1 2 3 4 5 10 12 | bottom
Quote# 117123

One of the things I’m gonna do, and this is only gonna make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win… is I’m gonna open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re gonna open up those libel laws.

With me, they’re not protected, because I’m not like other people… We’re gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we’re gonna have people sue you like you never get sued before.

Donald Trump, Raw Story 33 Comments [2/29/2016 3:57:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 117122

As soon as I cleared the door, I came face to face with satan himself. I knew it was satan, for the Holy Spirit inside me told me this. He had sandy blonde hair and a pleasant face, and was dressed in a nice suit, and looked just like what a school administrator would look like.

“Hello Christian,” he sneered, his voice low and rumbling out from him just like a demons voice would.

The panic that hit me then almost overwhelmed me, but at the last moment, just as the administrator came forward to grab me, I remembered to call out the name “Jesus!”, which caused him to back away from me.

Evil came off of him in waves, but I soon learned to brace myself against it. He moved away from me, but I kept him in my line of vision, and I let him know that I knew what he really was, and that I was keeping my eye on him.

He simply shrugged as if he didn’t care at all about what I had said, and continued administrating to the college. “You’ll be back,” he said to me with scorn. “We’re the only ones who can teach you what you need to know.”

I then transferred to another college, in the hopes that it would be different. At this college, the sound of the snake wasn’t as bad, but the evil presence was still there. I seen the same satanic administrator there at the college shortly after joining. It was then that the Holy Spirit told me that all of the colleges were infected with the beast. I wondered at this, for there were a few teachers here and there that were not too bad, and one or two that were even good. (Good meaning they tolerated Christianity fairly well.) But the Holy Spirit told me that it was infected with the evil because of the way they were formed and structured. They were basically meant to be evil by design from the very beginning.

Dreams of Dunamis, Dreams of Dunamis 39 Comments [2/29/2016 3:57:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 16

Quote# 117117

[And you remind me about the guy that thinks there is another dimension in his TV.

"No worry wind we all do stupid things sometime"
Yeah, you're doing something stupid each time you make such rubbish posts.]


TVs got so many channels so yes this can compare to many dimensions.
You never thought about it wind, did you? :all-ears:

Look guys.
I really would like to leave the last word with you but for Christ sake you still don't get it.
It is all so simple but you make it so so difficult.
Why? :huh:

Little Rik, AtheistForums.org 14 Comments [2/29/2016 3:54:56 PM]
Fundie Index: -2
Submitted By: Stimbo

Quote# 117116

[In response to an article about an Australian school adopting a gender neutral uniform policy.]

We have been attacking boys and masculinity for years.Now we are just going to ignore that some people are male and some female. Satin is laughing as we work with him to distort God's creation.

Michael Thannisch, sheknows 32 Comments [2/29/2016 3:53:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: TheReasonator

Quote# 117115

Another name in the fairy world is "brownies" which may make you wonder about the Girl Scouts choosing that as the name for their younger members. [Warning on link. it is a witchcraft website]

Bible Believer, Galatians 4 18 Comments [2/29/2016 3:53:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 117114

Planned Parenthood’s slogan should really be like: “Because joining the Klan is too controversial”.

#planned parenthood #they literally kill the most black people in america #racism #abortion #pro life #conservative

Myamazingotherworld, Tumblr 26 Comments [2/29/2016 3:52:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Ivurm

Quote# 117111

Dear Liberal, Here is why we can't talk

Of course not. Why bother?

When I question the claim that mankind is solely responsible for runaway global warming, you call me a denialist.

When I question the president's actions, you call me a racist.

When I question granting amnesty to illegal aliens, again you call me racist.

When I question why we do not shut down hate mosques, you call me Islamophobic.

gorush, Free Republic 27 Comments [2/29/2016 3:43:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Ivurm

Quote# 117110

Build the damn wall. It’ll save us a helluva lot of $$$ and give Americans jobs. Plus keep the Muzzies who pretend to be Mexicans from bringing their nukes over the border and killing us all except their headquarters in Washington.

jsanders2001, Free Republic 17 Comments [2/29/2016 3:28:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Ivurm

Quote# 117103

A West Fargo father is accused of threatening to kill his teenage daughter and pointing a loaded handgun at her because he was upset that she's a lesbian. Kamiran Bakir, 47, was arraigned Wednesday in Cass County District Court on a felony charge of terrorizing.

West Fargo police received a report about 6:45 p.m. Sunday that a man had pointed a gun at people in the back seat of a car at the Eagle Run Crossing gas station at 32nd Avenue West and Sheyenne Street, according to court papers.

At the gas station, police encountered Bakir, his daughter and other relatives. After surrendering the gun to officers, Bakir told them he didn't really want to harm his daughter and that he was just upset by the news that she's a lesbian, court papers said.

Bakir's daughter, who's 16 or 17, told police that earlier that night, before her father confronted her at the gas station, he told her "she was lucky that she's not eighteen because he would have put a bullet in her head," court papers stated.

A relative told police that Bakir was troubled by his daughter's sexual orientation because of his religion, which police believe is Islam, court papers said.

Kamiran Bakir, Detroit Lakes Online 34 Comments [2/29/2016 4:01:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 117102

What about Simeon and Anna? I’m afraid they were on the wrong side of history as well. Two elderly, devout Jews, seemingly ignoring the Roman centurions around them so they could keep babbling about some Messiah. It was like they had never heard of someone called the emperor. Anna the widow never left the Temple; “Don’t listen to her, she’s crazy,” they would say. “Too heavenly minded and no earthly good.” Simeon and Anna, praying to a God who had not stopped an exile and an overthrow, talking about a king whose ancestral line had long been broken. Simeon and Anna, two more religious nutjobs who wouldn’t accept reality.

Poor, mute Zechariah. Poor cuckolded Joseph, poor philandering Mary. Poor daydreaming shepherds. Poor deluded Simeon and Anna. If they could have just accepted the Way Things Are, maybe their lives could have been more. Maybe they could have served in Herod’s palace, or been a confidant of Caiaphas.

If they had just been on the right side of history, maybe the world would still be talking about them.

Just maybe.

Samuel James, Samuel D James.Net 18 Comments [2/29/2016 4:00:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: AJ Williams

Quote# 117099

The Democrats have a problem. A bad one.

I am going to go ahead and say that Donald J. Trump almost certainly will be President of the United States. Not that anyone should stop campaigning, convincing other people, and getting their ass down to the voting booth on BOTH elections. Regardless - after Super Tuesday, I think we will see the party solidify around Donald J. Trump.

Not if but when Donald J. Trump wins the general election and becomes President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be put in jail. Obamacare will be dismantled. And a lot of people from the Obama Administration will most likely be under investigation for abuse of power after abuse of power which has characterized the Administration for the past eight years. The Democrats are looking at a total, complete reversal of most of the "progress" they have made over the past decade. And Obama's name will forever be tarnished by an Donald J. Trump Administration which does not shy away from the political warfare which would ensue from opening investigations on Obama. All that, coupled with Supreme Court nominations, will CRUSH the Democrats' agenda, and set them back DECADES.

If we see an economic crisis in the last few days of Obama's presidency (which is looking at least somewhat likely,) these losses will be further compounded by an impoverished electorate who has been robbed to the point of desperation by the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and FTC under Obama. Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for the middle class, and when piled on their gross abuses of power, I think Donald J. Trump will WRECK the Democratic Party and put them on the defensive in the 2018 midterms. We could see a Republican hegemony in the Federal Government which lasts a generation, depending on the success of the Republicans with Trump at the helm. Not that I have any respect for the Republican Party, but they are the only group of people who can pull us out of this shit and back our Nation away from the cliff the Democrats have been pushing us towards the edge of for years. And Donald J. Trump will whip their pork spending asses into shape.

Reddit, please, for the love of Christ, help us elect this man to the Presidency. We desperately need to bring the current Administration to justice, to signal to all future Presidents that using the Federal Government as a weapon against your political enemies will never be allowed or forgiven in our great Nation.

MAKE

AMERICA

GREAT

AGAIN


patrice12345, r/The Donald 134 Comments [2/29/2016 3:52:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 117098

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz looked to gain the support of military voters in South Carolina on Tuesday, promising to build a robust military if elected and pledged not to provide gluten-free military meals, which he equated with a culture of political correctness.

“That’s why the last thing any commander should need to worry about is the grades he is getting from some plush-bottomed Pentagon bureaucrat for political correctness or social experiments—or providing gluten-free MREs,” Cruz said, using the shorthand term for Meal, Ready-to-Eat, CNN reported.

About 1% of Americans have celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder that makes a person intolerant to gluten, according to the Celiac Disease Foundation. A spokesman for the Department of Defense said the provision of gluten-free meals differs based on the military branch.

During the remarks in Mount Pleasant, S.C., Cruz criticized President Barack Obama for “seven years of neglect” of the U.S. military, according to Charlotte WBT radio.

“It is time for America to once again prioritize a strong, advanced and robust military,” he said.

Ted Cruz, Time 30 Comments [2/29/2016 3:49:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 117097

For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:

HIV Is Not A Crime – A 2011 Documentary by Sean Strub

Relevant Terminology

Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.

Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) — some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).

The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission — again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle — the line is razor-thin.

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.

First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face — I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.

I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?

In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:

[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.

[…]

The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.”
]

In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again — in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record

To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all — to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others — but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.

Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.

Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.


Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied — which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case — but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)

THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?

I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess… why… because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.



Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.

Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.

HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.

HaifischGeweint, FreeThought Blogs - Crommunist 15 Comments [2/29/2016 3:48:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 117096

Abortions are no longer to be regretted, they are to be celebrated as "empowerment" for women."

"A few wackos might think that way"

It's more than a few - it is the new talking point. But, I agree with you on the assessment of pro-aborts - they are whackos. :-) I surely do not want morals like yours. The kind that ignores the innocent human being who is being destroyed.

"But that isn't how I see what's going on."

It really does not matter how you "see it" - it matters what is true.

"And you don't like that, do you? You don't like being disagreed with."

No, I really do NOT like those who advocate and support the deaths of 3000 innocent babies each day in America. The fact that you disagree with me is irrelevant. Slave owners disagreed with abolitionists - it's not the disagreement that bothered abolitionists, it was the owning and mistreatment of black people.

"And you can cite a few scientists"

Haha - by "few" you mean almost all. Science-phobic, much? Here are 41 peer-reviewed citations (just take the spaces out):

http://www .lifenews .com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

"I promise you that you don't have consensus on this issue"

There was no consensus on slavery either. At one time, most people actually believed that blacks lacked personhood or were sub-human. You would have fit in quite well with them.

You just don't like it because basic science is against you and all you have left are feelings and emotions.

"It's complicated, each situation varies from person to person"

True for slavery too. You keep making my point but lack the self-awareness to recognize it.

" It's complicated, each situation varies from person to person, and you cannot simply sit back and cast judgment from your ivory tower that everyone's a murderous pro abort. I know that's what you're DOING, but it's very obvious to me and to others how ineffective it is. Going back to the roadside wackos who force people to look at pictures of dismembered fetuses again - you think that's an effective tactic? Because I promise you it's not."

The baby we saved last week says otherwise. :-) That was a last minute save - the mom came out 4 times before she chose life, and after she drove off, Dr. Death showed up within a couple of minutes!

Left up to you and yours (since I missed you on the sidewalk that day), that baby would be dead right now. Instead, we are showering this young girl with love and gifts. No thanks to you or your ilk who stand by why babies are mercilessly killed.

"but you're attempting to legislate your morality on everyone else"

Self-refuting. Roe forced abortion on 60 million innocent preborn babies by legislating from the bench. All laws legislate morality - it is just a question of whose. By your "logic," we should not have laws against rape, burglary, pedophilia, or murder.

WorldGoneCrazy, Live Action News 25 Comments [2/29/2016 3:46:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Jocasta McFucken

Quote# 117094

Interesting reflection from today's Lenten reading:

One of the key visuals in the story of the Transfiguration is the divine light that radiates from Jesus. Matthew says, “His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.” Luke reports, “His clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.” And Mark says, “His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.”

This light seems to signal the beauty and radiance of a world beyond this one, a world rarely seen, and only occasionally glimpsed, amidst the griminess and ordinariness of this world.

Is this beautiful and radiant world ever seen today? Let me share a few stories with you. When I was traveling recently, I met a man who, as a young man, encountered St. Padre Pio, the famous stigmatist. He was privileged to serve his Mass. During the elevation of the host, after the consecration, this man noticed something remarkable: there was a glow around the holy man’s hands. Years later when he heard reports of “auras” he said to himself, “That’s what I saw that day.”

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English journalist and convert to Catholicism, was filming Mother Teresa for a documentary. One day, the electricity was out, and he bemoaned the fact that he had to film her without lights, convinced that the day would be lost. But when the film was developed, he noticed that the scenes were beautifully lit, and it appeared as though the light was coming from her.

And I know this might be a bit of a stretch, but there is scientific speculation that the marks on the shroud of Turin, the holy icon thought by many to be the burial shroud of Christ, were caused by a burst of radiant energy—light energy.

From the time of the earliest disciples, the holy followers of Jesus were pictured with halos above their heads. What is a halo if it is not the divine light breaking into our world today?

Alan Burns, Religion and Ethics 10 Comments [2/29/2016 3:45:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 117093

At first blush, atheism and Islam couldn’t seem more different. Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural deity whereas Islam (whose name means "submission") is monotheistic and asserts a supreme supernatural god named Allah. Atheism denies any life beyond this world while Islam teaches that those Muslims whose good works exceed their bad will spend eternity with Allah after life on earth with both Muslims who lack works and non-Muslims being punished after death. And on it goes.

However, there is one thing that both the faith of atheism (yes, atheism is indeed a faith-based system) and Islam have in common: they aggressively do everything in their power to silence any voice that dares to challenge their ideology.

Now, to be fair, I must add a qualifier to both atheism and Islam in this regard. I have had dialogues with both atheists and Muslims who were very respectful, truly considered my arguments for Christianity, certainly respected my intelligence, and defended my right to voice an opinion that was contrary to their own. I have benefited greatly in discussions with such people and appreciate their correcting me on inadequate arguments that I asked them to consider.

By contrast, it is militant Islam and atheism (which I call hatetheism) that seeks to stifle any person that calls into question the validity of their worldview.

The fact that militant Islam practices such a thing is no news to anyone remotely educated on that movement. One needs to look no further than the high-profile imprisonment of Youcef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in 2009 for being a Christian and preaching Christianity in Iran. The formal charge labeled against pastor Youcef is blasphemy against Islam.

While militant Islam’s persecution against non-Muslims is widely acknowledged, what isn’t so well known is that hatetheism operates in the exact same way as militant Islam.

Hatetheism both insults and tries to humiliate anyone who professes faith in God and does everything it can to silence those it considers its enemies. For example, comedian Bill Maher has openly stated that the opinions of religious people should not be respected and has gone on to say: "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking . . . . I think religion is a neurological disorder . . . . I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality.”1

Sporting such a spirit, it is not surprising that hatetheists have no desire for any dialogue with others who do not share their opinions. A case in point is the first “Reason Rally,” which was held in Washington D.C. on March 24, 2012, with headliners like Richard Dawkins and other similar famous atheists being present.

When Tom Gilson, editor of the book True Reason, contacted David Silverman of American Atheists to inform them that Christians would be present at the Reason Rally and were interested in having a respectful dialogue with the atheist group with a formal debate between Dawkins and Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, also being proposed, he was told the following:

"Make no mistake--you are not welcomed guests at the rally. We are not going to DC for ‘dialogue’ with people who believe ridiculous things--we are going to have fun with other like-minded people. Those who proselytize or interfere with our legal and well-deserved enjoyment will be escorted to the 1st Amendment pen by security, which will be plentiful, where you can stand with the Westborough [sic] Baptists and shout yourselves hoarse.

Spreading out among the crowd is not a substitute for a permit. Indeed, I will be meeting with the Parks Commission on Thursday to discuss how to handle your infiltrative permitless counter-protest."2

While Silverman and his group have no problem erecting billboards during times such as Christmas and Easter that mock Christianity and thus insert themselves into Christians’ holidays, it appears they have no desire to have Christians "intrude" into their events.

So much for being "free thinkers."

One last illustration of hatetheism doing its best to silence its opponents is when supposed "neutral" scientists, who are really devotees to philosophical naturalism, shut down any peer that dares to challenge certain teachings of evolution. A good example of this is the current legal case of David Coppedge vs. his former employer, NASA, who first demoted and then fired Coppedge after he shared DVD’s of intelligent design with some of his co-workers.

Commenting on how aggressive the adherents to naturalism can be, paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has stated, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”3 Those knowing the history of this battle in academia will remember that Darwinian advocates only asked that their view be taught alongside intelligent design in the early 1900’s, but now they do everything in their power to shut the door in ID’s face. Noting the double standard in situations like this, Ravi Zacharias has said: “Is it not odd that whenever it has power, liberalism is anything but liberal, both in the area of religion and politics?" We can also add science to that list.

I think most everyone would agree with the argument that the only reason a person should believe anything is that that particular "thing" is true. If Islam is true, we should all be Muslims. If atheism is true, then we should all be atheists. If Christianity is true, we should all be Christ followers.

But the fact is, sometimes people who say that they are truth seekers aren’t interested in hearing the truth. There are other factors at work other than a commitment to what’s really true, and these influences can often bring together those who are otherwise enemies of each other.

Without a doubt, militant Islam and hatetheism seem to have absolutely nothing in common. But when it comes to shutting down anyone who dares to oppose them, they couldn’t be more alike and indeed make comfortable bedfellows.


Robin Schumacher, CARM 35 Comments [2/28/2016 12:55:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: Jesus

Quote# 117091

[So two consenting adults getting married is worse than slavery or genocide?]

afchief: Equally bad!

afchief, Christian News Network 37 Comments [2/28/2016 8:34:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 34
Submitted By: Elie

Quote# 117090

Indonesia's Defense Minister, Ryamizard Ryacudu, has labelled the emergence of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) movement in Indonesia as a form of a proxy war to subtly undermine the sovereignty of a state - without the need to deploy a military force.

"I wrote about the subject 15 years ago - this is a kind of a modern warfare," said Ryacudu at the Ministry of Defense's Building on Tuesday, February 23, 2016. "It's the cheapest kind of war there is."

According to Ryacudu, the LGBT agenda is a latent threat to Indonesia's sovereignty, as it forces Indonesia to deal with states who support the LGBT agenda under the guise of human rights observance. Ryacudu continued that the state needs to be more cautious in reacting to the demands of LGBT communities for equality before the law.

"It's dangerous as we can't see who our foes are, but out of the blue everyone is brainwashed - now the (LGBT) community is demanding more freedom, it really is a threat," said the former Chief-of-Staff for the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI-AD).

"In a proxy war - another state might have occupied the minds of the nation without anyone realising it," continued Ryacudu. "In a nuclear war, if a bomb is dropped over Jakarta, Semarang will not be affected - but in a proxy war, everything we know could disappear in an instant - it's dangerous."

Ryacudu added that modern warfare needs no weaponry - as it is an ideology-based warfare. "This sort of brainwashing is dangerous, as it skews the mindset of our nation away from our base ideology," he said.

Ryamizard Ryacudu, Tempo.co 14 Comments [2/28/2016 8:34:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 117084

Big Science, also called mainstream science, is so-called science created to support an (often liberal) worldview. Big science is based on liberal censorship and deceit, and uses peer review and the "scientific" method to disparage conservative true science. Big science usually consists of liberal claptrap masquerading as science. Supporters of big science are often close minded and refuse to consider alternative views and reality.

Hallmarks of big science include:
*Support of the disproven idea that the world is warming due to human causes.
*Support of evolution.
*Support of a casual link between second hand smoke and health issues.
*Support of special relativity and moral relativism.
*Support of classifying homosexuality as a genetic trait.
*Obsessing over intelligent design.

JerryHL, Conservapedia 35 Comments [2/28/2016 4:32:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 117082

people like you deserve to be virgins because apparently people who were the result of rape are not valid when it comes to your pro murder ideals? If people got to abort every unwanted child you would have been among them along with the rest of your generation because apparently your mother hated you enough to drill this stupid idea into your head. Fun fact: Adoption saves lives and doesn't saddle the birth mom with responsibility!

Anonymous, Tumblr 18 Comments [2/28/2016 4:08:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 117079

Texas GOP Welcomes Gay Group – Because They Aren't 'Advocating' For Gay Rights

The rabidly anti-gay Republican Party of Texas is fine with "homosexuals" having a booth at its state convention this year — as long as they keep quiet about being denied their civil rights.

For the first time in its history, the Texas GOP voted to allow a booth sponsored by an LGBT group — Metroplex Republicans of Dallas — at the convention in May. But the party also denied a booth request from another LGBT group, Log Cabin Republicans, which has unsuccessfully sought to be formally included in the convention for 20 years.

A Texas GOP official who serves on the committee that considers booth applications said Metroplex Republicans was approved because the group doesn't openly advocate for LGBT rights, despite the fact that it was founded by gay former Log Cabin members.

"I don’t find that anywhere in their literature or their website,” State Republican Executive Committee member Jean McIver told me for a story in The Texas Observer. “I’ve gone to Metroplex meetings in the past a couple of times. I didn’t find that they were advocating for anything contrary to the principles of the party.”

Jeff Davis, president of Log Cabin Republicans of Texas, said he feels the party is splitting hairs and trying to have it both ways by allowing the Metroplex Republicans booth but denying his group's application. Two years ago, both groups were denied.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TMNHJoH8zI

“I think the party wants to be able to point to Metroplex and say, ‘See, we let gays in,'" Davis said. "It seems like to get a booth, you can believe anything you want. You just can’t say it.”


Republic party of Texas, the new civil rights movement 14 Comments [2/28/2016 4:06:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Mister SPak

Quote# 117078

The revolutionary analysis of decadent bourgeoisie culture has revealed certain pornographic tendencies to be highly progressive.

We are speaking, of course, about so called interracial cuckold porn.

This porn consists of a scenario where in which a bourgeoisie male AmeriKKKan laborer aristocrat is forced to watch his female property (wife) be raped, liberated by black ghetto proletarian.

How is this progressive, you may ask? To be sure, interracial cuckold porn promotes hyper sexualized racial stereotypes of African men and even seems to encourage rape as a positive phenomenon enjoyed by women.

However, a genuine Marxist analysis looks deeper. Interracial cuckold porn is in fact, entirely revolutionary. Cuckold porn is revolutionary, because it attacks white male patriarchal capitalist and its psycho sexual roots. Cuckold porn psychologically prepares the white bourgeoisie male for his own destruction and expropriation at the hands of Maoist third world-ist liberation forces.

Just as the white laborer aristocratic bourgeoisie of the worst world should go and surrender his property to the revolutionary third world proletariat, so the cuckolded white male should kneel and watch his female property (wife) be ravaged by big black cock which is her own secret desire for liberation.

The white master who raped and enslaved the colonial world for centuries is now in the world of Maoist third world-ism – raped and enslaved.

King_Martha, Leeky Forums 22 Comments [2/28/2016 4:06:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
Submitted By: Ivurm

Quote# 117077

CHANGING BELIEFS and VALUES

Barbara Whitehorse started seeking answers after her son asked a typical question: “Mom, can I get Pokémon cards? A lot of my friends from church have them.” Much as she wanted Matthew to have fun with his friends, she gave a loving refusal. Matthew’s tutor had already warned her that the Pokémon craze could stir interest in other kinds of occult role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons. At the time, she wondered if the tutor had just over-reacted to some harmless entertainment. After all, the cute little Pokémon creatures looked nothing like the dark demonic creatures of D&D. But when she learned that a local Christian school had banned them because of their link to the occult, she changed her mind. Later, during a recent party for Matthew, Barbara heard two of the boys discussing their little pocket monsters. One said, “I’ll just use my psychic powers.” Already, the world of fantasy had colored his real world. So when some of the kids wanted to watch the afternoon Pokémon cartoon on television, Barb again had to say “no.” It’s not easy to be parents these days.

Cecile DiNozzi would agree. Back in 1995, her son’s elementary school had found a new, exciting way to teach math. The Pound Ridge Elementary school was using Magic: the Gathering, the role-playing game called which, like Dungeons and Dragons, has built a cult following among people of all ages across the country. Mrs. DiNozzi refused to let her son participate in the “Magic club.” But a classmate gave him one of the magic cards, which he showed his mother. It was called “Soul exchange” and pictured spirits rising from graves. Like all the other cards in this ghastly game, it offered a morbid instruction: “Sacrifice a white creature.”

“What does “summon” mean?” he asked his mother after school one day.

“Summon? Why do you ask?”

He told her that during recess on the playground the children would “summon” the forces on the cards they collect by raising sticks into the air and saying, “Spirits enter me.” They call it “being possessed.”

Strange as it may sound to American ears, demonic possession is no longer confined to distant lands. Today, government schools from coast to coast are teaching students the skills once reserved for the tribal witchdoctor or shaman in distant lands. Children everywhere are learning the pagan formulas for invoking “angelic” or demonic spirits through multicultural education, popular books, movies, and television. It’s not surprising that deadly explosions of untamed violence suddenly erupt from “normal” teens across our land.

Occult role-playing games teach the same dangerous lessons. They also add a sense of personal power and authority through personal identification with godlike superheroes. Though the demonic realm hasn’t changed, today’s technology, media, and multicultural climate makes it easier to access, and harder than ever to resist its appeal.

Berit Kjos, christian answers 32 Comments [2/28/2016 4:02:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
Submitted By: undie not fundie

Quote# 117074

Extrasolar “Super-Earth” Atmosphere Contradicts Evolutionary Assumptions

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

For the past two decades, astronomers have conducted concentrated searches for extrasolar planets, planets orbiting other stars. So far, astronomers have found about 2,000 extrasolar planets. The obvious motivation for these searches is to establish that planets similar to the earth are common. If planets similar to the earth are common, the reasoning then is that perhaps life is common in the universe. Up to now, scientist have not found any earth-like planets.

Many of the first extrasolar planets discovered were very massive, more massive than Jupiter, the most massive planet in our solar system. Astronomers call these large planets super-Jupiters. More recently, astronomers have found much smaller planets (this effort has been helped by the Kepler mission). Many extrasolar planets discovered now are more massive than the earth, but less massive than the larger planets in our solar system. Astronomers call these extrasolar planets super-earths. A news story on February 16, 2016, reported the first detection of an atmosphere around a super-earth extrasolar planet, 55 Cancri e. We know of four other planets orbiting the same star, 55 Cancri A, so the entire system forms a sort of solar system. Astrobiologists are particularly excited about this system, because the star 55 Cancri A is similar to the sun. Stars similar to the sun are considered to be the best candidates of hosting planets where life may exist.

For the past two decades, astronomers have conducted concentrated searches for extrasolar planets, planets orbiting other stars. So far, astronomers have found about 2,000 extrasolar planets. The obvious motivation for these searches is to establish that planets similar to the earth are common. If planets similar to the earth are common, the reasoning then is that perhaps life is common in the universe. Up to now, scientist have not found any earth-like planets.

Many of the first extrasolar planets discovered were very massive, more massive than Jupiter, the most massive planet in our solar system. Astronomers call these large planets super-Jupiters. More recently, astronomers have found much smaller planets (this effort has been helped by the Kepler mission). Many extrasolar planets discovered now are more massive than the earth, but less massive than the larger planets in our solar system. Astronomers call these extrasolar planets super-earths. A news story on February 16, 2016, reported the first detection of an atmosphere around a super-earth extrasolar planet, 55 Cancri e. We know of four other planets orbiting the same star, 55 Cancri A, so the entire system forms a sort of solar system. Astrobiologists are particularly excited about this system, because the star 55 Cancri A is similar to the sun. Stars similar to the sun are considered to be the best candidates of hosting planets where life may exist.

The mass of 55 Cancri e is approximately 8.6 times the earth’s mass, while its diameter is about twice that of the earth. This extrasolar planet is rare in that we know both its mass and its size (usually we know just one of those two). Its mass and size suggest that the density of 55 Cancri e is about the same as the earth’s density. Orbiting a star similar to our sun, with a size similar to the earth, and density and hence composition similar to the earth, things look promising for life on 55 Cancri e. However, there is just one large problem—55 Cancri e orbits very close to its star, so close that it takes less than 18 hours to orbit, as compared to the earth’s 365-day orbital period. The surface temperature of 55 Cancri e is estimated to be more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt most metals.

The research team that published the study to appear in the Astrophysical Journal used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe the spectrum of the star 55 Cancri A as the planet 55 Cancri e transited, or passed in front of, the star, as it does each orbit. The team identified in the spectrum a feature that appears to be due to hydrogen cyanide, HCN. They found evidence that a few other simple organic molecules might be present, but they did not detect water. They also were able to constrain the mean molecular weight of the planet’s atmosphere to about four atomic mass units. The only gases capable of accounting for such a low mean molecular weight are hydrogen and helium. The massive planets in the solar system, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, have atmospheres dominated by hydrogen and helium, but the atmospheres of the smaller planets do not. Evolutionists think that planets massive enough to have atmospheres began with atmospheres primarily of hydrogen and helium. More massive planets with strong gravity could retain these “primitive” atmospheres, but less massive planets, such as the earth, could not. That is, the less massive planets ought to lose their primordial atmospheres and replace them with evolved atmospheres.

So why does 55 Cancri e still have a “primitive” atmosphere? Given its relatively small mass, its modest surface gravity ought not to hold on to the hydrogen and helium very long. Its extremely high temperature because of its close proximity to the star that it orbits ought to speed the rate of loss of the primordial atmosphere 55 Cancri e. The most obvious way out of this dilemma would be to suggest that 55 Cancri e is a very young planet. However, based upon rotation and magnetic activity studies, astronomers have estimated the star’s age to be at least three billion years older than the sun. Planets supposedly form along with the stars they orbit, so 55 Cancri e ought to be billions of years old, in the estimation of evolutionists. But what if 55 Cancri e is, say, only a few thousand years old? Then there may not have been enough time for 55 Cancri e to have lost much of the atmosphere that it was created with.

As the authors note in their conclusion, further observations may overturn their results. We’ll see. But until that happens, this result clearly contradicts the evolutionary assumption and billions of years. As such, the hydrogen and helium atmosphere around 55 Cancri e may be evidence that the creation is young, just as indicated in Scripture.


Dr. Danny Faulkner, Answers in Genesis 20 Comments [2/27/2016 3:15:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 117072

i dont want to come off rude or anything but you should probably stop speaking spanish unless youre of hispanic heritage otherwise its cultural appropriation, and i dont think youre of hispanic heritage because you look white from any of the pictures youve posted to please stop speaking/learning spanish thank you vuv

Anonymous, Tumblr 52 Comments [2/27/2016 3:15:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 31
1 2 3 4 5 10 12 | top