Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

2205, 15 Jun 15

Anne Nicol Gaylor

Well, I guess she knows if there’s a God now.

Anne Nicol Gaylor, a pioneering Madison businesswoman and abortion rights activist who was the principal founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics, died Sunday at Agrace HospiceCare in Fitchburg. She was 88.


2205, 15 June 2015


  1. Kevin scheunemann

    She spent a lifetime with a hardened heart denying Jesus, facilitating and killing “the least of these” through vigorous abortion advocacy, and spent her time of grace on earth kicking Jesus out of the public square….wondered what she said when she met Jesus on Sunday.

  2. Dan

    Funny thing, that she died on a Sunday.

  3. Kevin Scheunemann


    Even better, the hospice she was staying at, this is their policy and advice on saying good-bye to a loved one about to be called home:

    It would be great to know if the formal hospice advice was used in Anne Gaylor’s case. That would give me hope for her soul.

  4. Jadedly Unbiased

    Disrespecting the dead is done by a Christian in name only.

  5. Kevin Scheunemann

    A true Christian looks for hope for one’s soul. How did I disrespect?

    Despite all that Anne Gaylor has done to kill unborn children, undermine Christian faith, and to destroy Jesus, I still am looking for hope she found Jesus in the end and escaped eternal punishment for all that she has done.

    That is the Christian thing to do.

    If she did find Jesus in the end, that could be one of the greatest stories of inspiration and hope in the history of the United States.

  6. Pat

    As Americans we can believe in what we want. It doesn’t matter if you want to be a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Buddist, Unitarian, or any other faction, you might want to follow, you have the right to your beliefs. If you want to think you’re a African American female who wears a cowboy hat and sells ice cream, you can. That’s what I truly like about being an American.

  7. Jadedly Unbiased


  8. Kevin Scheunemann


    That’s great. The ironic thing about your statement is: Anne Gaylor stood for none of that when it came to Christians. If someone was a Christian, she wanted to make sure you were locked out of public square and told to be quiet.

    Anne Gaylor spent a lifetime telling Christians they could not be Christian in many places in our society and that christians DID NOT have the right to their beliefs.

  9. scott

    You won’t be surprised to learn that I have a lot of respect for her and the work she did.

  10. Pat


    That may be true. But it’s also true that conservatives and liberals both do the exact same thing. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

  11. Mark Maley

    How a group that makes up 70% of the population can be put upon in any way is a mystery to be .

    It’s like saying the Romans had it rough during their 500 year reign .

    I can assure you, she wasn’t the least bit concerned if she led a Christian life as described by Christians .

    As to her seeing God or anything else at death, your guess ( magical thinking ) is as good as mine ( when it’s over, it’s over )

  12. scott

    Kevin, what you’re saying is wrong. Organizations like FFRF do not “lock you out” of the public square, nor do they “prevent you from being Christian.”

    What they do is try to reign the religious in to adhere to the Constitution. Interesting case on their web site this morning about a Sheriff with a habit of preaching the gospel while in uniform. Their letter of complaint is spot on. What part of the following bugs you?

    “Promoting your personal religion using your Polk County title and uniform gives the unfortunate impression that the county supports and endorses the First Baptist Church on the Mall and its religious teachings,” said Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel.

    FFRF points out that Judd represents a diverse population that consists of more than just Christians, and that the message of endorsement sent by sermonizing in uniform sends a message of exclusion to those non-Christians.

    “In your official capacity as an officer of the government, you are bound by the Establishment Clause and cannot abuse that office to promote your personal religious choices,” wrote Seidel.

    “You cannot preach in church as Sheriff Judd, you must do so as Mr. Judd, private citizen,” says FFRF.

  13. Kevin Scheunemann


    This quote is hilarious,

    “In your official capacity as an officer of the government, you are bound by the Establishment Clause and cannot abuse that office to promote your personal religious choices,” wrote Seidel.

    Secular humanists do this all the time in public schools preaching evolution, global warming, and other secular humanist commandments destroying all distinction between good and evil.

    If we are going to start to sift every speech for a “shut-up” religious component, I want ALL free speech reviewed, (not just Christian speech) especially the liberal religions sorted and deleted for same hostile treatment.

    Courts have long ruled that substantive review by any governent of speech is, itself, a violation.

    That’s why what Anne Gaylor did is so dangerous to the first amendment and freedom. All one has to do is slap a “religion” label on any speech one does not like and you have destroyed your opponents very right to speak.

  14. Kevin Scheunemann


    So under the FFRF standard, I am verboten from putting this at the bottom of my public official email?

    “By wisdom a house is built,
    and through understanding it is established;”

    or perhaps,

    “Through patience a ruler can be persuaded,
    and a gentle tongue can break a bone.”

    Which subjects are, and are not, verboten to speak about when you are a pulic official?

    Is there a list somewhwere?

  15. scott

    Ah, right. Now I remember. Your path to denying the reasonableness of what they’re saying is that you conflate religion with things that aren’t religion. You are therefore being unfairly discriminated against.

    It’s total nonsense, but I get it.

    Evolution is not religion. It’s science. It’s the most fundamental principle of modern biology and we–all of us–have a vested interest in making sure all our citizens are educated about it. Teaching biology isn’t violating the establishment clause (or any other part) of the Constitution.

  16. Kevin Scheunemann


    Evolution is not science, it’s a theory about how the world came to be. I call it a religion because it has its own cosmology (man is an acident), its own churches (public schools), its own clergy (teachers), its own doctrine of infalibility (as the absolute, only, “moral authority” on how the earth was created).

    What disturbs you is, now the Anne Gaylor position of destroying all religion in public square, now will git your favored religions.

    Believing in bogus science requires even more faith and passion than Christianity. Some of you defend evolution, with a zeal and disciple passion that should make Chrsitians envious.

    I agree, its not so pleasant to have your favored subject slapped with the religious “shut-up” label, but that is the social destruction left in Anne Gaylor’s wake.

  17. Jadedly Unbiased

    Never Never Land

  18. Jadedly Unbiased

    There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only the natural world. – Anne Nicol Gaylor

    This echoed belief was voiced by many of our founding fathers including John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Paine, James Monroe and Benjamin Franklin.

  19. scott

    “Evolution is not science, it’s a theory about how the world came to be.”

    It’s a theory about how life works…that is backed up by countless empirical observations, making it science. And science, by the way, does not have a “doctrine of infallibility.” It’s the opposite of that. Everything that science postulates, every fact that it uncovers, is treated as tentatively true. At any time someone could observe something that’s counter to it. When that happens, science revises the old idea or throws it out entirely. It’s what scientists do. Make empirical observations to see if they support, or do not support, an idea about how the world works.

    Like any human activity, it’s execution is imperfect. (See perhaps Thomas Kuhn and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.) But it’s a good enough system to work well in spite of that. It’s the reason why we’ve had 400 years of accelerating progress in technology, medicine and so many other areas of human endeavor. Even social progress is linked to scientific progress.

    For you to sit here on top of all that science-fueled progress and declare it just another religion…well, it just adds irony to your wrongness.

  20. Pat


    Are not your religious teachings of the creation of man and earth not taught in your church and in your home? If not, why not? If they are, that’s where they should be taught.

  21. Jadedly Unbiased

  22. Kevin scheunemann


    Evolution has countless gaps in the theory that make faith a requirement for it to work.

    Faith would not be a problem for you with evolution, but you know that means it’s subject to the Gaylor speech hatchet.


    Creation is the standard in my family. My kids go to private school.

    However, one hour of Sunday school usually can never balance out the 5 days of public school religions , sometimes hostile to family values, with most kids each week.

    I oppose the default setting being the hopeless secular humanist religion in public school.

    It has severe consequences on multiple levels. The liberal religions deserve the same oppressive treatment as Christianity under the Gaylor standard, that’s all I advocate. Scott loves the Gaylor standard, so what’s the big deal?

  23. Jadedly Unbiased

    Almost all liberals I’m acquainted with are Christians and not in “name only”. They also own guns, hunt, fish, drive big trucks, want migration reform and the majority actually are against abortion. Its a shame people like Kevin make it impossible to even begin to have productive discussions about solving issues. Extremists suck.

  24. scott

    “Evolution has countless gaps in the theory that make faith a requirement for it to work.”

    You mean we don’t yet have 100% complete knowledge on the subject? Well, sure. That doesn’t mean “faith” (especially the religious kind which prides itself on belief without evidence) is required to believe it. It’s a simple preponderance of evidence. Scientists the world over have been hammering away at it for over 150 years now. They’ve used it countless times to predict other things about nature (if evolution is true, then this should also be true–well, what do you know!). It’s mountains of scientific evidence that all backs up the modern theory of evolution. Do we know everything there is to know about it? Maybe not. But do we know enough for reasonable people to say that it’s almost certainly true? Definitely. You’d have to be profoundly ignorant of the facts to think it was totally wrong. And for an adult in a first world country it would have to be willful ignorance as well.

  25. Northern Pike

    By Kevin’s definition, virtually anything anyone believes is religion.

    I believe banks should be subject to a firewall that separates federally insured deposits from investment banking, but I suppose that’s just secular humanist religion on my part.

  26. scott

    I’m going to go further. Evolution is a fact. It’s a fact in exactly the same way that it’s a fact that the earth orbits the sun. And for exactly the same reasons.

  27. Kevin Scheunemann


    Your previous 2 posts really prove the point. You agree there is major holes in the theory of evolution, but you have faith the scientists are right and will find the evidence (if it exists), even though massive amounts of evidence to prove the theory is still needed.

    Not all scientific theories are proven to be correct.

    To believe a theory is correct before it is proven, is faith, not science.

    I’m not trying to discount your faith in a religion without hope, but it sure would be nice if liberals extended the same courtesy to Chrsitians in the public square. That’s all I ask.

    Pat just got done saying you can believe whatever you want, this is America…but we can no longer just speak what we believe in the public square, thanks to speech censor Anne Gaylor.

  28. scott

    “You agree there is major holes in the theory of evolution”

    No I don’t. “Major holes” implies that there are serious gaps in our understanding about how evolution by natural selection works. There aren’t. Not since the modern understanding of DNA. Either that or worse it implies that there are data which seem to contradict evolution. Such data do not exist.

  29. scott

    Furthermore, you can say whatever you want “in the public square,” Kevin. All I ask is that the GOVERNMENT refrain from opining about these matters, as the opinions of the people they represent differ. You have no right to expect that the government we both pay to represent us echo your–and only your–opinion on matters of personal belief.

    It’s weird that people who seem so sensitive about government overreach are perfectly content with government expressing religious sentiments–just so long as they coincide with their own.

  30. Kevin Scheunemann


    Are the following verboten, or not verboten?

    1.) If I wore my “Jesus, don’t leave earth without him” t-shirt to Village Board while I ran the meeting.

    2.). Same scenario as item 1, but it says “passionate climate change disciple” or “worship Mother Earth”.
    Or says, “Darwin is god of evolution”.

    3.). If I attached any of the excellent life wisdom proverbs as inspiration to bottom of my public official email, like the biblical proverbs I suggested in post above?

    Verboten? Not verboten?

    Don’t you find any of these scenarios grossly chilling to 1st Amendment? (The fact the speech has to be reviewed by the perpetually offended….)

    I appreciate your courage in advance to tell me all 3 are verboten and that free speech is dead.

  31. Pat


    If your children go to private school, what’s the problem? They get the 5 day a week education you desire for them. Also, your children have your Christian teachings at home and church.

    I think you might be attempting to nanny others children.

  32. Jadedly Unbiased

    If you push this agenda at home as hard as you do here it won’t be long before your children run to find their freedom. I don’t say this to be mean but you can be a little overbearing and I’ve seen plenty of children rebel from such in your face pressure. Constant preaching and being lectured to about life and religion isn’t something teens appreciate. I know your intentions are pure and you really believe what you say but you may want to bring it down a couple of notches if… if this is typical KS at home too. Not trying to tell you how to raise your children nor am I passing judgement just some advise from a guy that’s seen it happen before to the best intentioned parents. Also, you have mentioned that you have conversations with your high school staff about religion and you get frustrated by their “I’m a good person” therefore I’m going to heaven attitudes. I would also limit those conversations. I worked with a guy years ago who had a problem separating HIS personal life from his work and constantly preached to our teenage staff. The parent of a Jewish child didn’t find his constant evangelism in their child’s best interest. When asked to stop he was inspired to step it up a notch. To his surprise he and the owner of the business were slapped with a law suit. Needless to say his restaurant management days came to an abrupt halt and the lawsuit was settled out of court in the parents favor. Just some friendly advise not trying to tell you how to run your business or your life.

  33. Kevin Scheunemann


    The problem? I still have to pay public school taxes for liberal religions I don’t approve of.

    I also welcome you and Jade to take the “verboten”, or “not verboten” challenge I laid out above.

    I also hope Scott is up to the challenge as well . It will reveal the true legacy if what Ann Gaylor has done to chill free speech and basic ideas about right and wrong in our society .

  34. Pat

    “The problem? I still have to pay public school taxes for liberal religions I don’t approve of.”

    I believe you get tax credits now to help supplement your children’s private education. That’s kind of like tax payer money going toward your children’s private education now. And with expanded voucher programs for private schools, more tax payer money should be heading your way.

    As far as you wanting to wear a t-shirt to your town hall meeting, I could care less, as long as anyone else can show up in any t-shirt with anything on it that they want. How would you feel about anti-christian, profane, racist t-shirts being worn by public officials at public meetings? Also, no problem with me if you want to put some writing on the bottom of a public official email, as long as anyone else can put anything they want on the bottom of a public official email. I’m sure there’d be no problem with anti-chistian, vulgar, profane, racist, or what ever else someone decided to put at the bottom of a government email account.

  35. Pat

    Also, there’s a lot of things that my tax money goes toward that I don’t like. It’s tough to be me.

  36. Jadedly Unbiased

    1)verboten, the law of the land
    2)verboten, if the right pinhead pressed the issue. These aren’t religious as defined by law but could be considered disruptive, offense or inciting, thus limiting 1st amendment protection. You can’t wear a fuck you t-shirt in a school.
    3)verboten, the law of the land

    I understand your point. However, if we let religion play out in the public square the public square would turn into a blood bath. Religious wars have been playing out in the public square for centuries. Our founding fathers recognized this and the Constitution was written to assure this wouldn’t be an issue. It seems that some people aren’t content enough having the right to practice the religion of their choice without trying to indoctrinate others. When off the job fly your religious flag high and proud but when on the job, especially one that’s public, the law says no. Until you get a seat on the Supreme Court or until the conservative majority Supreme Court we have now decides all other previous serving justices were wrong, as well as our founding fathers, you have to learn to live within the law. Furthermore, I would hope when representing your village would wear a suit or dress clothes appropriate for the occasion.

  37. Kevin Scheunemann


    Chilling, just chilling.

    All it takes to shut up your opponent in the political arena is to scream “religion”. General day to day wisdom for life found in bible is verboten? Even Obama utters biblical proverbs from time to time.

    We’ve destroyed free speech carrying out the Gaylor “God cootie ” oppression.

    If politicians are verboten to speak about religion, let’s start with oppressing evolution, the climate change cult, and the child extermination worship advocates in the abortion cabal.

    Or are we afraid to censor favored liberal religions?

    Free and open political debate is truly dead if you are correct.

  38. Kevin Scheunemann


    Tax credits are not the same as actual taxes. It’s an improvement to the penalty against Christian parents having to double pay for value oriented schools and the godless public school.

    Those that can’t pay both are forced to godless public school.

    Vouchers are the true solution. Public schools having to compete for vouchers to continue, even better.

  39. scott

    Kevin, I’m disappointed that you chose not to engage on any of the points I wrote about yesterday. I pointed out that science is the opposite of “doctrine of infallibility.” I pointed out that not only is there no contradictory evidence for evolution, it’s also a theory so powerful and useful that it’s enabled a hundred years of innovation and discovery in biological and medical sciences. And now you’re asking me about t-shirts and email signatures. I’ll answer your questions. And I hope, in the spirit of reciprocity, you’ll address some of mine.

    Is it “verboten” to wear a religious t-shirt while running a local government meeting? Well, it’s kind of a dick move if you ask me. Probably you shouldn’t, as it violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. I doubt whether anyone’s going to sue you over it, but yeah, technically you should avoid doing this.

    Is it similarly wrong to wear a “passionate climate change disciple” or “worship Mother Earth” or “Darwin is god of evolution” t-shirt in the same circumstances?

    One might make the case that it’s a dick move. But does it run afoul of the Constitution? Not that I can see. It’s making a political statement, not a religious one, thus it has nothing to do with the establishment clause.

    We’re right back down to the fact that you don’t know the difference between science and religion. How about addressing some of the points I raised previously now?

  40. Jadedly Unbiased

    There is a difference between politics and law and politics and public employment. In politics you can talk about religion all you want but as soon as you are elected you fall under laws regarding public employment. As a public servant you are entitled to your private personal beliefs. Also, you seem to be having some difficulty separating legally defined religion from your personally classified religions. I acknowledge Obama’s speaks of religion from time to time (God bless the United States), as well as a God being on legal tender and that we have a National Cathedral. Typically however, the use of the word God covers more religions then just Christianity. The national Cathedral is open for worship by all religions and when Obama speaks religiously it’s in a generalized nature which could include any religion. It’s not religion, it’s people who hold public positions use of religion to indoctrinate. To force one religion inevitably alienates others. That’s discrimination and goes against the purpose of having freedom of all religions. Furthermore, as far as government is concerned I don’t believe God to be a pressing issue as compared to unemployment, health care, terrorism, education etc.etc. God seems to being doing just fine not matter what religion is worshiping him. For those who choose not to worship him it’s their lose. Their choice to be atheists has no impact on my spirituality as I’m sure my beliefs have no impact on theirs. Anne Gaylor, as a private citizen had the right to worship rocks if she wanted. She also had the right to freely express her belief in rocks. If she was a public employee forcing rocks on me I would think the only rocks were in her head.

  41. Pat

    Credits may not be actual taxes but it’s a shift of monies from one area to another. As for vouchers, as it is now, if you have a child in private school you are able to vote for public school board members to assure accountability to you as a taxpayer. If tax money is being channeled to private schools I hope for the same taxpayer accountability with elections.

  42. Kevin Scheunemann


    Didn’t mean to avoid your questions…I didn’t want to challenge the passion and verocity of your faith in evolution. I see you as a committed, passionate, disciple for evolution. When you say there is no contradictory evidence to evolution, that is religious passion on a very high scale, I didn’t want to mess with your very pious zeal on the topic.

    But, since you insist, (and you wanted an answer)

    I appreciate your willingness to answer my questions. So let me get the public official code of conduct for our society straight:

    1.) Oral sex in oval office with someone other than your wife…no big deal.

    2.) “Jesus, don’t leave earth without him” t-shirt being worn at a public meeting…BIG DEAL.

    3.) Advocate unborn child extermination (abortion) as a public official…no big deal.

    4.) Dare to attach a biblical proverb for daily inspiration to an email in a constituent contact…BIG DEAL

    Don’t you see how silly this all looks outside the liberal sphere?

  43. Kevin Scheunemann


    I found your post somewhat funny, given the fact you claim to be “Christian”.

    You ran off an excellent litany of public officials that invoke religion in their office and imply its O.K., but then run off a litany of other things I consider less innocuous for public officials, and say they are not OK.

    A T-shirt and an email signature is “forcing religion” on someone? Really?

    What if I pull a Hillary, and conduct all my public business from a private email account…good for bible inspiration for my constituents then? Or is bible inspiration completely verboten for voters everywhere?

    Or does that speech need to be censored and stomped out as well?

    How far does the Gaylor SS have to go?

  44. Jadedly Unbiased

    Are you functioning off one side of the brain or are you completely missing the frontal lobe? Obviously, your level of Christianity is on par with Christ himself and I can’t compete with that. However, I strongly suggest you stop questioning my faith. You quote me “forcing religion” but nowhere above do I say that. Again, twisting statements to suit your argument. If you can’t hold your own with out resorting to such tactics then don’t respond. Don’t you already use a private email account for your public business? Listen closely now, “bible inspiration” (Christian) while in public office alienates all other religions. Our country was founded on the freedom of all regions not just Christianity. In your narrow conservative/Libertarian religious lexicon God is Christian and no one else’s opinion matters. Ya see, thats a problem considering our government was set up to represent all the people of all faiths. I would further argue that your intolerance is far more damaging then Gaylors.

  45. Pat

    “In your narrow conservative/Libertarian religious lexicon God is Christian and no one else’s opinion matters…”

    Hold on. Kevin isn’t a Libertarian any more. He couldn’t pass the purity test. He’s now just a Republican.

  46. Jadedly Unbiased

    I don’t think Republicans want him. I have had many conversations with Washington County Republicans at various events and any time his name comes up they react as if the Black Plague was back. He’s an extremist in a party all his own.

  47. Jadedly Unbiased

    Oh and by the way… Kevin didn’t walk away from the Libertarian Party he was disowned and is now without a party.

  48. scott

    Well, Kevin, I admit I spent some time on the Google after reading your “answer” above. The link was interesting. After reading a bit I needed to visit some other sites to learn more about the author and the organization. His Wikipedia article, specifically the section “criticism,” was pretty hilarious. The guy has no expertise in any area even remotely associated with the subject of his article. Scientists who do have expertise regard him as an insufferable crank. The “creation science” his organization promotes is not only rejected by them, but isn’t even recognized AS science. I did learn something from the experience, though. A new phrase: “quote mining.” The Wikipedia article on it even has a section specifically tying this deliberately misleading practice directly to creationists like your boy.

    The entire experience left me feeling a little dirty so I got myself a book by Carl Sagan I’d been meaning to read.

  49. Jadedly Unbiased

    Jeb Bush said today “I think religion ought to be about making us better as people, less about things that end up getting into the political realm.”

    Rick Santorum earlier this month said “the church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re good at, which is theology and morality.”

    Seems like members of the Republican Party and the conservative philosophy Kevin claims to represent and know so well have a very different opinion. I’m not sure how many parties are left for Kevin to adopt.

  50. scott

    Are there actually churches with these views in Washington County?

  51. Jadedly Unbiased

    Not Kevin’s (WELS) but yes, I actually referred Kevin to one for anti Muslim sensitivity awareness but he bashed it as only he can do.

  52. scott

    Wait, it looks like there are THREE right here in West Bend. I didn’t realize WELS were young earth creationists. Just shows, you don’t really know your neighbors…

  53. Jadedly Unbiased

    They absolutely are YEC and isn’t it just like to Kevin believe in two completely conflicting philosophies, Libertarianism and young earth creationism. His hypocrisies are never ending but seeing how he believes the earth is between 5700 and 10000 years old all else is understandably ludicrous.

  54. Kevin Scheunemann


    WELS teaches 100 percent creationism unwavering, without question. If a WELS member openly embraces anything other than creation, they are acting contrary to the gospel and the church had a duty to correct the member under Matthew 18.

    If you reject creation, you reject the very need for Christ! You would reject Christ as redeemer from sin, which is thee central point of Christianity.

    Rejecting creation, reject The Fall of man into sin in Genesis 3. If The Fall into sin did not happen why would you need Christ?

    If you reject creation account in Genesis, you reject the gospel of Christ crucified for our sins, rejecting the gospel rejects Christ as redeemer for our sins. Rejecting Christ as your redeemer squarely means would mean you are not Christian.

    So no one should be surprised WELS embraces Creation. We teach Christ crucified and risen Savior for our sins.

    If any Christian embraces evolution, they reject the Fall of Mankind into sin and th very need for Christ to redeem you from sin. If The Fall did not happen at the Garden of Eden, why would you need Christ, if you deny sin entered the world?

    If you are a Christian caught in a church rejecting Christ in this manner, you need to evaluate whether your church body teaches a false gospel.


    If their is a church that teaches anything other than creation in Genesis, I would question their Christian label because that church rejects Christ as redeemer. Once creation is “out” the gospel falls apart. That church may conduct Christian like good works, but if they reject Christ as redeemer, they are not a “Christian” church.

    I hope that clears this subject up.

    I know…. The Gaylor brigade is probably hair on fire about what I just said.

  55. Kevin Scheunemann


    You crack me up. If the Mary Panzer like moderate Republicans don’t like me, that is perfectly fine with me. What I find fascinating is you discuss me with other Republicans while hiding your real name.

    I don’t have to hide in the shadows about what I stand for.

    Have the courage to say who you are then.

  56. Jadedly Unbiased

    I have never openly discussed you. Your not that important in the grand scheme of things so don’t flatter yourself. I have heard others mention your name and react with a not so thrilled attitude. When attending events I typically wear a name tag. No need to hide. However, on a blog site open to every idiot and crazy in the world in make the conscious decision to protect my identity. You made the decision not to and that’s your problem.

    Creationism and YEC are different. Which philosophy do you believe? Science and religion can coexist. So can religion and politics. So can science and politics. This goes way back to my original statement… I don’t let my politics influence my spirituality nor do I let my spirituality influence my politics. It’s possible to keep the two separate and as you can see from the quotes by Mr. Bush and Mr. Santorum I’m not the only one who thinks this way.

    Again, when your politics are proven wrong out comes the religious wall to hide behind.

  57. Jadedly Unbiased

  58. Kevin Scheunemann

    I’m talking about biblical account if creation in Genesis. World created a few thousand years ago, 7, 24hour days by God. Does YEC accept something outside Genesis concerning creation? If so, I’d reject that.

    I mainly linked to that page because Scott was on his passionate discipleship that there is no opposing science to evolution. It was an effective piece showing Scott’s passionate religious “evolution science is not debatable” position to be a matter of his faith, than a matter of science.

    When you say you don’t let your spirituality influence your politics…

    So you turn your Christianity off when it comes to politics? Voting for an open, and practicing, devil worshipper would be just dandy then? Is that really Christian faith if you turn your Christian faith off to support evil from a political standpoint?

    I don’t believe you can turn your spirituality off for politics anymore than Scott can turn off his spiritual adherence to Anne Gaylor.

    Your spirituality guides what is right and wrong. If you turn off what is right and wrong and support what is wrong and fail to support what is right, you are not a very spiritual person.

    I will criticize both Busch and Santorum for their weak spirituality on display for their statements posted above.

  59. Kevin Scheunemann

    Jade said,
    At 4:39,

    I don’t think Republicans want him. I have had many conversations with Washington County Republicans at various events and any time his name comes up they react as if the Black Plague was back. He’s an extremist in a party all his own.”

    Then at 5:45 said,

    “I have never openly discussed you. Your not that important in the grand scheme of things so don’t flatter yourself. I have heard others mention your name and react with a not so thrilled attitude. ”

    So you have “conversations” about me with others, but then never openly discuss me?

    That ‘s hilarious!

    For someone that accuses others of “twisting” facts and using profanity sometimes over a simple idea disagreement, don’t you find these 2 posts interesting?

    I would implore you to not use profanity with yourself on this one. No one deserves that.

  60. Jadedly Unbiased

    I can’t recall one ever running but I probably wouldn’t vote for a devil worshiper. However, a Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Atheist might draw my vote if… If they presented a reasonable agenda guiding our nation or state on a path to success. That’s the difference, I recognize our nation as a melting pot. People of all races, nationalities, religions, socio/economic backgrounds, sexual preference etc.etc. have a voice and the right to be heard. Limiting that voice to only Christians is discrimination. This works both ways. I wouldn’t not vote for an outspoken Christian. Everyone gets the same litmus test. The Jew has the same chance as the Christian, politically, to get my vote.

    My mother, who is the most dedicated Christian I know, used to have a Jewish friend. Occasionally, her friend would invite her to temple. Being a good loyal friend who would never refuse an invitation in fear of insulting her friend she would attend. When I questioned her on what I, at the time, believed was a conflict with her Christianity she gave me a funny look and said ” It doesn’t matter where you pray, as long as you pray, God will hear you”. She told me that she has prayed in Buddhist and Hindu temples, mosques and synagogues. She told me when she prays it’s always to Jesus. Her acceptance of other religions, while staying true to her own, is one of her greatest qualities. She never forced her beliefs on anyone. She didn’t have to, Jesus is reflected in her and that draws people to her side.

  61. Jadedly Unbiased

    While in the midst of conversation, about topics not related to you, your name has been mentioned by others. I had know idea who you were nor did I care. Hard to talk about someone you have never met and don’t know. Therefore, I listened. I told you not to flatter yourself. Try not to read between the lines. As you are aware I am pretty straight toward.

  62. Jadedly Unbiased

    We are back to you not bring able to read and taking things out of context.

    I said “I have had many conversations with Washington County Republicans at various events and any time his name comes up they react as if the Black Plague was back.”

    Listen closely… Me having many conversations doesn’t mean they were about you. Others mentioned your name not me. I over heard but didn’t have any actual input because you weren’t on my radar. Anytime your name came up, not by me, the reaction, without any input from me, was as if the Black Plague was back. I don’t believe I ever even commented and conversation quickly returned to more important issues. As I said, don’t flatter yourself. Maybe… maybe, I heard your name twice over the years and nothing good was ever said.

  63. Kevin Scheunenann


    When you represent to the world you had “conversations” that implies a two way street. Glad to see you did not use profanity with yourself over it.

    I was not implying you cannot vote for a non-Christian. I was only indicating that you cannot turn your spirituality off when it comes to voting.

    Voting is about making choices. How does one make choices? By determining what is right and wrong.

    Spirituality determines what you consider right and wrong.

    To imply you can just turn that off is just ridiculous.

    If you do turn your spirituality off for politics, you are not a very spiritual person then.

    Even the godless Gaylor atheist passionately votes their godless “spirituality” . If a Christian shows less passion for their spirituality than the godless atheist in politics, what does that say about the Christian’s faith?

    The Christian should probably read their bible, pray, attend church more often , and get to bible class to strengthen their faith.

    The godless atheist has unfettered, unwavering passion for their godlessness in politics….a Christian should show less spirituality than the godless Gaylor atheist?

    Again , you make me chuckle.

  64. Jadedly Unbiased

    You voted for Mitt Romney. In your own words you said Mormons aren’t Christians. Therefore, you are not guided by your spirituality and you were able to turn it off to cast your vote. The hypocrisy continues.

  65. Kevin Scheunenann


    So you originally had “many conversations”, then you had “maybe” 2 conversations… Where I was mentioned, but you did not converse about me? But you implied you did converse about me on many occasions with Republicans…..

    May I suggest it’s not the reading comprehension of others that is the problem, but the false witness of the facts in your part, that may be the problem?

    Again, don’t use profanity with yourself. Appreciate the fact that you go easy on the disagreement with yourself on the facts.

  66. Jadedly Unbiased

    Is it right or wrong, good or evil, that the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) still support sects within their church that openly practice polygamy and marry children?

  67. Jadedly Unbiased

    I have had many conversations. In those many conversations maybe…maybe your name was mentioned twice and not by me. I’m sure because I said I have had many conversations with Washington County Republicans you would assume that those conversations took place in Washington County. Your assumptions are ridiculous. Implied is a perception created in your egotistical mind but not reality.

  68. Kevin Scheunenann


    Spirituality in politics is about right and wrong. Mitt supported more right than wrong, unlike Obama.

    Obama, despite being Christian supported evil such as abortion and failed to support what is good…the fact he said he sat in a so called Christisn church and did not listen to the sermons for 20 years, that means one is not an active Christian.

    If the church was teaching false doctrine, as the reason for not listening, what are you doing putting up with false doctrine for that long? If you were not listening to the biblical truth from the pulpit for 20 years, that also questions your Christianity big time.

    So there was no Christian to vote for. We already established Gary Johnson renounced his Christianity.

    The right vote was Mitt Romney for numerous reasons.

  69. Jadedly Unbiased

    Listening is the most important part of a conversation. You should try it some time.

  70. Kevin Scheunenann


    I disapprove of Mormons on polygamy. There was little chance of that becoming a political policy position.

    Obama’s flip flop of marriage under God ‘a design, that was a big political issue.

    I’m this election, Scott Walker is the best candidate from a spiritual perspective.

  71. Jadedly Unbiased

    I don’t believe Obama supports polygamy or having sex with children. There’s not much more evil then that.

  72. Kevin Scheunenann

    Jade ,

    The fact that you didn’t use profanity with yourself on that disagreement with yourself shows I listen. I didn’t want you to treat yourself like you have been treating others.

    You deserve better.

  73. Jadedly Unbiased

    So NOW you can differentiate between political policy and religious philosophy.

  74. Kevin Scheunenann

    Obama does support killing unborn children….find that to be more reprehensible. As far as I know Gary Johnson was the same.

    I don’t disagree that the choices stunk in last election for president.

    Walker is a much better choice, perhaps best choice since Reagan.

  75. Jadedly Unbiased

    Here you go with the distractions now that your politics and your religious wall have both failed.

  76. Kevin Scheunenann


    I can differentiate when there is no Christian in race because that is only thing you can go on at that point.

  77. Jadedly Unbiased

    What religion is Obama? Under which religion was he baptized? What religion does he “utter biblical proverbs” from?

    Mitt Romney had always supported a women’s right to decide in all circumstances until he was on the national stage then he supported a women’s right to decide in cases of incest, rape or if the mothers life was in mortal danger.

    So, you voted for the NON-Christian who supported abortion as opposed to the Christian who was pro choice.


  78. scott

    It’s been a while since I took Christian theology, but… Couldn’t you believe that God created the world through secondary means (evolution by natural selection), man fell from grace, Jesus came and took the heat for it, the end? Why’s it have to be the literal Genesis account or “the whole thing falls apart”? Clearly it does not for millions of others.

  79. Jadedly Unbiased

    Polygamy, child sex, abortion and a non Christian. Sounds like the devil himself.

    “Voting is about making choices. How does one make choices? By determining what’s right and wrong.”
    “Spirituality determines what you consider right and wrong”
    “If you turn your spirituality off for politics, you are not a very spiritual person then.”

    I don’t know why I asked you what religion is Obama, you already told me… “Obama, despite being a Christian”

    We now know that you believe (in your own words) Obama is a Christian and you believe (in your own words) Romney is a non Christian. We also know that you can (in your own words) differentiate. So, did you turn off your spirituality in favor of political policy? Of course you did.


  80. scott

    I think I get where Kevin is coming from. Obama ostensibly has the right Christian idea, but doesn’t follow it too well. Romney has the wrong idea about what it is to be a Christian but at least adheres to it pretty much. Understanding that, it makes sense to refer to Obama as (ostensibly) a Christian and Romney as not one.

  81. Jadedly Unbiased

    As far as a Gary Johnson is concerned, we’ve been through this before, others may have doubted his commitment to his faith but he never renounced it. Please provide me with the quote. Otherwise it’s just more of your rhetoric. As a matter of fact, during his campaign, he stated “I believe in God”. Furthermore, his is a Lutheran. The same Christian denomination as you.

    As for a Scott a Walker… Should he send back the legislation banning abortion after 20 weeks and demand a full unconditional ban on abortion? If he doesn’t is he turning off his spirituality in favor of politics? Either abortion is wrong or it’s right. Either abortion is evil or it’s good. Why would anyone support a candidate who can’t differentiate?

  82. Pat

    “Furthermore, his is a Lutheran. The same Christian denomination as you.”

    Not really, he is WELS. I think there is a big difference. It’s more like a cult compared to other religions. You can tell by the strange way he talks.

  83. Jadedly Unbiased

    I get where Kevin is coming from too. I don’t think Obama or Romney are bad guys religiously or as individuals. However, politically I take great issue with both of them. This is where we all have the differences of opinion. How do you separate the two? Political from the personal (religious). I love to bust Kevin’s balls. I don’t know him personally but from what I do know (small business owner, village president, Kewanis member, Christian and a charitable man) I would say his intentions are pure and for the best. Overall he is a good person and a great member of society. A little misguided but so am I. Nothing I say is actually personal. It may sound that way but it’s really not. Even when I call him an asshole it’s out of respect and usually because he’s pressing my buttons. I will give Kevin props on his relentless ability to stimulate debate. I hope this earns me a free ice cream cone on Saturday when I’m dressed in drag wearing black face and an Afro wig. Wait, isn’t Dairy Queen a black man who’s into white men. Forget it I won’t be there on Saturday.

  84. Kevin Scheunemann


    “It’s been a while since I took Christian theology, but… Couldn’t you believe that God created the world through secondary means (evolution by natural selection), man fell from grace, Jesus came and took the heat for it, the end? Why’s it have to be the literal Genesis account or “the whole thing falls apart”? Clearly it does not for millions of others.”

    This argument has one big flaw.

    When did the Fall from God’s Grace occur then?

    I hope we can agree the Fall from grace requires man’s free will to reject God’S PERFECT WILL. Rejecting God’s perfect will is what the Fall of man in Genesis 3 is all about. God’s perfect will gives us the freedom to reject him, but not without consequence.

    1.) (the man causing the Fall from Grace scenario) So in the natural selection scenario, if creation was perfect from the beginning, why did creation need to “evolve”? “Survival of the fittest” does not indicate a State of Perfection in creation. The only way to justify man’s free will rejection of God’s grace, is if man was there at the begining of evolution to cause the Fall from Grace. No evolution scenario, that I know of, puts man to be there since the beginning. All evolutionists will laugh at that scenario.

    2.) (creation causing the Fall from grace before man existed) The other possibility is creation caused the Fall from grace prior to man existing under natural selection. (without man’s participation). However, that scenerio is absurd. That would mean creation rejects God, and man has no free will to reject God on his own, creation rejects God for us. That means creation has free will, and not even the most cynical philosophers of our time imbue creation with free will. They postulate man may have free will.

    So the only way evolution works in the Chrsitian paradign is if one completely rejects the notion that man has free will. THAT IS CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING IN THE GOSPEL.

    I’ll stand by my statement and will debate anyone in public on it. “If you embrace evolution, you reject Christ as your redeemer, which excludes you from being a Christian.”

    The hopelessness of the evolutionist position is not a life I would want to live. To embrace evolution and Chrsitianity at same time is even more hopeless, you know the answer but destroy all free will in the process to participate in the truth of Jesus salvation.

    Its discouraging to see any Christian embrace evolution because it rejects the very need for Christ to redeem you from sin…the very essence of what it means to be a Christian.

    I know. I know. I’ll get letters.

  85. Major Booris

    “Everything in the Gospel points towards man having free will.” – K. Scheunemann, Predestinationist

  86. scott

    “the Fall from grace requires man’s free will to reject God’S PERFECT WILL. Rejecting God’s perfect will is what the Fall of man in Genesis 3 is all about. God’s perfect will gives us the freedom to reject him, but not without consequence.

    1.) (the man causing the Fall from Grace scenario) So in the natural selection scenario, if creation was perfect from the beginning, why did creation need to “evolve”? ”

    Because God wanted it to. Perfectly. Which it did. Problem solved.

  87. Kevin Scheunemann

    Predestination. We are not free to choose God ( decision theology). We are free to reject God and reject our predestination as God’s elect.


    If God’s perfection has to evolve, then it’s not perfection and God is flawed, which is contrary to the gospel.

    Evolution makes sense for perishing unbeliever.

    Christianity falls apart if Christian attempts to put man’s theory as a replacement to God’s design.

  88. scott

    Your thinking is so rigid, Kevin. If God created the world’s living things to evolve, and they did, that could still square with him having created it perfectly. But whatever. Angels on the head of a pin and all that.

    From my perspective (which will make no sense to you, I know) it’s frightening the degree to which some people will deny reality to preserve their dearly held but totally unfounded beliefs. Whatever the benefits of religious faith may hold, anything that causes you to deny demonstrable truth can’t, ultimately, be good for us. Any of us.

  89. Kevin Scheunemann


    “Demonstratable truth?”

    Evolution is theory, not demonstratable truth. Let ‘s not confuse the two.

    The demonstratable truth is: there is no verifiable and detailed recorded human history prior to the 1st books of the bible. That is a truth that cannot be denied by evolutionists.

  90. Mark Maley

    ” Verifible”?
    Uh, Cliff notes please on who verified what in Genisis ?


    Why are so many religions so exclusive ?
    If you don’t do x , y and z like we say , the non verifiable Lord won’t let you in cause we say so ?
    Heaven Sounds like a Country Club for religious Snobs .

  91. Kevin Scheunemann


    Do you want to begin with archaeological discovery of Sodom in Genesis 14?

    Or the historical accounts of Egypt during time of Joseph by archaeology? (Which is interesting because the Exodus route is detailed by history is fascinating by itself).

    I realize, much like evolution, you can accept or reject this scientific evidence.

    I accept it and completely acknowledge my faith in the evidence proving the bible correct.

    On the other hand, evolutionists do not acknowledge their faith in the much more flimsy, evolution data that has no human historical record to verify.

    You can accept or reject the historical evidence showing the bible is correct, but that means you do reject some science evidence on some level.

    You are free to believe the science evidence you want to believe. My only beef is: evolutionists fail acknowledge their faith in the data gathering process, where Christians are not afraid to acknowledge their faith.

    Simply put, acknowledging the evolution faith means believing in a cold, pointless life existence on this earth, and evolutionists generally do not want to have that discussion.

  92. Kevin Scheunemann


    You raise a fascinating point about salvation. All the false religions have one thing in common: They point to man’s ability to earn salvation…the if you do X, Y, Z you can get in.

    Only Evangelical Christianity points to Jesus as the only way to salvation. All other religions rely on some form of good works or work righteousness to “get in”.

    So your x,y,z argument applies to religion except for Evangelical Christianity.

    I’m glad we cleared that up.

  93. Kevin Scheunemann


    If you read the fellowship doctrine:

    If doctrine is “negotiable”, its not really a doctrine. If you worship with people that believe the bible is “negotiable” in terms of what it says, then the church becomes corrupted by debate of man’s design vs. God’s design. That is a huge problem in ELCA right now. That church body really has tossed out whole sections of the bible, some clergy in ELCA even reject Christ as redeemer.

    My WELS church has an abundance of excellent muscicians available for weddings.

  94. Kevin Scheunemann

    The point of keeping a strong fellowship doctrine is so you are not thrown off the path of salvation by fellow Christians that do not hold to the biblical truths.

    It is a constant watchful battle. There is no shortage of “Christians” wanting to change absolute biblical truths to rationalize all sorts of sinful choices.

  95. scott

    “Evolution is theory, not demonstratable truth.”

    Exactly and precisely false. It’s far more “demonstrable” than the life of Jesus.

  96. Kevin Scheunemann


    Both are a matter of faith.

  97. Jadedly Unbiased

    You said “change absolute biblical truths to rationalize all sorts of biblical choices.” Would that include gluttony and bearing false witness against your neighbor?

  98. scott

    “Both are a matter of faith.”

    What I’m starting to get is that science being a matter of faith is *itself* an article of faith with you. Your assessment is impervious to reason.

    Again, science is not religion. It’s ideas about the world are empirically tested and retested and challenged. When the evidence warrants it, the idea is changed or abandoned for a new idea that fits the facts. It’s a self-correcting, empirical way of knowing the world and is by far the best way ever devised for discerning the truth about the world. As evidence, I give you the last few hundred years of human achievement. Compare it to the previous THOUSAND years of achievement.

    Religion is a set of rigid beliefs which often make no sense and are not dependent on evidence. In fact, many of these beliefs are held in spite of evidence to the contrary. Believing things without evidence? They call that “faith” and say it’s a good thing. The best way to know the world? Authority. The authority of the Bible, of your church or your minister.

    I’d say that’s pretty different. It’s so different, it’s different all the way down to the epistemological level. Two fundamentally different ways of “knowing.”

    To say that they’re the same thing is stupid. Only someone who’s entire worldview depended on not understanding that could not understand it.

  99. Kevin Scheunemann


    Gravity does fit your scientific template. There is 100 percent, no doubt, gravity exists.

    Global warming does not enjoy that kind of acceptance in scientific community, so it becomes a matter of faith in the data because the predicted results are, at best a guess.

    ABC news in 2008 quoted a global warming scientist that New York City will be under water by 2015. New York is looking pretty dry for that kind of rigid science.


    You mis-quoted me. Is there something specific you want to correct me on?

  100. scott

    Just tell me you understand the difference between religion and science, Kevin. What’s the difference?

  101. Jadedly Unbiased

    I did unintentionally misquote you. Should have been “sinful choices”. Would those “sinful choices” include gluttony and bearing false witness against your neighbor?

  102. Kevin Scheunemann

    [sahy-uh ns]
    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:

    [ri-lij-uh n]
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    How is the global warming scientist saying New York should be under water by now a fact or truth?

    What about the scientific truth of the ice age?

    So since science can never be wrong in your world view, both these scientists in the story must have been practicing religion with the facts, right?

    Otherwise, you have to admit someone’s science is wrong . If facts and truths are wrong, how can it be science? It is a faith cosmology at best… Religion.

    I, for one, am glad we avoided the ice age with global warming and hope we keep ice age at bay by getting more warming.

Pin It on Pinterest