Deliver Us From Evil

This phrase from “The Lord’s Prayer”implies there is a literal Satan.  While the idea of the literal Devil has lost ground in the U. S. over the two centuries, it remains a concept with lots of juice.

Having personally abandoned the concept of Satan long ago, it struck me a very odd that a Presidential Candidate, Rick Santorum, would say in stump speeches U. S. society is at “war with the Devil.”  Because it struck me as odd does not mean it struck his followers the same way.  Obviously, millions of people still believe in the literal Devil.

I can’t help but wonder how Santorum, if elected President, would use the literal Satan.  When a problem popped up and he had no explanation or solution at hand, would he claim it was the work of “the Devil”?

While President Bush referred to an “axis of evil”, and other Presidents have routinely used Biblical terms, I can’t recall any of them making quite to same literal reference to the Devil as Santorum.  An election of Santorum would make complete the transition started under President Bush.

That transition is from a nation governed by a secular government and policies to one engaged in a great battle between God and Satan.  To support the President in such a battle is to support God.  To not support that President is to support Satan.

More secularism would be refreshing in Republican Party politics.



46 Responses

  1. PK

    Most of our Presidents for the last 40 plus years have openly attended the Bohemian Grove. It’s a club that many elitists attend where they have a Druidic ritual worshiping Moloch, a demon in the Bible, by sacrificing an effigy of a child by fire to a giant wooden owl. Gideon chopped down the groves of Baal in Judges 6:25. Pagan sun worship, or Devil worship, is despised all throughout the Bible. The people who really run our country and the world do worship the Devil masquerading as Christians. This is what you don’t understand. Whether or not you believe in Satan is irrelevant. The sun worshiping fraternal orders that worship the “Light Bearer”, Lucifer, have enormous influence in the world. This religion should be the biggest concern to you, but you mainly focus on Christianity’s sin and the fake “Christian” politicians who love war, death, destruction and violating the constitution, blaming Christianity as a whole for it. Then there’s people like Bob who blame the current wars on Christianity and perhaps Islam, not realizing it’s about world domination and the establishment of a “New World Order”, not my term but the globalists own term, world government, world religion, world economic structure, anti-Christ type system of complete, full spectrum domination by the ancient sun worshiping religion currently called Luciferianism. It’s really not that complicated.

    The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and the is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

    1. Bob

      Willful twisting of my words, PK 3:06 Its what many faithheads do, manipulate, whatever.

      You $!!*mmy! I’m a Libertarian/Anarchist. So why would I be for governments controlling the world as you lie about in your 3:06 post.

      Yes I want to vomit at the idea of Islam and Christianity controlling and influencing anyone’s mind and doings. But I wouldn’t want to do it with force, unlike faithheads like you PK and Santorum and governments. Rather I would do it by living my life with love, peace, charity, hard work.

      God, get a life PK.

      1. PK

        You’re a f*cking idiot. I never said you were for them, you just blame the wrong religions for the wars. That’s it. Why is it so hard for you to read what i say and why twist my words into that i’m somehow for what i’m trying to expose?

        1. Bob

          Then why say,
          “Then there’s people like Bob who blame the current wars on Christianity and perhaps Islam, not realizing it’s about world domination and the establishment of a “New World Order”, PK 3:06

          There you are, you are saying here I’m not getting it that there are governments behind what’s happening in governments. But you willfully neglect to see that religions and supernaturalism are a huge part of the problem too.
          For example as Jon points out in this post, Santorum’s stupidness on so many issues. Santorum is dangerous.

          1. PK

            I’m saying you blame the wrong religion. You should be looking at the ancient sun worshiping death cults that worship the devil that really control the world, instead of blaming Christianity just because our leaders claim they’re Christians. I’m not willfully neglecting anything. In your post a the bottom you mention big business that owns and controls everything. Yes they do, and the owners are involved with fraternal orders that worship Lucifer and they’re all working together to create a fascist world government. I don’t support Santorum. He’s just like Bush and all the other globalists.

          2. PK

            Let me just finish quoting the rest of my sentence that you pieced apart to further prove i wasn’t neglecting the supernatural like you accuse.

            “….“New World Order”, not my term but the globalists own term, world government, world religion, world economic structure, anti-Christ type system of complete, full spectrum domination by the ancient sun worshiping religion currently called Luciferianism.”

  2. Henry

    Politics and religion in America is nothing new. Here is a past sitting president praying to his Lord:

    “My Fellow Americans:

    Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

    And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

    Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

    Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

    They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

    They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest — until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

    For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

    Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

    And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them — help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

    Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

    Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

    And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

    And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment — let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

    With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace — a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

    Thy will be done, Almighty God.


    President Franklin D. Roosevelt – June 6, 1944

    Not a big deal, he was a left-leaning democrat. He can do that.

    1. Henry 3:07 Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed reading that–what a skillful communicator was he.

      Now, just to get my political licks in, I must mention he did not refer to an “axis of evil” or to Satan. A Repubican President would have tossed that in. That is, a Republican today–Eisenhower or Nixon probably would not have mentioned Satan.

      1. Henry

        Correct. He wasn’t as direct, saying instead of satan, “the unholy forces of our enemy.” He assessed a spiritual value to the enemy. I would concede not satan de facto, but perhaps de jure.

        1. entech

          Not in fact but in law. Sounds like the inverse of gay marriage not in law but in fact.
          Bit like biblical truth in the days when the church was supreme, not factually but legally, and how that could be enforced was a burning issue.

  3. entech, FYI, that theory held some sway in the middle of the 20th c. Historians of religion realize a more complex reality now days.

    Jon, you said, “An election of Santorum would make complete the transition started under President Bush.

    That transition is from a nation governed by a secular government and policies to one engaged in a great battle between God and Satan.”

    Yet, even IF Santorum were to win, there’d still be separation of Church and State, regardless of his understanding of Providence. Santorum doesn’t equal theocracy. 😀

    1. Rev Herbel “..there’s still be separation of Church and State,…”

      Well, I am guilty of hyperbole, technically. 🙂 But, to the extent that any President can get away with it, the opportunity is there to appoint cabinent members, Federal Court Judges and hundreds of others who see the world the way he does. A President who sees all that goes on in the world as a war between God and Satan will appoint different people than one who thinks we should have low unemployment. I’d much prefer the latter.

      1. You are correct that the president does wield a fair amount of power, and I wouldn’t argue with you there. That said, the two perspectives you note at the end are not mutually exclusive. They could be in the minds of some, but are not necessarily, and I don’t believe they are in Santorum’s. He’s talked about both and the need to address both. Now, whether he can address the economy appropriately would be an entirely different question, but someone who sees God v. Satan in the world does not somehow inherently not care about unemployment. The two are not causally related. After all, unemployment could be, for her/him, an instance of the fallout of that very battle.

        1. T

          Nice use of post hoc ergo propter hoc (your last sentence) immediately following a condemnation of Jon’s supposed use of the same (your second last sentense). Well done, sir! 🙂

          1. T, I can definitely see how one might think the last sentence is a false cause (there is a God v. Satan battle, therefore unemployment–or vice versa–whichever way one wishes to run it). I hope most people can keep two things in mind, though. First, to show it is a false cause, we’d have to rip into the evidence pro and con (concerning Christian cosmology) and my guess is that we’d quickly outstrip a blog format. More importantly, you missed my point. My point actually was not that there is a God v. Satan battle such that unemployment occurs. I did not state that last sentence as any kind of proof on my part (and I apologize that I gave the impression such that you thought I was making such a proof).

            You are correct, if one assumes atheism or a fundamentally different religious cosmology, that the possibility I stated will seem like a false cause (this unemployment came later, therefore that cosmic battle caused it), but again, that would come down to the age-old debate over whether there is a God v. Satan battle in the classical Christian sense (do either God or Satan exist and, if so, how?). If there is such a battle, it’s not a false cause (as evils could be either directly derivative from that battle or indirectly, via influences and choices arising from Satan’s alleged rebellion). If there is no such ongoing battle as classically understood, it most definitely is a false cause.

            Yes, one could claim there is a battle but it is not the one classically understood by Western Christianity, and in that way, note the last sentence is also a false cause, but since we were dealing with Santorum, I felt it safe to assume the classical Christian cosmology. In the classical, Christian cosmology, the Fall, starting with Satan, really, creates the evil in the cosmos. Some evils may be derivative from earlier evils (e.g. evil choices by people) rather than necessarily always directly imputed from without by Satan, but for classical Christian cosmology, especially in the Roman Catholic system of inherited guilt, the one (Satan’s rebellion and successful tempting of Adam and Eve) causes the other (the Fall and subsequent evils). Also, these later other evils in classical Christian cosmology are not caused by the God v. Satan battle simply in that they occur after Satan’s initial rebellion, but are caused by a battle Christians have typically seen as ongoing and continuous. So, admittedly, someone holding to classical Western Christian cosmology does believe evil in the world results from Satan’s initial rebellion and the subsequent chaos it caused (such as humanity becoming mixed up in it). Santorum’s Roman Catholicism makes it explicit through Augustine’s theology of the Fall, where all of humanity inherits Adam’s guilt (except Mary, who has a special grace imputed into her to remove that stain).

            Again, though, that was not my point (as I think the debate would become interminable on this or most any other blog! 😀 ). Rather, my point, which I hope most people got, was that there is not necessarily a causal connection between position A (there is a God v. Satan battle) and position B (there should be unemployment). Holding position A does not require that one holds position B. The last sentence is simply stating one possible way in which a person could believe both position A but also position not-B. An atheist will find that position ridiculous, since an atheist will find position A to be false (creating the false cause you note), as would someone who perhaps doesn’t hold to the classical Western Christian cosmology, but it is possible for Santorum to hold to A and not-B.

            I’m glad to have read your comment. I hope my comments are now clearer to readers.

        2. Rev. Herbel The two are not causally related. After all, unemployment could be, for her/him, an instance of the fallout of that very battle.

          I read these two sentences several time and am scratching my head. The two are mutually exclusive, but he thinks they are not?

          In my view, anyone who thinks unemployment is a fallout of a war betweeen God and Satan is, and I should be more polite here (but, I won’t), should not be considered by any rational person to be our President. Now, some here have split hairs with his exact words, maybe he didn’t say exactly it is all about this mythical war, but the fact that he even brought it up is the sign of someone who wants to be the Pope-in-President.

          1. Oh, I’m sure he probably does see evil in the world as ultimately deriving from God v. Satan. He is a faithful Roman Catholic. I’m not offended by your position that such a person shouldn’t be president. I think that’s consistent with your secular atheism and Christians should expect that you’d be likely to state that. So, no offense here (and I still think you were polite despite not trying to be 😀 ).

            I do disagree, as I think what matters for American secular office is what a person believes one should do, practically, in the here and now, even if evils derive either directly or indirectly from a larger ongoing cosmic battle. Since, presumably, we are not all on the wrong side (and Santorum would claim at least Roman Catholicism is on the right side). I fee the same about Romney and Mormonism. I am not a Mormon and don’t find it appealing or convincing but I wouldn’t vote against him just because he is a Mormon.

            I do apologize for that last sentence. It is clear to me this morning that I wasn’t clear! I simply meant position A (there is a cosmic God v. Satan battle) does not cause position B (there should be low unemployment). I read you as claiming that by virtue of Santorum holding to a God v. Satan battle, he wasn’t concerned about getting low unemployment. I was simply stating the two are not necessarily causally related. That is, belief in that cosmic battle doesn’t necessarily cause one not to be concerned with unemployment numbers. That’s all I was saying. T is concerned about the last sentence and I appreciate his concern. If such a cosmic battle is not an ongoing reality, then Santorum (and any similarly believing Christian) would be making a serious logical error.

          2. Ugh. Mistyped! I said in responding to this intially: I simply meant position A (there is a cosmic God v. Satan battle) does not cause position B (there should be low unemployment).

            I meant “position B (there should be high unemployment).” Ugh. can’t even type correctly this morning! Maybe I need more coffee!

            Believing in the cosmic battle doesn’t mean one doesn’t care about unemployment numbers. That’s all I meant. Maybe all I should have typed was that sentence and been done with it! 😀

          3. Rev Herbel–Point well taken that a President can hold strange views on the universe but be a good at solving problems of the here and now. One would guess the majority of our Presidents actually thought in this way, since the majority of the public probably does so as well.

            It’s just that that Santorum, and others, speak of it in a way that is, at least a little, frightening to me. He speaks of it as if it is self evident there is a literal Satan. The story that Bush told someone he thought invading Iraq was some kind of Biblical mandate (I realize he may not have said quite this or really thought it even if he did say it–reasons for doing things are often complex) come to mind. If it was true that Bush really thought this, and, there was mixed information as to whether or not there were real “weapons of mass destruction”, which there was, his mind would already be biased toward invading Iraq.

            I my view, both religious and not religious people should steer clear of politicans who wear theirs on their sleeves.

          4. Ok, that’s fair. I certainly understand why someon (atheist or theist) would be concerned with a candidate who displays his or her faith so strongly. It doesn’t bother me quite as much as a general rule, since I do think people are shaped by their core values regardless, but I can definitely see your concern, there. It’s probably a matter of degree, too. It’s one thing for someone to say, “yes, I am x, and my adherence to x shapes my views.” It is another to say, “I am x and here are some ways I will make our policies line up with x.” I don’t think Santorum is quite saying the latter, but I can see how he comes across that way.

    2. entech

      I still like to think that there was a strong influence from Cyrus when he not only released them from Babylon but encouraged them to practise their own religion. Gods were very nationalistic until this time, it was in exile in Babylon that the Jews realised they could actually pray without a temple, that it was possible that there could be one god of all.

      It was Zoroaster who declared that Ahura Mazda, the god of light and wisdom, was the uncreated god. Mazda was invoked as a triad with Mithra and Apam Napat. He has an enemy Angra Mainya, the evil one spends all his time and efforts with his demons trying to lead humanity astray, away from the path of righteousness, but the enemy will eventually be destroyed.

      There is sufficient similarity (more than the elementary stuff here) to suggest that either the earlier influenced the later or there is a common origin separate from either.

      We could both be wrong and “the one” the Hindus speak of could be the ground of all being, so many seekers and so many different truths. Perhaps Khayyam was right:

      Alike for those who for To-day prepare,
      And those that after some To-morrow stare,
      A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
      “Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There.”

      1. Entech, Mary Boyce made a strong argument along those lines (in the late 1960s?). I didn’t mean to state there was nothing to it. It still carries adherents today, so you’re not “out there,” or alone and so I don’t want to come across too strongly.

        That said, there has been (considerable) subsequent work on the history of religion since then and that position is now strongly questioned. I’m not a detailed expert on this, as I am no detailed expert on Zoroastrianism, but my understanding is that people now discuss some of the following:
        1) some developments within religions, including Judaism and Christianity can have multiple sources of origin and so Zoroastrianism wouldn’t be the only source
        2) many times, developments occur within religions not by adopting positions from outside religions but by clarifying internal positions vis-a-vis those outside religions; that is, an outside religious concept forces clarity on something previously implicit or orally taught within a religion
        3) the concept of hell and heaven/hell seems to be a much later development in Zoroastrianism; the roots are there early on, but the full fledged development is seen most clearly in the 3rd century (AD) when Kirdir successfully has Mani killed.

        Anyhow, that’s what I’ve seen. I’ve done some studying on Manichaeism, as it related directly to my book on St. Sarapion of Thmuis (who wrote a treatise against them), so I’ve seen some discussions of this, and these are the areas of discussion I remember seeing. Definitely, the idea of a neat, straight line is no longer upheld across the board. In part, this is because historians of religion have begun to note that Zoroastrianism itself isn’t a concise, unchanging construct.

        1. entech

          I don’t try to make a strong case, or any case, simply that there was probably more influence from Cyrus than is usually admitted. There is nothing to confirm or deny that Cyrus was actually Zoroastrian by religion himself, but it was the dominant religion in his background. Interesting that he is mentioned with high regard in Isaiah, but hardly mentioned by Christians who claim Isaiah as prophesying Jesus as Emanuel.

          I was always more interested from an anthropological view than a religious one, having fallen from any firm belief a long time ago. Just as the influence of the Aryan migration and old Persian religions that led to Zoroaster is denigrated in Christianity there are some Hindu scholars and anthropologists who contend that the flow was in fact in the opposite direction, That the Aryans and the Avesta were taken from India not, as is often claimed the Aryans arrived bringing with them the early versions of the Vedas. All so long ago and mainly recorded by people that weren’t there about events that, if they occurred at all, are highly romanticised.

          1) Agreed there could and probably was more than one source. Humanity does have some common themes when attempting to attribute causes and origins, this can be because a common perception and interpretation of natural events results from influences of a common ancestry.
          2) Perhaps, but the very act of clarification must imply some knowledge of the external ideas and systems. Knowledge will have some influence and be more than a simple cause of change but will have an effect on the direction of the change.
          3) Heaven and Hell were part of pre-Zoroastrian theology and probably formalised with him. There were several layers of hell and there was a judging on death that determined the level to which you would descend, this was not for eternity as at the time of the victory of Mazda all would be resurrected and judged again in light of the ultimate victory of the good God. Early Judaism had little of heaven and hell and it was Christianity that invented the idea of eternal damnation and torment: how much of this expanded hell became absorbed in later Zoroastrian thought I don’t know.

          That all religions that have been in contact have changed because of the contact is clear, the only thing that is not clear, to me, is how one religion can claim absolute truth to themselves as a result of revelation when so many have had so many truths revealed and many are contradictory.

          1. I’m with you on your last paragraph. I don’t think that is easy, either. Were it, everyone (or, well, very nearly everyone) would be of the same religious persuasion. It is tough. I personally think evolution has been used (by God) to develop part of what we call the “image of God,” such that people are naturally, instinctively religious. I take a similarly providential view of religious history (and here one has to be careful to distinguish between the religious tenets and misapplications by some adherents as well as the varying contexts). I don’t think this is ever easy and anyone who says it is either has always felt a clear emotional/spiritual pull or is lying.

  4. Bob

    I don’t think it matters who we vote for anymore. It won’t make a difference. We are being controlled, jerked around by selfish oil companies, banks, and other business’s that own everything and run everything. We are so screwed. I don’t think I’m even going to vote, because I don’t believe it will make any difference.
    I can only live my life as free and peaceful and creatively as I can, within the contraints that the big players have allowed me to anyway.
    Peace everyone, and for the love of peace and love, don’t fight in their wars. Don’t. Tell everyone you know not to join the military. They will just be fighting the wars for the big players, and not for freedom. Our fight for freedom has to be fought through education that you can’t get in K-16 schools. K-16 schools are part of the problem.

  5. Bob

    “and the owners are involved with fraternal orders that worship Lucifer and they’re all working together to create a fascist world government.” PK 3:46

    OMG! That’s really ripe PK, like in stinky goofy rotten fruit cake ripe. Lucifer?
    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Rofl.

  6. Bob

    The bible is fiction too. You know, dragons giants, zombies rising from the dead, magical gandolf figures flying down from the sky and all that fantasy fluff.

    Funny thing is PK, Lord of the Rings is by far a better written fantasy than the bible, torah, or koran could ever be.
    Not even in the same class of literature, sorry.

    1. PK

      You’re flat out ignorant. You can’t read and comprehend simple posts that me and others write on here, it’s crazy to think you can understand the Bible that was written thousands of years ago. I bet you haven’t even read the Lord of the Rings books, rather just watched the movies. The same could be said about the Bible, you probably haven’t read much of it, and the parts you have you weren’t trying to understand what the meaning is, merely just trying to find faults in it. Then you get your talking points from other sources. You would do people like Jon and Entech a favor if you just stopped posting your dumb, hateful remarks on here. But hey, it’s your right to do so, so i don’t really care. Oh wait a minute, how could i believe in the 1st Amendment, i’m just a dumb, commy, republican, Christian freak and you’re the only real, true “Libertarian” in the world. I’m done talking with you until you learn how to read and some manners, have a nice day.

  7. You are leaving a project undone. Athiests should be out there stopping these spontaneous candlelight /prayer vigils for dead students at NDSU and now it is happening in Ohio too. Get on it!!!!

    1. You may have meant this in jest, Kay, but it is a fair question. Should Christians be allowed a say in the public sphere while speaking and acting as Christians? If someone says, “no,” then it would, indeed, seem that that same someone should be working to outlaw such gatherings or at the very least, making it illegal to report on them, since placing this stuff in the news clearly gives a public voice to religion.

      I am curious as to how atheists think about this. To what extent do they believe Christians (and other religious people) should be allowed a voice in the public sphere? I ask, knowing there is likely a wide range of opinions.

      1. Rev. Herbel 9:29 “.. curious as to how atheists think about this.”

        Lighting candles, standing on the street corner preaching, it’s all part of free speech and freedom to worship. Now, when someone has a license granted by taxpayers who believe all kinds of things, I have a question about a Pharmacist who says, “Sorry, my religion prohits me from filling your prescription.” Maybe my religion requires me to take that prescription.

        1. Henry

          Jon: “Lighting candles, standing on the street corner preaching, it’s all part of free speech and freedom to worship.”

          Correct. Free speech on public property seems to be a good idea. How one decorates one’s public workplace in conformance with the stated ideals of the State Constitution seems to be a good idea as well.

          1. Henry 11:55 Surely you jest. The article pointed out correctly Judge Moore installed a Ten Commandments monument in “the Alabama Judicial Building.” Usually when we use your term “workplace” we are talking about your desk.

            When I was a Mayor, I did not have the right to put a banner with atheist views over the Fargo City Commission meeting room. If I had been a nonbeliever at the time, I could have put them on my desk.

          2. entech

            Perhaps as part of the Creationist Credo we could teach the controversy. This would imply that next to the ten commandments and to counter the ones that reference a god that may or may not exist the advert that started the London bus campaign could be installed in the same place and with the same prominence; “Relax, there probably is no God”

          3. Henry

            Jon: “When I was a Mayor, I did not have the right to put a banner with atheist views over the Fargo City Commission meeting room.”

            Perhaps not. That would be the commission’s role.

          4. Henry 2:36 “That would be the Commission’s role.”

            I’m trying here, quite unsuccessfully it seems, to explain how Federal courts have interpreted the Constitution. Neither the Fargo City Commission, nor the Governor of North Dakota nor the President of the United States could successfully defend installing in the City Commission Chambers, Jesus Loves You or Jesus Hates You. A Federal Court would order it removed, at least in all likihood, just like one ordered Judge Moore to remove his Ten Commandments. That is not a “workplace” like a public employee’s desk, where such a motto probably could probably be displayed.

        2. I expected a balanced response from you, which I received. Incidentally, I appreciate your distinction between standing on a street corner and having a license. I don’t agree with it, as I don’t believe any certification that is derived (in part) from tax payer funds requires that one adopts a secular atheist position, but this does help me see your distinction. Thank you.

  8. Bob

    Anyone with any opinion, religious or political or about what milk they like best, or lighting candles in grief, has a right to gather and voice their opinion, as long as they are not preventing business’s from operating, or doing something to hurt someone while they’re doing it.
    Isn’t that common sense?
    And what’s it got to do with religion?

Comments are closed.