Faith & Spirit Quote by Jay Alan Sekulow

Sekulow’s sentence is courtroom rhetoric dressed up as moral theology: a careful separation of capability from permission, then a pivot into conscience. The first move is a lawyerly hedge. “I do not mean that you could continue... with propriety or even with safety” preempts the obvious objection: just because you can doesn’t mean you should, and it might blow back on you. That concession isn’t weakness; it’s inoculation. By acknowledging limits, he makes the next claim feel more credible.

Then comes the crux: “I merely assert that the power is, in point of fact, in your hands.” “Merely” is doing heavy lifting, shrinking a consequential assertion into something like a neutral observation. “In point of fact” signals evidentiary certainty, the kind of phrase that invites the audience to treat the claim as obvious rather than contested. The subtext is pressure: you are not a bystander. Whether the “you” is a judge, an official, or the public, the line assigns agency and removes the comfort of inevitability.

The final turn weaponizes responsibility. “To God and man” widens the jurisdiction from law to eternity and social judgment, implying that the decision will be tried in more than one court. It’s also coalition language: it speaks to secular accountability (“man”) while anchoring authority in a religious frame (“God”), a signature move in culture-war legal advocacy. The intent isn’t just to persuade; it’s to moralize the stakes so refusing the argument feels like evading duty rather than disagreeing on policy.