Dog tags resting on the Holy Bible

Shields of Strength, a private, faith-based company the U.S. military’s been working with to create replica dog tags, is under fire. The company has had a trademark agreement with the Army for 20 years, enabling them to use their logo on their replicas. But recently, they created a dog tag with the Bible verse Joshua 1:9 inscribed on the tag, which prompted positive coverage in Fox News - and a complaint from Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) founder Mikey Weinstein. The MRFF said the scripture alongside an official military logo is tantamount to government endorsement of religion, and demanded the military stop enabling a practice that "poisons the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State."

The message was received, at least by the U.S. Army. “You are not authorized to put biblical verses on your Army products,” read the email from the Army trademark office to Shields of Strength owner Kenny Vaughan. The August email, with the subject line “Negative Press”, seemed to be in response to a complaint raised by Weinstein to the Department of Defense. "For example,” the email reads, “Joshua 1:9. Please remove ALL biblical references from all of your Army products."

War of the Words

Still, Vaughan, a former world-class water skier who never forgot the courage he gained after his wife wrote scripture on his water ski rope, told "Fox & Friends" he was speechless, estimating his organization has produced over 4 million such tags. He says his organization donated hundreds of thousands to Department of Defense units and individual service members as well. During the Iraq War, Vaughan says at one point they were donating 50,000 pieces a month.

"It's insane. It's incredibly selfish,” Vaughan says. “The love of Jesus changed my life forever. The most valuable thing I have to offer anyone is God’s Word. No one needs it more than a young man or woman fighting for our freedom and we’re going to fight for them."

First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based legal defense organization, has since come to Vaughan's defense, demanding the Army reverse its "unconstitutional" directive and reinstate the trademark for the faith-based initiative.

"Virtually every unit has contacted us and said, 'Would you make us a tag with our unit on it?'" wrote director of military affairs Mike Berry, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Afghanistan. "Just when I didn't think Mikey Weinstein could stoop any lower, he pulled a stunt like that. He'd rather take it away from them just to raise his own publicity than support our service members... that's pretty cowardly and that's cruel."

Logo Legality

Shields of Strength dog tagsBut is this religious discrimination? There’s nothing stopping anyone from making dog tags that feature Bible verses, crosses, or any other religious symbol. The issue is the official logo.

An official Department of Defense instruction even prohibits that sort of activity explicitly. As that policy says, “DoD marks may not be licensed for any purpose intended to promote ideological movements, sociopolitical change, religious beliefs (including non-belief), specific interpretations of morality, or legislative/statutory change.”

And Mikey Weinstein of MRFF isn’t backing down. He says that he’s not anti-Christian, he’s merely “pro-Constitution and pro-trademark law.” And in a press release, he didn’t mince words. “Illegally using military logos and symbols to further the SoS organization's partisan and sectarian fundamentalist Christian religious agenda of proselytization is the REAL selfishness here!" 

The Controversy Continues

So is the prohibition of official military logos next to scripture a religious freedom case, or a trademark violation case? That seems to depend on who you ask.

Shields of Strength’s lawyers have called all of this “unconstitutional”, “censorship”, and even said prohibiting the production of officially licensed Army products with scripture on them as a First Amendment violation.

But the MRFF says this is a clear cut case of a private company inappropriately and unconstitutionally using trademarked government material to seemingly endorse a specific religion.

But with recent cases like “In God We Trust” being emblazoned on a police cruiser and scripture chiseled into a town hall monument, this is just the latest outrage over government use of Christian language and imagery.

What do you think? Is government use of a religious symbol tantamount to an endorsement?

53 comments

  1. CB Cuff's Avatar CB Cuff

    Appears that SOS is turning dog tags into a novelty items. This in itself is insulting to anyone served. Religious writings no more belong on dog tags anymore than dog sh#@ belongs on the bottom of your shoe. End the contract.

    1. Michael Udwary's Avatar Michael Udwary

      Those aren’t regulation dog tags so your dog sh## comment is ridiculous. It is a tag that can be added to the dog tag chain to give the believer comfort and strength. It’s not hurting anyone. Those that are butt hurt about it don’t need to get one. If it doesn’t apply to you move on, but leave those who want one alone.

      1. Robert Edward Szekely's Avatar Robert Edward Szekely

        The point is simply to exclude any military service logo from the custom dog tag, and then it doesn't violate any regulation or law.

      2. Ilmenheru Terikson's Avatar Ilmenheru Terikson

        Those who need to get on their knees and suckle the teet of a fantasy likely dont belong in combat as their psychology is clearly compromised and are likely to suffer severe PTSD.

        1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          And the one suffering from a fantasy is seemingly you as nothing you have stated is fact.

    2. Robert Walters's Avatar Robert Walters

      I don't equate religious writings with "dog sh" but considering the presented data, including the DOD instructions as to what must be excluded when using the official logo, it would seem that SOS is in violation. Why make this topic any other issue?

    3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      I am sorry CB, but since there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State anywhere in the Constitution, then there has been no law broken no matter what Weinstein is claiming

      1. Stoodie Baker's Avatar Stoodie Baker

        It's in the first amendment. So, yeah, it's there.

        1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          No sorry Baker, but its not. The Constitution was ratified in 1787 and the very first mention of this myth was in 1802, a good 15 years after the Constitution became the law of the land. Meaning the ONLY way it could be in the Constitution is by a constitutional amendment, not by a decision of 9 people in dresses in the early 60's as under Article 3 of the US Constitution the SCOTUS cannot interpret anything, they can only go by what it says. To have the ability to interpret what it means means that they can change it with each new court. Meaning that a new court can interpret that there is no such thing as a Separation of Church and state and there would be nothing you could do to stop them.

          1. Ilmenheru Terikson's Avatar Ilmenheru Terikson

            Ah more spouting of popular right wing looney conspiracy BS. Jefferson was the man behind the constitution more so then any other one man likely can be. Some do debate this PoV but in general he is by and large seen that way. His word on what each amendment meant isnt something that can be argued with as he made it very clear.

            You seem to ignore, deny the fact that the 1st amendment was written very much with an article discussing separation of church and state more then a century earlier which was cited by Jefferson on more then one occasion.

            You also undermine any credibility when you make a rather odd statement about men in dresses. As if Robes have not been traditional garb of both men and women through the history of civilization.

            Psst, girls wear pants does that mean men who wear them are somehow in drag?

            1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

              No you are spouting left wing crap. Here is a history lesson for you child. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. Meaning that it then was the law of the land. The very first mention of this myth of yours came in 1802, a good FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER the ratification of the Constitution. Meaning that if there was any alteration in it there had to be a constitutional amendment and there never has been. The Supreme Court decide that this is what it meant even though Article 3 (powers of the Judiciary) does not give them the right to interpret anything, they can only go by what is written. Even the late Justice Marshall stated that they decided wrongly in this as they had no authority to make this decision and the reason is that if they are allowed to interpret what the Constitution says, then it can and will change with each new court. meaning that in the future if the Court assembled at that time now decides that there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State and never has been, then thats it. So the right to interpret anything is not a right granted to the Judiciary and never has been. And according to the 10th Amendment it specifically states that unless the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says you have an authority or power, then you do NOT have it and never have had it. And nowhere in the Article 3 does it give the courts the right to interpret anything.

              You really should know what the heck you are talkign about child or else you are going to look just as stupid and foolish as you do now as history and the Constitution are saying that you are lying when you spout this left wing myth.

              1. Dr. Darryl G Dykes's Avatar Dr. Darryl G Dykes

                Gentlemen the US Constitution Does Not state that there is to be a separation of Church and State. Amendment 1 reads; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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

                This statement is clear Congress cannot form or declare any Religion the Religion of the United States.

                Separation of Church is not in the Constitution, The government may join with any church as a charity for the people, as long as the church does not discriminate against any persons for any reason. A Catholic Charity may get financial assistance from the Federal Government as can any other Church Charity. As long as the Charity is used as granted and does not discriminate.

    4. James Tow's Avatar James Tow

      Wow you are saying your opinion is every service men and women who wear these of their own accord is insulting themselves even though it's their freedom to wear them my father served and he wore a scripture verse on a third tag that his mom gave him what right do you have to say to wear them is insulting since it's not your choice to wear them it's not your choice to tell someone who wears them it's not allowed since they are serving the country to give the right to wear them to everyone

  1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

    I am sorry for Mikey Weinstein, but he is nothing but a troll. At no time in the copy of the Constitution I am looking at, does the words "Separation of Church and State" appear. And they never have. In fact in 1787 the Constitution was ratified and after that if you wanted to change what the Constitution said, then you have to have a constitutional amendment. The Very first mention of the mythical Separation came from Jefferson to his baptist detractors in 1802, a good 15 years after the Constitution was made supreme law of the land. As such there is no such thing as this mythical separation. There cant be. There has been no constitutional amendment to change it and the Supreme Court decision is not allowed as the Supreme Court cannot interpret what the constitution says, to do that means that each new court can just change this document on a whim or interpret it to say what they think it says instead of what it actually says meaning the constitution can change with each new court. Weinstein needs to be charged with filing malicious complaints and illegal lawsuits. Maybe this will stop him from being a legal pest when he clearly does not know what he is talking about.

  1. Tom's Avatar Tom

    Respectfully....the provider is trying to lay his religious views on the Army...this is ridiculous,and should not be allowed...Peace...Tom B

  1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

    No sorry Tom, the provider has been doing this for over 20 years and if there was a problem it should have been brought up the very first time it happened. He is not trying to do anything as these are not official Army Dog Tags, as such this is allowed. Just like you have other dog tags that have different other symbols on them and a US military symbol and nobody has said anything till now. Are you going to go to each and every one of them and tell them they cant do this? Its called free speech for a reason Tom and unless the Army symbol is copyrighted and it isnt, then the Army cant say anything on how this symbol is used.

    1. Tom's Avatar Tom

      Daniel...as long as they are privately made, and the Army symbol is in the public domain, i will agree with you...Peace...Tom B

      1. Ilmenheru Terikson's Avatar Ilmenheru Terikson

        the army symbol is not in the public domain. Its trademarked by the federal government.

        1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          No its not and never has been. I dont know where you got that idea from but according to the Department of Commerce Copyright office in Washington DC not one of the military logos are copyrighted. Nor are they trademarked. The ONLY military group that owns a copyright on their logo is the AmVets.

          Please make sure of yourself before posting as the US Government is calling your post a pack of myths

          1. Tom's Avatar Tom

            Daniel...Respectfully...regardless of legalities or illegalities, organized religion is not good for people...it is just another corporate structure...and no one has ever said that Jesus wanted people to start an organized religion...no one...Peace...Tom B

  1. James Tow's Avatar James Tow

    Our constitution gives us the right of religious freedoms that cannot be prohibited. It gives us the right to wear anything we choose. The only way this could be considered as government endorsement is if they were the ones making the tags not an outside company and the ones wearing the tags wear them BY CHOICE not because the government demands then to the only reason this is being complained about is someone is butthurt about it n wants a reason to cry n cause problems last I looked we had no right to tell someone what they could believe or wear...

    1. Norma Battes's Avatar Norma Battes

      " ...last I looked we had no right to tell someone what they could believe or wear... "

      I've met more than a few that only wish.... Guys in chiffon and lace are being outlawed. A Hijab and turban conjures hate and talk of death. Soon fully half the US population will no longer have rights to their own reproductive organs. Keep looking behind you because they're gaining on you.

      Oh, unless it's government issue, sit down and leave it be.

  1. Andrew Worthington's Avatar Andrew Worthington

    I honestly don’t see a problem, if faith helps you do a job which is difficult at the best of times, who are we to take that away? I’m a soldier and my faith has got me through some very dark times. I don’t see it as pushing religion on people, as they don’t have to have them!

  1. REV PGH MA's Avatar REV PGH MA

    Soldiers should be allowed to have religious inscriptions on tags that they pay for. If you do not want religious inscriptions then simply either use the tags that are issued free of charge or purchase ones without inscriptions. Soldiers are permitted to wear religious medals so I see no issue with this. Tags are worn under clothing so they are rarely seen anyway. There are more important things to argue about and I served for over 13 years. I am not a church going person and don't mind anyone's beliefs.

  1. REV PGH MA's Avatar REV PGH MA

    The army should not be allowed to copyright anything since we all own the copyright as tax payers. This lawsuit was beyond the point of ridiculous. I am not even religious.

  1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray
    Comment has been removed.
  1. Tabitha's Avatar Tabitha

    Daniel. Actually all of the Military services officially adopted logos/symbols ARE copyrighted. That’s the point

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      Tabatha, my apologies but they are not copyrighted and never were. The Army nor any other military branch has a trademark on their symbol. Ask The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and they will tell you that you are incorrect. The ONLY military or post military group that has a copyright on their symbol is the Amvets, the rest do not. As such no law is being broke in any way so Mikey Weinstein and his comedy circus have no complaint nor do they have any reason to sue as these are not official dog tags and as such the soldiers are not required to wear them as they are with the official dog tags. Oh and one more thing, the 1st Amendment clearly says that Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free expression of religion, therefor if a soldier wishes to wear these then they have the Constitutional right to do so and there is nothing that Mikey or you or anyone else can do about it

  1. Mabh's Avatar Mabh

    This practice is a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause. The use of the trademarked symbol of any given military branch of the military gives the appearance that these are official dog tags. Someone looking at them would have no way of knowing that they were not issued by the military. That in turn gives the impression that the military is endorsing a particular religion and is a violation of the 1st Amendment. The constitutional violation is not ”cured” because this practice has gone in for any amount of time and in fact if, as the article implies, military monies were used to purchase these tags, the appearance of governmental promotion of a particular religion is further supported. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation was correct in calling the military to end this practice.

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      Sorry no its not. The myth of separation of church and state never has nor will appear in the Constitution. It was ratified in 1787 and the first mention of this myth came in 1802 meaning that it has to have been put in by a constitutional amendment, and it never has been. And under Article 3 of the Constitution the Supreme Court does not and never has had the authority to interpret what the Constitution says as each separate court could interpret it to mean what they want meaning that the court could interpret the right of a free press to mean that they have to make sure their facts are correct and cant use un named sources. Now using your logic if they did that then it would be just as legal and constitution as this myth you are trying to claim exists.

      1. Norma Battes's Avatar Norma Battes

        " And under Article 3 of the Constitution the Supreme Court does not and never has had the authority to interpret what the Constitution says as each separate court could interpret it to mean what they want... "

        From whitehouse.gov: "Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court’s interpretation to the facts of a particular case." In other words, courts interpret laws, not the Constitution.

        Also, agreed the term "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, and that it is an interpretation that the Government cannot force a particular faith based system(religion) over another on the populace.

  1. Rellim Joy's Avatar Rellim Joy

    I feel that this article may be leaving out important parts of the story. As such it feeds the already divisive nature of the issue by pitting faith groups against each other.

    The issue was poorly phrased by the Army, in saying not to use Bible verses on Army branded products. The letter should have been better phrased, stating that the Army logo could not be used on religious products. This is well within their right, and is there duty as a federal agency.

    HOWEVER, the issue of using government agencies logos on religious products is a well known no no. Shields of Strength is culpable in intentionally causing religious conflict because they were aware of this, as both the Marine Corp and the Navy had already requested that their logos not be used by the company on specifically religious items. To those they complied, but continued using the Army logo in the same manner. This was a blatant action to use the logo, knowing the concern with doing so, until they were told not to.

    We are all children of the same universe. Choosing to cause religious conflicts to raise publicly or advance causes through the heat of political fervor ignores the right of all to live in a nation where they can worship, or not worship, in a safe environment that is unhindered by the pressure of the state.

  1. Robert N Clarkson's Avatar Robert N Clarkson

    Read the 1st. The entire Amendment including what follows those commas. A dog tag is an individual's identity, not any government endorsements. If someone identifies as a military veteran use of the logo is legal and appropriate, if this same individual also identifies as following a certain faith for inspiration, that expression is not to be prohibited or interfered with under the Constitutional Amendment. It is "Freedom of" not "Freedom from!" This is no different than identifying as BGLTQ, or certain ethnicity and ancestry. It is a fundamental individual right.

    1. Peter James Marengo's Avatar Peter James Marengo

      Oh, you could not be more wrong. It most definitely IS "freedom FROM." And I say this as a born-again Christian who is also loves my American freedoms. The whole raison d'etre for our nation is that the Pilgrims came here for freedom FROM the church of England which dictated how they must believe. Now there are those who would ironically like to see a state religion imposed on Americans. As long as the government is not allowed to either force or endorse any religion on its citizens, we all are free to worship any way we would like. As soon as the government endorses one religion or other (such as allowing it to be associated with military logos), that freedom is eroded.

      1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

        And I could not disagree more as since there is no requirement for the soldiers to wear this, exactly how are they being forced to abide by a religion? The soldiers who do wear this do so of their own free will and that is something that neither you not Mikey and his clown troup can stop no matter what they do.

      2. Robert Edward Szekely's Avatar Robert Edward Szekely

        I've got to agree here.

  1. Peter James Marengo's Avatar Peter James Marengo

    This is just another example of the ridiculous division in our nation today. This is NOT a big deal one way or the other. If somebody wants to wear a trinket with a Scripture verse on a chain along with their fake dog tag there is nothing to stop them from doing so. What they cannot do is use a logo that belongs to the United States of America. The issue is related to what amounts to copyright infringement more than it does religion. Like any other entity, the government has the right to decide how its logos may be used and by whom. There is no injured party. From the other point of view, who really cares if someone has a Scripture verse on their fake dog tag? As long as verses from the Koran, Buddah quotes etc. are also allowed, religious freedom isn't being impinged.

  1. James C Riggle's Avatar James C Riggle

    If there really is a DoD rule that says “DoD marks may not be licensed for any purpose intended to promote ideological movements, sociopolitical change, religious beliefs (including non-belief), specific interpretations of morality, or legislative/statutory change.”, then they shouldn't be allowed to do this. These are fake dog tags and personally, I don't think the DoD should allow any of them to use their trade marks. Just Sayin

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      The DOD does not own any trademarks on this symbol and never have. As the Copyright department of the Department of Commerce and get ready for a major wake up call.

      1. Dr. Darryl G Dykes's Avatar Dr. Darryl G Dykes

        Mr Gray you are wrong in your statement read SUBJECT: DoD Branding and Trademark Licensing Program Implementation.

        APPLICABILITY. This instruction applies to OSD,(Office of the Secretary of Defense) the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this instruction as the “DoD Components”)

        It is DoD policy in accordance with Reference (a) to establish and maintain a program to license marks owned or controlled by DoD Components, to protect such marks from unauthorized use, and, at the discretion of the OSD and DoD Components concerned, to register such marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when doing so is in the best interest of the DoD.

        Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (ATSD(PA)). The ATSD(PA): (1) Issues guidance to the OSD and DoD Components regarding the licensing of marks and the operation of a trademark licensing program as is necessary to carry out the policies and objectives set forth in Reference (a) and this instruction in accordance with Reference (b). (2) Establishes policies and procedures to govern, register, protect, and license OSD Component marks.

        Yes the US Government does own all logo's of the military.

  1. Christopher Lee Campbell's Avatar Christopher Lee Campbell

    Third try. It's best to keep religious institutions and the government separate. People should be allowed to wear items signifying their religious beliefs or affiliation but it is not appropriate to have those statements on official identification or other government-issued devices.

    My grandfather was a leader in his religious denomination in the 1920s through 1940s. At that time there was still an institutional memory of a time when that denomination was disfavored and there was an official state religion. He knew about that kind of discrimination, and he also feared that subjecting religion to changing government policies would have adverse effects on doctrine. Now, his denomination is more popular and it favors governmental connections as a means of proselytizing. I think Grandad was right. The religious sphere and the governmental sphere ought to be separate and distinct. In the long run it's better for both.

    So wear whatever you want around your neck, as long as it's not a religious statement purporting to be an official U.S. Army device.

    Chris Campbell

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      Ok lets get this straight, these are not official dogtags and as such they do not carry the endorsement of the Military and as such they do not violate any mythical law.

      1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

        OK, let's stop worrying about straight or gay - the laws being broken are not mythical. Military logos cannot be used on any product without an appropriate license from the branch. In this case it is the US Army. And even with a license, it is illegal to use that logo on any any product that supports religion (or lack thereof).

        But, if you want to come out of your closet, please do. Most of society is very accepting of gays, now.

        1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          Ok lets get this straight, there are NO laws being broken and you cant point to any so just stop the myths. And if you want to be gay then more power to you. Just dont be accusing anyone else of being what you seem to want to be.

      2. Norma Battes's Avatar Norma Battes

        Mr. Gray, It might behoove you to find a reputable website to quote from rather that repeating yourself over however many posts. "Go here and learn" is a much more effective resolution than, "NO, you are wrong, and bad."

        have a very Merry Christmas

        1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          And Miss Battes, it would behoove you to actually learn something about what you are trying to post on. The Constitution is far more reliable then you are. And so are the Congressional Library and records. All of which back me up 1000% Do they back up people like you or the one that are clearly in error when they try and claim this is a violation of the myth of Separation of Church and State, nope. Or that the myth of the Military owning the trademark on their logos when the US Department of Patent and Trademark is also saying they are not telling the truth. You can contact them here https://www.uspto.gov/ as they are part of the Department of Commerce. Then when they tell you that I am 1000% accurate then you can come back here and apologize for your error filled post. And you will have learned to know what you are talking about BEFORE you start talking as it will make you look less foolish then you do now.

        2. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

          And Miss Battes, it would behoove you to actually learn something about what you are trying to post on. The Constitution and the Congressional Library and records back me up 1000% and prove you and the people like you who claim otherwise are not being truthful. There is no mythical separation of church and state. The Military owning the trademark on their logos when the US Department of Patent and Trademark is also saying they are not telling the truth. You can contact them here https:// www. uspto. gov/ (remove the spaces for the link) as they are part of the Department of Commerce. Then when they tell you that I am 1000% accurate you can consider yourself schooled on the truth and next time you wont be so uninformed on a subject that you clearly know nothing about

  1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

    Mikey Weinstein is right - the logos were used illegal and without permission. Render unto Caesar - get the license and use it legally.

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      The logo is NOT being used without permission as the Military does not have any trademark on it. As such under US Law it can be used and the Army or the DOD cannot say boo about it.

      Please make sure you know what you are talking about BEFORE you start flapping the lips as in this case you clearly dont.

  1. John P Maher's Avatar John P Maher

    WHAT are the EVANGELICALS doing to RELIGION, PUTO POTUS tRUMP the CHOSEN ONE, 666

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      So the best you can do is use a spanish term for the female lower anatomy which is a clear violation of the boards terms of service, and then to add insult to injury; you scream at people (which is what using all caps is according to internet etiquette. Not a good way to try and get your imaginary point across.

  1. John Robert Manis's Avatar John Robert Manis

    It's just another ploy to remove God from everything to fit their agenda of depravity, sexual desires, boys can be girls, girls can be boys. Removing God helps them achieve all this. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion is only good when it fits their arguments.

  1. Richard Lee Cornell's Avatar Richard Lee Cornell

    When you refer to God. That is to the God of Islam is it not?

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
Don't have an account yet? Create Account