Hutchinson Leader - LETTER: Obama is a threat to U.S. Constitution - Comments

This is in response to the

Charlie Maricle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:17:07 -0500

This is in response to the post beginning with "The Bible treats abortion differently from murder."

As you can see the Bible address the issue that you have alluded to much more directly then you stated. The verses listed above are not even about abortion at all. The Bible does not even refer to the concept of abortion except in description of the ritualistic sacrifices of other cultures of that day and these are classified as abominations. This is pretty specific language from God about the idea of killing babies. The previous comment has more than adequately covered this argument.

My argument is not that a church service should be conducted daily in the school or that teachers should be allowed to sit and tell students what they should believe. I am saying that students should not be closeted because of their beliefs. Teachers should not be prohibited from explaining the doctrine of Christianity just as they are not prohibited from explaining the doctrine of evolution. If freedom is to be realized then people should be allowed the freedom to disbelieve. The only premise that Christianity asserts is that one must take responsibility for one's disbelief. How can a child disbelieve evolution when it is taught as truth in the classroom setting? How can children believe that Christianity is a valid belief system when it is cloistered as a “private belief” without validity in or to the rest of life? Why, if Christianity is and should be relegated to "privatization" does everyone, including the federal government, observe basic holidays originating from the Christian belief? You allude to additional holidays, but I assert that the traditional holidays are Christian based. So I charge the next atheist to be true to their beliefs and take the federal government to court to have their child be allowed to be in school over the Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays. If the Pledge of Allegiance is an infringement upon your “Establishment Clause” rights, I want to know what forcing you to take time off school or work for observation of Christian based holidays is.

I think you are absolutely

fiscallyconservative — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:32:36 -0500

I think you are absolutely right when you say that the cost of being a Christian has increased. I don't think anyone ever said freedom would be free. In fact the parents of killed soldiers would argue that the cost is quite high.

The example I used about the devil involved the teacher saying it to her students. That wouldn't be allowed and it shouldn't be as she is "pushing" her religion from a governmental position of power and would have used "law" to promote a religious belief.

Our pastor talks regularly about the sins of abortion so I know that it isn't being restricted in our church. Now, if the church actively campaigns for/against a candidate, that is a slippery slope. Again, if your church wants to campaign openly, simply decline the tax benefits from the government and there would never be any restrictions.

Once again, can you please give me one or two examples of where YOUR religious freedom is being persecuted or denied by our government? So far, I've only seen where it has been more difficult and expensive. Good things don't always come easy (or cheap)--do they? :)

As an aside, I see your point and understand your frustration. But, in the context of freedom, I still can't think of ONE situation where my religious freedom rights are being restricted. Can anyone cite an example of how your religious rights are being restricted by the government? I'm sure a lawyer would like to hear about these too! ;)

FC, you made my point. Yes I

arcy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:31:00 -0500

FC, you made my point. Yes I think a person does have the right to say "Happy Devil's day" and I will say back to them God Bless you. That is non-restricted speech. I would also argue that Happy Devil's day would not be reprimanded as Merry Christmas is. In the name of diversity one can say about anything as long as it does not hint at Christianity. The fact that we are now re-interpreting the paragraph you quoted is what bothers me. The government is not making laws saying we all have to belong to The Church of England, or any other denomination. That was the intent of the law. The words are not there to restrict us from saying "Merry Christmas" or any other greeting we personally espouse to. They are to stop the Government from FORCING us to say "Happy Hanukkah", or what ever. Pastors are preaching biblical values when they instruct their congregations against voting for politicians that support abortion,war,not helping the poor. No government has the right to get between a pastor and his/her congregation. That is what has happened. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government gets to censor Churches. How they drug the tax exempt status into it is a travesty. You can only claim to be religious if you stay out of Government? Religion should reach into EVERY pore of your life. That would include how one votes.

I agree Christianity had been easy, too easy for US citizens to follow, some would say. To be "fair", more equality was necessary, but you said our freedom has not been restricted. I am saying it has, the cost is much greater now, that feels restrictive to me. Yes in theory I am free to attend a different school,practically not so much. I can't say I disagree with any of your sentiments, it is just that life experience does not always live up to its promise. It is all about what price you are willing to pay to exercise your "freedom". The cost to exercise Christianity has increased greatly in the last few decades. In the long run that is not helping us as a Nation is what I see, that was my only point. Instead of rich diversity we are ending up with watered down secular humanism. That is not keeping us on the path our Fore Fathers mapped out for us. From my vantage point that is not working for America.

Arcy, you bring up some good

fiscallyconservative — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:30:45 -0500

Arcy, you bring up some good points and some intriguing thoughts... For example, I think we have more irony here than persecution. I believe that some people are confused about their 1st Amendment rights. This is probably the most recognized (and often misinterpreted) "freedom" statement that people reference when it comes to "I want to say WHAT I want and WHEN I want to say it and WHERE I want to say it..."

People need to review the First Amendment and read it carefully...

"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 irony I mentioned earlier stems from the fact that we are actually following the Constitution more literally than before. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of the "zero tolerance" policies that we are now seeing, but it is a simple fact that we are experiencing solid (and unprecedented) enforcement of our Constitution in most situations.

Regarding your preacher example... if a preacher wants to talk about politics without government control, they simply need to waive their non-profit status and they can say anything they want. Your example is not a restriction of freedom but rather an "inconvenience". The government is actually enforcing the the 1st Amendment rights of American's when they don't allow our tax resources to be used for things other than standard religious activities.

Yes, I remember the good old days when Miss Jones could say Merry Christmas to her students. What if the table was turned and she said, "Happy Devil Day"? Wouldn't that be an infringement of your 1st Amendment rights? Wouldn't Little Johnny want to find out why Miss Jones was a devil worshiper? What if Miss Jones handed out pro-devil pamphlets to her students while she was "on-duty"? For non-Christian Americans, the "Merry Christmas", said in a classroom context, was a violation of their rights as the government is technically supporting a specific religious belief via a law (taxes for schools).

Remember that the 1st Amendment only applies to government entities so the press, private businesses (like some medical schools), television, movie studious, etc. can restrict what you say and don't say as much as they want. It is your choice to participate in their organization and it is NOT government funded so they are simply exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Can you give me an example of religious persecution by a government entity that has happened in the US in recent times as it relates to you personally? I am still waiting to hear about a situation where someone's religious freedom was truly restricted (or persecuted). I have thought for a long time and I still cannot imagine a situation where I wanted to pray in a public place and I was restricted by a government entity. Wasn't there a recent situation in our high school where a student's rights were violated and it cost our school some $$$$? (ie. the T-Shirt case)

You make a good point on the literature in schools issue. That is definitely a slippery slope. But, again, if you don't like the literature, you have the freedom to choose another school don't you? Or, you can elect new school officials that are better at choosing the right materials. I'm hoping, but not sure, that schools are teaching the students that there are several different beliefs about the creation, evolution, existence, etc. of mankind and are letting the students make their own conclusions based on their own beliefs, etc.

Finally, you made the statement about how it is harder to be a Christian today than it was 60 years ago. Is it maybe more correct to say that it is easier to be a non-Christian today than it was 60 years ago? This, in turn, would give you the feeling that it is harder to get others to follow Christianity, and hence feel that it is harder to be a Christian. This is the ironic part of my whole point is that because others (non-Christians) are experiencing more freedom, you feel you are being persecuted. I'm not sure I can agree with you in that I feel Americans are far better off with their freedoms than they ever were in the past.

Ask any black person that lived in the 50's and 60's and I think they would agree with me. Or ask any atheist if it is now easier to express their views (see Darwinball's postings) than it was a few decades ago. I can't imagine how well DB's letters to the editor would have been received in our town in the 60's. I believe he would have been run out of town very quickly or his thoughts would not have been posted in this paper in that era.

I'm happy to be free. I will be the first to let you know when my 1st Amendment rights have been violated. Until then, I think our Constitution is doing very well! :)

Oh, and back to the main topic of this forum, President Obama can label our country any way he wants and I really don't care. I can't imagine that this would affect my Constitutional rights in the least bit as he's not making any laws to restrict my freedom. So, go for it Mr. O!

"Religious Freedom" I

arcy — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:56:54 -0500

"Religious Freedom" I suppose you are accurate FC, we are more in an age of persecution than a removal of religious freedoms. It is absolutely more difficult to be a Christian in the USA today than it was say 60 years ago. I suppose that is not a removal of freedom, but to many, it sure feels like it. I too do not want some random public school teacher teaching my child what they think is acceptable prayer, but I also do not want said teacher choosing "literature" that's sole purpose is to denigrate or laugh at my religious beliefs, and that did happen. Try and say "Merry Christmas" in a public school. Why the response cannot be "Happy Kwanzaa" I do not know, instead all vestiges of a "national" holiday that has religious roots are forbidden. That feels like my freedom is being encroached on. Why does the expression of my beliefs insult non believers? Try and be a Pro-Life Christian and get into medical school. Try and prevent your taxes from paying for programs that are morally repugnant. Many celebrities in recent years have been fired over awful racial slurs. The same slurs on Christians are heard nightly on TV, in Movies. Look into how the RICO act is being applied to shut down abortion protests. The government has absolutely shut down what a pastor feels free to preach on in the area of politics. Tax exempt status has suddenly been used as a weapon against biblical values. Research how pastors in many countries are being told they cannot teach biblical values on homosexuality. We are on the same slippery slope that got them there. Persecution today will lead to removal of freedoms tomorrow. Tolerance of non believers I can do, to allow them to remove my ability and ease to express my beliefs,I cannot.

I again agree with you that

Charlie Maricle — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:04:12 -0500

I again agree with you that case law has molded the view of prayer in school. However, I will say that I think the trend has led us to see religion as a threat to the “real tangible things” that “can be taught in public schools.” I have reviewed some of the case law you refer to and encourage everyone to do their own research. I have listed a few of the cases here to aid in the search:

• Engel v. Vitale
• Abington School District v. Schempp
• Lemon v. Kurtzman

If examined carefully the reason the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment has been affixed to schools is the Fourteenth Amendment which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This, in the above cases means that the restrictions upon Congress in the First Amendment also apply to all other governments, and therefore schools, that make up the collective United States.

Justice Black in Engel v. Vitale says, “By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services.” Then he states, “Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say that the people's religious must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office.” This sentiment seems to change course by the attitude conveyed in Lemon v. Kurtzman where Justice Berger states, “In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: ‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.’ Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970).” He continues, “Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn.”

I see a different attitude between the justices toward religion which colors how they approach the subject matter. Justice Black seems cautious to intrude upon the specific wording of the First Amendment while Berger is willing to “draw lines” and assert that the Establishment Clause was to guard against “three main evils”. While I will admit the “three evils” are accurate, the reasoning Justice Berger goes on to use is that of one who sees religion as a threat to “secular” education. Justice Black seemed to see government infringement as the threat where Berger sees religious fostering as the threat. I believe Justice Berger is wrong.

I will agree that if my children were forced to daily ingest Muslim or Scientologist thinking, I would not keep silent. However, I would not oppose the research of those ideas to compare to the various ideas of Christianity if they are given equal attention. As I have stated elsewhere the position that evolution is “a real tangible thing in the material world” while religion is only a belief seems, to me, to discount or circumvent the evidence available for Christian beliefs. If you have evidence about an idea and I decide to refute that idea by taking that evidence and twisting it to support my facts, who is right? In that line, I think every scientist today would admit evolution is a fairly new idea for the explanation of life on this planet, while Creationism predates the Roman and Grecian Empires. So, why can evolution be taught in school without the opposite view being taught? Why not let the children see the “facts” as stated by each idea and let them decide? We seem to think they are able to “exercise” their right to freedom of worship on their own, why not let them decide if evolution should be their own idea?

You are not a bad

Charlie Maricle — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:24:47 -0500

You are not a bad evangelical atheist; you are just wasting your efforts on someone who has a secure foundation. Besides, I can't deconvert it's against my religion.

Exodus 21:22-25... "If men

fiscallyconservative — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:14:32 -0500

Exodus 21:22-25...

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Yes, the penalties noted in this passage are different for the baby's death vs. the mother's. But, in BOTH cases they are a sin and both actions were punishable. The Bible covers many laws and penalties and they have obviously changed since biblical times so we can't assume since the penalties were different, the life of the unborn child should be treated as non-human.

The bottom line is that the Bible treats both cases, the miscarriage (and abortion) as the death of a human. Under today's law, one who causes the death of a human should be punished accordingly.

People that use Exodus 21 as a case for pro-choice are simply pulling a passage out of context. Those that are true scholars of the Bible know that the Bible should be looked at in full context with no particular passage standing alone. It is pretty easy for anyone to pull something out of the Bible, or any other document and make it say whatever he/she wants.

I'm not a biblical scholar by any means but I do know that people like to twist the meaning of particular passages without understanding the rest of this great book.

Good try! ;)

Case law and precedent built

darwinball — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:08:20 -0500

Case law and precedent built up over years has established that the First Amendment applies to state and local governments and their organs, the public schools. I am very happy with that arrangement, as I assume any religious person should be. I doubt that Christian parents would appreciate their children being led in daily Muslim prayer or taught the fundamentals of Scientology as facts. Evolution, sex, physics, and philosophy are real tangible things in the material world, not religious beliefs. That is why they can be taught in public schools.

The First Amendment does apply today to many issues the founders could not have imagined. I also wonder when I read the Second Amendment why I shouldn't be allowed to have a rocket-propelled grenade launcher or at least a bazooka.

The Bible treats abortion

darwinball — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:57:47 -0500

The Bible treats abortion differently from murder. In Exodus the penalty for causing the death of a fetus is a fine levied by the husband of the woman. The death of a born person is to be punished by death.

The accommodations for religious practice at public school seem more than reasonable to me. Silent prayer can be anywhere at virtually any time, and student led meetings can be held before and after school. Students who feel a need for additional religious holidays will need to complete their assignments but get an "excused" absence.

I agree that people may

Charlie Maricle — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:05:00 -0500

I agree that people may consider themselves a certain thing, i.e. Christian, Muslim, LDS, based upon the culture they grew up in. However, each had to make a choice about what they were ultimately going to believe based upon all the evidence given to them. In conjunction with that, I will say many, Christians and atheists included, do not consider all the evidence that may be available. Many choose to believe a certain way based upon circumstances they encountered in life, i.e. an overbearing, religious father pushing his religion down the children’s throat may cause the children to detest religion.

Perhaps “racist” was the wrong term. I should have probably classified your statements as profiling. I apologize. I should not have reached for such a harsh word when assessing your statements.

I find your acceptance of supernaturalism to be conditional. You state that I should, “Just demonstrate its existence” and then you’ll be happy to investigate. Your science does not follow that rule. They have a question about something and then investigate. No one needed proof evolution existed before they started investigating. Furthermore, what type of demonstration do you require? I can give you infinite examples from nature but you have chosen to attribute those examples to evolution based upon your faith in the biased opinion of previous scientists. Yes, there are Christians who are uncomfortable “with ideas that ideas that shift and change as knowledge is gained” when that shifting is always considered truth by society while Christianity is relegated to a silly belief system.

I apologize that you find my understanding of evolution so lacking. Admittedly, I have not done an in depth search of evolution but the questions I posed were the best way I could point to the holes I have found in evolution. I do not ask for anything more than an answer to the questions I posed.

I will agree the points about sin you have made are not scientific but rather philosophical. However, you seem to be approaching God the same way you claim I am approaching science. Meaning your view of God seems to be based upon a quick assessment of the Bible and what others have said just as you seem to think my view of science is based upon a quick assessment of it because “Christianity has included much resistance to science”. Could your understanding of original sin and eternal punishment be flawed? If so, then shouldn’t you give the Bible and God the same latitude you afford science? Shouldn’t you allow human understanding of the Bible to expand and grow in the same way that you allow science to “evolve”? If you don’t then aren’t you the one who remains “uncomfortable with ideas that shift and change as knowledge is gained”?

Also, goats don’t go to hell because they ask questions. They go to hell because they refuse the answers.

Thank you for the

Charlie Maricle — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:54:18 -0500

Thank you for the clarification. My questions were only to cull out your true heart on the matter because as I read it I heard you telling us that the discussion was useless. I did not agree with that because as I said, if Christians keep quiet how are we spreading the gospel. Thank you for the clarification.

I have never asked the government to make laws to force others to accept Christianity. I simply ask my government not to rule that religion needs to be done in a certain way, done at certain times and divorced from any other decisions that are made at any level of society, i.e. government, business, personal. I say what is more meaningful than allowing my beliefs to shape my decisions in every area of life and being so excited about it that I must share my experiences.

I don’t doubt that abortions would continue if the government banned abortions. I am saying it is hypocritical for abortion and murder to be considered somehow different. It is not the laws that I am concerned with; it is the justification that society gives itself for making such law.

My understanding of the acceptance of religious practice in public schools has come from my discussions with young people who have either recently graduated or are currently in school. What I learned is that they were given a room but only early in the morning and only for a set amount of time. This does not sound like “free exercise” of religion. No, I am not saying that “free exercise” means there should not be structure or respect for others' needs, but rather that pushing the kids into some room in the corner and giving them 30 minutes does sound a little restricting.

My understanding of the

Charlie Maricle — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:48:10 -0500

My understanding of the acceptance of religious practice in public schools has come from my discussions with young people who have either recently graduated or are currently in school. Granted I have not discussed this issue with the administration who would probably give me a politically correct answer such as you have.

But I do wonder why teacher-led discussions about evolution, gay rights, philosophy, abortion, sex, and Einstein’s theory of relativity are not considered promotion of one’s “one religion over others”. Also, I wonder how schools' “promotion of religious worship” violates this statement, “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.” Forgive me but I don’t see schools mentioned in there at all nor do I see worship mentioned in there at all. Also, I don’t exactly think that a judge a good number of years removed from the writing of this document can interpret it to mean something that it never contemplates.

Your points about release time, I feel, are what many feel today. Since there isn’t parity we should abandon the practice altogether. Well, I don’t see any African-American police officers in Hutchinson, but I am not going to say that the department is in “de facto promotion” of whites.

For sake of argument, I will hypothesize that the founding fathers were not Bible believers. Even so, they did not fathom the idea of curbing someone’s right to worship or their right promote the God of the Bible. The idea promoted in the First Amendment and supported by the history of the nation was to prohibit a government controlled religion such as the Pilgrims fled from in England. “Free exercise” to me means that I can “exercise” my religion anytime, anywhere despite the feelings of others. I also need to understand that others hold the same right to “exercise” their religion in the same way.

No I do not consider “any idea that doesn't glorify god or promote the Bible to be anti-Bible or anti-God”. I consider those things that tear down the Bible and God, no matter how well they are hidden in rhetoric and politically correctness, to be anti-Bible and anti-God. Therefore, my argument is not that my Christian views deserve special consideration just that they deserve the same consideration as every other view.

Thanks to you and Mr.

darwinball — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:12:33 -0500

Thanks to you and Mr. Maricle for your respectfulness throughout these conversations. I think you understand that questioning our belief systems is not any sort of personal attack. You don't seem any more threatened by the presence of atheists than I am by the presence of theists. Again, thanks.

I don't think the Bible is bad. I think it's a collection of stories written over centuries by different people for different purposes. Some of the stories are allegories, some are written to embolden certain people to brutalize other people, some are rules that seemed important thousands of years ago (don't eat shellfish, don't beat your slaves so harshly that they die immediately, if you rape a woman you must pay her father and marry her), some are second-hand accounts of the life of Jesus. I think the book has little to teach contemporary culture and I regard it as a collection of ancient literature.

Eternal punishment for finite crimes is just unethical and WRONG. It doesn't help to explain "that's how God wants it", it's just wrong.

There is a huge mountain of "evidence" built up by theologians pastors and apologists over the centuries...all designed to prop up and protect people's faith from the attack of doubt, apostasy, and reason. I know of many people who have been converted by looking only at the evidence and arguments written by Christians who later did more extensive research and found their Christian stance unsupportable.

I realize you didn't say

morristhecat — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:25:21 -0500

I realize you didn't say "God sends people to hell" - I just said it was a common misconception.

Also, I understand your position about eternal punishment...I just note that, in a way similar to when you take a college class, the grade you earn is the one you keep - forever. Again, God's system is pass/fail. It's either 100% or 0%. And its your choice - God will give you a 100 if you ask.

When it comes to revealing Himself - He has, dicisively, in the person of Jesus Christ. All of history turns on one amazing event: the life of Christ. That single life has had a greater impact on the world than any other, by a very wide margin. If you took Christ out, you couldn't even explain history...

I am impressed that you've read a significant portion of the Bible. Kudos to you for being open enough and honest enough to take a real look at the other side of the argument. I hope that you'll continue digging...I recently bought a very contemporary translation, called the "New Living Translation" - I recommend it highly. Very readable. I never could hack all those "thees" and "thous" - who talks like that?!?!?

Regarding your Old Testament observations - I agree, its very tough to understand and certainly not easy reading. It is hard to square that picture of God with the one shown in the New Testament. If you want to dig into the specifics, I'm game, but that'll be another long series of blog entries! If you are interested in a Christian perspective on it I'd recommend a good Bible commentary - maybe you wouldn't accept the explanations given, but at least you'd see what folks have to say about it...

I agree too that people have used the Bible for thier own ends, both good and bad. But that doesn't make the Bible bad. People do all sorts of terrible things in the name of "freedom" too...

As I mentioned previously, I did start at an "objective, null" positon as you state.

When I was a senior in high school I had decided that all religion was bunk and the Bible a bunch of fairy tales. But then I was challeged to back up my assumptions (which is what they were) by actually doing some real investigation. I did investigate, being careful to be objective and intellectually honest...if I found "2 + 2," then I had to be honest about it and say it comes to "4." It was that process that led me to where I am today...a Believer.

I've been a Christian now for about 18 years. As a person I have been radically changed. To be honest I still struggle with my faith sometimes, but I come back again and again to the mountain of evidence that it's all real. I cannot explain away my own changed life, I cannot explain away all the testimonies I've heard from other people about thier changed lives, I cannot explain away the uniqueness of the Bible, the historicity of Christ, the fact of the Resurrection, the existance of the Christian church, etc.

I cannot explain the peace that is inside me, except through God's own word: Jesus said, "Peace be with you, MY peace I give you..." and that "He gives a peace that exceeds all understanding..."

At the end of the day Darwin, I think you're right: evidence or not, in the end beliving comes down to an act of faith. Luckily you can ask God for faith, and He will give it to you!

'Nite.

LETTER: Obama is a threat to U.S. Constitution

webmaster — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:52:36 -0500

From Sandy Juffer
Hutchinson
On May 8, Rep. Randy Forbes gave a short speech before the United State House of Representatives in which he commented on the speech President Obama had made in Turkey on April 6.