the median. There are quite a few large monuments in the median on I-25. It appears in one of them that it was multiple deaths. Really kind of sad to see these and the lives that were lost. I don’t think it deters reckless drivers though.

          • Leijona

            Yes, it is very sad how many people die every year on our highways.

        • Jeffrey Liggens

          You were doing so so until you redefined the 1st Amendment.
          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…” is what it says, and not what you have erroneously defined it to say, “Congess shall make NO LAW establishing a religion…”There is a huge difference between what you think it says and mean, verses what it actually says and mean. Based on the way the Constitution is written, the government has the right to establish “a” religion, but does not have the right to force it upon anyone. But stay tuned, it’s still early.

          • Larry

            You sir are twisting words to make a point, which is wrong. The writer of the Declaration of Independence, and co-writer of the Constitution, knew exactly what they both meant. Jefferson spoke of keeping government out of the church, not he church out of the government. No where will you find any of the writers of the Constitution speak of the government establishing a religion.
            However, in the last few decades, that is what has happened. It is the church of secularism. It’s dogma is “what ever feels good do it”. Sadly for it’s members, they will come to know the real truth. But that truth will not set them free, but will bring a punishment unknown to man.

      • Jeffrey Liggens

        The concept of the “separation of Church and state” are codified within the 1st Amendment. No where in the Constitution can you find any phrase that alludes to the state not being able to establish their own religion. They just cannot force it upon anyone. As for what you think the “intent” was concerning the 1st Amendment and religion is, that is your opinion, which you have a right to. But opinions alone have little substance for grounds to debate upon when faced with technical accuracy.

        • me1952

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. This seems very straightforward to me. Where does it say the Congress can establish a religion?

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            Did I say it said that? Reread my post again. I said the way the Constitution is written, they can establish their own religion; they cannot force you to accept it. The Constitution does not forbid the government from establishing its own religion. Show where they are forbidden to do so, and I will concede, but it does not.

          • me1952

            This clearly says to me the gov’t cannot establish a religion. How is the Constitution written to indicate otherwise?

          • Wolf-Spider

            The Federal Government can’t establish a religion, let alone force anyone to abide by it. The individual states, however, don’t have that stipulation.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            Copy and paste the phrase in the Constitution where you think it prohibits the government from creating their own religion. WHEN YOU CAN’T DO IT, are you big enough to admit you are wrong?

          • Wolf-Spider

            First Amendment – “Congress (Federal Government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (creating: i.e. Anglican / Episcopal to England or Lutheran to Germany), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            Do you know what it means to make a law? Do you know what it means to create a religion? Do you know the difference between the two? If not, this is where you are missing it. Creating a law, and creating a religion is not synonymous. When Congress creates a law, everyone must obey it, regardless of your demographics. If Congress creates a religion, we already have the 1st Amendment in place, which forbids them, and any other form or branch of government from forcing you to adhere to it. You have the freedom to follow that government religion, or ignore it. Know the difference.

      • Tony Donaldson

        Tell that to the IRS when they audit your church because someone in the congregation decides to record the sermon with politics in it.

        • me1952

          I hear you. I wish the IRS would have audited the church that took up a collection for Jesse Jackson’s presidential candidacy years ago. Heck, it was on TV, how could they miss it?
          No double standard or anything.

        • Larry

          You do not know much of what you are talking about. Churches do not file any documentation to avoid taxation, That has been used as a scare tactic by the left. Can’t take away something that was never intended to be given. What the churches must do is educate the members and even their staff, what the Constitution expressly states :

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”;
          When the Church, it’s members including the pastor sees a wrong imposed by the government or a person in the government doing wrong, either by act or word, we must speak the truth, calling out the acts and the person that perpetrated the wrong. So when the government does something that is against God’s Word then it must be brought to light. The same goes for someone either involved or wanting to be involved in the government, their actions must be brought to light.
          This whole separation of church and state began to evolve, in the 1940s, when the church as a body decided that government was dirty and evil and it should not be involved with it. And what did we get? Just look around, we let the dirty write the laws and place judges that agreed with their laws. Which as a whole are against God’s Word. So now the struggle to attempt to correct the wrongs begins. However, it may be too late, as it appears God has had His fill of our sinful actions as a nation.

    • Seldena

      Only the Bible is what I go by.

    • Leijona

      Backwards. The “Separation of Church and State” was created to protect the State from undue influence and control by a specific religion (Church). Look at Europe and the “Divine” inbred Monarchs.

      • Jeffrey Liggens

        The only obvious reason the troops from Britain fought to be free from England’s rule, was so they could rule over America and its Natives themselves. Ultimately, These men did rule and oppress everyone who were not White and male. The religion some claimed to have was Christianity. But most became Freemasons, led by the first sovereign grand commander of the US, Albert Pike; whom himself was a “Luciferian”. He and two of his co-harts started the Ku Klux Klan, and used the Bible (as they do today) to preach white supremacy, and to persecute anyone whom was not white and male. This is just some of America’s ugly history.

  • alice

    Just plain everyday cooperation tells us that a person or a group should refrain from asking for what belongs to another because they know how important it is that the other person or group retain what belongs to him or them. Thus they are secure in the knowledge that they have not stood in the way of progress. Because the aim of those who participating in the cooperative agreement is not that all should prosper although that may be a side benefit but the real aim is the development of a healthy personality of the individual. So now we know why we have so many unhealthy personalities in the good old USA as so many continue to demand what rightfully belongs to another, marriage, as one example and in the process become as infants.

    • Leijona

      Alice, do you actually talk like that? That was an exceedingly circular statement. Takers could give a crap less how important it is that someone other than themselves benefit from another persons labor. They are takers.

  • Carol

    Also Pastor,,,,the church is being watered down and loosing its salt. It is simply dying. What ever happened to worship? Real on fire worship?

  • mad as hell

    It seems to me that people interpret the constitution as a document that limits the rights of free citizens. It is ,however, a document that should limit the government from infringing on our rights. Freedom of religion is not a right given by the constitution. It is a right guaranteed by that document. We can practice as we please or not practice, and the government cannot do anything about it without violating the constitution. This may be an over simplification but I believe in KISS (keep is simple stupid).

    • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

      I agree. and would add , look what happened during the Spanish Inquisition when church and state were one? Or the Salem witch trials or the end result of the knights Templar and the Gnostics and Essenes? This is NOT a perfect answer or end all be all fix by any means . There is far more to the story as usual but many so-called Christians want to ignore that part ? The current churches are not what was in-tended , not even close. I doubt that Jesus would approve of any, so why would anybody want that to be running your life with government? Pretty obvious government is an out of control beast already. When you only have partial information you are NOT informed and likely being manipulated.

      Everything important or right is inside you and not from a church ! The churches are simply business any more , sorry today but true. Far better to do your own research and reading , praying, meditating and let God and or Jesus show you the way ? They will, you just have to ask in complete honesty. Most people are NOT honest with themselves about a whole host of issues and life matter these days as well and that is a huge part of the problem we all face in having any cohesion or affect against the control freaks . So yes , in many ways the churches are part of the problem and not the solution as it exists ? They are simply corrupted and polluted just like our government is . No difference at all.

      • Seldena

        Christ died for his bride-THE CHURCH. I am part of THE CHURCH. It is in the business of saving souls. Evidently you are not a believer because you could not have posted such nonsense!

        • http://www.downtoearththinking.com/ Down to Earth Thinking

          I may believe and have a far deeper grasp and understanding than you do. Amazing so many so-called Christians do not understand so many things ?

          That is of course part of why we are seeing what we are seeing. You are completely free to think or believe what ever you want. even if it is only partial information.

    • Seldena

      You are right just as Article 6 states.

    • Leijona

      Keep (it) simple, stupid, but yeah you are correct, Bill.

      Now, google A to Z list of federally funded government programs, and please, sit down first.

  • Blessings

    My Pastor teacher speaks of politics at great length. We learn how God’s word and His laws are applied in Washington, and how they are not! We then learn how to apply our own biblical knowledge and growth in God, in making a decision regarding polices and how they will effect us personally and us as a Nation..
    This is one way I honor God…

    • Seldena

      Jesus said to render unto ceasar what was ceasars. He did not mean to obey the government when it was wrong. Look what he did to the tax collectors at the temple.

      • Leijona

        They were not tax collectors, they were currency (Money) changers. They were there to change (for a fee, of course, I mean after all, they were Jews) foreign currency into sheckels. Read “The Zealot” Very, Very, revealing on very many levels.

        • Wolf-Spider

          What does Jewish have to do with anything?

          • Leijona

            Usery. They started the concept of charging interest, but only charged gentiles ( Non Jews) Interest. I think that is where their troubles began.

          • Wolf-Spider

            I don’t think Jewish people started the idea of charging interest. The money changers did employ a practice of thumbing a scale, or using unbalanced scales. They were skimming from everybody.

          • OKCPatriot

            Let me guess, you supported Ron Paul?

          • Leijona

            Yes I did. You do not want to know how much gold we have in OUR federal reserve? You think that they do not have to answer to anyone, even the owners of that gold? You think we should continue to stick our noses in the business of every country on the planet? You think that we should continue to spend money that we do not have while we borrow more from Communist China?

        • OKCPatriot

          Another Israel and Jew hater, huh? Are you another neo Nazi, Leijona?

          • Leijona

            No I do not hate Jews, but when I wonder why they end up being persecuted throughout the world, Money always pops up as the reason. It is kind of strange that they do not see that. Jesus in the Temple-Money, WW1 and the Rothschilds, Money. The Federal Reserve-Money. Its always about money, one way or another.

  • PatMan

    Nice job Pastor Baucham!

  • Cliff Lindsay

    To address the problem is very simple, we first must address where we are today. At the present time the religion of Humanism controls our US government and all Public Schools at all levels. Till the day comes when a majority of the citizens have read the Humanist Manifesto 1 & 2 and understand it and stand against it we will have these never win arguments of ” Separation OF Church and. State. You should be concerned with items such as John Dewey the father of modern, ” Progressive Education” signed Humanist Manifesto 1 as well as Walter Mondale’s dad Robert Lester Mondale. You should be also concerned with that in January of 1980 before President Jimmy Carter appointed
    Shirley Hufsteadler in charge of a new Department of Education IN Washington DC and she was a Trustee at the Aspen Institute For Humanistic Studies. You should also be concerned with that the present President Obama’s mother was a Humanist and in his book, Dreams From My Father he wrote, “my mother stood alone in the community as a witness for Secular Humanism” In the Humanist Manifesto 2 this religion calls for Abortion and Euthanasia, and so does Obamacare. May I SUGGEST that you download Humanist Manifesto 1&2 and see that this religion also believes in sharing the wealth, right to suicide, situation morals instead of theological morals, their is no God OR prayer nor spirit, ANOTHER example would be that the religion of Humanism in Humanist Manifesto 2, “We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty. This is the reason for problems on the border with Mexico, they want to do away the borders. etc,etc,

    • Leijona

      SO you want to teach creationism and religion in public school? Is that what you think should happen here? SO if you have a class of christians, muslims, and hindis, you teach the bible on monday, the quran on tuesday, and so on and so fourth?

      Go ahead, try to teach the kids today that man was made out of clay 6,000 years ago. I told my grandson if he even thinks he hears anything resembeling this in his school he is to go to the front office and call me immediately. It is going to be hard enough for our kids to compete with the forward thinking nations of the world without the religious morons in this country throwing thier troglodite, cave man obstacles in front of them. The kids today are smart, thanks to the great teachers that teach them the truth. I wish I could go back and wring the necks of some of the teachers that taught me in perochial school.

      Morons like Ken Ham should be burried alive in horse manure.

      • mallen11

        I am a Biblical Christian; not religious, because I don’t follow man-made religions that are not Biblical. With that in mind, I do not believe our communistic public schools of today should pray or teach the Bible to the students. I would not want a non-Christian to teach God’s Word because it would be mostly falsehoods. When I went to school, we had teachers who read from the Bible and prayed and we said the pledge. Other teachers did not. No one protested. Most of the students went to church in that day but most do not in this day. The Bible should be taught in the home of Christians as well as the churches where they attend. That is rarely done these days and that is why our Nation is in trouble. With the onslaught of Christian persecution, our Nation will go down and what would you have to offer that is better? Education? What education? The teachers can’t even control the classroom enough to teach and students bring home hours and hours of homework expecting the parents to do the job. Parents are too busy to be bothered so they just keep getting passed with “made-up” Ds to pass. We home school and it is not easy on them since they have to read everything they learn and apply it. They are constantly being tested and having to make reports. I am their “coach” and a tough one at that. Science is a great source of information but it is relative; what the Bible says is absolute. I would rather believe in an absolute than relativity that changes constantly. What is actually happening is that the liberals, humanists, socialists, communist, etc. are doing to Christians exactly what they claimed the Christians were doing to them. What hypocrites you are. Why do you push your way of thinking of those of us who don’t believe your way? Without true biblical Christianity, our Nation will become a third world existence and apparently that is what you want. Man is not smart enough to do things better than God. Our whole Nation is facing some terrible suffering because too many have rejected God’s way. As goes the believer, so goes the nation. You need to be prepared.
        Psalm 28:5 Because they regard not the works of the Lord, nor the operation of his hands, he shall destroy them, and not build them up.
        2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by MY name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked (rejection of God’s) ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
        II Peter 3:18… but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity.

        • Leijona

          I am sorry for you. My grandson goes to a public school here in Maryland, and everyday he comes home excited about what he has learned every day. I am truly amazed at the level of knowledge he possesses at his age, and his report card is all A’s and O’s (for outstanding) across the board.

          I am not trying to push my beliefs on you. If you want to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, and you want to teach your children that, go ahead. If you want to teach your children that man was made from clay, go ahead. (Obviously that’s what you believe)

          You are quite right in that Science is relative. It is relative to the ever changing quantity of data that is constantly coming to light as a result of scientific research on all fronts. Science not only admits that it is wrong when new information becomes available, it embraces and presents laurels to the finders.

          And that is the most significant difference between religion and science. Those that believe that the bible is faultless never admit that anything in it is wrong. It is all the misinterpretation of the unholy masses. A day is not 24 hours, it is a thousand years. A disk is not a disc, it is a misrepresentation of a sphere. Man is made from clay, he is not the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

          OK you win, but my grandson is going to MIT if I have anything to say about it. Where do you suppose your kids will be prepared to receive their higher education? I don’t think you can home school through college, can you?

          I have read the bible, and I do not see it as the magnificent guide to morality that you do. Granted, It has some wonderful passages, and their moral value is great. It also has a lot of pretty horrendous passages, but we never hear about them on this forum.

          Its too bad the people that wrote the bible did not stick with morality, and things that cannot be weighed, measured or observed. Of course, How were they supposed to know that one day man would be able to look back at the earth from space, and who would have ever thought that there would be geologists, archeologists, forensic biologists, astronomers and on and on and on.

          • mallen11

            You feel sorry for me??? Why? I am extremely happy with my circumstances and my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. I know where I am going when I die; do you? The Bible was NOT written for morality. The Bible was written for man to know who and what God is and why we are here on earth and why we need a savior for eternal life. The Christian way of life is above morality; it is spirituality through the power of the Holy Spirit. Anything an unbeliever can do is not the Christian way of life. Example: unbelievers can be moral and very nice people. The sad part is that in our world today most Christians do not know what the Bible teaches. Yes, there are also online college degrees; they don’t plan to homeschool their degree. You can only see one side of life and it limits your understanding of what life is all about.
            1 Corinthians 2:14….But the natural man (unbeliever) receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
            BTW, congratulations for your grandson. Education is the greatest second only to the study of God’s written Word that should come first in a believer’s life.

          • Leijona

            Because the school system where you live is so sub-standard. You said that the teachers cannot control their students, and the kids do not receive a decent education.

            If you are going to compare a degree from a brick and mortar Ivy League institution to an online degree, with no interaction between brilliant students from different cultures, there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

            Just because I do not believe in the version of how you think we got here, does not damn me to the hell you have created in your mind.

          • mallen11

            Narrow minded, self righteous, arrogant people like you are very judgmental. I happen to live in an elite neighborhood and was not talking about my school district. My granddaughters are homeschooled for more reasons than misbehavior in our schools. We don’t need interaction with other cultures; this is America and people from other countries need to accept OUR culture or don’t come here. Nations must retain one culture or they will not survive. Education is very important but it does not have to be one’s religion. The God of the Bible should be our focus then other things will work in our lives to our ultimate happiness. There is nothing that will damn you to hell except your unbelief in Jesus Christ.
            Heb 12:2fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
            Isaiah 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call you upon him while he is near:
            John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
            Since God made us, He has the right to expect us to do His will but gives us a volition to accept or reject.

          • Leijona

            So your condemnation of the school system was not in reference to the school system your grandaughters would have gone to? It was just condemnation in general? OK Now I see. I naturally assumed that your granddaughters were being home schooled because someone in your family was not happy with something about the local school system. That is why I said that I was sorry for you.

            Now that I understand the circumstances, I am not sorry for you, like I would be for someone who is forced to live in a substandard school district. Your case is kind of rare, because elite neighborhoods usually have upscale school systems.

            You said:

            “We don’t need interaction with other cultures; this is America and people from other countries need to accept OUR culture or don’t come here”

            Diversity has always been this countries strength, whether you want to believe it or not, yet you consider me to be Narrow minded, self righteous, arrogant and judgmental. Really?

          • mallen11

            Diversity has been crammed down our throats for too many years. Legislation can’t make people like each other. Diversity is totally human viewpoint. Christians are to have impersonal love for all mankind but that does not mean we are to accept their lifestyle or culture. For instance…
            The false doctrine of religion can tyrannize like Shari law of Islam is pure tyranny because the tenants do not respect divine establishment principles – evil of religion is from Satan – that law is tolerated because of diversity while Christianity is attacked.

          • Leijona

            Islam not diversity, it is Theological tyranny. I can not agree more.

    • mallen11

      It is absolutely amazing that we were told exactly who and what -0 was when ran for the president and it was all overlooked because of his “color.” People vote with their emotions; not with common sense or logic.

  • Jmaarch

    Great article! Thanks, I am not sure that culturally Christians are unpopular. I think that the media has only published one side to the story. I am sure that the only reason that the gay Nazis have gotten any where at all has been for Christians that are trying to be fair and Christ like to consider their view point. When Christians finally realize that the gay Nazis and for that matter the Obama Marxist regime has used them and they are really out to destroy Christians (literally) I believe that the majority of Americans will get to a point where they have had enough of the bullying and that point is soon. The problem is that the main stream media will never publish the truth so the gay Nazis will always look like they are winning. I think the main power the Christians have will be to boycott any one or company that tries to force their bully agenda down our throat. Like Duck Dynasty, Cracker Barrel or the Mozilla CEO, stop buying these companies products. Force them out of business. I think we all should boycott main stream media and not support them in any way. All their broadcasts are fiction and are so far from the truth that they are a waste of time to watch. They are all part of the brain washing of the tyrannical government. Christians are the next obstacle that need to be eliminated for the New World Order to take over total control. As with the Nazis of WW II who exterminated the Jews, the new American tyrants will try and exterminate Christians because they are the same type of people using the same tactics. History is repeating itself here in whats left of America, once the land of the free now the land of the tyrant, bullies and evil people.. Christian, wake up or die!

    • Seldena

      I am very aware of the war on Christians. We were founded on Christian principles of the Bible.It is a shame we have a non-christian in the WH. He wantss to destroy this great country and he has to go! I hope impeachment is soon!

  • binder890

    The problem is that we have accepted a bribe. That bribe is a tax-exempt status, which an organization can get only if it stays out of issues that concern citizenship, legislation, and politics. Organizations accept the bribe if they want to be able to offer their donors tax deductions at income tax time. And donors preferentially put their money where the deductions are. It subtly shifts pastors to staying away from potential threats to their tax exempt status.

  • Udo

    Not even sure this is a problem with the government. Churches can address political concerns to an extent and some people just aren’t clear on how far that is. Most churches that go beyond those bounds don’t even get so much as a slap on the wrist anyways.

    • Seldena

      They should not get any kind of retaliation! The church cannot tell you who to vote for or endorse a candidate. They can preach about the corruption and sin in the government as they should!

    • Tony Donaldson

      Billy Graham never did. He shied away from anything political. He brought darkness to light in many millions of souls. He left Caesar to Caesar.

      • R G

        Ceasar was government and a ruler.
        In the USA, WE THE PEOPLE own representative government. It is a Republic, meaning that Democracy is still subject to government obeying the limits and laws placed upon it by a Constitution.

        GIVE TO THE PEOPLE THAT WHICH IS THE PEOPLE’S!!
        Liberty. How do you give them liberty? Keep OUR government out of our religion and our lives and our paychecks and our property and our rights. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” George Washington

        GIVE TO GOD THAT WHICH IS GOD’S. Respect and adherence to his laws.
        “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” George Washington

        • Tony Donaldson

          I agree whole heartedly.

        • Seldena

          AMEN! The answer for America is founf in the passage of ll Chronicles 7:14. I pray we do this!

      • Leijona

        I thought Graham called George Bush and offered to campaign for him? Is this a fallacy?

  • EddieBop

    Onan Coca once again tries to promote the myth, like religious extremists always do, that “Our Founders viewed the separation as a way to protect the church from the government.” If that were true, Mr. Coca, then how do you rationalize Article 6 of the Constitution (written and entered into the Constitution before the Bill of Rights), which reads, in part, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The same Article 6, by the way, also makes clear that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, over and above the laws of any state. So, Mr. Coca, how do you rationalize your mythological claim in the face of this?

    • R G

      “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” means that and only that. You do not need to be baptized to any specific faith to qualify for a government office. It is because religion was not protected and because many other specific rights were not specifically protected that the ratification of the Constitution faced resistance. It was the promise of the Bill of Rights that helped ratification proceed. Look at the FIRST line of the FIRST Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. They put religion FIRST for a reason. For more background, read my lengthy post further up on the page, if it hasn’t been censored by the elites.

      • Seldena

        Why did we fight the King of England? Religious FREEDOM!

        • R G

          Correct. That is accurate. There is a Church of England. There is no established Church of the USA. No denomination was denied its right to exist in the USA as all but one were under English rule. In the USA any denomination could be practiced. We have THE FREE EXCERCISE THERE OF. FREE. FREEDOM! Get it? WHat the Progressive left has achieved is getting many Americans to believe that the Free exercise thereof is illegal and unconstitutional even though it’s right there in the constitution. Notice that the Bill of Rights are laws to prohibit government, not the people. Read my post further up on the page for more explanation.

          • Leijona

            Im sorry, but there was a lot of religious persecution in the USA in the early days, and there was even more persecution of people because of the rediculous proclamations of some of the church elders. Got a mole or a birthmark? The sign of the devil, you are an abomination. Have a kid with any type of malformation, like an extra toe? The sign of Satan! Abomination! The ignorance was incredible, and most of it was interpretation of passages in the bible by religious fanatics, the forerunners of todays evangilists.

          • R G

            You are an intolerant hater and a Progressive Fabrication Addict. You describe Fabian Socialists. They are STILL like that in 2014! Ignorance still IS terrible. The people most notably misrepresenting scripture were the Democrats who claimed to be Christians but who held other people as slaves.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            It is true that the Republicans of that day sought to abolish slavery.

          • Leijona

            Lincoln was a republican. Interesting that he knew slavery was wrong in spite of what it said in the Bible, dont you think? Hey! That seems to imply that man can reason between right and wrong without a book to guide him, or you could say IN SPITE of a book that misguides Him.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            The Bible has misguided no one. There are people who come up with their own subjective interpretations of scripture, then claim to be following what the Bible says. But when you look at the outcome of what many have done against people, anyone knowing and understanding the scriptures no that person, ideology, or movement is guided by the whims of those promoting “their own gospel”, and not the Gospel of scripture.

          • Leijona

            Leviticus
            25:44-46

            As
            for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among
            the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

            Exodus
            21:20-21

            “When
            a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

            Ephesians 6:5

            Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

            Exodus 21:16

            “Whoever
            steals a man and sells him, and anyone found inpossession of him, shall be put to death.

            Colossians
            4:1

            Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

            How can you interpret this in any other way than as misguiding man regarding the institution of slavery?

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            There was a time when slavery was law, but it is no longer. There was a time when God permitted incest among the early tribes of Israel, and later brought it to an end. There are many things that were cultural practices in scripture, that were not intended to be practiced forever. Back to slavery: When a person either owed a debt and could not pay it, they gave themselves for a time of service to whom they owed. Indentured servitude came about when a person was free by law to no longer be a slave, but they wanted to remain in their master’s house, they then pierced one of theirs ears so anyone at that time knew that this slave was willingly giving themselves to that master, and were not serving out of being forced, or because of a debt owed. There are a number of things in the new testament that are not taught, nor practiced today. However this does not negate the entire Bible. Loving God with all one’s mind, heart, and spirit, and loving one’s neighbor as themselves, and treating others the way you want others to treat you is the primary and most substantial teaching Christianity is based on, taught, and practiced today. The cultural practices of the past are exactly that; the past, and we do not practice them. Including, women ought to be silent in the Church, but learn from their husbands at home. We do not teach, nor live by this today.

          • Leijona

            Right. I was simply saying that southern plantation owners that referred to the bible, and went to a church wherein the bible was used as the basis for morality probably used the passages I alluded to in the bible as justification for slavery.

            There are people that post here that consider the Bible to be the infallible word of god. It is not. That does not negate the value of its good passages in any way, but if you cut out the bad stuff, and the descriptions of the earth and the rise of life on the planet that has been proven inaccurate by scientific research, there would not be much left. Frankly, I wish someone in authority would do so.

            By the way, in biblical times, slaves were more often groups of people that were subjugated by force of arms, not because they were in debt to anyone, and it was usually for life.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            You are absolutely correct about the southern plantation owners using the Bible to justify perpetrating slavery. You’re also accurate in saying in biblical times, how slavery was forced upon whole groups of people. However you are wrong in saying the Bible “is not” the infallible word of God. But what would confirm this truth within you is the Holy Spirit, which you obviously do not have. He (the Holy Spirit) is given as a witness to the word of God being true; then to guide you into all truth concerning your walk of faith in Jesus Christ. So the catalyst of that relationship is Jesus Christ, Whom you must first believe in what He has personally done for you on the cross of Calvary. Please see the 4th new testament book by St. John for this account. You can know for yourself the Bible is the infallible, and
            inerrant word of God. Pursue God through Jesus Christ, and you will know His word (the Bible) is true.

          • Leijona

            “The Holy Spirit”, which is known by many other names in other cultures that knew absolutely nothing of Jesus of Nazareth, or the god of the Israelite’s, tells me that it is wrong to enslave my fellow man. It also tells me that it is wrong to kill unborn humans, it tells me to treat other people with respect, and to act with civility to all.

            Now, how can a book that you say is divinely inspired include instructions on how to treat your slaves, and when you can kill them, or someone that frees them, and then turn around and say that I do not get it because I do not have the holy spirit in me?

            You go off on tangents about Jesus dying on the cross and this is supposed to somehow square the injustice and fallacy enumerated in the Bible?

            I am pretty sure that Jesus would radically edit the bible if he had been given the chance to do so.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            There is a lot the Bible doesn’t say. There is also context to consider when slavery was allowed by God. This may appear to be more complicated for you to understand right now. To fully break it down, I would have to write a book to do so, which this web site would not allow for this. Any culture claiming to know and have the Holy Spirit, but denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ does not have the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the ancient Israelites before the Christ era. For through Jesus Christ comes and dwells the fulness of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) bodily. There are many injustices in the scriptures. Like when King David banged the wife (Beer-Sheba) of one of his devoted soldiers, then sent that soldier out to the front line of battle, but with held back up troops, so that soldier would be killed; all to hide the fact that David had impregnated the soldier’s wife. I can question why God did not intervene and protect that soldier from death, but I am not God, and do not know why He didn’t do something for that soldier. Another case in point: I do not know why God does not intervene in behalf of ALL children being molested, physically abused, and even tortured to death. Not being able to answer these valid questions does not negate the existence, nor sovereignty of God. These questions only He can answer, and at His choosing. God owes no one any answers for why He does, or doesn’t do what some might expect. Nor does He owe anyone any explanations for His actions, or the lack thereof.

          • Leijona

            Well you make very good points, especially about the children. At least you are not one of those people that says that God allows, or creates catastrophes to punish the people of the affected country for allowing homosexuals to exist, like the general population is supposed to execute them all. People like that are certifiable, yet they can be seen regularly on the 700 club, and one of them almost ran for president.

            I really do not think that if there is a god, he would lower himself to get involved with the trials and tribulations of mankind. When you consider the enormity of the universe, Horton Hears a Who is a gross understatement.

            Have a good evening, Jeff

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            If everyone who has ever committed an abominable sin were executed, very few people would be left; including me. Thank God for His grace and mercy through Jesus Christ.

          • Leijona

            What would make you go on such a rant? I don’t hate anyone.

            What did I fabricate?

          • Leijona

            Southern Democrats misinterpreted scripture? I dont think so, according to the following, or am I misinterpreting what these passages say?

            Leviticus
            25:44-46

            As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over
            another ruthlessly.

            Exodus
            21:20-21

            “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

            Ephesians 6:5

            Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

            Exodus 21:16

            “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

            Colossians
            4:1

            Masters,
            treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in
            heaven.

          • R G

            Slaves in the Bible were indentured servants or slaves for debt payment or as punishment for a crime or from pagan lands, from other nations… nations not following God’s law/ those who will not follow God. Throughout the Bible, The Israelites are directed to follow God and receive the blessings denied to those who do not respect God …. or as in the story of Noah and the story of Sodom, God punishes them directly. When the English colonies in America were first established, the indentured servant policy let people, including whites come to the colonies as indentured servants, to work a landowners farm to pay off their debts and to be free in the seventh year … and to receive their own land to farm. They also could then have indentured servants come and work their newly acquired land. People were not initially brought here as slaves. The first court ordered slavery to be ordered in the English colonies due to civil law involved a black property owner named Anthony Johnson and the slave was a black man named John Casor in 1655. John Punch had previously been declared a slave in the English colony of Virginia as a criminal penalty for leaving a land owner’s property before his contracted time was finished. It was for a breach of contract criminal act. From there, slavery grew in the colonies. After that, America was established. WHile most founders called for abolition, some opposed and the union could not be achieved with the Declaration or secured
            by the Constitution if abolition was demanded as a term, so abolition was advocated and legislated in individual states.

            Deuteronomy 23:15-16
            Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 16He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

            Scripture (and history) require you to read much more than liberal talking point phrases that advance the leftist agenda when taken out of context.

            Read …. The Bible.

          • Leijona

            I am pretty sure that indentured servants were those persons from Europe that used that method to pay for their passage to “The New World”

            The slaves that were brought to this country from Africa were not indentured servants. They were basically tribes that were overpowered by rival tribes, and sold into slavery be them. Basically it was blacks selling blacks. You would think that they would be more upset with the people that sold them than the people that bought them, especially when the people that bought them were guided by the “Good Book” If you use that as your guide to morality, there is nothing wrong with slavery.

          • R G

            There IS something wrong with slavery in the Bible.

            Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

            In the Bible, indentured servants agreed to pay off a debt through a service commitment, Some agreed to permanent slavery. Other nations had slavery and the Bible wasn’t their faith. Egypt had slaves. Greece had slaves. Rome had slaves. …….. Slavery has existed in many lands, including Slavic nations, hence the name. Many white and black people came to the new world as indentured servants. Around 1619, slavery ships began transporting slaves to new lands. “The Slave Trade” (Hugh Thomas) lists about 11,328,000 Africans taken to the new world between 1440 & 1870 (about 4 million to Brazil, 2.5 million to Spanish colonies, 2 million to the British West Indies, 1.6 million to the French West Indies, and 500,000 to the colonies that later became the United States of America.)

          • Leijona

            Just because a lot of people had slaves, that does not make it right. I am simply saying that the bible is not the divine pinacle of morality that a lot of people seem to think it is. It Just isn’t. It is written by men, who incorporated their ideas of how things should be, period.

            Just because the majority of prople beleive in something does not make it a fact either. It is either a fact, or it is not a fact. Doctors used to bleed people. That does not make it right just because they bled so many.

          • Jeffrey Liggens

            Don’t forget even Issac Newton had to recant his observations of the Earth being round, in order to spare his life from being executed for being a heretic, as labelled by the Catholic church.

          • Leijona

            I did not know that, but I am not surprised at all. I have listened to the audiobook several times, and it is one of my favorites. I have often thought that he was from another planet, he was so brilliant. Way the hell ahead of his time.

          • turnipweed

            Correct and well said. The Exclusionary clause is to protect the people from government enforced religion, not to keep the government devoid of God and religion. Liberals need to understand that Conservatives hate the idea of a theocracy and stop accusing us or wanting one.

        • Leijona

          In that context it would be Freedom “From” Religion, as the king was forcing a religious beleif on his people. The really funny part of this is that the only reason the King switched was so he could get his jewels polished by a new squeeze, and the pope, who was a back door man, would not let him get rid of his old squeeze. The whole thing would be hillarious if he did not behead and torture people for not getting the memo.

          • Seldena

            King George lll was taxing the colonies terribly and also trying to make them worship his way. The Amereicans revolted and won. I don’t know what you are talking about.

        • R G

          And we HAVE IT! You can follow any faith that you want or none openly, in public on the street, on the US Capitol lawn or in the school auditorium and not be legally incarcerated. You only have to worry about whether the public venue will back down or spend the money to fight a potential lawsuit from revisionists who say that separation means no religion on public land. The founders PROVED that was not the definition of founding and Constitutional law. Notice that the Bill of Rights prohibits GOVERNMENT, not the people. We have the free exercise thereof in matters of religion and the founders already had 70 years of Sunday services in the US Capitol building without establishing a religion. .

      • EddieBop

        I looked but couldn’t find your other post. I don’t disagree with anything you said above, but I can’t say whether I agree with a further premise. What I am certain of, however, is that the “separation of church and state” was NOT, as Onan Coca claims, intended by the Founders to “protect the church from the government.” If the Founders intended otherwise, they would have included a provision to establish that fact.

        • R G

          “NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF”!!!!!!!
          My initial post is above, highly detailed.

        • John Francis Russo

          As R G points out, “… ; or prohibiting the the free exercise thereof; …”. AND I would contend that the federal government has, indeed, been prohibiting such free exercise of religion.

          • EddieBop

            And exactly how? If your answer includes a claim that a Christian (or someone of any other faith) is being “prohibited” from exercising his or her religion when trying to impose their religion on someone else, that dog won’t hunt.

      • John Francis Russo

        Try reading the individual state constitutions. You will find that it was considered to be a matter forbidden to the FEDERAL government ONLY. This was intended to prevent the federal government from trampeling on the states perogitives. (Also see the tenth amendment for further clarification.) However, the 14th amendment DID place additional limitations on the states. The exact extent of those additional limitations is still a matter of some debate.

    • Greenknight

      thats easy no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States means just that no single religion my be imposed upon the people. So no test could be given or made as a requirement for office. Not separation of church and state just free choice of to be or not to be religious. in any way shape or form you may so choice. Simple.

    • Seldena

      I just read Article 6. This means religion is not a part of the qualification for office. If you do not have a religion it is your choice. There you have it, religion cannot be controlled by the government!

      • Leijona

        Absolutely amazing! You turned the intent 180 degrees. Are you a lawyer? A darn good one, I bet.

        • Progressive Republican

          No he did not.

          Pay attention.

          • Leijona

            No “He” did not what?

          • Progressive Republican

            Gah!

            That was supposed to be:

            No I did not.

            Pay attention.

            Mea culpa.

        • John Francis Russo

          What I find amazing is that modern secularists have managed to turn the intent of the entire document aroud 180 degrees. Of course this is helped by ISOLATING our constitution from others of our founding documents, for example, the unanimous declaration of independence, which states that we are “endowed” by our Creator with rights. Thus, acknowledgement of our creator is at the very foundation of America.

          • Leijona

            That is correct, John. The founding fathers were Diests. They believed in a creator. There might very well be a creator. We have found that the entire universe operates according to the rules of physics as described by Newton, Einstein, etc. The usual reply to this assertion is “Yeah but who made the Rules” and that is a valid point.

            Maybe the creator simply said “F = Gm1m2/r2” and that set the whole thing in motion.

            The issue here is that they (The founding Fathers) did not want any specific religion upon a Monarchical throne wherein that Monarch could dictate a “state” religion to the masses that could dictate their version of the truth to all citizens under force of arms.

            This is exactly what they have in Pakistan and other Mideast countries wherein Islam has become the “State” Religion. The inevitable result of this is persecution of any religion or belief system other than Islam.

            Have a good day

      • turnipweed

        Luckily, it’s the choice of the voters to not vote for them.

      • John Francis Russo

        I think that we shoul also point out to EddieBop another part of our constitution. In article I, section 7 it states, “If any Bill shall not shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented him, the Same shall be a Law, …”
        So, why were Sundays excepted from the “secular” task ?

        Also, please notice article VII gives the date for the constitutional convention concluding its work and forwarding the newly drafted constitution to the states for ratification as, “… the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand sevsn hundred and Eighty sevsn…”. The same sentence continues with, “… and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth …”
        IF our founders had been determined to exclude religion; they could have left out the reference to the YEAR OF OUR LORD and used ONLY the twelfth year of American independence. BUT, they choose to include a reference to OUR LORD. THAT is not exactly what I would expect of someone dedicated to keeping God out of government. (Compare and contrast to the French revolution, which in addition to its reagn of terror also tried to implment a new calander, in order to eliminate references to “the year of our lord or Anno Domini”.

    • Leijona

      Rationalization of mythical claims as being fact is the very foundation of some religions, so that is nothing new. Mr. Coca is simply playing to his fans so he gets to write more drivel.

    • Progressive Republican

      He can’t. No one can.

      Onan is just one more of a plethora of serial liars hired by discredited FRWNJ disinformation propaganda sites like this whose purpose is to rile up the rubes on various “hot button” issues so that related sites can therefore solicit contributions to “fight” whatever issue the evil liberals are foisting on America.

      Yeah. They’re ridiculous.

      • turnipweed

        If you don’t like the site, you are still free enough to leave. If you prefer another site to this one, go to it.

  • Stealth

    The problem as I see it- is that we are in the ‘end-times’ and most have made their ‘choice’…. which all will be judged for…

    • Leijona

      Barring a collision with an asteroid, the remaining life expectancy of the earth is about 3,500,000,000 years. You have time to putt out. Most people spend so much time worrying about yesterday and tomorrow that they miss “The Now” and the beauty of this planet. The problem is religios doctrine driven by fear, and by the false premise that all mankind is bad, and driven by “Hooray for me and the hell with Harry” While some people have this attitude, most do not, regardless of what most religions state.

      • Larry

        Prove the age of the earth, not what you think, prove it.
        “Every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord”

        • turnipweed

          The age of the earth is irrelevant. The age of civilization is what you are thinking of.

          • Leijona

            Which one? Maybe you mean the rise of humankind? Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens?

            The earliest members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, and their main adaptation was bipedalism as an adaptation to terrestrial living.

            During the next million years a process of encephalization began, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled. Homo erectus were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. One population of H. erectus, also sometimes classified as a separate species Homo ergaster, stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools. The earliest transitional fossils between H. ergaster/erectus and archaic humans are from Africa such as Homo rhodesiensis, but seemingly transitional forms are also found at Dmanisi, Georgia. These descendants of African H. erectus spread through Eurasia from ca. 500,000 years ago evolving into H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis. The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia and the fossils of Herto sometimes classified as Homo sapiens idaltu.[28] Later fossils of archaic Homo sapiens from Skhul in Israel and Southern Europe begin around 90,000 years ago.

          • turnipweed

            The Bible was written 3000 years ago. The people at that time had no idea when God created the earth. They did the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. There may have been centuries or millennia between the time God spoke and His word was written down. You think a few mistakes could creep in?

          • Leijona

            Of course! But there are a lot of people that take what is in that book Verbatim.

        • Taking care of business!

          I am scientist, a believer, and a researcher–quite a good fit. Setting the all-pervasive, Humanistic-arguments, the counter-views, distractions, and manufactured-ignorance aside: the age of the Earth is quite “provable.” The “provability” of this fact is couched upon disciplines within physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, as well as the genome. I cast the gauntlet. Nevertheless– either way– believers should not be given to human intellect, corruptibility, and frailty; but should adhere to the Word and avoid “vain-arguments” for salvation.

          • Leijona

            So how old do you say it is? Or as a scientist and researcher are you going to take the fifth?

        • Leijona

          Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALALALALAL.

          It wont change the facts, Larry. It is what it is, not what Ken Ham told you.

      • turnipweed

        Nobody is saying the earth will disappear, jelly head. There’s a life-ending event every 200,000-500.000 years. The human race has nearly been wiped out several times. And God will decide when, not us.

        • Leijona

          You are quite correct, thank you for pointing out the Jelly.

          So I take it that you do not buy the 6-10K year age of the earth as alluded to in the Bible? Or to the disc shaped earth description therein?

          I found the following interesting:

          Our current Ice Age

          Our current geologic period, the Cenozoic era or the “Age of Mammals”, began 65Ma with the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction event.

          The current ice age, the Quaternary glaciation, beginning about 2.6Ma has featured 40K/100K year cycles of glacials/interglacials.

          The conditions needed to setup the current ice age took about 40M years, beginning with the thermal isolation of the Antarctic.

          The end of the current ice age will occur when the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt. This will happen whether or not humans accelerate it.

  • R G

    This video shows that wise men still walk the earth!

    The 1st line of the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights protects religious freedom because the founders KNEW of it’s CENTRAL importance to ALL liberty. They advocated the inclusion of, while not mandating / not establishing as official ……, RELIGION ……. because for a people to self govern, they must be in less need of masters. They must have principles of virtue and respect for the rights and property of others. DO UNTO OTHERS as You would have done unto yourself! Thou shall not covet! Thou shall not steal! THAT MEANS though shall not redistribute anything that is not yours! Virtue means that YOU should be responsible for your actions and decisions and that YOU PERSONALLY are responsible for charity and assisting those truly in need. The Bible is the primary source for teaching and learning the principles which, when followed, are the principles of liberty and they are naturally rejected by the left, Democrats, the media and specifically communist principled pundits, politicians, judges and websites. Communist manifesto author Karl Marx also knew this. He KNEW that the Bible was an obstacle to his agenda. That’s why he said “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy Capitalism”. Soviet leader Josef Stalin knew it too. That’s why he said “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Liberty requires strongly principled citizens and the Bible / God is known as the ultimate authority. In the 1600s, William Penn said “Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” This was understood at our founding and frequently stated. I’ll post example below.

    Without establishing a religion, Sunday services were held in our US Capitol Building in the chamber of the US House of Representatives from the time our government moved to Washington DC until the time of the Civil War. Thomas Jefferson attended weekly for 8 years as president. James Monroe attended. John Quincy Adams attended. The public attended. Sunday Services were also held in the Treasury office and the Department of War Office in the early 1800s. John Quincy Adams wrote these comments in his diary “[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. October 23, 1803.” “Attended public service at the Capitol, where Mr. Ratoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. October 30, 1803.”

    Multiple denominations shared the buildings. The sermon might be given by a Rabbi one week and a Catholic priest the next. The US Capitol Building was the largest Church in Washington DC in 1867. At that time, it was also the largest Protestant Church in America!!!!!! THINK ABOUT THAT! The founders believed that children should be taught the Jude o Christian principles of Christianity, to instruct the principles of liberty. They left actual “Faith” as a personal liberty. They advocated faith, but strongly advocated that the Biblically taught principles guide the individual citizen and the government. These principles teach people how to self govern, to be in less need of masters, meaning in less need of an overbearing micromanaging, rights infringing government. Self governing people, people of virtue have no need for big government.

    From here, I will let some of the founders tell you themselves what they thought regarding religion in public and government;

    The Northwest Ordinance, ratified by our first Congress and signed into law by President George Washington was written in sections called articles, as our Constitution was. This is the first line of Article 3: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

    George Washington : .”“….Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. ”
    “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained”

    Samuel Adams: “Revelation assures us that “Righteousness exalteth a Nation” – Communities are dealt with in this World by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe. He rewards or punishes them according to their general Character. The diminution of publick Virtue is usually attended with that of publick Happiness, and the publick Liberty will not long survive the total Extinction of Morals.” “A general Dissolution of Principles & Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole Force of the Common Enemy. While the People are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their Virtue they will be ready to surrender their Liberties to the first external or internal Invader. How necessary then is it for those who are determin’d to transmit the Blessings of Liberty as a fair Inheritance to Posterity, to associate on publick Principles in Support of publick Virtue.”

    SAM ADAMS After signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
    “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come!”

    JOHN ADAMS; “The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shall not covet,” and “Thou shall not steal,” are not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

    Thomas Jefferson had faith in God and faith in the “Principles” of Jesus. He said “I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines” “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.” Jefferson applied those principles and this comment is one example; “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

    Benjamin Rush “Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.”

    Patrick Henry “Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise they will be great and happy… If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Who ever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue.”
    ——–
    Faith is left to the individual as liberty in America as free will is understood by those of us who hold faith as God’s liberty to determine the history that will be attached to our name. However, principles determine who we are and how we live. They determine if we vote to bring chains upon ourselves, our wallets, our rights, our property and our liberty or keep the chains on government as the founders intended. What all of this means is that we each need to be self responsible for our actions and charity wishes and less favorable toward programs, agencies and dependency. As James Madison said of the federal government’s powers, they are “few and defined” and “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Government assistance was left to local government for local and known people who had no other options. We need to be self governing citizens of virtue no matter what we believe, if we are to be a free people. Christian principles are equal to “Principles of Liberty”.

    • Tony Donaldson

      The left is guilty. They know guilt and want to share their guilt with all man kind. Their majority of faulty egos wants all of us to believe and behave in their guilt. Stand firm in your beliefs. Have no doubt in your faith. Don’t be fooled into their guilt trap. They would put the thorns on your brow and nail you to the cross. Don’t let them. Forgive them for they know not what they do. Pray for them as you would a sick person.

      • R G

        Well said. We can try to inform them, educate them and explain the facts, but if that fails, all that we can do is try to keep them from winning elections and influencing culture in a negative way and forgive them for their insistence on advancing the candidates and policies responsible for the destruction of liberty, of religious influence, of wealth generation, of financial security, of our Constitutional government, of the rights attached to every LIFE and of our Country.

        • guest

          Satan is strong and they are weak. As Christians we know our value of God’s love and trust. How deeply unfortunate for them, they live their lives without God , not allowing his love to show them the truth, his truth.As they continue to take our country down a path of darkness and evil, we must continue our prayers for them.
          I agree, they don’t listen, understand, comprehend or even care, as their guilt is stronger then their own integrity and self worth..

          • mallen11

            Yes and we may go through some strong discipline from God because so many have rejected God’s way. People need to realize that Jesus Christ is still in control of history and it will be His timing to deal with our Nation.
            Psalm 28:5 Because they regard not the works of the Lord, nor the operation of his hands, he shall destroy them, and not build them up.
            2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by MY name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked (rejection of God’s) ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
            II Peter 3:18… but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity.

    • mallen11

      Good historical info. Copying and pasting for future use with my grandchildren.

  • Michael Jacques

    washington stated in his farewell address that religion and morality were necessary for good government, Franklin called for prayer at the constitutional convention, reagen state that if we forget that we are one nation under God then we will be a nation gone under…

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxqqo6Ofo2W7Uep_iTt0rEQW2XQ-chYoL

    • R G

      Thanks for posting that! No government official can lead this country correctly without understanding what Ronald Reagan knew and stated here.

    • Progressive Republican

      Washington’s farewell address made no mention of either God or Jesus.

      Franklin was a Deist.

      James Madison (who feared organized religion) said:

      “Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taqxes.”

      And…

      “The establishment of the chaplainship to Cong[res]s is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.”

      Ronnie committed two counts of treason, not to mention genocide and his unleashing the scourges of cocaine and crack cocaine to fund said genocide.

      • Grendel007

        Nice try, again

        • turnipweed

          Franklin was very much aware that Religion and morality were the foundation of our government, and indeed our nation. And don’t say we want a theocracy, that would be a Godless lie.

        • Progressive Republican

          And with 100% accuracy.

          Again.

  • seeymour kleerly

    God yes! Anti-Science, divisive Religion, Hell no!

    • Taking care of business!

      As a long-time scientist (etc.) and a believer, I seriously do not understand your comment. Please enlighten the posters. Then, I shall be privileged to reply.

  • TomBerger

    Hey Seemour!,
    How about trying to read the bible for once. When and if you do use a yellow highlighter to prove this man wrong.

  • Very interesting comments. First, I believe that Mr. Coca has misunderstood the reason for the First Amendment. The First Amendment is designed to prevent a governmentally blessed religion, very much like the Church of England, from being established by the United States government.
    But the main point of the article was religious people in politics. Only religious organizations, not people, are prevented from expressing political positions and favoring candidates (and that is because of the tax-exempt status of the religious organizations). And I think that is the correct modus operandi. But most emphatically, individuals should be politically aware, as a minimum, to be able to vote on a knowledgeable basis. And these individuals will all be either religious or atheistic or something. A Pastor, speaking on a political matter, should always announce that his/her views are not the views of his/her church. This will protect the tax exempt status of his/her church.
    God is an important part of the lives of billions of people and their political activity will almost inevitably always reflect their religious beliefs. I happen to be an atheist and ignore, for the most part, the Bible (which is the only source of God guidance in anything, including politics). I encourage religious people to speak out on politics and do not let the mistaken belief that church people are not allowed!
    Article 6 of the Constitution was a feeble attempt to keep religion out of government. The First Amendment is the final nail in the coffin of any governmentally approved/blessed religion in the United States. .

    • turnipweed

      I think all ministers who are serious about the word of God should relinquish their tax-free status. I think the parishioners would understand and appreciate it, and the church would make up the tax losses then some.

      • I disagree. Tax exempt status is too important to relinquish. The minister can still speak politically for him/her self.

        • turnipweed

          I guess money is more important than truth, righteousness, and the word of God. Come on man!

          Tax exemption is a conflict of interest. It effectively silences the church and cows the ministers. Listen to Dr. Baucham again please.

          • Perhaps you do not understand the tax exemption concept. In order to maintain tax exempt status, Dr. Baucham must not preach from the pulpit in favor or disfavor of a political candidate. However, as a person, Dr. Baucham is allowed to speak his own mind in favor or disfavor of any political candidate. And this money thing is important because it is needed to keep the church operating. It’s not about greed. Get with it, man Turnipseed (misspelling intentional! Just kidding, man!)..

    • Roy Clingenpeel

      Unfortunately most misunderstand the concept that the founders devised to prevent the church (a denomination) or a religion ( whether Christian or non Christian, atheistic or other forms) from dominating the control of government by a government (monarchy) edict. The church of England being the most familiar to colonist was used as an example. But most governments around the world are religiously dominated by some form of religion the United states currently being dominated by atheism (anti-Christian) an organized religious sect in itself represented by the ACLU and others trying to assert their dominance over certain ethnic groups.. The concept was to insure that a religious entity designated by the state or monarchy did not gain political or economic power over the people as in Europe by the Roman Catholic church and other state (monarchy) did including the Church of England. The term “separation of church and state” was never included nor alluded in the constitution nor any other documents other than a personal letters and the legal system and the ACLU developed in this country. The Bible nor God was not mentioned but only they resulting rights afforded humanity by their concepts and the concepts of many other religions that teach the basic right of individuals to have the freedom to do what is natural and biologically right for humanity. No church, religion, nor anti-religious organization should have any ability to include their laws into the legal system of this country that are in violation of these basis universally held rights of the individual to be free as described by the constitution. Any law in violation of those rights should be stricken from the laws of this land. The rights taken from one group such as the freedom of speech or the freedom to peaceful assemble to acceleration or empower the their position or another is also anti-constitutional

      • I disagree that the USA government is dominated by any religious or anti-religious group.

        • Bighoss

          I agree with your disagreement. It is, in fact, the very principle of separation of church and state in this nation that prevents such domination.

          There are those who identify themselves as Christians who would like to change this nation to a virtual theocracy. Google up “New Apostolic Reformation” and read about these “Apostles”, who are really no more than scheming bogus pseudo-Apostolic weasels.

          • turnipweed

            Those people are exceedingly rare. I’ll bet less than 1% of all voters want a Theocracy. Conservatives hate the thought of a Theocracy. It’s just a straw man created by the Left to turn people away from Conservatism.

      • Leijona

        Atheism is not specifically anti-christian. It is the belief that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a personal, divine entity that oversees and judges everything that we humans do. Atheists employ logical deductive reasoning, and that which has been proven through repeatability with the application of the scientific method.

        Religion uses blind faith and ancient stories passed down through word of mouth to instill belief in its precepts. Names of actual people and places are used to lend credibility to the stories. Are they real? We will never know, but some of these stories are vehemently defended as fact with no supporting evidence, and in some cases with a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

        Case in point? The age of the earth. Proven beyond a doubt to be at least 4.5 Billion years old. Rejected by Creationists with no evidence to the contrary.

        Another? Evolution. Proven beyond a doubt to any reasonable individual. Rejected by creationists because of insignificant gaps in evidence. Rejected in spite of the Gnome project. Gnome 2 is now being performed to further narrow down our ancestry. It too will doubtless be rejected by the creationists, because they do not let facts get in the way of their beliefs.

        The United States is not controlled by Atheists. Any current politician that would admit to being an Atheist would be thrown out of office, regardless of how good a job he/she has done.

        We will therefore continue to elect Morons like the ones that are currently running the country.

        • Wolf-Spider

          Micro-evolution (changes within a species) was proven. The different dog/cat/horse/ass breeds out there. Macro-evolution (one species becoming another) has not, nor can ever be proven to be fact. Even Darwin, himself, never believed macro-evolution was real.

          • John Francis Russo

            In Darwin’s “Origin of Species” , chapter 9, Darwin admits that the fossile record does not support his theory. In addition, the original version of Darwinian evolution has already been disproven. Darwin’s concept was lamarkian (i.e. involving the inheritance of aquired characteristics) which has been disproven. THAT is why we now have neo-darwinian evolution involving genetic mutation with natural selection. Darwin’s original version has already been disproven.

        • John Francis Russo

          Your entire first paragraph, ” Atheism is not specifically anti-christian. It is the belief that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a personal, divine entity that oversees and judges everything that we humans do. Atheists employ logical deductive reasoning, and that which has been proven through repeatability with the application of the scientific method.” IS WRONG. I find that atheism is as much dominated by illogical and emotion based thinking as any other system of belief.
          Your insistence that religion is based on “blind faith” ignores that fact that there is also a form of faith known as REASONABLE FAITH. Such faith is NOT blind and is based on reasonable acceptance of what is likely to be the case based on known and observed reality, in order to “fill in” the gaps when an absolute 100% proof is unobtainable. (We normally find such proof only in the realm of mathematics. Even in courts of law, the requirement for “proof” is much less.)
          Your case in point is is, itself, an example of a false belief. The age of 4.5 billion yeasrs IS NOT PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT. As evidence contrary to your assertion, I cite the half-life of C14 {approx. 5,300 years}. With this half life, even if the entire earth started out as C14, it would all have converted to C12 in less than one billion years. Diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old also contain measurable amounts of C14, when they should not have any C14 left in them.
          In addition, evolution, the MYTH of atheistic creation IS ALSO NOT PROVEN. And again you ignore evidence which cotradicts your hypothesis. Rather than insignificant gaps in evidence, there are MAJOR problems in the neo-darwinian hypothesis. (So much so that many evolutionists have now proposed the “hopeful monster” evolutionary model, instead of the graduasl change scenario formally used.)
          As for America being run by atheists – There is a great difference between being an atheist and ADMITTING to being an athiest. We already know that politicians lie. So how many athiests are in office while claiming to be believers ?

          • Leijona

            The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.

            The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.

            It would seem to me that corroboration between terrestrial, lunar and meteorite samples would be pretty convincing evidence. The scientists that came up with this number could be wrong by though, and they freely admit this by including a possible correction factor of Plus or Minus 1%

            So how old do you think the earth is?

            Now, as far as evolution is concerned, there is a 98.5% DNA match of humans to the chimpanzee. As you said in your retort: “Even in courts of law, the requirement for “proof” is much less”

            So you think that the belief that we were formed from clay has more merit than the proposition that we are derived from the Chimpanzee, in spite of the fossil and DNA records?

            DO we have the same DNA as clay?

          • Wolf-Spider

            If we came from chimpanzees, why are there still chimps extant?

    • John Francis Russo

      Gosh, paulnordin, you started out so well and then crashed. Let me explain. Your statement, “The First Amendment is designed to prevent a governmentally blessed religion, very much like the Church of England, from being established by the United States government.” IS EXACTLY CORRECT. I agree with that 100%. In fact, you are one of the few athiests that I have read, who has gotten this right. In my opinion, BOTH Onan Coca and Voddie Baucham would also agree with that statement. (Of course, I might be mistaken, BUT I THINK that they would also agree.)

      However, your distinction between religious people and religious organizations is illusory. Like political parties, religious organizations are MADE UP OF PEOPLE. Thus, when you restrict religious organizations, you are also restricting religious people. Attempts to restrict what a pastor preaches from the pulpit, violates not only the free exercise of religion; but also violates freedom of speech as well. Thus, a double violation of the first amendment occurs.

      • Gosh, JFR, I’m not surprised that you do not understand because even SCOTUS has it wrong. Organizations and corporations are not people. People have free speech. Tax exempt organizations and corporations must abide by their tax exempt status rules which, in many cases, restricts free speech by that organization/corporation. Do you understand now, John?.

      • And btw JFR, from the pulpit, a Pastor has free speech wrt religious matters. However, he cannot speak well or badly about a political candidate. This does not restrict his religious speech in any way.
        And as I said earlier, I think this is an appropriate modus operandi.

  • WVF

    Dr. Baucham, did a marvelous job of differentiating between church and state. I only wish that those who hold public office understood this issue the way this pastor has explained it.

    • Bighoss

      Dr. Baucham is apparently totally ignorant of the judicial history of the First Amendment. His crabbed and narrow take on church and state makes it plain that he is just one more theocratic anti-separationist dupe of the wingnuts (e.g David Barton, disgraced writer) who propagate such indefensible notions as he is proclaiming.

      • WVF

        Bighoss, just for you, I must borrow a saying from the NAACP, even though it is grammatically incorrect, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” I’m fairly sure you can relate.

  • ActualConundrum

    Amen……

  • Progressive Republican

    Once again serial liar ol’ Onan tries to push the unconstitutional anti-American concept of theocracy down the throats of those who think for themselves and finds himself yet another huckster to help him make his case.

    But then, he is a Lib. U. alum.

    Let’s see what some of our founders had to say on the subject, shall we?

    George Washington said in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham dated June 22, 1792,

    “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.”

    Did I mention that he never, ever took communion? In fact, after the Rev. Dr. Abercrombie got on his case about this (“On sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the Congregation.”), George quit going at all.

    Period.

    Howzabout the fact that in his farewell address he honored Liberty fifteen times, but on God or Jesus he was silent?

    Second President John Adams wrote:

    >”Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion,” >“Thirteen governments [states/former colonies] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery…are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind,”
    >and in a letter to F.A. Van Der Kamp, “How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?”

    Then there’s Thomas Jefferson who said,
    >“The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous.”
    >“If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your [John Adams’] exclamation on that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it’.”
    >“His [Calvin’s] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did.”
    >“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
    That’s certainly no less true today.

    There are, of course, tons more examples of the Founders’ aversion to the principles ol’ Onan and Dr. Baucham espouse.

    The most vocal proponents of a Christian America cherry-pick data to prove exaggerations while discarding inconvenient details.

    The most vocal secularists are guilty of the same thing.

    By transforming our Forefathers into faithful servants of Christ, the Religious Right risks compromising the biblical message. Baptist theologian Al Mohler warns advocates of Christian America have “confused their cultural heritage with biblical Christianity.” While Believers must exercise their views, cheapening what constitutes Christianity for political gain profanes the Gospel.

    Additionally, believers should resist Big Government operating in Christ’s name the way ol’ Onan and Voddie are pushing. As empty pews in Europe testify, politicized religion impedes ministry. Beautiful cathedrals dot the Old World , but with scant congregants, they memorialize a funereal dearth of faith coming from state sanctioned pulpits.

    The most damning evidence of a non-Christian past is a humiliating 1797 treaty with the Barbary Pirates. President Adams sought to stem unremitting Muslim raids against Mediterranean shipping and protect American sailors from African slavery. This once-obscure treaty submitted, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” although it should be stated that said passage was a somewhat obsequious bow to Islam.

    The compete and utter failure of the constitution to mention God in any form, much less name Him, should be a clue to the theocratists. Indeed, James Madison remonstrated regarding inserting “Jesus Christ” into earlier legislation: “The better proof of reverence for that holy name would be not to profane it by making it a topic of legislative discussion.”

    Then there’s the fact that the very concept of theocracy is in direct opposition to Jesus’ admonition that we treat others in the manner we prefer to be treated.

    I’m with John Locke when he said, “The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate…”, “I affirm that the magistrate’s power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws.”, and “If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefor art thou to punish him in the things of this life because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come.”

    It’s really not hard to understand, folks. Had God meant for theocracy to rule He would’ve sent his Son as a Caesar; not born in a feeding trough to be raised a poor carpenter.

    • Grendel007

      Nice try though. Too bad it’s merely revisionist lies. I have read many many documents our founders wrote, but never anything that you have “quoted” other than a couple out of context. Way to go loser

      • paulrph1

        Name calling? My, my.

      • Bighoss

        You are just another one of the all too many anti-separationists who get all orgasmic about anecdotal statements of the Founders and Framers.
        When those Founders and Framers got around to actually WRITING the Constitution, they made no references in that document to “God”, Jesus Christ”, or any other deity. Their only reference to religion was in the First Amendment, which certainly constitutes no authority for infesting government with sectarian religious beliefs or practices.

        • pthor

          So, at the end when they referred to the year as “The year of OUR Lord” To whom do you think they were speaking of?

          • John Francis Russo

            pthor : Yes, I agree. In addition, article I, section seven exempts Sundays from the ten day count that the president has to veto and return a bill to congress. Hmmm…. I wonder why they did THAT.

          • pthor

            Yes. I never even thought of that..

        • John Francis Russo

          Bighoss : You do know that our founders wrote mare documents in addition to the constitution, itself, don’t you ? For example, you may have heard of The Unanimous Declaration of Independence. That documents states that our rights come from God. The exact words are, “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …”.
          Attempts to divorce our constitution from the declaration, are an abominable amputation that should NOT be allowed.

          • Wolf-Spider

            I’m guessing they were feeling too “horse” to say anything, so they wrote it. ^_^

      • Progressive Republican

        Now that’s funny! A liar calling me a liar! AAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHA!!!

        • John Francis Russo

          Yep ! Almost as funny as judgemental progressives calling Christians judgemental.

          • Progressive Republican

            Sticking up for a liar? And here you seemed to make sense earlier.

            That didn’t last long.

    • Sam

      You couldn’t be more wrong! When Washington crossed the Delaware, it was the middle of the night on Christmas eve. He got on his knees and PRAYED before he got into the boat. Washington said that God and government could not be separated if we were to remain a free and moral people. You haven’t been reading history. You are parroting what some idiot told you.

      • Progressive Republican

        I could be more wrong. I could believe you.

    • paulrph1

      The reason Christ was born to a carpenter was because God was trying to show the world that power does not come from the heavy fist of the political or by force but it comes from righteous living. This is something that money and armies cannot achieve. It does not and never will happen.
      Ever heard the phrase, “Money is the root of all evil”? God knows this and that is why Christ was born as a pauper. Christ is not evil and to have been born to Caesar would have removed that.
      If you read the Old Testament you will see that God tried time and again for the rule by theocracy but it was because of the unrighteous living of the people that caused the demise of this form of government. God himself rules by theocracy and does not rule as Caesar did. Some have yet to learn that.
      You did not mention Lincoln. Go the the Lincoln monument in DC and read the writings on the wall of what Lincoln says about God. I hope you do not call this revisionist lies. Go there and read for yourself.
      Besides if one reads history it is quickly learned that Caesar ruled by force and that is not God’s way.

      • Wolf-Spider

        Actually, the quote is, “For the _love_ of money is the root of all evil.” “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” I Tim. 6:10 (NIV) Sorry, but my KJV is out of reach.

      • Progressive Republican

        Theocracy was anathema to the Founders. They were well aware of the problems one causes and were bent on preventing that from happening to America.

        • paulrph1

          anathema: Somehow I do not believe you. I do not believe that all founders shared a loathing of God or his principles. It is deeper than that an by far more reaching.

          The visions and ideas of these men were as diverse as the men were themselves and to try to lump them into one makes no sense at all.
          To say that they all loathed God and his principle is ludicrous. I am sure many were God loving and God fearing men. And many were probably seeking the truth and it was not found during that time. That is why Martin Luther posted his ideas on the door. This started the Reformation and what the Catholic Church did was restrict and accused many of heresy. During the early days of our Nation there were many revivals trying to get converts. In facts revivals were very common.

          Yes they were aware of the problems and they did give us something that help to make us great. A free country and a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This government also had in it many checks and balances which seem to be disappearing.

          • Progressive Republican

            Show me where I said, “all founders shared a loathing of God or his principles.”

            You can’t.

            What’s ludicrous is your b.s.

            Stop lying.

          • paulrph1

            anathema: According to my dictionary the term means loathing. My bad and my misinterpretation (?) but there is not need for you to get all in a huffy and start posting ludicrous comments.

            I was just stating what I thought was a clarification. So defensive, my my.

          • Progressive Republican

            In my defense, I was tired after a long bizarre day. While that’s my explanation, it is no excuse.

            My apologies.

          • JRT12

            Why would you apologize for something as Miniscule as that when you have been spouting your LIES and SWILL about yourself and your LIAR in chief ole barry Repeatedly!!!! LOL!!! What a MORON!! The good thing is that most ppl have more intelligence than the brain of a gnat like you, so they see you for the FRAUD you are, as well as your LIAR in chief barry!!

          • Progressive Republican

            Oh look. Another colostomy bag ruptured.

          • John Francis Russo

            What I find truly ludicrous is your own building of a straw man in this discussion. Where has anyone in this thread, not just I; but Onan Coca, Voddie Baucham, paulrph1, or any oter person posting on this thread claimed that the founders wanted to create a theocracy ?

          • Progressive Republican

            Ya mean like when ol’ Onan said, “For the church not to be involved in politics means that Christians must become a subjected people – because our political beliefs are all born out of our religious beliefs. They are inseparable!”

            The founders disagreed with that statement.

            If religions is completely removed from politics, the alleged subjugation of the religious is the straw man here.

          • John Francis Russo

            While I can agree with Progressive Republican that our founders did not wish to establish a “theocracy”.
            I can not agree that these modern day prohibitions against posting the ten commandments in our court houses are anything like what the founders had in mind when the first amendment was passed. Nor can I agree with attempts to ban students from reading their own bibles to school. Such things are clearly a violation of the first amendments clause which states, “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”.

          • paulrph1

            While I agree that the Founder did not want to establish a theocracy, that by the way would have been an impossible task and that is why they fled England, their intent was to make the country great for all people who were to live under the government but to not let the government be in control, rather the other way around. When you have government control you have Communism and lack of progression. You also have slavery to the highest form. Restrictions is what they want it does not allow for progress.

        • John Francis Russo

          True theocracy is IMPOSSIBLE unless God, Himself, rules.

          Of course, you are most likely refering to that misnamed from of government, where the human rulers are claiming that their authority derives from a divine appointment, and the magistrates are also priests of the official, government sanctioned religion.
          As such, our founders did NOT want to have an official, state sanctioned church. I agree.
          BUT, the current prohibitions against posting of the ten commandments, are NOT what the founders had in mind. AND such forced removal of these displays are, in fact, violations of that clause in the first amendment which states, “… , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”.

          • Progressive Republican

            I concur.

            However, I do find myself a bit uncomfortable with a display of only the Ten Commandments even though they are clearly the basis of our legal canon. A nod to other codes would be fair. The problem with all this is: where do you stop?

            Do we give equal display to other religions’ commandments? What about the Code of Hammurabi: arguably the principle source of the Ten commandments?

            I disagree with your claim that removal of religious iconography is therefore a restriction on the practice of one’s faith.

            It is far easier to avoid so thorny an issue by not having religious statuary (or other religious iconography) on public lands in the first place. This way, those who take offense at public display of religiosity won’t have the public property complaint (after all, not all who pay taxes are Christians) angle to work.

            After all, having these things situated on public property is pretty “in your face” and they consequently have a good case for feeling insulted. Ad as there is no good reason for insulting others for simply being different we come back around to the idea that it is far easier to avoid so thorny an issue by not having religious statuary (or other religious iconography) on public lands in the first place.

            Beside, we’re admonished biblically to not be a “stumbling block”, right? So in-your-face a display seems to me to be such.

      • johnny737

        It’s actually ” the LOVE of money is the root of all evil “. People are willing to do ANYTHING for money, therein lies the evil in the world.

      • John Francis Russo

        Please, do NOT misquote the scriptures. The bible does NOT state that “Money is the root of all evil”. What the bible actually says is, “For the love of money is the root of all evil : …” (1 Tim 6 : 10 KJV) Notice the important distinction here. It is not the money, itself, which is the root of evil. It IS our LOVE of money which is the root of evil.

        • paulrph1

          That was not a quote from the scriptures but a stating of a statement that I had heard many times. While there is a distinction there and I agree with you, many of us can correlate in our own minds the difference.

    • horrible deplorable raynbene

      It’s so easy to misquote a few passages which ‘prove’ this country is not, or was not founded on Christian principles – that does not mean you have to be Christian, but we do have a foundation that has its essence in those principles. You may be able to convince some people of your ‘beliefs’, but the truth still stands.

      Check these –

      http://patriotdepot.com/pictorial-life-of-george-washington/

      Here’s a book you may like –

      http://store.americanvision.org/products/christian-life-and-character-of-the-civil-institutions-of-the-united-states

      http://charleswimes.com/church/PDF/Christian_Life_and_Character_of_the_Civi_text.pdf

      • Progressive Republican

        I never said nor gave you cause to infer that America was not founded on Christian principles. I said that the Founders specifically wanted America to not be a theocracy as they were well aware of the evils of such an institution.

        • John Francis Russo

          I will contend that your own accusation, that Onan Coca and Voddie Baucham, want a theocracy, is itself false. BUT, I will agree that the founders did not want the federal governmet to be a theocracy. In addition, I will also state that the founders did NOT wish to see religion, and a general support for Christianity, banned from the public square. Our first amendment is intended ONLY to prevent the establishment of any one particular sect of Christianity as “The Church of America”. {For comparison see, The Church of England)

          • Progressive Republican

            If they’re insisting that we live by their interpretations of what they think the Bible says/means, what’s the difference? Actual codification?

            Even if it isn’t codified, being forced to abide by their version of what they think the Bible says/means would effectively make America a theocracy. This is what they’re clearly advocating.

            The first amendment is not intended only to prevent the establishment of any one particular sect of Christianity. It was intended to prevent the Church and the government from effectively being in bed together.

            The Founders were quite aware of the evils of theocracy having recently dealt with such unchristian notions as the Puritans’ death penalty for Quakers found in Puritan territory.

            Because Jesus was all about that, right?

            Many of the founders were Deists with some of them nominally Christian. The two are not utterly incompatible.

            Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia around the time of the Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means to solve social and political problems and a belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws.

            The God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence over it, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. Basically he wound it up and let it go, kind of like a top.

            A logical consequence of these beliefs was the rejection of a number of doctrines central to Christianity. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or the resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

            These beliefs were clearly and forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, his book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as “the father of the American Revolution.”

            Even to this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God.

            A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson (look at his Bible) and Benjamin Franklin.

            Some historians argue that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid “theistic rationalism”.

            As has been pointed out innumerable times by nearly as many authors and orators, the fact that there is no mention of God in the Constitution makes it quite clear that religion and government should be separate.

            In fact, the only time religion is mentioned in the constitution is in exclusionary terms; hence the clause banning religious tests to hold office.

    • Chuck (You go, Vic!)

      Troll. If you want to live without God, then prepare to die without God. And “Progressive” is the mantle of the socialists. Change your name to better reflect your positions. You do not reflect true Republican positions. Sadly, too many in the Republican leadership do not either, which is why we need the Tea Party to put the fire to them. We need less government and more liberty. We need less taxes and more accountability. The way we are going, we will collapse financially just like the old Soviet Union did, and like the European Union appears to be on its way to doing. Progressive policies = progressive death. And by the way, you give us lots of quotes from history, but never a source where we can look them up. Anyone can make up quotes. I call you on that. Until you provide documented sources, I call your quotes lies. And since you are pushing them, that makes you a liar. Troll!

      • Progressive Republican

        The only troll present is the one you see in the mirror.

        Are you trying to persuade me that you consider yourself a Christian? From your blather I think “christian” seems more accurate. Maybe you could tell me where Jesus said it was okay to insult people.

        I reflect original Republican positions. I do not reflect Rethuglicon positions.

        “We need less government and more liberty.” Ya mean like the “less government” we had under the Articles of Confederation? Because that worked out so well.

        Lowering taxes? We’re already at historically low tax rates; thus rendering the Tea-Baggers’ “Taxed Enough Already” drivel just that.

        We will not collapse like the USSR. The situations are utterly different.

        Progress is progress. conservatism leads to stagnation and that is death.

        You can “call” me on anything you wish. that doesn’t make it valid. Ever hear of Google? D’ya know how to use it?

        You can call my quotes “lies” all you want as well. That simply adds to your ever-growing list of lies. Again, are you trying to convince me you think of yourself as a Christian? With all those lies, judgmentalism, insults, and assorted b.s.?

        Because Jesus was all about that, wasn’t He? Just like He was all about forcing people to live in a certain way.

        • John Francis Russo

          Historically low tax rates !! You are delusional !!! Are you forgetting that prior to 1913 A.D., and the passage of the 16th amendment, THERE WAS NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL. Since that tax rate was zero; how can any present day tax rate be “historically low” ?

          • Progressive Republican

            i.e. Most Americans’ income tax rates have never been so low.

        • John Francis Russo

          In regard to “…forcing people to live in a certain way.” Didn’t the same Jesus who forgave the woman caught in adultry also say to that woman, “… : go, and sin no more.” (John 8 : 11 KJV And, for the whole story read John 8 : 1 – 11)

          BTW Don’t you see the irony in accusing a Christian who debates with you, of being “judgmental ? Are you not, yourself, being judgemental of that Christian ?

          • Progressive Republican

            Yes, He did. It was an admonition; not a command or enactment of law.

            You’re pulling the equivalent of calling one who points out another’s racism of being racist themselves.

    • JRT12

      There is NO such thing as a True Republican who is SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST, aka progresssssive!!!!!!!! But hey, you were no doubt one of the Morons who put ole barry,Your Illegal, Incompetent, Sociailst,Anti American DEmoRat LIAR in chief in office TWICE!!! That says it ALL! DUH!!

      • Progressive Republican

        Gosh.

        What a sterling “refutation”.

        But then this is coming from someone wilfully stupid/treasonous enough to vote Rethuglicon

  • cstuf

    The scriptures give us guidelines for moral behavior. The ten commandments show respect for all. All media should embrace morality.
    We should not buy into the weak negative behaviors of mankind but we should embrace the strengths and honor of human behavior. Starting with husbands love your wives. Parents don’t provoke your children to anger. Quote the Lords prayer for the start of each day. Let us love one another for this fulfills all the law and commandments. Don’t hate!

  • Taking care of business!

    Now this has got to stop, before we return to traditional-values.

    • John Francis Russo

      OH ! NO ! NOT traditional- values ! If we use those; America may actually prosper again. And, we can’t allow that.

  • Troubleshooter

    Love God. Hate Sin. That is the Natural Order of Things, even though obviously not the Predominate Order Of Things. Every Human Being Is Born With an Innate Awareness that God Exists. We are also born with an Innate Awareness of what is Right and what is Wrong. Social Degradation of the Natural Morality of The Individual is responsible for the Inverse Index of Right/Wrong in the World Today. Recognizing this, and keeping it at the forefront of your thoughts and actions will provide quick and meaningful remedy for much of the world’s ills.

    • horrible deplorable raynbene

      You are NOT born with innate sense of right and wrong – it we were, do you think we’d have evil in the world ???? We are not like birds and animals born with natural instincts, this is why we need a natural male/female headed family, to raise kids with a sense of purpose and as they grow, to distinguish right and wrong ! Do you think these boko haram savages know right and wrong ?? They grow up as muslims, hate non-muslims, because that’s what they’re taught, and everyone else around them thinks the same way, so what do you think happened to their ‘natural awareness of right and wrong’ ?

      • Troubleshooter

        WRONG! We were CREATED with Only an Innocent Knowledge of Right, because there was no knowledge of wrong. We have EVIL in the world because the Source Of All Evil, The Slanderer and Would-Be Usurper, deceived the innocents, who knew nothing OF Evil, or Wrong, into gaining Illicit Knowledge of Right and Wrong (or Good and Evil), and condemning humanity as a whole to suffer evil, no matter how Right an individual’s choices are, without the ONLY True and Lasting Atonement, every member of humanity is condemned to an inescapable status of WRONG, in spite of knowing and adhering to Right. Unless of course, you believe the Lies of The Slanderer, you know this is true, and you knew it before you became aware of wrong. The natural truth, that Nothing perfect can be produced by that which is Imperfect, is what sustains the Innate sense of Right and Wrong, until the awareness of what Christ Jesus did for us on the Altar Of The Cross is assimilated by an individual, the contrast of Right through self-condemnation will be the norm.

      • Leijona

        You just made a very good point. They learned to hate through the teachings of a religion. They were not born like that. People are not “Born” Prejudiced. It is a learned trait.

      • John Francis Russo

        The knowledge of God and of right and wrong has been supressed by their satanic cult. I trust that this answers your question.

  • Bighoss

    Ho-hum–another theocrat who does not understand that such things as government composed, government-directed school prayer and posting of the 10 Commandments–without accompanying materials dealing with laws and law making–on public property constitute a constitutionally-impermissible ENDORSEMENT of one belief system over others.

    • wvstarktruth

      I sincerely hope your post was sarcasm. If not, you took a wrong turn to the HuffPo site and wound up here by accident. Our country began with a prayer service at a chapel down the street from the Constitutional Convention location in New York. Interestingly, the building where that service was held was spared serious damage during the 9/11 attack even though it was surrounded by many of the seriously damaged buildings on the Port Authority property. We bought Bibles to ship to the Indians, we conducted church services in our Capitol Building. There was nothing wrong with that when people coming to America recognized that America was a Christian nation…they changed from the cultural norms they enjoyed in their original country and chose to adopt America as their culture. When we stopped being a melting pot (blended from many into one) and became a salad bowl (lots of different cultures attempting to occupy the same space) is when the problems with the wall of separation began. (it was concocted during the same period when progressivism took hold and flourished in America). Progressives are communists without the revolutionary desires. They want it, but slowly over time by erosion of institutions including ALL RELIGION since with communism the government becomes the source of faith and all other things as well. They want to control everything and until people lose religious faith they cannot achieve their desired result. The Wall of Separation argument was the first step in destroying the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause. Simply allowing a religious use of public buildings or religious displays in a public building does not mean that particular religion is being endorsed or supported by the government. That is just silly. If the government were to give taxpayer money to one particular faith, you might have an argument. Otherwise, we can only pray that we gain a true conservative majority in the Supreme Court that will take another look at this crap and turn things around again.

      • jak

        Well said.

        • teamdawson1

          I agree. Hoss was Dan Blocker’s character on Bonanza. If his/her letter is serious please change the name. BigPuss or BigDeal, or even BigBadWolf. Not BigHoss. If the letter is sarcasm Dan Blocker would be smiling ear to ear.
          Thank God for good people.
          There. I said the G-word. And I’m having a steak dinner. Are you going to complain about separation of Church and Steak?

          • jak

            Good one.

      • John Francis Russo

        It would also be helpful to read the various STATE constitutions from the period of the first implementation of the federal constitution. Obviously, the first amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from tresspassing on the states authority in religious matters.

      • mallen11

        Very well spoken. Thank you.

      • Doug Indeap

        Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

        During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts.

        Contrary to the oft repeated story, Congress did not ship Bibles to the Indians. See C. Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History, Chapter One, Congress and the Bible (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/).

    • John Francis Russo

      WRONG ! What you cite as “constitutionally-impermissable” was decidedly NOT impermissible under the original intent of the writers of our constitution. As such, posting of the ten commandments and other religious declarations by the government {provided they be of a “generic” Christian nature AND NOT THE ENDORSEMENT OF ANY PARTICULAR SECT OF CHRISTIANITY (i.e. Roman catholic vs protestant, or Baptist vs Presbeterian) } ; was and is compleately permissible.

      • Michael Rudas

        Actually the Catholic and Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments ARE different, so picking a particular version IS elevating one sect over another. Also, several of the Commandments make explicit God-references, so they should not be permitted.

    • Athanasios1

      Dear Bigdummyhoss; Why are all our capital crimes laws based on the 10 Commandments? Islam believes that it is OK to kill non Muslims/infidels/apostates. Yet, the U.S. has laws that make killing a capital crime.

      • Michael Rudas

        Actually, the laws you refer to, like the Ten Commandments, can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi—which lack the constitutionally-prohibited God references.

  • Michael Rudas

    …and yet, neither God nor Jesus are mentioned in the Constitution—in fact, the only mentions of religion are negative. And WHICH god would you make the state-sanctioned one? Lutheran, Mormon, Presbyterian… Muslim? And which would you exclude? Different Christian sects have different God-concepts; it’s not a big tent that can include everyone, is it? Religious wars were fought in this country—do we REALLY want to go there again?

    • John Francis Russo

      WRONG ! What religious wars were fought HERE in America ? Also, while the words “Jesus” and “God” do not appear in the constitution, please see article VII which uses the phrase, “Year of our Lord”, and also see article I, section 7 where Sundays are excepted from the ten days given to the president to return a vetoed bill to congress.

      • Michael Rudas

        Ignorance of history is no excuse… The founding Fathers knew of it—it was a major influence on the Constitution, especially the anti-establishment clause.
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/16/1278088/-Mostly-Forgotten-History-The-Maryland-Wars

        As to the “Year of Our Lord” reference—that was the culturally accepted term for marking years; it’s quite a stretch to make it an explicitly religious reference. The same thing is true for “Sundays off”—it’s cultural, not explicitly religious. Keep clutching at straws; it’s the only thing keeping you afloat.

    • Athanasios1

      Dear Michael Rudas, Please send me the example/fact of “the only mentions of religion are negative.” Let me remind you that the biggest religious war was fought in the U.S. from 1860-1865. That war was about states rights regarding slavery versus our Constitution which stated that all men were created equal.

    • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      You are incredibly ill-informed. It is surprising that someone with as little knowledge as you possess on a subject would opine on that subject. Yet here you are.

      God IS INDEED mentioned in the Constitution:
      Article VII, closes with the following words:
      “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
      Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven
      hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
      America the Twelfth….”
      The Year of Our Lord is a direct reference to Jesus Christ.

      There is, in fact, no “negative” mention of religion in the Constitution, only a prohibition against CONGRESS officially establishing one sect.

      And the only “religious war” ever fought was that against slavery, which it is unlikely anyone would criticize as unjust.

      You’re just a smorgasbord of ignorance with a side of bigotry and hate.

      • Leijona

        “The Year of Our Lord is a direct reference to Jesus Christ”

        For you it is. For some people, it is a figure of speech. At last count there were over 41,000 different christian denominations on record. That is just christian. In Old Judaism you have the The oldest movements were Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots. SInce then there have been many many other movements that differ in some way. Islam? Sunni, Shia, and on and on, and on.

        The men and women that settled this country were indeed christian. We opened our arms to people of all faiths, because we wanted people to have the right to worship as they saw fit.

        WHy is the concept of Separation of Church and state so hard for people like you to understand?

        SImple. You think that morality is inextricably linked to Christendom, and no other beleif system can provide a path to rightousness.

        You have been told this from birth.

        It is wrong.

        Grow up, there is more than one path to enlightenment.

        • A_Nobody

          While most of what you say might be true, “in the year of our Lord” refers directly to Christ since “anno domini” times.

      • Doug Indeap

        Not quite. You would make much of the Constitution’s date, which, in keeping with the convention of the time, is keyed to the Christian calendar, without actually offering any reason this trivial observation should be regarded as substantive or significant. It is, in any event, moot since the dating language is not part of the text of the Constitution voted upon and adopted by the Convention or ratified by the states. It was apparently just appended by the scrivener who prepared copies of the document. http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2011/05/us-constitution-and-year-of-our-lord.html

    • Garland Parks

      In the 1700’s, the closest a Muslim got to the US coast was in a pirate ship with the skull and cross bones (of Mother Mary) on their flag. I”m a Utah Ogden myself. My family quit the cult and came to Texas in covered wagon, disillusioned and angry for the deceptions. Do not be deceived, they who love the truth love the Lord, and the truth shall set them free.

      • Garland Parks

        And we’re still angry, especially about what’s goin on today. Ignorant people prefer to remain so, plugging their ears and screaming, even while giving out the network news.

    • TruePatriotInTX

      You obviously have not actually read the constitution and your opinion is thus, garbage.

  • Garland Parks

    The National Day of Prayer was established when the British were very close to defeating the Colonial Army and retaking us. The Federalist Papers explain in painful detail the intentions of the Constitutional authors, being pro-Christian, while concerned with equal footing for each sect. The Vatican and New World Order are gaining tremendous power in Europe, and will be the world’s biggest pain the next 7 years.

  • Garland Parks

    The first act of the U.S. Congress was to commission a Bible written in English which had been forbidden for centuries. The first act of the Supreme Court was to affirm Christian based Bible teaching in public schools.Congress opened with prayers to Christ and an hour of preaching by elected govt. officers and Congressmen, whether ordained or not. Seek the truth out, and ye will find it. Our enemies today are Islamo-fascists, world bankers, and liberal socialist propagandists many whom are direct satan worshipers. Except for that, they’re nice people, though misguided. ABC CBS NBC and CNN, and school book publishers are now are owned by Islamic Oil sheiks. Wake up and smell the oil burning.

  • Craig Martin

    I will likely get on someone’s black list for this…
    What about non-theistic religions? PC is nothing more than a religion that seeks to not only control your actions, but you very thoughts and attitudes. See current events where people are being stoned because of what they think and say. PC is nothing but an ultra-fundamentalist religion. And our government is neck deep in it. Do not believe me? Try saying the wrong collect of blasphemous words; even in the confines of your own home. Let it get out that you said these blasphemous words. Your life will be ruined. The US DOES have and enforce a state religion. The PC religion.

  • Doug Indeap

    Contrary to the headline, separation of church and state is hardly a “liberal” idea, and Dr. Baucham does not remotely “destroy” it.

    Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

    It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.

    It is important to distinguish between the constitutional law of separation of church and state and a widely supported political doctrine that commonly goes by the same name (i.e., separation of church and state) and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. Dr. Baucham addresses only the doctrine in this video. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.

  • TruePatriotInTX

    Wow! Go Pastor, you are right on.
    Separation of Church and State is never stated in the constitution. its intent was to wholly keep govt out of the church and not visa versa. This phrase has been completely twisted by the satanic progressive left to mean something it was never meant to be.
    Our government was founded on God-given rights by our creator and can only be sustained by those who believe in him. Because we have allowed God to be pushed out of the public square, out of our schools, out of our courts and even out of some of our churches, it is no surprise that we are in the dire straits we are in today.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to a friend