Intolerant atheists go after Gov. Walker’s religious tweet

Well, here we go again, the oh so very tolerant secular humanist liberal progressives are showing their ignorance of America’s Judeo-Christian faith heritage. As reported in The Christian Post, “A Wisconsin-based atheist organization has demanded that Governor Scott Walker remove a posting on his Twitter feed that is religious in nature. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) stated Tuesday that they took exception to Walker’s official account, including a tweet posted Sunday that simply read, “Philippians 4:13.” As rendered by the New King James Version, Philippians 4:13 states, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

Based in Madison, FFRF sent a letter to the Wisconsin governor on Tuesday arguing that the tweet was a “misuse of gubernatorial and state of Wisconsin imprimatur.” Signed by FFRF co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, the letter expressed “dismay” over the tweet, which was also posted on Facebook. “This braggadocio verse coming from a public official is rather disturbing,” wrote Gaylor and Barker to Walker. “As governor, you took an oath of office to uphold the entirely godless and secular United States Constitution.”

It seems these two chuckleheads forgot the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof enshrined in the Constitution. I don’t see where Governor Scott Walker’s tweet was promoting any establishment of religion, just a simple profession of his faith — a faith shared by those men who wrote the Constitution.

I was recently in Connecticut to record the audio version of our soon-to-be released book, “Guardian of the Republic”. While there I met a young lady from Danbury, Connecticut and asked her if she knew the importance that her town held in American history. She did not know.

Well, Gaylor and Barker seem to believe Governor Walker has violated some separation or wall between church and state. However, there is no codification of this in any formal foundation documents of America: Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, or Constitution. The concept of separation of church and state was written in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Convention. In it, Jefferson promoted the idea of not having a head of State who is also the head of the church as was the case in England.

What has happened in America, thanks to the ignorance and intolerance of groups like FFRF, is that Jefferson’s letter and concept has been perverted to mean a separation of the American Judeo-Christian faith heritage from America itself. One must ask, does FFRF take a stance on Islamists seeking to establish Sharia Law in America, which is antithetical to our Constitution? Let me answer that, nah, it would require them having courage, and we know liberal progressives, including secularists, are afraid of Muslims — but Christians are easy targets.

So, Ms. Gaylor and Mr. Barker, I commend you on expressing your First Amendment rights, but let me offer you another Biblical verse, Proverbs 17:28 (NIV) “Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.”

Governor Walker, stand your ground and do not delete your religious tweet, someone far more powerful and greater than FFRF has your back — and so do your fellow Christian brothers and sisters.

128 COMMENTS

  1. Right again, Sir. The double-standard, as well as the ignorance of the Constitution, are pretty apparent!

      • In that case the Constitution says we have a right to exercise religion, just not to establish a national religion

      • In that case the Constitution says we have a right to exercise religion, just not to establish a national religion.

        And no one has.

      • That is EXACTLY what the Constitution says! Remind FFRF of that FACT when the invading muslims try to invoke sharia law on everybody! They will puss out because they are afraid of getting their heads sawed off!

      • Um, yeah – that was my point. WWJD he asked – I said I think he’d want us to follow our constitution since it’s based on God’s freedoms given to us…apparently I should have said it better…

      • neither – relax, I’m on your side – I was replying to the troll and saying Jesus would want us to support the constitution/bill of rights against ungodly people trying to take away freedoms.

      • No! Jesus said “Render unto God what is his, and render unto Cesar what is his”. You put words into the Constitution that are not there, and words into the bible that are not there. Seriously?

      • chill – I didn’t mean every single man made law – I was simply referring to the fact that our original laws (constitution/bill of rights) are based on Gods laws and freedoms He gave us, which is what the first poster was talking about. The troll asked WWJD and I think he would want us to follow our constitution agains ungodly people trying to take away our freedoms.

      • NOT if the law is unrighteous, as witness Nazi Germany’s law to expose all Jews. Many IGNORED this unGodly law, hiding Jews from those who would murder them.

        And now, there are those who ignore several unGodly laws here, as with, say, the legal “right” to kill unborn babies, by doing sit-ins, offering alternatives, & other means.

        The “laws” to which the Christ referred were those dealing with things IRRELEVANT to his Father’s commandments, such as paying taxes. But He never paid attention to current “laws” which were counter to God’s law! NEVER!

      • True – however our freedoms in the US are based on our freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Freedoms given by God right? Earth and humans are not perfect, but how can we not have punishments for such violations? Do you think God would NOT want us to stand up for our rights He gave us against ungodly people trying to take them away?

        I was simply commenting to Effin for the comment WWJD? in response to traitors of the constitution. I was not meaning EVERY man made law. And my response would still be the same. I think our constitution and bill of rights support Gods laws. The ‘new’ laws people come up with? Not so much.

      • Yes, here we’re on the same page. The Constitution IS directly based in God’s laws. I have a problem with what followers of the evil one have done to twist it, devalue it, ignore & LIE about it, & now, they simply want to abolish it. So the “laws” they establish NOW are usually based upon the “laws” of the evil one.

        Glad to meet a fellow supporter. Blessings on you & yours.

  2. He posted it from his official government account. He can do whatever he wants on his personal account. He broke the law, was made aware of this fact, and will now stop. Simple as that. The ones trying to make a big deal out of this are the real rabblerousers, these arguments have no basis in the facts of our laws. Thus why FFRF wins the vast majority of their cases.

  3. As I have always said, there are people WHO DO NOT KNOW the difference between two little words in the english dictionary, the words, OF and FROM. Therein is where the ignorance lies. Of means, a part of; pertaining to; as it relates to; etc. From means, a separation; to express a distinction; ie one from another. It is so erronious and ironic how SO MANY people can confuse two little tiny words. More people need to educate themselves a little better.

  4. It is time for the 90%+ to stand up and say enough…OUR religious rights are being stripped away by the Godless. Enough….don’t like it? Don’t read it or look at it!!

      • God is laughing at the anti-theists, knowing that even bad publicity is good publicity and thanks to the anti-theists they are paying big bucks to do it and God keeps getting PR from them for free. I’m laughing out loud with God! Insanity is not believing in something and making that nothing entire focus of your existence. Certifiable kookery.

      • No, I know what I meant and I was hoping that the choir, (people of faith with a sense of humor) would get it. Get it, “stoned” as in; the godless folks on the left who’s gods stereotypically are sex, drugs and rock and roll in excess, ie: being “stoned”. I guess it will be as difficult a climb to get people of faith to catch nuanced humor as it is to get the anti-theists to stop the hate.

      • I get what you’re saying. I just hadn’t noticed humor in any of your other posts and thought you had made a typo. I am a person of faith and most folks think I have a good sense of humor. Perhaps it’s not nuanced enough, though.

      • I should have supported the punch line with more context. Read enough of my posts and you will see plenty of wit, satire and irony but if you are an apostate, statist, homifascist or a neo-liberal (fascist) you will see no humor in them at all.

      • Stoned as in stoned on drugs which is pretty much the god of the godless and the idolatry that makes them prone to godlessness. Get it? I’m here all week. Try the lobster. Hey, is this microphone working?

  5. LOL. Can you IMAGINE the outrage from the Tea People if Rep. Keith Ellison or Rep. Andre Carson, both Muslims, were to tweet a citation from the Koran from their official accounts? You people would lose your minds.

    • Nope. Sure wouldn’t. I’m one of “those people” you speak of, and I can safely say that I wouldn’t bat an eye over it.

      I draw the line at skeezy Democrats sending pics of their junk to college girls.

      • How do you feel about skeezy multiple-adulterous Republicans? Vitter, Gingrich, Limbaugh, etc etc etc.

      • Oh, they’re scummy too, though I don’t see the relevance.

        I found your comment to be exceedingly ignorant. The imagined reaction to an imaginary tweet was more than a little presumptive. I don’t think you really know what conservatives believe and you’re not trying to find out.

        I would have no problem with Keith Ellison tweeting a verse from the Koran. Wouldn’t bother me a bit.

        I think you’re implying a certain hypocrisy here; that Christians love it when a Christian governor tweets from the Bible would all become strict secularists if a Muslim did the same. But you’re wrong and the hypocrisy is entirely yours. No one would bother Keith Ellison for tweeting from the Koran or invent fanciful constitutional prohibitions against Governors talking about God as a pretext to censor ideas they don’t like.

    • Urine Nidiot. I surely wouldn’t. What part of FREE SPEECH escapes you?! We non-libs have heard every vile thing you people say for many decades–including the worship of false “gods,” & you’re STILL able to spout such crap–because WE BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH!!!!!!!

      • You must have been in a coma on the day that Tea Party hero Herman Cain lost his feeble mind because Ellison took his oath of office on a Koran. CAIN: “If you take an oath on the Koran, that means you support Sharia law. I support American law. Our laws were derived from principles that are biblically based. Maybe not said in the same words that are in the Bible, but our laws are derived from principles based upon the Bible. This is why I’m not going to back down or pander to anyone who wants to call me xenophobic or a bigot simply because I said no. I don’t want anybody in my administration that I’m going to have to be looking over my shoulder to figure out if they are going to try to do something against the principles that I believe in which are also the principles that the majority, the overwhelming majority of the American people believe.” By the way, that Koran? Once the property of THOMAS JEFFERSON.

      • Say what? Why is this addressed to me?? I merely said that LIBS have had free reign for ages & I have been saying they have the right to free speech–& I think they reveal how stupid they are when they open their mouths, so I say let them talk. It is THEY who try to censor us–NOT the oter way around!

        If Cain did as you say, my guess he had a weak, PC moment, as generally speaking, he always struck me as Conservative. Or perhaps he’s ignorant of the Constitution on this point, but MOST of what he’s said & done are worthy things, & MILES better than the Dimocraps’ efforts!

        If the best you can do is accuse him of having a “feeble mind,” then that’s pathetic. It’s FALSE. ALL of my heroes & heroines are smart, patriotic yet still faulty human beings. If you don’t like Cain’s inaction, then be a decent human being, & not a knee-jerk “right-fighter.” TELL him you take issue with him & why; don’t just SMEAR him, Mr. Perfect!

  6. The irony that this article was written by a dude who can’t even figure out that equal rights for GLBT Americans aren’t special rights.

      • Good one!
        Really, it’s all fake isn’t it?. But, I guess the right to publicly display their perversion (sick perversion) in front of our children?

      • Hi LissaKay, the right to consensually marry and have their relationship recognized by the state is a current right that most states in the US do not extend to GLBT couples. You can also check this primer for more information of rights of GLBT people vs heterosexuals in other parts of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

        Marriage in the US has been ruled a right in several Supreme Court cases previously, for clarity.

      • The laws regarding who may marry whom are applied equally to gays and straights. A straight man may not marry another man, nor may a straight woman marry another woman. The laws prohibiting marriage to more than one spouse apply equally to all, and are not targeting Mormons any more than laws prohibiting marriage to the same gender are targeting gays.

        So, what gay activists really want is special rights for gays … right?

      • “The laws regarding who may marry whom are applied equally to gays and straights.”

        No, they are not. The Supreme Court has ruled against this (Perez v. Sharp 1948) since it was the same argument that was posited against African Americans wishing to have their marriages to Caucasians be validated.

        Perez v. Sharp was also referenced in In Re Marriages, 2008 by the California Supreme Court.

        I suppose its similar to the Rosa Parks situation. Yes, she can sit on the bus, but only in the back. Don’t you find this reasoning fundamentally flawed?

      • Yes … they are.

        A straight man may not marry another man.
        A gay man may not marry another man.

        How is that unequal?

      • Because you’re putting forward two different premises that operate differently, while pretending they are the same.

        A heterosexual man does not wish to marry another man, he (if he chooses to) wishes to marry a woman, who also consents to the relationship.

        A homosexual man does not wish to marry a woman, he (if he chooses to) wishes to marry a man, who also consents to the relationship.

        It’s a rather easy case of “Apples to Oranges”.

      • Oh, so laws should be based on our desires then?

        It’s against the law for me to walk into a bank and demand they hand over the contents of the vault. But if I WANT that money, then the law should be changed and I should be granted my desires. Right?

      • No, now you’re purposefully being obtuse.

        The way it is at the moment, in states that do not recognize marriage equality for consenting adults, marriage is a special right for heterosexuals.

        The realization of that fact dismantles your original position.

      • Ah no. I am just applying logic to your argument, and completely dismantling it. There are no laws specific to gays. There are no rights denied to gays that are not also denied to straights. Therefore, your original premise that Allen West is a dude who “can’t even figure out that equal rights for GLBT Americans aren’t special rights” is absolutely incorrect. Gays already have all the same rights as anyone else. What they are demanding is the special right to re-define marriage to include same gender relationships.

        Now, if you want to talk about extending legal and financial rights, responsibilities and obligations that come with legal marriage to include other household units made up of 2 or more consenting adults, you’d have an audience more willing to listen, and far fewer objections …. if that is what gays really want.

      • “Ah no. I am just applying logic to your argument, and completely dismantling it.”

        No, reductio ad absurdum doesn’t dismantle any argument.

        I’m just curious, do you support miscegenation laws? Because back then, African Americans had the same rights as Caucasians (you know, Separate but Equal and all that jazz).

        “What they are demanding is the special right to re-define marriage to include same gender relationships.”

        I guess African Americans got special rights to re-define marriage to be colorblind, right?

      • Correct, reductio ad absurdum does not refute an argument. However, that is not what I did.

        Again, you said gays are not asking for special rights. I showed that yes, they are – they want to re-define the word marriage to include two men or two women so that they may also call their relationships “marriage” despite both legal and societal traditions that define it as from being a union of one man and one woman, AND force everyone else to accept and tolerate that.

        Oh, and the argument that the gay marriage debate can be settled by the arguments for interracial marriage is a logical fallacy.

      • “Oh, and the argument that the gay marriage debate can be settled by the arguments for interracial marriage is a logical fallacy.”

        Not when in respect both are placed in equal scenarios, you know, the entire point of the commutative property. I might even give you a cookie if you can name the correct logical fallacy, and show that it is in fact that fallacy.

      • It’s either an inconsistent comparison, or an irrelevant conclusion. One could say it’s both.

        Interracial marriage was within the traditional and historical definition of marriage being between man and woman. It was only in the 17th century that laws were introduced that prohibited it. In 1967, those laws were rescinded.

        The idea that two people of the same gender could be married is a new one – relatively speaking, and is legally prohibited because the very nature of it falls outside of the basic definition of marriage. Thus, to gain the right to enter into a same gender marriage requires the re-definition of the word for the specific benefit of gays … therefore, they are asking for special rights.

        Keep the cookie though …

      • “It’s either an inconsistent comparison, or an irrelevant conclusion. One could say it’s both.”

        I ask because the same exact arguments were used in miscegenation laws.

        The arguments were that African Americans were able to marry a person of the same race, therefore they were already equal and had equal rights.

        “Interracial marriage was within the traditional and historical definition of marriage being between man and woman.”

        I ask because it is quite obvious that the traditional definition of marriage has changed over time. If you are to deny this, you are denying the entire history of culture that we know, from polygamy to polygony to monogamy to interracial to now the proposition that consenting adults of the same gender be allowed to wed.

        Second, we in the US alone have changed the traditional marriage to include interracial marriage. Why can’t we change it for the state to recognize consenting adults of the same gender?

        “The idea that two people of the same gender could be married is a new one – relatively speaking, and is legally prohibited because the very nature of it falls outside of the basic definition of marriage.”

        How new though? Is it new to governments that grants recognition of rights? New to history? There is no metric here being used, so you ought to provide one.

        “Thus, to gain the right to enter into a same gender marriage requires the re-definition of the word for the specific benefit of gays … therefore, they are asking for special rights.”

        I contend that this does not fall under the definition of special rights. After all, if you are to posit that GLBT people can marry someone of the opposite sex, then a redefinition of marriage to include recognition of GLBT couples also allows heterosexuals the ability to marry someone of their gender. Special rights are rights that apply to a subset of a population and no one else gets them, this does not fit that criteria at all.

      • “Why can’t we change it for the state to recognize consenting adults of the same gender?”

        That would be those special rights which you keep stating that gays are not asking for.

        I won’t address the rest of that, as it is just a bunch of misinformed nonsense.

      • You won’t address it because I’ve found the fatal flaw in your argument.

        The state allowing all members of its society to be equal while redefining something to include members not included before is not special rights. We have done it for interracial marriage before and we will do it again for same sex marriage.

        Under marriage equality, heterosexuals will have the EQUAL right to marry someone of the same gender, just like you purport that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

        Unless of course you completely want to use your special right to redefine what special rights are, ironically.

      • No, I won’t address the nonsense about interracial marriage because it is obvious that you know little of its history in both the US and in other countries, and that the application of the arguments for or against it are irrelevant to the question of whether or not gays are asking for special rights.

      • That is coming from a person who would, given they were born 80 years ago, would support miscegenation laws.

        Sorry, but not sorry. Maybe next time you’ll use a better argument.

      • Oh, so now you’re making assumptions on what I think.

        I addressed your point that you made, specifically that Allen West “can’t even figure out that equal rights for GLBT Americans aren’t special rights” by making the case that gays ARE asking for special rights.

        So, I’m done.

      • You haven’t shown they’re special rights silly. There is nothing that supports that marriage equality if granted is special rights because heterosexuals would also have the right to marry someone of the same gender.

        By the way, it does look like you would support miscegenation laws, because your will to discriminate against people is very bold.

        Bye.

    • It would seem that leftist trolls could mind their own ridiculous Huffpo
      commentary and leave decent people to discuss reality. But, no, you
      have to constantly come with your perversion and obscenity to insult
      and harass decent people . No one wants anything to do with you perverts. Won’t you just go away?

      • So, you want to whine about insults and obscenity, yet instantly label people you don’t agree with as perverts.

        The conservative mindset of “tolerance”.

    • LGBT couples have the same rights as anyone else. Everyone is able to marry someone of the opposite gender. What you’re referring to isn’t equal rights, but a redefining of marriage, an ancient and (to many) sacred union between a man and a woman.

      • With the redefinition, heterosexual couples will, like GLBT couples, be able to marry someone of the same gender.

        Whether or not marriage is a sacred union to people is for the most part irrelevant.

      • That wasn’t my point. I was saying that homosexual “marriage” isn’t a right, but a redefinition.

        It’s not irrelevant to the many, many people who oppose changing marriage. Personally, I think they should just make a new, equal union for homosexuals instead of trying to change a union so deeply rooted in religion. It would end the controversy over changing marriage and allow homosexuals to achieve the union they’re pursuing.

      • I mean, some of those same people were against the redefinition of marriage from polygamy to polygony to interracial. I’m not quite sure what your point is.

        “Personally, I think they should just make a new, equal union for homosexuals instead of trying to change a union so deeply rooted in religion.”

        It’s really not rooted in religion, religion just provides some snazzy gettups for the affairs. Keep in mind that marriage in the US is a secular institution, so the redefinition for the religious plight is obviously not going to work because it was never in their favor to begin with.

        This also would make marriage a supposedly “Separate, But Equal” institution, which eventually begs the question: Why are people wanting to use a common religious position to give other groups of people a SBE institution? It doesn’t make sense.

      • The difference being that this time, they have a point. The foundation of marriage is union between a man and a woman.

        Marriage is indeed a religious institution. It existed as such long before the government was formed and adopted it. Any attempt to secularize it cannot change its religious origins.

        It’s simple, really. Marriage is union between a man and a woman. Any other union is not marriage, by definition. That leaves us with two options. We either redefine an ancient institution held sacred by billions of people, or we create a new institution with its own definition. The latter wouldn’t cause the uproar the former has caused.

  7. Religion aside and governor or not, Mr. Walker is due his first amendment right to free speech just as much as the FFRF people are. Funny how the freedom of speech is only okay when the lefties are spewing their verbal vomit.

  8. Beware the democrat/media/Hollywood/statist mafia’s war on faith.

    There are neo-nazis masquerading at “atheists” when in fact they are anti-theist terrorists who have declared war on the First Amendment, American Heritage and people of faith exercising their right to free expression.

    The “freedom from” movement is a real and present danger to all free people that must be challenged, exposed and brought to justice at every opportunity.

    Wherever they burn Bibles they will also eventually burn people.

    STOP THE HATE, STOP THE INTOLERANCE, STOP THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION, STOP THE ANTI-FREE SPEECH FASCISTS POSING AS “OFFENDED” ATHEISTS.

    The hideous, militant, statist thugs could not stop Walker through the democratic process at the ballot box nor by their attempts at bullying, racketeering, violence and lawlessness so now they are after his faith.

    THIS MOB ACTION MUST NOT STAND.

  9. First off I would like to apologize to everyone because this evil ffrf is from my wonderful state. however, it does not speak for the state. as far as them, and those like them being ignorant of our constitution – I am not sure whether they are as ignorant as we might think or, they just count on others being ignorant, since they have been able to distort the document for years and even have our clueless court justices believing their nonsense. yes, they are wrong, but as long as they have those that are either as evil as them or totally inept in our government offices, they will continue. the best we could do is just ignore them and give them no heed.

    • We get it Steve. Not all Germans were Nazis but we still must make known the dangers of the tyranny of the minority, which the FFR folk are. It is them against 6 billion or so believers but make no mistake, just as the homo-brown shirts in the Weimar Republic began as a very small virus, being an opportunistic disease they turned into a gangrenous plague given the right political environment.

    • Steve, Communism has killed more than everyone. Communism was jewish started and ran in russia and other euro countries was also responsible for 50+million christians deaths. So while people complain about a supposed 6 million jews which is actually a false number. Jews were busy killing christians by the tens of millions(verified) and the whole reason hitler went on a rampage was becaise of the bavarian communist revolution, an attempt by jews to spread communism in germany pissed him off.

      Only problem about politically corrected history is…You dont hear the full truth.

  10. The Nazis, The Trotskyites, The Marxists, The Stalinists, The Maoists, and every other subspecies of godless, apostate statists tried “Freedom From Religion” in the 20th Century and 200 million human beings lost their lives as a result of their god-free dogma and too many of those who survived still subsist under the bondage of godless despots and godless tyrannical governments.

    AMERICA is the FREEDOM OF RELIGION antithesis and antidote to history’s poisonous doctrine of demons of the demon possessed anti-theists statists and imperialists.

    Stop the neo-Nazi, neo-Trotskyite, neo-Marxist, neo-Stalinist, neo-Maoist, satanic liberation theologist “freedom from” bloodthirsty mob NOW before they do any more harm to humanity than they have already done.

    These “Freedom From Religion” cultists are the modern ghosts of devils past and have learned nothing from Nuremberg or history and their father, Satan is smiling that his worker ants are still pushing his agenda of death and hatred.

  11. Oy. Libtards. Check out the Constitution re free speech & freedom of religion. IOW…SHADDAP! You can SAY whatever you like, but if you do, be prepared to have people laugh in your faces. Shutting up is the ONLY thing that will keep people from knowing how IGNORANT & BIGOTED & UNAMERICAN you really are–so consider “shaddup” as friendly advice!

  12. Why are we letting a hand full of idiot’s dictate who or what we are or what we should be. Our judicial system need’s an overhaul for backing these various whining three hundred and sixty five day’s per year group?

    • It’s the war on Christ by the same bloodthirsty, legalistic, litigious, statist mobs who crucified Him. 2014 years later the bloodthirsty mobs STILL have no king but Caesar.

      • Jews? Because thats who ordered him killed and thats who started and ran communism in russia that was responsible for the dead of 50+ million christians and pushed atheism as a means of control.

      • The Jews did not kill Jesus, His Father sent Him to die, thank God so we might be free from sin. It was legalism and Ochlocracy that killed Christ. Unfortunately the same legalism, litigiousness and Ochlocracy are becoming prevalent in America, the once great Christian majority free-republic and the best hope for humankind. To the extent that America departs from its Christian ethos and heritage and embraces the ancient ways of the statist mob is the extent to which our our free-public will cease to be.

  13. $10 bucks says they didn’t even read the piece of scripture. As they are wont to do, it was a knee-jerk reaction because 1, Walker is a conservative, and 2, they hate God’s word.

    • Nor this that i got by email today.. I tried telling my atheist cousin about it earlier and seen her cheeks getting rosy red lol

      http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/physicist-big-bang-breakthrough-confirms-creation/

      My cuz use to believe, her mom was murdered at a KFC in Chattanooga back about 1989 (stabbed 47x, kicked and beaten) and she still held her faith, then she got involved in some small church around here that had a thrift store and she worked helping some and seen those people were scammers it seems and instead of going elsewhere she wound up taking up her boyfriends atheist view 🙁

  14. Here are the neo-Nazi//labor/statist/Hollywood/Media mob that could not beat Walker using the civilized democratic process so now they declare war on his faith and freedom of expression of that faith. You are witnessing the face of evil. They are your wall building, police calling, litigious, slip and fall suing neighbors who traded their faith for a bowl of pablum thousands of years ago. (See Rob Reiner to see what they look like)

    • Ok for real..They are not neo nazi’s they are commies. Hitler was a catholic and was fine with religion. communists were not.

      • Earth to John…Come in John. Hitler’s mom was Catholic, Hitler became apostate in childhood and began atheistic occultism and self-worship and was a socialist who believed he and the state were the highest authority, not God. You should be ashamed at your ugly attempt to defame Catholics and if you have a shred of decency, apologize for your defamation. Among Hitler’s first edicts was the order to round up and kill priests and nuns to shock, horrify and instill fear in the church communities. Your revision of history is careless and dangerous.

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

  15. So tweeting is now considered establishing a religion? I will never understand why atheists think we should remove faith from the public square so as not to offend them, without seeing the other side of the coin that to some, being forced to live with no expression of faith is equally offensive. How about we all believe what we want and ignore what we don’t like? Is it really that hard?

  16. Just their initials tell me a lot. F F R F, what a bunch of down right asses pick this up? F… F…. Retards F….. You got the idea, we’re much skater!

    • I would love those atheists try this in a muslim country or israel. They will either be killed or spat on and treated like pure trash.
      Christians really took the turning the other cheek the wrong way.

  17. Seems strange to put “official” and “twitter account” in the same sentence. Twitter is a free social media app. No government funds were spent to “set up” the account, it doesn’t end in Twitter.gov. These people have waaay too much time on their hands.

  18. Yeah… I’m a strong supporter of separation of Church and State as being better for the protection of both.
    But the hyper sensitive secular humanists getting their panties in a bunch over the governor making a religious tweet need to chill the f#*k out.
    An elected official making a personal religious statement is not the same as putting religion in legislation.
    I don’t like Walker, but, in this instance, he’s done nothing wrong.

  19. Isn’t it amazing how liberal MAN MADE MORALS forced on society (ie forcing acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, government mandated charity (obamacare & spreading wealth)) are not considered “moral beliefs” but anything that comes from the bible is – what a bunch of hypocritical assholes. Separation of Church & State …. Bull. Good for Gov Walker – who is also SUPPOSED to have religious freedoms in this country.

  20. Same thing in our little town of Sandpoint, Idaho. The same pathetic bunch want us to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from one of our city parks. Seems like the freedom of the many is becoming dependent on the whims of a few! We need more people like Governor Walker!

  21. It’s simply amazing how ignorant most of the christian right wing individuals are when it comes to the constitution. This is NOT a christian nation.( see Treaty of Tripoli 1796) It is a nation that CONTAINS christians as well as various other religious and non-religious individuals, that have just as much right to practice their beliefs or NON beliefs. And placing gigantic ten commandment monuments on government property is not going to change that fact.

    Christians ARE NOT being persecuted in this country, they are, just realizing that their “PRIVILEGED” status is being taken away from them. And they will no longer be able to FORCE their religious beliefs on individuals that have. neither a need for it nor by into their delusions. You still have the right to have your churches, your own religious schools, speak out in public and I will be the first one on your side if anyone ever tries to take these away from you. NO ONE is trying to take your religion away, so quit your crying.

    Understand one thing, I, as the North Florida Regional Director for American Atheists, will be going after EVERY ten commandment monument on government property. All one has to do is to look up Starke Florida and see what will happen when the government tries to promote one religion over another.

    But let me make this perfectly clear, the religious individuals in this county will NOT continue their bigoted, racist or sexists treatment of other individuals. We will stop you, whether it be by public humiliation or court order, it WILL STOP.

    Matthew 6-1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

    Matthew 6-6 “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

    We atheists know your bible better than you! Remember, we once bought into your delusions, NO MORE!

    P.S., I have read the bible front to back, but I NEVER bought into the delusion.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here