Aug. 8 reader letters

Aug 07, 2014

Glad gay marriage ban was overturned

To the editor:

To all of you that voted for Amendment One, the ban on same-sex marriage, I know that the recent federal court ruling in Virginia that includes North Carolina is a bitter pill to swallow. And I hope you choke on it.

Your narrow-minded attitudes are shameful. Rather than attacking your apparent lack of education and misunderstanding of American law, I can simply say that you are collectively cruel and terribly mean-spirited people. You are an embarrassment for this state and this country.

I want you to move away from my neighborhood and set your sights on the likes of Mississippi and Alabama.

Those places are filled with hatred and you’ll fit right in. With your departure, the decent people can continue moving forward knowing that all people are equal before American law regardless of the hatred that your churches churn out. I feel like I should apologize for being so harsh, but I wouldn’t dream of it.

John Buckley



Event not authentic

To the editor:

I am a Turkish citizen who visited Folkmoot from Florida last month.

The reason is to see my folk dance and autentique culture as Turkey. But live a big shock! Because the group was from USA and dancers most of was USA citizen. This is not culture exchange, never. This is a big sensation. I strongly protest this situation. This situation also is has betrayed to the Folkmoot sprit.

Again I strongly protest this situation and Folkmoot management.

Figen Apaydın


(Editor’s note: Securing visas for out-of-country visitors has been increasingly difficult in recent years, which has led to dance groups coming from nations where visa issues aren’t as difficult to deal with.)



Grace Episcopal Church says thanks

Grace Church in the Mountains’ Annual Parish Fair, a longstanding tradition in Waynesville, was held as usual on the last Saturday in July, amidst all the Folkmoot and library book sale activity, and this year it was the most successful in many years.  Our gratitude goes to so many people and groups, reaching far beyond the herculean efforts of the wonderful Grace family members.

We thank the attendees who stood in long lines awaiting the toll of the church’s bell to begin the dash to the various fair areas.

We thank the local businesses such as John Graham, Ingles, Bi-Lo, Tommy Franklin, Specialty Lock and Key, and Sam’s Club who were supportive, along with the myriad of local merchants who donated items for our silent auction.

Over $14,500 was raised from the event, all of which will be given back to the community — to Haywood County non-profit organizations that will be submitting grant applications this month.  Last year 18   local organizations received grants as part of the outreach efforts of the fair.  In addition, all remaining unsold items are always donated to local non-profit groups for their use and or resale.

It once again shows that Waynesville, Haywood County, is a good place to call home, or as Rev. Nick Honerkamp, President of Haywood Christian Emergency Shelter, recently said, “We live in a very unique community.”

Grace Episcopal Church

Outreach Chair, Betty Smith


Dumber and dumber taxes

To the editor:

This is in reference to “Smart Taxes and Dumb Taxes” written by school employee Bill Nolte. First of all, this is looking for political rhetoric. Your tax graph shows N.C. to be the highest tax state of the states shows, so what’s your point?

I agree, our taxes are very high; however, I believe that is from an inefficient, bloated government. Our teachers just averaged a 7 percent raise; some more, some less. I think this is a good thing.

But when we spend $10 million on a bridge to nowhere (Howell Mills road project) these are dollars foolishly spent. It must be just in my neighborhood where I cannot get the potholes fixed!

My point is the more we feed the monster, the more the monster wants.

James Nolan


Comments (30)
Posted by: Beth G. Johnson | Aug 08, 2014 13:11

I was most upset to read Mr. Buckley's letter.  His hatred of churches and his disdain for people with a different opinion were uncivil..  It is a shame when  issues are not discussed is a civil manner but rather descent into name calling.  I hope the next letter in support of same-sex marriage is written in a better, more objective tone.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 08, 2014 14:42

  Perhaps like this:"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support". George Washington Letter to Moses Seixas who had written to Washington:" Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a government erected by the Majesty of the People--a Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance, but generously affording to All liberty of conscience and immunities of Citizenship, deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental machine".


                    Perhaps that would be more fitting to the act of religious bigotry of denying other persons their natural rights.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 08, 2014 15:19

Ms. Johnson, it is my opinion that society ought to have good and better examples of how to debate respectfully and with dignity.  Sometimes lack of respect and dignity is a valuable reminder of what one becomes without those characteristics.  It is a shame that the cost of that reminder is someone's good name.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 08, 2014 16:50

          We the people alreddy had the debate. OUR inherent inalienable rights ain't up for discussion. Except by those that would use "the bible" as a weapon of oppression.



Posted by: Ron Rookstool | Aug 09, 2014 10:23

Religion and politics do not mix and should be kept separate. All people should have the same inalienable rights and protection regardless of individual interpretations of the Bible.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 10, 2014 08:44

        Mr. Rookstool;


         We do. Except for women of course. Who, as the 5 male catholic men while dancing on the head of a pin stated, "All persons" of the 14th Amendment was only intended to affect men. The only rights a woman has are those enumerated by OUR shared Constitutions, such as voting. That is it. It is plain to see where this is going. scalia/thomas have said it for years. "Roe vs. wade was wrongly decided." By their logic now forming a basis of Constitutional law, women  no longer have the Constitutionally enumerated right of self-determination that exits to equally protect men as they have opined. The plain language of "All persons" is somehow lost on the Roberts 5. Until women vote to insure more reasonable persons are on the court, they will be at risk.



Posted by: John Buckley | Aug 10, 2014 12:12

Those who oppose the LGBT community are the same who oppose black people and those of color. Time for civil conversation lapsed decades ago. American law demands equal protection, and if your church teaches otherwise then it is wrong and certainly not Christian. Curiously, Jesus was a person of color and would not be welcome here. I would pray for those living in ignorance and hatred, but it wouldn't do any good.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 11, 2014 09:25

"Those who oppose the LGBT community are the same who oppose black people and those of color." -- Not at all.  I oppose LGBT marriage as marriage is a biblical term.  Let them "civil union" however they like as the way government can recognize them -- but marriage in my church using the commonly used Bible as a reference does not recognize a LGBT marriage.  Trust me, I've looked for it -- there literally is no place the Bible provides for a same-sex marriage even to consider how that might be allowed.


"Time for civil conversation lapsed decades ago." -- Yet the civil conversation was lost on you since you make the error in assumption that I would "oppose black people and those of color."  Perhaps you should take the opportunity to LISTEN more to the argument so that you understand it better and the people who make the argument.


"American law demands equal protection, and if your church teaches otherwise then it is wrong and certainly not Christian."  - This is two issues.  Yes, American law demands equal protection.  But American Law and Christian Law are most definitely not the same.  Christianity is mostly concerned with morality.  American Law defines what is legal - and allows many religions, some may have religious texts that support LGBT unions.  The Bible has many references to man's law not always agreeing with Christian law.  What's interesting is that Christian law exists in thousands of legal systems and through periods of time that exceed any government's tenure.  American law is a mere 250 years old.


I actually changed churches (formerly ELCA Lutheran) because they voted and now allow openly gay pastors at the alter.  Two problems with this: (1) Openly gay is a clear definition of "sexual immorality" which the Bible says is a no-no.  I cannot pretend to understand homosexuality but openly and practicing gayness does not conform to what the Bible says is a marriage so it ought not to be celebrated at the alter.  No more than a pastor committing murder ought to be celebrated at the alter.  (2)  What kind of religion VOTES to change God's law?  Who gives a church permission to marry gay people since as far as I know, there isn't a Newer Testament which permits it?  I don't recognize man's authority (ability) to put words in God's mouth.  And as good as the American legal system is, it does not have domain over the word of God.


"Curiously, Jesus was a person of color and would not be welcome here." -- What?!?  Most certainly at the House of Lilly he would be welcomed!  Not too long ago some evangelists were walking down the street knocking on doors spreading the Good Word.  I was glad to have a 10-minute conversation in my driveway and my 5-year-old showed off a little by quoting John 3:16 to them.  (And then my 8-year old got into the act quoting Romans 12!)  I had never seen them before nor seen them since -- but they were welcomed.


"I would pray for those living in ignorance and hatred, but it wouldn't do any good." -- Now that just doesn't sound Christian of you.


This forum is for opinions and comments.  If you want to understand people and issues better, just read.  If you are comfortable living in ignorance and hatred, then I expect the civil discussion we referenced is once again lost.  Before you try to run anyone off from your neighborhood, perhaps you ought to consider how good a neighbor they can be.  You, neighbor, are also welcomed at my home so that we can study the Bible together and see what we might be missing or where either of us might learn more about the story that is told between the covers of the Bible.  I'm quite sure my wife would gladly serve us some nice lemonade to enjoy while conversing.

Posted by: John Buckley | Aug 11, 2014 10:50

I have to thank Mr. Lilly for making my point. Church "law" has no place in American jurisprudence. The law of the land is set forth without prejudice or passion. We are living in the 21st century and not some imaginary scene from 2000 years ago. The Founders made it crystal clear that church is separated from state, which is the only way that all citizens can be equal before the law. I'm glad that he is so insulated from life that nothing buffets or abuses him. For him to intentionally set out to hurt other people can't be found anywhere in his "precious book" and is reprehensible. What ever happened to "love your neighbor as yourself". Mr. Lilly strikes me as an Old Testament Christian, which is not Christianity at all. Additionally, his assumption that I am a Christian is incorrect and offensive.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 11, 2014 11:22

"For him to intentionally set out to hurt other people" -- My good sir, please elaborate as I have done no such thing.


"his assumption that I am a Christian is incorrect and offensive" -- I offer my apologies.  I hope you can understand that for me to consider one to be qualified to give advice on how Christian churches ought to teach, the person dispensing advice should minimally be Christian.  Hence my assumption.  Therefore, I do not recognize any legitimacy of your opinions in my religion and the biblical definition of the word "marriage".  That being said, I would welcome the opportunity to tell you about Christianity over a glass of lemonade.  The "imaginary scene from 2000 years ago" is well-documented in numerous writings; and if that's not enough, there is a direct lineage of representation of those writings Pope-to-Pope that you can find for yourself here:


Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 11, 2014 13:05

          Again. We the people have settled this years ago. OUR Founders not only revolted against King George but also the conservative trinnitarrian Calvinist Church of England and determined and established that no church has any influence beyond its property by establishing a secular republic whose primary duty is to equally protect its citizens natural inherent inalienable rights.

         No one has to be married in any particular church. No one.

         "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion..." is not a mere suggestion. As has been shown recently, those who forced Amendment 1 on US were in violation of OUR Constitution. There is no debate to it. It was wrong from the get-go.

          There is no proven first hand documentation of Jesus life. As Thomas Jefferson quite well documented, Jesus wrote nothing himself and neither did the so-called disciples at the time. Instead their stories were written down years latter by primarily Paul of another town who had no first hand knowledge of anything. It was he that Jefferson claimed "prostituted the life of Jesus".  How Fortunate We are that Jefferson and Madison were religious experts. In Madison's Remonstrance and Remembrance Against Religious Assessments in Favour of the Teachers of the Christian Religion, he proclaimed:

       7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

Read more:

              They recognized quite well the ill effects of Emperor Constantine's incorporation of trinnitarrianism into Roman law.

               And in Jefferson's Act For establishing Religious Freedom the acknowledgment of "false religions" was quite well spelled out:

            "...that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;..."


              That is the jist of what Amendment 1 was deseigned to do. To use the force of OUR laws to oppress those of a different opinion.

               Tyranny must be resisted in what ever manner necessary to return to each what is theirs. That is the cost of Liberty.



Posted by: John Buckley | Aug 11, 2014 13:22

Mr. Zimmerman thank you so much. I wish I could write and communicate as well as you. My boiling rage over the willfully ignorant makes it hard for me to remain calm and clear. I can only predict that the American people will abandon their churches in search of something better, much better. As the elderly perish the young will not follow them into the churches. In time the churches will become places similar to museums where people can scratch their heads and wonder why so many others followed such delusional thinking and practices.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 11, 2014 14:13

"We the people have settled this years ago." -- You cannot claim a point that this is settled years ago only when it suits you.  If that's the case, then we settled long ago that marriage is between a man and a woman - only.  No marriage certificate in the United States has ever had same-sex marriage until the present-day arguments to make a change.  Indeed the legal document "marriage certificate" was settled years ago.  We now entertain a debate about if that "settled document" ought to be reconsidered.  My opinion is that our American law ought to support everyone's rights equally -- including same-sex unions.  It's no business of the government who can "partner".  (A Libertarian view I like.)  I only get upset when someone takes my biblical word "marriage" and turns it into something it is not.  It happened in the last few years in the dictionary and now in the legal system.  I have already started a discussion within my church to come up with a new term for marriage that dictionaries and politicians cannot use for themselves.  Something along the line of "Biblical-Marriage" that a church will recognize as being superior to a civil union and a government can recognize as equal to a civil union.


I believe Mr. Buckley's position on the matter of religion is well-understood and his wish that people choke on something is metaphoric and not literal since he finds it reprehensible to "intentionally try to harm someone".


And although Mr. Buckley claims to be withholding prayer from the ignorant and hating, he has not made it clear to whom he would pray nor how he might consider that withholding prayer is somehow not rooted in the hatred he implies not to have.


Furthermore, Mr. Buckley's suggests someone is "willfully ignorant" for placing before him a position that does not agree with his own.  At least in this case, I made the effort to understand his position.  Therefore I am not ignorant of it.  May I suggest a good thesaurus and dictionary to come up with a better description of those that do not agree with your opinion?

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 11, 2014 17:11

              I fully support your inherent right to an opinion. However! You do not have the right to use the force of law to impose your opinion on anyone else.

              Marriage is not enumerated in OUR Constitution. Prohibition against "establishment of religion" is. How is this not clear?

               The 1st amendment does not prohibit any church from imposing certain and particular requirements on its members. But. Common Law is the law of the land by the 7th amendment and anyone may enter into a marriage contract by use of their own conscience and not violating prohibitions against too close a relationship or age of consent, by employing a government official tasked with such responsibility such as a magistrate, judge, etc.

              Mr. Lilly, it was Jefferson, Madison, Washington who recognized what happens when uninformed unenlightened people chose to oppress their fellow man. It was they who first called such acts of tyranny what they were. "Bigotry and persecution."(from above)

               You have shown no knowledge nor comprehension of the Deistic Founding Principle of Naturally inherent inalienable rights which OUR Founders valued so much. That makes you "willfully ignorant".



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 11, 2014 17:46

"You do not have the right to use the force of law to impose your opinion on anyone else." -- I have done no such thing.  But those championing a democracy over a republic indeed do this.  (Democrats use majority rule to force law to impose their opinion.  Republicans try to limit government by promoting the Constitution as a protector of freedom.)


"Common Law is the law of the land by the 7th amendment and anyone may enter into a marriage contract" -- Perhaps.  That is open for debate.  The 7th amendment calls on "common law" and is defined as being "the laws of nature and nature's God".  This makes it relevant and proper to consider "God" and His law when considering marriage.  As many views of nature's God yields almost as many opinions on marriage.  If you want to divorce marriage from God, then use a term to describe it other than what is defined in the Bible -- which predated the United States and even the English language.


Bigotry is defined as intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.  If bigotry is to be exemplified in this discussion, it is by those that make attacks on those with differing opinions rather than the opinions themselves.  The purpose of debate is indeed to consider other opinions.  Hoping someone "chokes" on an opinion and wishing them out of town for an opinion is a good example of bigotry, an intolerance for a differing opinion.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 11, 2014 18:57

          Mr. Lilly;


                There you go again proving your accusers right.

                 The Deistic notion of Naturally inherent inalienable rights predate all religious texts. In fact all religious opinions evolved from the Deisim of Liberty/self determination. 

                   US. common law has nothing to do with god's law. We separated the church from the state. How is this unclear?

                    In a republic a law that harms one person, harms all people. This is OUR Founding Principle whereby any person who can show harm against their Naturally inherent inalienable rights and a court agrees, can get that law rescinded as unconstitutional. Roe vs. Wade is one example. The many recent decisions negating marriage laws is another. Returning OUR laws to their constitutional Founding is not forced democracy. It is a duty.

             Again. I fully support you inherent inalienable right of opinion. That it differs from OUR Constitutional Founding is the problem. It is one I'd suggest you need to address yourself.




Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 11, 2014 19:51

Mr. Zimmerman, here is an article written on this very subject that a published, practicing lawyer who has been involved in issues even to the Supreme Court level.  Mr. Morgan wrote a piece that has an excellent deep-dive into this matter with references for your consideration:


Perhaps this will address your question about "US Common Law has nothing to do with God's law" indeed is unclear and needs supporting evidence from someone qualified to make such a claim.

Posted by: John Buckley | Aug 11, 2014 22:05

Mr. Lilly, you should benefit yourself from reading the entire definition of bigotry. Who you are and what you believe are of no consequence to me. Rather it is your actions that I condemn. Regardless of our little exchanges here, the issue of same-sex marriage will be settled across America in favor of the LGBT community.  Of the almost two dozen federal cases heard already none have been resolved in favor of the defendants, those standing against LGBT plaintiffs. You sir and your kind will be relegated to a sad little footnote in American history.  I appreciate you standing up here, so willing to be castigated and taking the fall.  I repeat: your actions, voting for Amendment One and promoting its "benefit", intentionally hurt other citizens of NC - men, women and children, and there is no excuse on your part to justify this behavior, none.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 12, 2014 08:23

               Mr. Lilly;


                The article you reference is bogus and not supported by court decisions nor a rudimentary examination of OUR documented history. OUR supreme and lesser courts have all supported the Founding Principle of separation of the church from the state. We are a self-representative republic governed by a completely Godless Constitution. Not only is there no mention of any God but there are prohibitions from enacting any religious opinion as law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." , the no religious test as required in the main body, 7th Amendment adoption of Godless common law, etc.

                   Before there was a bible the Code of Hammurabi was the primary source of the law. Hammurabi was the sixth ruler of the First Dynasty of Babylon 1792-1750 B.C. It was influential on OUR Founders opinions who being historical and religious experts were quite well aware of the facts of each. However OUR founders went back to the very beginning,  to the first creation and embraced what happened in the Garden of Eden and embracing a God who never interfered again, established a republic dedicated to the Liberty of self-determination that God gave initially and was then handed down to their heirs thru inheritence and added the duty of equal protection. This was laid out in Jefferson's Act For Establishing Religious Freedom: "Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free, ..."

                  OUR documented history is there for all to see, Mr. Lilly. I'd suggest you read and comprehend what it was that OUR Founders clearly established as a secular republic.

                   There is a very good explanation here:

FindLaw's Writ - Hamilton: The Ten Commandments and ...

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 12, 2014 08:46

Separation from church and State only means our government cannot promote or favor any church.  Per Nature's God, the law of Nature, and man's Creator (capital "C") our government cannot be separated from God.  There is no separation from God and State.  After all, In God We Trust.  And if you take a silly position to deny God, then you deny the unalienable rights bestowed on you by your Creator - in which case I will refer you to Darwin's Theory where the strong rule over the weak and the very notion of "morality" is illegitimate.

Posted by: Ryan Roberts | Aug 12, 2014 09:29

Your'e confusing Darwin for Ayn Rand.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 12, 2014 09:50

I need to read up on Ayn Rand.  Admittedly I confused "Darwin's Theory" with "Social Darwinism":


"Survival of the fittest" is something that does not much consider morality.  I've got no business studying a founding principle of the "church of satan" -- So I'll just leave it at I have no love or hope of Social Darwinism.  (Which may not be attributable to Darwin at all.)  Thanks for the point.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 12, 2014 09:57

         Mr. Lilly;


          Again you prove yourself ignorant. Or without knowledge of OUR Founding Principles.

Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment

'Seperation of Church and State': a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

In a letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller (Jan. 23, 1808)

"I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted [forbid] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…."

James Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform"(Annals of Congress, Sat Aug. 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)

More thoughts from Madison:

"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State"

[Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819]

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"

[Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822].

U.S. Supreme Court

Hugo Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice

"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."

[Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

[Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws nor impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of a God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."

[Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)]

Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: 

'The Lemon Test', in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It Determines if a law is permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

  • A law must have a secular purpose.
  • It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
  • It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.


        "In God We Trust" was not on the original currency. It did not get Congressional approval until Ike's administration. Same with "under God".

          I know exactly who created me. God had nothing to do with it.


           Again. OUR Constitution is completely Godless.



Posted by: Joseph Edwards | Aug 16, 2014 09:56

In regards to same sex marriage I do not believe this is a natural affair because it goes against nature.  Male and Female is the natural way to propagate.  Not Male to Male or Female to Female.  Nature has fundamental elements that defies so called intellectual discourse supporting same sex marriages.and a simple solution to the entire issue is very evident. What is marriage for?  The fundamental reason is to multiply within society as a civilized people has ordained.


Mike Edwards

Posted by: Ryan Roberts | Aug 16, 2014 16:17

Mr. Edwards, your assertion that homosexuality is unnatural is nothing more than a philosophical veneer applied to a personal prejudice and is factually inaccurate. Innumerable scientific studies of both wild and captive animals have catalogued same-sex mate selection despite the availability of opposite-sex members of the same species. As in humans, this obviously takes place in a minority of subjects but the fact that it occurs - and has occurred for time immemorial - logically implies that it is natural, that is to say it exists within nature.

With regards to your claim that the function of marriage in modern society is for propagation of the species; should the government annul the marriages of loving heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to have children in order for them to find more suitable mates with whom they may be either willing or biologically capable of having children? This seems logical, unless there may be other motives for marriage such as the desire for legal / financial protection of the relationship or the public declaration of love and intent for another.

Posted by: Joseph Edwards | Aug 17, 2014 08:28

Mr. Ryan - I stated a fact of nature for propagation.  No where did I mention the legal issues that are in the forefront of the dame sex unions.  I feel that all are entitled to the legal  benefits that we as a nation can derive from responsibly.




Posted by: Joseph Edwards | Aug 17, 2014 08:38

SOME would say that all scientific studies have proven that there are "Throw-Backs" in all species.





Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Aug 17, 2014 09:27

              Many years ago, 1973 I believe, I had a animal science course dealing with reproduction. It was taught by a Dr. Outhouse. He documented that studies had shown about 80 % of cows have engaged in homosexual acts. Any farmer can verify this.

               It does not require a sexual act for procreation. Artificial insemination has been around  since the early 70s. Invetro fertilization also, whereby eggs are fertilized with sperm and the healthiest embryos are implanted into the uterus. Yes fertilized eggs are culled or otherwise destroyed in most cases just like in the womb whereby over 40% of all fertilized eggs/embryos/fetus, have perished since the beginning of time. But of course no one would dare blame Geoodaaa!

                     About 1974 I bought a spotted boar from a man from Wabash, Ind. I alreddy had a Hamp and a Durock. The spotted boar was verocious! He would try and bread anything that would stand still, Cats, dogs, wife. Anything! I practiced hand breading, whereby I determined which lady was in  the group was in heat and would bread her to the spotted boar in the morning, one of the others at noon and the one left out at night. In most cases the result was over 2/3 of the piglets were from the spotted boar. One day between the groups of 15 sows/guilts that needed breeding, I walked into the boar pen to find the Hamp and Durock boar with their butts against the corner of the fence. I had to segregate the spotted boar from them. He developed an infection of his equipment and I had to sell him. Cockelburr are rightly named.

              Curiously the man I arraigned to buy the spotted boar from was not available initially. We went back to find the police were everywhere. His father helped us load the boar. His wife had shot and killed the man. Too bad. seemed to be a nice guy. Sure produced one fine boar.

          Then there is that other issue. Liberty of Conscience and self-determination of Naturally inherent birth-rights.


Posted by: Joseph Edwards | Aug 18, 2014 10:26

I think it would be better to forget the rationalization and and man's opinions and detailed studies and just let nature take it's course and see who comes out on top.


as far as I am concerned...End of subject.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Aug 18, 2014 14:02

"SOME would say that all scientific studies have proven that there are "Throw-Backs" in all species." -- There are two possible responses to this point:


(1) God exists.  Consider the "throw-back" according to the documented text of the religion that describes the god and the morality the god requires.  That is where you get the conflicting opinions as to how to weigh things like "save judgment for God" vs. "sinful acts".  A good debate could exist for days just in one specific denomination of Christianity on this topic -- much longer across denominations.



(2) God doesn't exist.  Morality means nothing and any "throw-back" of a species is simply dealt with according to Social Darminism -- survival of the fittest.  True homosexuals do not perpetuate and there is nothing "moral" to consider about any rights they might think they have or want to have.  Society (or a ruler) can do to them whatever they want - like in China.


What makes a person any particular kind of way indeed invokes the topic of God.  So the topic ought to first establish that framework so that we can argue it in the American context (God exists and endows unalienable Rights to each person) instead of in a context where God doesn't exist (like North Korea where homosexuals do not exist) or where God exists in only one possible way (like Iran where homosexuality results in a death sentence).


Without a framework in which to discuss it, the topic can only be unproductively bickered.

If you wish to comment, please login.