published Friday, June 8th, 2012

Separating church, state

You can say this about the Hamilton County Commission. It is consistent -- at least when it comes to offering a Christian prayer at the opening of every meeting. The most recent came Thursday, when Hamilton County Attorney Rheubin Taylor intoned a prayer and concluded it by saying, "All these blessings we ask in your son Jesus' name, amen." Such a conclusion undoubtedly pleases most area residents, but that does not make the practice right. Such an invocation violates the U.S. Constitution, and is a deliberate thumb in the eye to the many members of our community -- Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and other religions -- who follow different faiths.

Commission members -- and Taylor -- should know that. If they did not, they were reminded of it late last month when the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to commissioners noting that the body had invoked Jesus' name in every 2012 prayer. That practice, the foundation correctly pointed out, rises to the level of endorsing a specific religion at public government meeting. Commissioners promised to study the issue and referred the matter to their attorney -- Taylor --who promised to review the letter and advise commission members on how to respond.

That advice has not been forthcoming. Indeed, given the fact that Taylor offered a prayer of the type specifically mentioned in the letter, it would seem that his advice would be tainted if not useless. His actions -- like those of commission members who listened to him pray in their presence -- clearly indicates a preference for prayers at commission meetings to continue as they have in the past.

That understandably does not sit well with some members of the community -- all presumably constituents of the various commissioners. Several attended Thursday's meeting to protest the inclusive prayer. Tommy Coleman, one who rose to protest the practice, got it just right. "Your use of prayer in this chamber and its use in official government excludes, marginalizes, belittles other faiths and the people who practice." Just so.

Any prayer tailored to the majority Christian community purposefully excludes members of other religions -- Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs. Baha'is and others, as well as those who profess no faith at all. That's no small matter in a community that is home to an increasingly diverse population.

The desire to pray publicly at a public government meeting is understandable. That, however, does not confer license on elected officials to offer an inclusive prayer of their choice. Rather, the impulse to pray should be manifested in a more ecumenical prayer that is inclusive of all -- for example, in the name of our Creator -- or, better still, a moment of silence and repose that would allow every individual present to pray -- or not -- in a manner of his or her choosing.

That would, or should, satisfy the commission's seeming preference for a prayer at a government meeting without violating long-standing precedents in law that rightly promote the separation of church and state. The courts, it should be noted, have not banned prayer or an individual's right to pray. They have simply, rightly and repeatedly rejected public, i.e. government endorsed, prayers that directly or indirectly endorse a specific religion, and that by doing so, exclude religious minorities.

Prayers "in Jesus' name" certainly fall into the type specifically banned by the courts.

Those who support prayer of the sort regularly offered at commission meetings here -- and that, very obviously, seems to include members of that body and the county attorney -- argue that public prayer is simply a way to show the connection between religion and the nation's laws. It does not. It just provides cover for what is essentially an emotional rather than legal argument.

While that argument has appeal, particularly in a region where religion has a wide following, it ignores the growing diversity of various faiths in Hamilton County. It also forcefully insinuates that those who do not adhere to the religion favored by the Christian majority -- or to any faith at all -- are inherently unequal in the eyes of government and the legal system. That is not only unfair, it is illegal.

Those opposed to displays of public prayer at a meeting of a governmental body here or anywhere rightly believe that faith is an intensely personal matter. They also believe that officials who are elected by voters representing a variety of beliefs should adhere to the First Amendment dictate that prohibits any government establishment of religion.

The commission has a chance, indeed a welcome opportunity, to halt the divisive debate about local government's role in religion. There are many precedents -- both historical and legal -- to separate government from religion and to allow the return of matters of faith and prayer to individuals and to the community's many houses of worship. The Hamilton County Commission, whatever the advice of its own or outside attorneys, should act promptly to do so.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
librul said...

Very well said.

Between this succinct editorial and the equally succinct letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, one would hope that the Hamilton County Commission (AND the town councils of other area communities) would take heed and spare us the debacle of another round of costly and unnecessary legal wrangling. Religionist intrusion into our secular government institutions seems to be a problem that will require constant vigilance. Those who have confronted the Commission and their reverend "attorney" to stand their ground for the rights of conscience of ALL our citizens deserve our thanks and support.

If arrogance and obsrtinance continue to rule over intelligence and respect for settled law, then our community will have yet another unnecessary embarrassment to endure.

June 8, 2012 at 1:05 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

This latest show of conceit on the part of the Commission members is a clear indication of just how insensitive and bullying they and most Christians are. Their insistence on praying out loud and in a group setting is nothing but an act of defiance. They would be sacrificing nothing of their own beliefs to have a few moments of silence to open their meetings. Each could pray as he/she saw fit, could meditate in silence, or could not pray at all, if they chose. And they would be sending a clear signal to those people of other faiths that they truly respected them and their beliefs. But the fact that they arrogantly insist on their group prayer says to one and all that they believe their relgion to be the only true religion and their God to be the only true God, and to hell with all the rest. No matter how "enlightened" or open minded many Christians claim to be today, in their heart of hearts, they sitll believe that their belief is the ONLY way to believe. And they seem to take some perverse sense of pride in praying out loud for others to see just how defiantly "Christian" they are. Too bad they put so much emphasis on the outward form and the spoken word and so little on silence and the inner sanctum, where true prayer and meditation exist.

June 8, 2012 at 1:24 a.m.
conservative said...

The writer objects to a prayer ending with the words in Jesus's name and claims "Such an invocation violates the U.S. Constitution."

Now, why didn't the writer cite the words of the Constitution that were violated? The answer is he can't! It is a LIE!

June 8, 2012 at 8:34 a.m.

Many Christians have misunderstood the Biblical passages which instruct Christ’s followers to pray “in Jesus’ name.” The words are now tacked onto the end of every prayer and used as if they were magical “open sesame” words. In the context of the passages, that is clearly not what Jesus meant about praying “in my name.”

On the other hand, the Constitution neither prescribes nor proscribes specific prayers or manners of praying at official government functions. Its framers were wise in so constructing it.

The context of the First Amendment was a nation settled and established by people of various Christian denominations. If someone had opened the Constitutional Congress’ proceedings with prayers in the name of Congregationalism, Lutheranism, Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Baptists, Methodism, etc., the attendees would have had a big problem with it. Likewise if the clergy of only one such denomination were eligible for the Congressional chaplaincy or were being invited to pray in Congress or at the Presidential inauguration.

Based on Europe’s pagan experiences with state-endorsed Christian denominations, America’s founders decided not to have an established, official denomination (“religion” in their terminology). In order to maintain this arrangement, they saw no need to marginalize the public influence of the de facto religion of its citizens. Other faiths have not been threatened, but have instead been protected by that influence. In this, also, the founders, who as individuals, exhibited varying degrees of adherence to Christian principles, were wise.

June 8, 2012 at 8:47 a.m.

Personal is not the same as private (confined by the walls of a home or a house of worship). While many faiths are personal, none of them is entirely private. Every major world religion, as well as atheism and agnosticism, have a public and political dimension. The personal vs. public argument is a fallacy of false choice. It is a rhetorical strategy used to re-write our own history, as well as that of other world cultures. It redefines and marginalizes religions to conform to the spirit of the age. This false dichotomy was afloat in 18th century Europe, especially in France, but the writings of the founders demonstrate that they were choosing a wiser path. If you dare, research the way the words “religion” and “secular” were used in the late 18th century. This would bring much clarity to the discussion.

I recommend the web page for the Library of Congress’ “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic” exhibit, which explores the role religion played in the founding of the American colonies, in the shaping of early American life and politics, and in forming the American Republic. All of the sections are insightful, but two are particularly instructive to discussion of the topic at hand:

• Religion and the Congress of the Confederation examines the policies of America's first national government toward religion.
• Religion and the Federal Government focuses on the status of religion in the new federal government. (Note that you must click “Part Two” to see the full content in this section.)

Have a great day.

June 8, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.

One more thing and I’ll shut up.

Christians should realize that, demographically (and spiritually), this is not the same nation that it was in 1789. You should therefore be more sensitive and not as belligerent in the way you express your faith in public. If the nation is in need of a revival of Christian faith, it will not come through civil law and election victories.

At the same time, the first amendment is still intact and the historical context for its adoption is still open to investigation, so don’t be intimidated from praying Christian prayers in public.

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . . . I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.” Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787

June 8, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.
Fendrel said...

There is no religion, that I am aware of, which requires from its adherents a public display of prayer or supplications. In fact, Jesus himself admonished his followers to NOT pray in public but that it is preferable to go into one's closet and pray in secret so that your heavenly father can reward you in public.

When participating in official meetings, public servants are representing the government, not their church, nor their bible study group, nor their rational humanist organization, nor their kid's soccer club!

You may personally believe that belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation, you might believe that it would truly be in the best interest of everyone to believe the same thing, but your job, while officiating your duties as a public servant are to represent the government and the people in a neutral fashion which shows respect for all views and does not imply favoritism for one group or the other.

I promise that I would raise the same ruckus if members of the commission started each session by publicly declaring that belief in the supernatural is silly. It is simply not appropriate to do so. It doesn't matter whether I agree with what they are saying or not..the same goes for prayer.

June 8, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
librul said...

When the article appeared detailing Reverend Attorney Taylor's defiant act of leading the Commission in Christian prayer, the FP had an oops moment and allowed a comment thread on the article. It was quickly taken down when discovered since we aren't supposed to have any opinions about FP "reporting." I had just posted the following (subsequently edited) content:

It is wrong for the County Commission to engage in exclusively Christian prayer in their government meetings because doing so conveys the impression that they serve an exclusively Christian government and that all of the persons in the room who do not participate in that belief or who prefer reason and logic to fairytales and subversive mental coercion are not equal citizens under the distinctly secular Constitution and laws of our nation. This results in offensive exclamations as "those who don't want to pray can step out". This is the very attitude that resulted in open prayer being outlawed in the classroom. I remember the visits to our elementary school by a woman named Mrs. Greenway who was allowed to have class time to attempt to inculcate her beliefs into our classmembers with no regard for their families' traditions. I'm certainly glad her efforts went for naught, with me at least. The practice was eventually stopped.

Have these numbskulls not learned anything about the concepts of respect for diversity, American citizenship, equal rights under the law????

If the Reverend Taylor were worth two cents as a County Attorney, which in my opinion he is not, he would instruct his little cadre' of idiocrats that the practice of opening their meetings with exclusively Christian prayer is repugnant to the spirit and intent of the Constitution of the United States and in violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee and is in violation of the findings of reams of extant case law - with which, in my opinion, were he worth two cents as an attorney, he would be intimately familiar!

A moment of silence, through not required to accomplish public business and doubtless considered a sacrifice by a bunch of gasbags as these, would be a simple way to respect the law and make the issue go away with no cost to the taxpayers. In those moments, the Christians in the room could mentally implore their deity for wisdom or whatever it is they believe their fairy godfather is going to provide them in the afterlife and rationalists in the room could spend the time organizing their thoughts to better conduct whatever government business the agenda may lay before them in the present.

If this display of obstinance continues, I implore the Freedom From Religion Foundation to sue their idiocratic, exclusionist, unamerican socks off.

June 8, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
Easy123 said...


We have already debunked your stupid claim. Your mindless argument is the definition of insanity.

June 8, 2012 at 11:03 a.m.
Easy123 said...


That is entirely false. It does not serve as evidence to your claim. But it does show how far you are reaching to get your blatant lies across. How is it possible for any rational human being to believe what you just said? Keep your religion, but keep it out of politics and public policy. Is that clear enough for you?

June 8, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.
conservative said...

Easy, you are an ATHEIST. Why would I expect you to write anything other than hate?

June 8, 2012 at 11:47 a.m.
Easy123 said...

No, I didn't agree with you.

Why should he have very little campaign money coming in?

What "worshipers"?

Once again, you the epitome of dense and the antithesis of witty.

June 8, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.
Easy123 said...

It's not hate. It is a direct judgement of your mental capacity. I have personally debunked that stupid claim you keep making. Why do you keep making it? You were and still are wrong about your literalist translation of the Constitution. If you have a problem with it, you should probably take it up with the Supreme Court.

Conservative, you are a THEIST. Why would I expect you to write anything other than the same stupid, debunked arguments you write on here everyday?

June 8, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
conservative said...

Easy, you are an ATHEIST. As such you hate God, creator of heaven and earth. There is no greater hate than this. Hating me is quite easy after that.

June 8, 2012 at 12:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I don't hate 'God'. I don't believe there is a god. How is that hate? Do you hate the Easter Bunny, Allah, or Zeus?

I don't hate you. I was making a direct judgement of you based on experience. How is that hate? But you can pout and sulk about it some more if you want to.

You are a THEIST. You live as an abject slave to a god that killed his own 'son' and teaches you to hate and kill others because of their nature.

June 8, 2012 at 12:08 p.m.
ChrisSteves said...

For the first 150 years or so both houses of Congress opened their sessions with prayer. Clearly this shows there is no separation of Church and State. Please reread your Constitution. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is because the Church of England. The founders did not want another state sponsored religion. Additionally - This is at a Federal level. States per the 10th amendment can do anything they want as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution. And the 1st Amendment only speaks of Congress. Therefore the State of TN can have an official religion and prayer anywhere anytime. Please feel free to use some real facts to disprove this.

June 8, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
conservative said...

Easy, you forgot to express your love for me by calling me an idiot as you often do.

June 8, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Absence of hate does not equate to love.

I am calling it like it see it.

June 8, 2012 at 12:43 p.m.
conservative said...

ChrisSteves, of course you are correct. The prohibition in the First Amendment is against CONGRESS and ONLY CONGRESS as testified by history.

Lieberals have filled many of the courts and have lied about the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution.

They foolishly claim our Constitution is a "living and breathing document" so as to justify any ruling.

Lieberals eat this lie up. When you make this clear they just call you an idiot. I quess they think that is suppose to stop Conservative from telling the truth.

June 8, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ChrisSteves and Conservative,

This is from the Tennessee State Constitution

§ 3. Freedom of worship

That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

§ 4. Political or religious test

That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall never be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.

June 8, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Hey pharisee.. er, I mean, hey conservative, I talked with our sky-wizard today, and he said he is very displeased with your shameless dishonesty.

He also said to stop putting words in his mouth, and to please cease and desist in using old books written by old men to tell others how they should "live right by you" in his name.

June 8, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Oh wait, there is more.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): Applied the Establishment Clause to the states. The Supreme Court interprets the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses to restrict the establishment of religion by states.

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994): Justice David Souter, in speaking for the majority, said "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

The highest court in our land believes that this amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another. The SUPREME COURT interprets the 1st Amendment this way.

June 8, 2012 at 1:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Please take your argument up with the Supreme Court.

What you are saying isn't the truth. Complain all you want, but you're wrong.

June 8, 2012 at 1:09 p.m.
chatt_man said...

dao - if you had ever really talked with the sky wizard you seem to reference on here from time to time, you'd be a better person from it.

For someone that says they don't believe in Him, you sure do make a lot of references toward Him.

June 8, 2012 at 2:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You brain must be impervious to sarcasm.

And dao wouldn't be a better person for it, he would be a psychopath or a child talking to an imaginary friend.

June 8, 2012 at 2:17 p.m.
chatt_man said...

It's OK dao, that you start your belief thru the conversations you have with Him. Getting to know him is the first step in believing in Him.

June 8, 2012 at 2:19 p.m.
dao1980 said...

There ya go chatt_man, so you do understand, and even can use sarcasm.

It's fun isn't it?

June 8, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Yes dao, every day is a new day at this place...

June 8, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
chatt_man said...

dao, I don't know about Easy, I don't think he's all so comfortable in what he believes...

June 8, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Those young minds can be easily confused. Just watch dao, that'll fire Easy up.

June 8, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
dao1980 said...

It think Easy's got it down pretty solid. I don't read every post by everyone, but his/her resistance to our version of the "greatest lie of all time" is to be respected.

I really don't feel as negatively as I lead on, about man's desire to have been intelligently created, and the truly excusable desire to get more than this one lifetime from the universe.

We as humans began to conceptualize deities to worship many many thousands of years ago. The advent of monotheism in the mid-early days of what we have uncovered, in regards to recorded history, is one of the most interesting aspects of our journey and development as cultural beings.

Where I really get bent out of shape is when I see/hear/read, one person discount or persecute another person with the use of this basic desire to have/know/be on the side of/dictate the feeling of/know more about/have a closer walk with... etc. God.

That in itself (in my opinion) is one of man's greatest evils.

June 8, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...


It doesn't fire me up. It just shows me how narrow-minded you are.

Also, how can anything I say lead you to believe that I'm not comfortable in my "beliefs".

June 8, 2012 at 3:05 p.m.

I'm going to suggest the citizens of Hamilton County bill the commissioners for every penny wasted on this theater.

I want my tax dollars going to useful things. Next time there's a meeting, attend with a bill for them, make them pay for their wasteful corruption.

June 8, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
ChrisSteves said...


I am aware of the TN State Constitution. Once again it does not say no religion in government. It says you cannot be compelled. Reading the clear language of the US Constitution and applying common sense = the Supreme Court decisions listed above are bad decisions. Since the court made a bad decision you are correct we have to fight to clear up that error. Unfortunately somehow we got into this case law type of situation instead of each judge going back to the Constitution instead of relying on some other idiots interpretation. I suggest you read the Constitution, and if you are still unclear read the Federalist papers. If you still have questions then go to the history of the founders and their actions in the years immediately after 1788

June 9, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You don't have an argument. Unless you can get the Supreme Court to overrule these decisions then you have no claim.

You read the Constitution. Then read the Supreme Courts ruling on those decisions. Then you will understand that you do not have an argument.

You don't get it. This is the way it is. This is how the Supreme Court interprets the 1st Amendment. And that is likely how they will always interpret it. You can call them bad decisions but those are the rules. Take it up with the Supreme Court. Until then, you do not have a viable argument.

And I guess you didn't read this part of the TN constitution:

"or to maintain any minister against his consent"

June 9, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.

Apparently ChrisStevens is unfamiliar with Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. That legal tradition is what this country was founded with, and you're objecting to it? Don't you realize you are the one breaking with the past?

Judges in this country are required to give consideration to other's decisions. And their interpretations have more weight than yours. If you want to live in a country where the judges are not giving credit to other's decisions, well that will not end well, it certainly won't go as you think.

Bedsides you know you're just adopting that position because you think it'll get what you want.

June 9, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
ChrisSteves said...

Final note - " The First Amendment was not written to protect people and their laws from religious values. It was written to protect those values from government tyranny." When you understand how the first amendment came about you will realize this truth. Don't let your hatred of religion blind you. Jurisprudence was pre Constitution. Nowhere is jurisprudence noted in any pre Constitution arguments. The concept is clear in the Constitution. Twisting it does not change the written word. I won't reply to your minister selection as you have pulled out an incomplete phrase from a complete sentence.

June 9, 2012 at 11:42 p.m.

JAHCHILD, if Hamilton County is beholden to Christ, then it is in violation of both the Tennessee and United States Constitutions, and as such, the government of it is void.

Please inform the governor, posthaste.

ChrisSteves, is. Well, the Bill of Rights. Amendment 7, which you may not have read, but is normally considered part of the Constitution.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Pretty clear to me what they meant, but if you're unclear on the terms, you might want to take a law history class.

In the Constitution itself, well, there is plenty to go on:

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Want me to dig up the laws Congress passed establishing the courts, or would you rather educate yourself? Here's a hint, at the time, they never objected to following the common law, did they?

June 10, 2012 at 12:05 a.m.
Easy123 said...


You are crazy.

June 10, 2012 at 4:01 a.m.
Easy123 said...


"That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent;"

Here is your complete sentence. It still says the same thing. It still stands on its own. You have no argument here.

June 10, 2012 at 4:04 a.m.

Sure, you could impose a theocratic state.

Let me think what responses would be appropriate.

Oh wait, the state constitution makes that clear.

Strange that amendments like the one banning slavery are considered treasonous by you.

June 10, 2012 at 5:05 p.m.
Fester said...

Chris Steves and others: The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution confers the rights and restrictions of the First Amendment to the states and local governments as well. This includes the establishment clause of the First Amendment. As such, states and local government are in fact not free to establish whatever religion they choose.

In the 1947 majority opinion of the landmark Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black writes: "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 to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."

June 15, 2012 at 2:04 p.m.
Exusiai said...

I love how people have an issue with "God" in one place but have no issues with "God" in others. I've made this statement before I'll make it again.

All of you who feel that injecting the word "God" into your day to day lives violates your rights and is forcing the Christian God upon you.

Give me every single piece of currency you have or ever will have. Every piece of money in this country has the words "In God We Trust" written on it somewhere. and yet you aren't griping about that. you have no issues spending that money, and thereby spreading the Christian God around to others. you have no issues taking that God out of your pocket, and using him to pay your bills or debts.

You have no issues using a piece of paper with God printed on it to go to the movies, or to indulge in your extra curricular activities.

That in and of itself is hypocritical behavior at its finest. So save yourself the heartache of suffering under a Christian God.

Give your money to me.

Thank you.

June 18, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.