Judge Prohibits Prayer At Graduation

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
This goes beyond the typical liberal Judge ruling as far as events such as this.
He is prohibiting even the use of certain words - even if they are not used in prayer. Translation: censorship.
And he is threatening jail time to anyone who violates his ruling.

He says the justification is that an atheist student and his family will "suffer irreperable harm" if anyone prayed.

Some of you will scoff at this and say, "He's a crazy judge and he will be overturned."

But remember, currently the Supreme Court is 5-4 on issues such as this. I am confident Mr. Obama will win re-election and that means a conservative justice will in all likelyhood eventually be replaced by a liberal one. Then there is no place to appeal to.

The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

But the free exercise thereof is exactly what the judge IS prohibiting.

Persecution is indeed coming...




Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony
A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.

Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the school district is in the process of appealing the ruling, and his office has agreed to file a brief in their support.

“Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told Fox News Radio, saying the judge wanted to turn school administrators into “speech police.”

“I’ve never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government,” Abbott told Fox News Radio. “It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment.”

Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”

He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.

“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,'” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”

The Texas attorney general called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God -- “attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever.”

“This is the challenge we are dealing with here,” he said. “(It’s) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic.”

Ayesa Khan, an attorney representing the student and his parents, told KABB-TV she was delighted in the judge’s decision.

“It caused him a great deal of anxiety,” she said, referring to her teenage client. “He has gone to meet with the principal to try and talk in a civilized way about long-standing problems, and the school district has continued to thumb its nose.”

The judge did grant students permission to make the sign of the cross, wear religious garb or kneel to face Mecca. But that’s not good enough for some students at the high school.

“It’s just a big surprise that one kid can come in and change what’s been a tradition since Medina Valley started,” student Abigail Russell told KABB-TV.

Fellow student Alicia Jade Geurin agreed.

“At graduation, I would love to be able to speak from my heart,” she told the TV station. “But in this situation I feel my freedom of speech and my First Amendment is being infringed upon if I can’t say what I feel.”

But the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, hailed the judge’s decision.

“This is a high school graduation,” he told Fox News Radio. “It is not a church service.”

Lynn was critical of the attorney general’s allegation that the ruling was an attempt to purge Christianity from the public square.

“Any attorney general worth his salt would know that’s the issue and that this is not about promoting atheism,” he said. “That’s ludicrous.”



.
 

Comm.Arnold

New Member
Apr 7, 2011
662
14
0
40
Afraid there demonic possession may get a little rattled hey ? Sounds like the Liberals at it again.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Judges can be removed. It's not impossible.

If we don't write our congressmen and representatives and complain about this kind of thing, it will only get worse.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
That's good, because allowing prayer is not the same thing as establishing prayer by rote.

The establishment clause in the Constitution's 1st Amendment is against government establishing religion, not about allowing people to have free exercise of religion.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not added by a minority; it was added by the people, from agreement by majority, not by a small minority.
 

[email protected]

Choir Loft
Apr 2, 2009
1,635
127
63
West Central Florida
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
That's good, because allowing prayer is not the same thing as establishing prayer by rote.

The establishment clause in the Constitution's 1st Amendment is against government establishing religion, not about allowing people to have free exercise of religion.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not added by a minority; it was added by the people, from agreement by majority, not by a small minority.

I don't know what you mean when you contrast allowance with establishment of religious practice. The first amendment states;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The second phrase states that free exercise shall not be prohibited and since prayer is also public speech that too cannot be regulated. THE PROBLEM here is that the law refers to Congress. Apparently the judicial component is exempt from Constitutional law. Has anyone considered this fine point?

Perhaps another amendment should be considered to include ALL PARTS of the General government. Considering the mood of the nation at this time, that's not likely to happen.

* * *

We have all learned in recent years that free speech granted by the constitution does not apply to the work place or to most non-governmental arenas of human interaction. Those seem to be separate issues. Regardless of the impact of these issues upon the members of our various communities, the constitution does not imply nor grant authority to the General government in Washington to meddle in them. This includes the one that started this conversation.

A study of the insinuation of the Supreme Court into areas beyond its origial jurisdiction might be beneficial. There are volumes written about it. It's a problem basic to the runaway repressive tendencies of the general government which were given free reign in the late nineteenth century. It only gets worse with each successive generation.

Religious behaviour within the context of a local graduation ceremony is a matter for the Texans to decide. Not Washington. There is already too much influence of that city into our lives as it is.

As I see it, the CONSTITUTIONAL issue is about jurisdiction, not religion.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
[font="Arial][size="3"]Court Lifts Prayer Ban At Texas High School Graduation[/size][/font]
[font="Arial][/font][/color]
[color="#111111"][font="Arial][size="3"]http://www.huffingto...t_n_871194.html[/size][/font]

[font="Arial]
[/font][/color]
[color="#111111"][font="Arial]Another example of a reasonable judge?[/font]

-- I figures you would post only at this point.
I was just coming to post this information myself.

But you have nothing to say about the frequency of these lawsuits, or the fact it has to be taken higher and higher before it is addressed? I am shocked. No, really.

A decade ago, the actions of this judge would have been unheard of.
But for the last 10 years judges have been making unilateral decisions and "legislating from the bench." Even to the point of censorship and obvious violation of the First Amendment.

Thankfully, as it is taken higher, courts have overturned this silliness.

But overall it has had to go higher and higher over time before reason sets in.

Currently the US Supreme Court votes 5 to 4 when using reason to address issues like this.

Mr. Obama will win re-election and a justice with either step down or pass while in office.

Mr. Obama will then put a staunch Liberal on the court and it will go 5 to 4 the OTHER WAY.

THEN you will see atheists, secularist, liberals (am I being redundant?) come out of the woodwork with lawsuits about Christians, Christian practices, and what they should and should be allowed to do.

America is one Supreme Court Justice from the legal and open persecution of Christians.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree, this issue would have never been in the court system 30 years ago because atheists/agnostics didn't have a voice in our society......they knew they would not have a shot in court. We live in a pluralistic society, Foriegner, you will probably have to face the fact that you will feel uncomfortable when other groups get to share the publc stage. You'll live.....l promise ;)

Just because Christians demand exclusivity in the public arena doesn't mean other groups do.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
I agree, this issue would have never been in the court system 30 years ago because atheists/agnostics didn't have a voice in our society......they knew they would not have a shot in court. We live in a pluralistic society, Foriegner, you will probably have to face the fact that you will feel uncomfortable when other groups get to share the publc stage. You'll live.....l promise ;)

Just because Christians demand exclusivity in the public arena doesn't mean other groups do.


-- You crack me up.


You want to talk exclusivity? Fine.....Give me an example of a group of hundreds of people who who agree with an Athiest or don't care about him giving his point of view publically, either on stage or in the audience, but their opinion is nullified because ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN in the group doesn't like it...


Good ahead. Hit us with a couple of examples. I will wait. Because if you can't then your point is NULL...AND...VOID.


I understand your view. It is born out of Liberalism. The same type of liberalism that has helped spread destruction across the globe and is now doing the same here in America.


But the simple fact is - and it matters not if you approve or don't approve - the First Amendment states ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


What this judge said is that it is LEGAL to "prohibit the free exercise thereof."


Let me type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y for you in hopes you can comprehend. Allowing a person who is a Christian to talk about their faith (as guaranteed by the United States Constitution) does not prohibit an Atheist from living or talking about his faith (or lack thereof).


The Atheist is ALREADY protected by the rest of what it says in the First Amendment.


Having someone hear a point of view they don't agree with is not a violation of someone's civil rights or - as this idiot judge said - "cause irreperable harm."


But to get back to my primary point, if the student speaker wanted to give a speech that did not mention God in the least, or states that his/her understanding that there is no God so he/she had to make it on their own, a lawsuit from a Christian would have (rightly) been laughed right out of the courtroom.

Aspen, I have said it before and I say it again....you are not very good at this :lol:






.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- You crack me up.

You want to talk exclusivity? Fine.....Give me an example of a group of hundreds of people who who agree with an Atheist or don't care about him giving his point of view publically, either on stage or in the audience, but their opinion is nullified because ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN in the group doesn't like it...

How about this case? Christians didn't like having to modify their behavior so a judge's decision was overruled. We do not know how many people were against praying at graduation - one atheist could have been voicing a popular opinion. The whole issue is ridiculous anyway - Christians can pray in their own groups at the graduation - so what if the whole school isn't praying with them?

I think atheists/agnostics are not the focus of Christian exclusivity, anyway - unless they ask for religious neutrality, which may require a minority of outspoken Christians to modify their behavior. Of course, if a speaker at the ceremony happens to be Muslim and decides to wear traditional clothing - One Single Christian has the right to do the same thing as the atheist did and take the issue to court. The irony of course, is if the Muslim was allowed to wear the clothing by a judge - I would be sitting here listening to you complaining about the state of America and all the liberal judges who support Muslims, but ban Christian expression - it's the same old story.

Christians dominate school boards across the South - especially Texas, a State which is used as a model for textbook selection - should Christians be allowed to decide the version of history/science our nation's children are being taught? If it was a board of Muslims / Latinos / homosexuals One Single Christian would be rallying the troops to make sure their vote was null and void. If you think this is a far-fetched example, my church split over the selection of textbooks in our local elementary school. Our minister decided that there was witchcraft in the reading textbook because a boy had a pet dragon and wore a robe, so he decided to make a huge deal about the school teaching the religion of witchcraft! Since it was during the time in the 80s when satanism was being blamed for murders across the country - mostly a hoax - the school lost 50 thousand dollars replacing the textbooks.

If you are unwilling to be objective about who is given the right to be heard in the public arena, you will be unable to see that Religious Minorities / Minorities / Homosexuals / Women have been silenced since the founding of our country. If you believe that Christians should be the only voice heard, I understand why you must feel so outraged. Unfortunately for you, your opinion is slowly becoming the minority. Enjoy the last days of Pleasantville.........

Good ahead. Hit us with a couple of examples. I will wait. Because if you can't then your point is NULL...AND...VOID.

Of course my opinion is not null and void. Christians bring more ridiculous lawsuits in the name of marginalization than all atheists combined -simply because there are a lot more Christians in America and the persecution complex is ingrained into our culture.

I understand your view. It is born out of Liberalism. The same type of liberalism that has helped spread destruction across the globe and is now doing the same here in America.

LOL - why not just say what you really believe? Liberals are agents of the Devil, right? I know.....conservatives are made of sugar and spice and everything nice; liberals are made of snails and puppy dog tails........

Wow.....is your left brain black and your right brain white? What a trip it would be to get inside your head! Thankfully, dualism is dead - it's tomb is right next to Modernism. Of course, Fundamentalists and Atheists are like the Hatfields and the McCoys of Modernism - both relics of a bi-gone era.

But the simple fact is - and it matters not if you approve or don't approve - the First Amendment states ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Great! Then I expect you to support the school in it's effort to advertise for representative speakers of all the religions that may attend the graduation ceremony and give them all equal time! Oh wait....that isn't what you really want......what you really mean is the government shouldn't infringe on the free exercise of Christianity......

What this judge said is that it is LEGAL to "prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Which was why it was overturned. Unfortunately, once again, only the Christians got to express their religion.

Let me type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y for you in hopes you can comprehend.

Oh good! We must be at the part of your post where you are exercising love for your neighbor! Stop, I am blushing!

Allowing a person who is a Christian to talk about their faith (as guaranteed by the United States Constitution) does not prohibit an Atheist from living or talking about his faith (or lack thereof).

Can the atheist lead a school prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too?

The Atheist is ALREADY protected by the rest of what it says in the First Amendment.

Really? Is the Satanist? How about the Hindu who wants to lead a prayer to Kali? And then, 1 more prayer, to each of his 6 million gods? Better get comfortable! And you thought the commencement speaker was long-winded!

Having someone hear a point of view they don't agree with is not a violation of someone's civil rights or - as this idiot judge said - "cause irreperable harm."

Well, it may not cause harm to represent all religions at graduation, but it sure would take a lot away from ...... the graduation! Not every public event is a religious activity! Unless you really would rather hear about every other religion under the sun at graduation; when everyone else just wants the commencement speaker to shut up and to finally get out of the heat! See, the courts have decided that it is more realistic to separate religion from school - I KNOW! It violates the Constitution! However, in our pluralistic society, it makes more sense than trying to give all religions equal time. Also, it is supposed to stop Christians from complaining that their children are learning about false gods......oh well.

But to get back to my primary point, if the student speaker wanted to give a speech that did not mention God in the least, or states that his/her understanding that there is no God so he/she had to make it on their own, a lawsuit from a Christian would have (rightly) been laughed right out of the courtroom.

How about if he wanted to mock Christianity? What if he decided to give an atheistic sermon about how great the world will be when people embrace Ayn Rand's vision, and Christianity is relegated to the dustbin of history? One Single Christian would be fighting 500 other One Single Christians to get a judge to shut that kid up!

Aspen, I have said it before and I say it again....you are not very good at this :lol:

Be careful! Laughing is known to shatter a rigid mindset.........






.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Congratulations, Aspen!


You have made an entire classroom laugh outloud.


After I posted what I did yesterday (in response to what you said earler) I showed a couple of friends. I told them - based on your predictable history - that you would change the subject, bring up things having nothing to do with the specific topic, make wild accusations, play the victim rather than answer questions, and use volume (of typing) over value in your response.


Today I showed them that my prediction was spot on and you proved me right on every single point.


I was able to interrupt my "Critical Discussion" class and use your original post, my post, and your comical follow-up post on the computerized screen in front of class via my laptop.


I encourage everyone here to read Aspen's last post. It is was my instructor called "deflection to cover."
Definition: "Radically change the subject to distract from a point that the person is either unable to defend, or ill-prepared to defend."


He likened it to a person challenging why a supermarket no longer offers plastic bags and the response is being accused of being a climate-change denier that won't open his eyes until the Polar ice caps is completely gone.


Translation: You are not very good at this. :lol:


Again, I invite everyone to read Aspen's post. You can learn how NOT to defend a position.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Our conversation seems pretty straightforward to me; you posted a thread about a judge who ruled in favor of an atheist. Then, instead of simply raising a few questions about possible ramifications of the ruling and opening up the thread for discussion, you chose to use inflammatory, emotionally charged rhetoric like:

"This goes beyond the typical liberal Judge ruling";"I am confident Mr. Obama will win re-election and that means a conservative justice will in all likelyhood eventually be replaced by a liberal one. Then there is no place to appeal to" and "But the free exercise thereof is exactly what the judge IS prohibiting"; AND "Persecution is indeed coming..."

So, instead of simply pointing out that some lone judge made a ruling that overstepped the rights of many of the people at a graduation somewhere in Texas; you chose to portray the judge as the forerunner to the legalized persecution of Christians; re-elected Obama; and appointed liberal judges to the Supreme Court - all in one post! I also noticed that you decided to translate the judges actions for the reader - just in case your language wasn't strong enough? "Translation: censorship."

I responded to your thread with the latest follow-up article: http://www.huffingto...t_n_871194.html. I also included a comment which was supposed to communicate the fact that judges are not the enemy - they are capable of making adjustments when they believe a ruling is unreasonable.

Instead of thanking me for my contribution, you decided to make this statement "-- It figures you would post only at this point. I was just coming to post this information myself."

Since my post addressed your post, specifically; I wasn't sure what you were talking about - now I think you were expecting levelheaded contributors to rally around your idea that our rights are being taken away from Christians by liberals through the court system. The fact is, I do not believe this is happening, nor do I believe it will happen in the future based on the incident at the Texas graduation - I posted an article to illustrate my belief.

You then decided to try and discredit my point of view by making statements like this:

"But you have nothing to say about the frequency of these lawsuits, or the fact it has to be taken higher and higher before it is addressed?" My specific answer is; no. Why do you expect me to address this issue? Once again, all I am saying is that judges are not targeting Christians.

"Thankfully, as it is taken higher, courts have overturned this silliness." In this statement, you are making my point; there is not a conspiracy by the court system to target the rights of Christians.


"But overall it has had to go higher and higher over time before reason sets in." I am not saying that you are right about this or you are wrong, but I view it as an unsupported opinion and disregarded it.

"Currently the US Supreme Court votes 5 to 4 when using reason to address issues like this." You are basing this on what? The conservative/liberal divide on the court?


"Mr. Obama will win re-election and a justice with either step down or pass while in office. Mr. Obama will then put a staunch Liberal on the court and it will go 5 to 4 the OTHER WAY. THEN you will see atheists, secularist, liberals (am I being redundant?) come out of the woodwork with lawsuits about Christians, Christian practices, and what they should and should be allowed to do."


"America is one Supreme Court Justice from the legal and open persecution of Christians." I think this statement communicates unwarranted fear, based on one judgement that was reversed and your own speculation.


I then made the choice to address your statement "A decade ago, the actions of this judge would have been unheard of." by bring to your attention the fact that our society is more pluralistic today - that more groups have to share the public arena, and that more minority groups are using the court system today. I thought it was a reasonable statement - if I was trying to discredit you opinion completely, I would have reminded you that the Republican Congress of 1994 decided to appoint a special council lawyer named Kenneth Starr, to personally dog President Clinton everyday of his Presidency or that George W. Bush was elected to office by the court system; which shows that both conservatives and liberals know how to use the court system.

So, instead of addressing my reasonable statement, you decide to get sarcastic and dismissive?: "Aspen, I have said it before and I say it again....you are not very good at this :lol:" "-- You crack me up."

Demand that I provide impossible information: "
You want to talk exclusivity? Fine.....Give me an example of a group of hundreds of people who who agree with an Athiest or don't care about him giving his point of view publically, either on stage or in the audience, but their opinion is nullified because ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN in the group doesn't like it..."

Ah ok, would you like those hundreds of Atheists to be riding unicorns and zapping Christians with their laser vision too? This example is impossible because you can always claim that the majority of people are against the atheist's POV. And it is not because we live in a Christian nation - there just happens to be more Christian-minded people than atheists who live here. The very fact that the group is a minority is why their POV might be ignored because it goes against the prevailing culture. Slaves, homosexuals, women in the workplace before 1990 are all examples of groups that were marginalized by society and sometimes needed the laws to change for their voice to be heard.

"Good ahead. Hit us with a couple of examples. I will wait. Because if you can't then your point is NULL...AND...VOID." Actually, you do not get to declare anything I say to be "null and void", sorry.

"I understand your view. It is born out of Liberalism. The same type of liberalism that has helped spread destruction across the globe and is now doing the same here in America." So how am I supposed to respond to this self-serving, baseless opinion? I chose to ignore it the first time.

"Let me type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y for you in hopes you can comprehend."
So is this your example of how to be "good at this"? Because I think it is rude and a bit desperate.


Then, since I already made my point - that judges are not in a conspiracy to target Christians; I decided to address the issue of your prolific use of absolute language and speculative statements. Apparently, you thought I was defending the judge that ruled in favor of the atheist (your strawman), based on your need to further discredit me with sarcasm and dismissive language. Then, you decided to mention how ridiculous you believe I am - so ridiculous in fact, that your entire class had a good laugh.

Ok. This is a public board, if you need validation from your classmates, feel free to read them conversations you have online.

Finally, there is one last issue that you raised; my "predictable" pattern of "play[ing] the victim rather than answer "

Now, I find this statement fascinating! I really do. I am being labeled as a person who plays the victim, based on my posts addressing a thread by a guy who is claiming that the whole world is picking on Christians? The mean judges are coming to persecute us? We are being singled out? REALLY?

All I am doing is leveling the playing-field by deflating your windy posts, by confronting your persecution complex; use of absolute language; and your dismissive sarcasm. Christians are just another group of citizens in a pluralistic country - you can cry about it or accept it.


As far as your opinion of me - I cannot change it. I am glad that many people on this board who do not agree with me still have a fairly good opinion about my contributions.


Peace
[font="tahoma] [/font]





[color="#5D5D5D"][font="tahoma] [/font][/color]
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Still playing the victim?

Guess you have to go with your strengths.

I encourage everyone here to read your post - just as my class is (and yes, laughing).

Now you are resorting to drawing in Ken Starr and Bill Clinton (ignoring the fact that Clinton lied under oath in front of a grand jury (something that would get ordinary Americans jailed) and would have been content to leave Monica Lewinsky unfairly skewered if it wasn't for a certain blue dress).

You follow it up with George Bush "being elected by the court system" forgetting that it was Al Gore who requested it be addressed in the courts in the first place.

You can't focus on the specific topic at hand, always trying to tie in things that are not related in the least to the specific topic at hand.

Hence the outright laughter.

Again, you really aren't very good at this.
 

Robbie

New Member
Jan 4, 2011
1,125
59
0
Huntington Beeach
No big deal... go in the closet and pray like Jesus said... people get shocked when America acts ungodly... it's like are you kidding me? This country was founded on the principles of murder and theft... and now destruction of the environment... the thief comes to kill, steal and destroy... there's no hope for the world... only for the earth... and that hope is the Kingdom of God and His will being manifested on earth as it is in heaven.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
So God had no hand in the formation of America or in the favor it existed under for its first 200 years?


Uh huh.
 

Robbie

New Member
Jan 4, 2011
1,125
59
0
Huntington Beeach
Yeah... God was like, "I really want you to go slaughter all the natives, steal the land, and then build a society of lust and fear that destroys the environment... YAY!!! humanity is rebelling against everything I said... my hand is working" americhristianity might be the most retarded darkness that thinks it's light on this whole planet.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Because God has never said, "Go and slaughter everyone before, right?" LOL

So America's contributions to the world are null and void and God has had no influence on this nation's success?

The whole, "a society of lust and fear that destroys the environment..." is what has been happening over the last few decades.

That is why God is turning His face away from our nation.

But if you want to simply claim that America is evil, has always been evil, and it has done nothing to further good in the rest of the world, then facts won't have any effect on you.
 

Robbie

New Member
Jan 4, 2011
1,125
59
0
Huntington Beeach
America is Babylon... the mystery of Babylon is that it's never ended... it just changes it's name and moves from land to land while it continues it's attempt to build it's tower up to God... and yeah... america is the world... and the world is at war with God... so take your americhristianity garbage and flush it... shiz don't work on me...
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ :lol:

"shiz don't work on me..." - Robbie

-- Apparently neither does God's Word.