Quote# 117065

[ Grocery store worker may have infected 300 people with HIV, prosecutor says
Here is a question... I am not denying that keeping it a secret you have HIV is not right.. but, do we not make our own choices for sexual safety? If you have sex unprotected, you open yourself up to disease. The man who gave the victim HIV is in jail on a 250,000 bond. So what is the "crime" he committed? What legally does this fall under? What's next, a woman gets deathly ill during her pregnancy, then presses charges on the baby's father because he lied and told her he could not have kids? Now he's accountable for her illnesses? I have been an RN for years... we use universal precautions. If I use poor technique and do not protect myself and get a communicable disease, should the patient be placed in jail since he didn't tell me he has something?

Again, not stating it's OK to just go fk everyone and be a liar... but a criminal offense? ]

[ If he knew about it and didn't say anything then yes, he should be charged.
That is like lending someone your car and neglecting to say that the breaks don't work. ]

Not even close. Saying that your brakes don't work doesn't prevent you from forming romantic relationships. Saying you have HIV almost guarantees the end of a relationship.

[ Are you saying that it's perfectly fine to have unprotected sex and not disclose that you are HIV+? ]

Absolutely not. But I think it's completely unfair to expect people to not act human. Disclosure of HIV is extremely challenging, especially when you know it means rejection. To criminalize something so emotionally charged when it can be prevented by two parties, not just one, seems wrong to me.

Was the guy in the article an asshole? Absolutely. But he doesn't represent the majority of people with HIV that sometimes make mistakes because the pain of rejection is just too great.

I'd argue that having unprotected casual sex is risking spread of the disease PERIOD. That's how this disease is spread. If people would just stop having unprotected casual sex, HIV would go away. If your arguement is the burden it places on society, maybe we should just outlaw unprotected casual sex.

But that's not what this is about. It's about the lepers infringing on our rights to safe Craigslist sex.

It should also be noted, untreated HIV can cause cognitive issues that impair judgement and impulse control.

I don't understand the reluctance to share in the responsibility of HIV transmission. If doing so is such a hardship for you, why are you so willing to impose that hardship onto someone that is ill?

Me neither. My husband and I get an HIV test every year because I believe in sharing the public health burden.

I would love to get Joyous' opinion on this as I consider her our resident public health expert.

[ [i] [I also think everyone has the right to have sex without the fear of DEATH!]

Why do you think that's a right? Do you also think you have the right to go out in public and not contract a cold? Or eat raw meat without getting salmonella? Sex has always and will always come with risks, some of them deadly. [/i] ]

thoushallnot benamed, babycenter 9 Comments [2/27/2016 7:00:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 117064

[ Do you think people with hiv/aids should disclose their status? ]

Hell NO!

[ The risk is an interesting thing with the intentional spread of disease. If someone wants to infect as many people as they can they are not going to be honest with a partner. You take risk, but that risk can be limited if your partner is honest with you. I don't like this idea that the victims are to blame when infected by someone deliberately spreading diseases

I don't believe that blame ever applies to the spread of disease. Microbes do what microbes do. We can't control them.

All we can do is lower our risk by taking reasonable precautions. Testing, barriers, possibly abstinence.

It's like getting in the car. You always have the possibility of being in an accident. There's no way to remove that risk entirely. All you can do is things to lower your risk. Drive defensively. Or to mitigate the damage if you are unlucky enough to get in an accident. Wear your seatbelt, have airbags, etc.

Nobody is at fault when the virus is contracted, no more so than someone is at fault when pregnancy occur. Exposure to HIV doesn't guarantee contraction of the virus anymore than exposure to cold germs mean you will get a cold, or exposure to sperm means you will get pregnant. It is certainly a risk, but it is not a guarantee. Viruses do what they do, and immune systems do what they do. To assign fault seems strange to me.

[ OK, what if someone who knowingly has HIV rapes a woman

Should his sentence be harsher because he also gave her HIV?What if a woman got back from the dr and he told her she has HIV. She had been cheating on her husband with several men while she was away on business and could have contracted them from any one of them. She goes home and does not disclose this information to her husband and has sex with him. He now has HIV. Should she be charged with assault for knowingly giving him HIV? Or should he always wear a condom when Having sex with his wife who he, as far as he knows, is loving and faithful?A man and a woman have been dating for several years, but never had sex. The woman is a virgin. They have sex for the first time on their wedding night. Her now husband reveals to her the next day that he has HIV and has had it from before they started dating. Should he be charged with assault?A couple have been dating and have been engaging in protected sex for several months. They jointly decide to stop using barrier protections. One of them agrees to this while knowing that they have HIV. The second person contracts HIV shortly after. Should the partner be charged with assault? ]

Yoshi, in each of your hypotheticals, I would not support charging with the crime of transmission of HIV. Each of those cases of consentual sex with a non disclosing partner is extremely unfortunate, and the person has every reason to be furious with their partner, but I don't see it as criminal.
The onus is on non-infected people to know their partners before sleeping with them and practicing safe sex or to accept the consequences. I'm okay with that.
Here's the thing. With regard to every other virus, we put the onus on the individiual for self-protection. We tell people not to touch their eyes, nose, and mouth. To wash their hands, to wear gloves when working with the sick. We don't require disclosure of a viral infection before interaction with another person. We make requests that people stay home, cover thier noses and mouths when they cough/sneeze, and avoid contact with the old, young, or immunocompromised when they are sick, but we don't prosecute them when they don't follow those requests. What makes HIV so special? What makes the act of having sex any different than going to work with the flu? Neither act is a guarantee of transmission of the virus.

[ Knowingly spreading the disease can kill people and cause huge financial burden to not just the infected but to the whole society. ]

Having intercourse with a person while HIV+ isn't knowingly spreading the disease. It's knowingly risking spreading the disease, but exposure to the virus is not a guarantee of contraction of the virus.

[She could have demanded that he be tested before engaging in unprotected sex with someone from a high risk group. He had never been tested, but we can argue that he had an obligation to get tested knowing he was a drug user sharing needles]

Obligation to get himself tested? What kind of obligation, a legal one? A moral one? A personal well-being one?

I'd argue that we all have the right to live in ignorance of our own disease.

And until the stigma of being HIV+ is erased, I'd argue that I understand exactly why people would chose not to know.

Again, I don't like fault or blame language with regard to viruses and bacteria.

It's not anybody's fault you contract HIV, ever. Unless, I suppose, someone injects the virus directly and intentionally into your blood stream.

But as I've repeatedly said, exposure to the virus doesn't equal contraction of the virus. Sex has risks. It just does. One of those risks is disease.(and lest I be cast as a total prude who is afraid of sex and is all pro-absinence and all that shit, I'm not. I had my fun in my single days. I knew the risks I took to have it, too. And I knew what I needed to do to lower those risk to a level where I felt the reward outweighed the risk)

I'd argue you can't intentionally spread a virus. You can only intentionally expose someone to a virus

Madapanta, babycenter 9 Comments [2/27/2016 6:58:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Randy

Quote# 117063

Okay, now for a serious debate.

Here are a couple stories of people who have been tried, convicted and sentenced to jail for having unprotected sex without disclosing the fact that they are HIV positive.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/in_focus&id=7021651

http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2010/08/13/news/doc4c6438c517507243537084.txt

Is this a good idea? Shouldn't the onus to have safe sex fall on both parties, not just the HIV partner? Does this have the potential for serious misuse?

[ It's a crime if a company knowingly exposes their employees to a dangerous substance like asbestos and it makes them sick. I don't see this as any different. ]

Because in the case of unprotected sex, you are knowingly taking a risk by having unprotected sex. It's not the same as going to work without a gas mask on because you believe your employer when they say there is no asbestos. Even if your partner says they are clean, you still know there is a risk they are not

[ But as a participant in consensual sex you have a right to know if you are going to be exposed to a deadly disease. If a person knows that they are HIV positive then they have an obligation to inform potential sexual partners. The failure to do so is at the very least deception and at the very worst homicide ]

You also have a responsibility to protect yourself through any and all means. I meet a guy at the bar, he says he's clean, so I have unprotected sex with him? Getting an STD wouldn't be even a little bit my fault?

But where do we draw the line? HPV is also a potentially deadly STD. If a man gives me HPV and I get cervical cancer, is he criminally liable?

[ Well maybe if you know for a fact that you have an STD of any kind you should lay this information out on the table before having sex, or you are liable. ]

So are the courts going to start fining frat boys for giving girls crabs? What about if I have the flu, but I go to the store to buy medicine and inadvertently infect a baby, who gets seriously ill. Should I be held criminally liable for that? I knowingly took my germs in public.

Seriously, responsibility for safe sex is a two way street.

jsscuban, babycenter 11 Comments [2/27/2016 6:57:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 117062

IF most women did not live under self-imposed censorship, 99.99 percent of them would be openly repulsed by the idea of spending years studying physics and engineering, and then years doing all kinds of repetitive exercises in T-38 supersonic jets, underwater tanks and ‘vomit comets,’ in order to be launched into that stultifyingly boring void known as Outer Space. But because most women do not have that freedom of speech and have lost their natural instincts, many will probably be outwardly impressed by NASA’s latest gimmick: a class of astronauts that is 50 percent female, including some mothers. A few of these lucky women, we are told by the liars officials at NASA, may even go to Mars someday, leaving their children behind on Planet Earth for a trip that will be overwhelmingly an adventure in nerdy button-pushing.

"The hardest part of a Mars trip, according to them, would be being separated from their planet and families for so long. But the job does come with some perks, including a unique perspective. 'From space,' says astronaut Anne McClain, 'you can’t see borders. What you see is this lonely planet. Here we all are on it, so angry at one another. I wish more people could step back and see how small Earth is, and how reliant we are on one another.'"

Believe me, folks, these women will never see the surface of Mars, except in the movies. In any event, the things these women could accomplish within the dramatic and exciting Inner Space of their own homes so dwarfs what they could accomplish on Mars (where they won’t be going anyway), that the very suggestion is an outrage. Who would trade insipid, lifeless, finite Mars (Yuck!! Revolting!!) for the chance to create and influence human beings, each one of whom is a fascinating planet, an eternal sphere of consummate adventure, a being that is utterly unique and made in God’s image? If that isn’t power, what is?

God gave men galaxies and distant planets and asteroids to compensate them for the misfortune — and unfairness — of never being able to become mothers. Outer Space takes their minds off the unfairness of it all, something women have been kind enough to recognize in the past by not denying those who have dreamed of being astronauts since they were little boys of the chance to experience the “vomit comet.”

Women don’t want it anyway. If someone came to my door when my children were young, blossoming creatures and said, “Hey, lady, you have just won a trip to Mars!,” I would have told him to get lost. I would do the same now. Women have made many serious trade-offs to become like men, but this is an especially bad deal.

These women are being used by the Pentagon and NASA for the same purpose that Vanna White was used on The Price is Right. They beautify a sales pitch. Reality is a TV show. This is nothing more than yet another publicity stunt, a pretty ad for the borderless, New World Order where everyone gets along under tyranny, the will of the people banished at last, and pays the banksters and the federal government for the pleasure of enslavement and endless war. The Price is Right. Ninety-eight percent of the world will be debt-ridden and two percent will be filthy rich. Ah, yes, they just want to look down on the earth and see all peoples getting along.

Cute uniforms. The costume division of NASA is top notch. (Aren’t these just your typical physics majors? How many ugly, accomplished women applicants got the boot?) But if you don’t smell a rat here you don’t understand the way of things on this lonely planet.

Women of the world, unite! Shed the shackles of the world controllers. It is men that we love, not Mars.

Laura Wood, The Thinking Housewife 32 Comments [2/27/2016 6:56:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 27
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 117061

[Extracted from Slavery Reconsidered - All formatting in original]

Whip hand: the free-thinking Carlyle Club abolishes Whig history, serves up some primary sources, and cottons on to a south-side view in this, our masterful third issue. It’s bound to please!

Question: what’s wrong with slavery?

[...]

You know, it sounds like the good people of Detroit would benefit a lot from some sort of a combination of adoption, which provides stability, security, and lifelong support, and lifetime employment, which provides stability, community, and social harmony, especially for low-skilled workers (like in Detroit). Now, if only American history could furnish us with an example of a social arrangement combining adoption and lifetime employment… But I digress.

[...]

That reminds me of something Thomas Carlyle wrote in Shooting Niagara (1867), a pamphlet considered extreme even by Victorian standards:

Servantship, like all solid contracts between men (like wedlock itself, which was once nomadic enough, temporary enough!), must become a contract of permanency, not easy to dissolve, but difficult extremely, — a “contract for life,” if you can manage it (which you cannot, without many wise laws and regulations, and a great deal of earnest thought and anxious experience), will evidently be the best of all. […] Of all else the remedy was easy in comparison; vitally important to every just man concerned in it; and, under all obstructions (which in the American case, begirt with frantic “Abolitionists,” fire-breathing like the old Chimaera, were immense), was gradually getting itself done.

[...]

Anyway, since the practical, day-to-day realities of slavery were much better than you have been led to believe, this idea makes no sense, and you need to re-assess slavery. Maybe it wasn’t bad after all.

Are you re-assessing slavery?

You’re not re-assessing slavery, are you?

Okay, try the second idea: slavery was bad regardless of what it was actually like, because slavery contradicts Liberty, Equality, and other, miscellaneous abstractions (Human Dignity springs to mind), which are to be considered good regardless of how much misery they have created over the centuries. In that case, congratulations: you, like the abolitionists, have got religion. Kindly keep your Church far away from the State.

If neither idea suits you, it might be a combination of the two, sort of circular in shape: everyone knows slavery was bad, because the slaves weren’t Free and Equal, which was terrible for them, because they were whipped and beaten ceaselessly for no reason, and if you say they weren’t, why, you’re just excusing slavery, which everyone knows was bad, because the slaves weren’t Free and Equal — and round and round we go, abandoning even the pretense of straightforwardness, and always returning to Liberty, Equality, and we might as well throw in Fraternity, so ultimately the argument turns out to be a popular late 18th century murderous insurrectionary war cry.

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society), Radish 12 Comments [2/27/2016 6:55:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 117059

"1) Why do you think atheists all believed the universe had no beginning"

Because it made for a good atheist myth and, if it had been true, it would have been a defeater for the 2nd premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. No way out there for the atheist who desires to deny God's existence.

"So what? Its still finding things amazing after the fact."

Aaah, but it is the Explanation for "amazing" that counts. :-) Not to mention that it is delusional to think that one could survive so many firing squads and they NOT be rigged.

"3) Theists have no say in science."

Then why did the Scientific Revolution kick off with theological scientists - who put prayers to God in their technical papers? And, of course, there are plenty of theist-scientists now. I happen to be one of them.

"Great is our Lord and great His virtue and of His wisdom there is no number: praise Him, ye heavens, Praise Him, ye sun, moon, and planets, use every sense for perceiving, every tongue for declaring your Creator. Praise Him, ye celestial harmonies, praise Him, ye judges of the harmonies uncovered: and thou my soul, praise the Lord they Creator, as long as I shall be: for out of Him and through Him and in Him are all things; for both whose whereof we are utterly ignorant and those which we know are the least part of them; because there is still more beyond. To Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen." -- Johannes Kepler, "Harmonies of the World Book Five." This was at the end of this book - there are prayers interspersed throughout.

" You do realize the Cambrian was the first time hard bodied animals were available for fossilization?"

Take it up with secular scientists who are resorting to miracles and hand-waving to explain it.

"It a pity Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin was a physicist so had no idea about the field."

Ad hominem. One cannot do away with his argument based on his degree.

"Evidence should be everywhere. Where is it?"

Everywhere. :-)

"Arno Penzias would be a clown"

Ad hominem. You are the emotional atheist, no?

"Without men observing reality there would be no proof for the Big Bang."

Yes, indeed, and thank God for the Big Bang - literally! :-)

WorldGoneCrazy, CNSNews 12 Comments [2/27/2016 6:55:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 117053

(On Justin Trudeau)

Proof that women shouldn’t vote. His father was a arrogant communist sympathizer who imposed marshal law and military rule on parts of Canada in the ’70’s. His mother is a drug addled whore that performed sexual acts for the Rolling Stones and participated in orgies at Studio 54. They birthed this nitwit that coasted to victory on his famous last name. Sad 5 years coming for Canada.

stadacona, Queerty 25 Comments [2/26/2016 4:14:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 117051

A. Franco, former Nuncio to Ukraine, committed crimes not only against morality but also against the Church and the nation. He usurped Church power by promoting Lubomyr Husar, who had been excommunicated for 17 years, to the post of Head of the Church in spite of a protest by three Metropolitans. Husar proclaims heresies, promotes homosexuality and is the founder of the Masonic group “The First of December” which has organized a coup against the legitimate government. The Church structure established by him is apostatical. He keeps the common believers in darkness and in heresy and leads them into temporal and eternal self-destruction.

It is publicly known that the whole Vatican is under God’s curse by reason of heresies denying the Divinity of Christ and by reason of pernicious syncretism which hundreds of thousands of martyrs fought against. The curse is on the Vatican also because of its approval of the abomination of homosexuality and paedophilia.

We propose that the Government of Ukraine should see to it that the current Nuncio is exiled for his participation in a coup. He was obliged to warn and admonish the representatives of the Roman and Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine not to organize a coup leading to a homodictatorship and autogenocide of Ukraine.

Apostolic Nunciature in Ukraine is harmful to the true Christian faith as well as to the nation, since it promotes heresies, syncretism, homosexuality and paedophilia. Therefore it must be abolished. We propose that the Secretariat of State should not wait until the Government of Ukraine justly exiles the Nuncio, abolishes the Nunciature and exposes the crimes committed. Remove the Nuncio Yourselves and abolish the Nunciature!

Synod UO GCC, Ukrainian orthodox Greek-Catholic Church 13 Comments [2/26/2016 4:13:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 117050

The Charter of a Christian State

[...]

1) The State protects spiritual and material values

The primary interest of the State is the protection of the physical, mental and spiritual health of every citizen. It means that the State examines all forms of destructive influences that threaten health, coming from whatever source, eliminates these influences and informs the public about the dangers.

- Evil in the State shall be justly punished and destructive elements eliminated.

- The fight against alcoholism, drug addiction: a total ban on import, production and sale of narcotics.

- The fight against smoking: preventive work with youth focused on eradication of harmful addiction.

- Control of food quality; production of healthy food without chemical additives; ban on genetically modified foods.

- Responsible control of carcinogenic substances, their elimination from the food and pharmaceutical industries.

- Responsible control and ban on destructive youth subcultures (emo and goth culture, rock, heavy metal, psychedelic music, culture of aggression and cynicism, decadent films, instructions for perversion and crime via the Internet...).

- Full control and prohibition of all forms of vaccination which can be a cause of diseases in children (eg. autism, weakened immune system, allergies...).

- Prohibition of psychological manipulation of citizens through psychological weapons, waves, radiation, subliminal messages (25th frame), ultrasound, various new technologies using music, misuse of mobile phones, of the Internet and of tablets.

- Ban on activities of foreign organizations which pursue indoctrination of the population, subversive and destructive activities.

- Ban on Masonic lodges, monitoring of their attempts to infiltrate into the public sector; ban on activities of Masonic organizations (Rotary Club, Lions Club, Orders...).

BCP, Ukrainian orthodox Greek-Catholic Church 22 Comments [2/26/2016 4:13:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 117049

The Eighth Pan-Orthodox Council, which is to take place on the feast of the Holy Spirit, 19 June 2016, will launch the process of expulsion of the Holy Spirit from the Orthodox Church. It will de facto be the beginning of gradual spiritual suicide – suicidium. The main initiator of the Synod is the apostate Patriarch Bartholomew and the apostate Patriarch Kirill. Both of them are under an anathema – God’s curse – according to Gal 1:8-9. Through “theological dialogues” with the apostate Vatican, they want the spirit of the New Age to infiltrate the entire Orthodox Church. The Pre-Council Conference conclusions are formulated in a positive light. However, they actually disguise the real intention, i.e. self-destruction of the Church as well as of the Russian and the Greek nation. Other Orthodox nations will likewise be drawn into this self-destruction process.

Merkel has enforced suicidal legislation and sodomism through an incomprehensible text of the Lisbon Treaty. A similar method of positive terms is applied by the Vatican globalists. Unfortunately, the apostate Patriarchs are in unity with them nowadays.

Apostasy of the Church

The planned programme of the Council for all the Orthodox Churches is to conduct so-called theological dialogues with apostate Vatican theologians. The Orthodox Church is thus certain to be infected with the heresies of the apostate Western Church. The Vatican’s programme is primarily the promotion of interreligious dialogue with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other pagans. This so-called dialogue is a betrayal of the Gospel. The Vatican is in unity with the NWO globalization programme whose aim is to create a global New Age religion which worships demons and, in the highest degree, Satan. This concerns the so-called Illuminati at the 33rd degree. Today they control the UN, World Banks, supranational organizations, and through the NWO they incorporate the programme of a global holocaust, so-called reduction of humanity to “the golden billion”. The responsibility for this upcoming holocaust of the nations rests with the apostate Vatican which betrayed orthodox doctrine!

The turning point came at the Second Vatican Council through the infiltration of syncretism and heresies. A similar turning point in the Orthodox Church is to come through the Eighth Pan-Orthodox Council. They will attach the Orthodox Church to the poisoned stream of apostate Western Christianity and establish unity through so-called theological dialogues. It is like creating unity with an infected person. The fruit is death.

BCP, Ukrainian orthodox Greek-Catholic Church 7 Comments [2/26/2016 4:12:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 117044

Ethiopian Israelis in the central city of Petah Tikva allege that they are regularly denied marriage licenses by the city’s rabbinate, where rabbis question their Jewishness.

Under the auspices of the city’s Sephardic Chief Rabbi Binyamin Atias, members of the city’s 10,000-strong Ethiopian community are routinely rejected by the local rabbinical authority when attempting to register for marriage, forcing them to turn elsewhere, Army Radio reported Monday.

Shega, an Ethiopian Israeli who was recently turned down by the rabbinate’s registrar, told the radio station that after submitting paperwork proving her conversion, the registrar asked her to produce assurances from a rabbi that she was a practicing Orthodox Jew, and investigated the couple’s backgrounds before ultimately telling them to register elsewhere.

Shega said at least 30 Ethiopian Israeli couples had been through similar experiences.

While Ethiopian Jewish immigrants from the Beta Israel community are recognized as fully Jewish and did not need to undergo conversion upon arriving in Israel, immigrants from Ethiopia belonging to the Falash Mura community, which converted from Judaism to Christianity in the 19th century, are required to undergo Orthodox conversion after immigrating.

In 2014, Ethiopian Israelis in Petah Tikva leveled similar complaints of discrimination against the city’s rabbinate and Attias.

At the time, the country’s Chief Rabbinate said its regulations stipulated that local rabbis provide services to all Jewish citizens, and said it would conduct a “thorough investigation” into the claims, promising to take action if discrimination was discovered.

In Israel, the only legal route for Jews to marry is through the rabbinate.

In response to Sunday’s report, Tzohar — an NGO dedicated to bridging gaps between Jews in Israel and offering a more liberal Orthodox alternative to the rabbinate — accused the city of ongoing discriminatory practices.

“We are shocked. No other words can describe the affront and embarrassment toward dozens of couples who simply want to register for marriage where they live,” the organization said in a statement noting the allegations of discrimination.

Tzohar said it was considering opening an office in Petah Tikva where Ethiopian-Israelis would be allowed to register, bypassing the local religious authority.

According to Rabbi Chuck Davidson, an independent activist working for conversion reform in Israel, discrimination by state-funded rabbinical authorities extends to most converts, not just Ethiopians.

“The situation in Petah Tikva is not uncommon,” he told The Times of Israel on Monday. “Many times local rabbinates don’t recognize their own conversions.”

Despite a High Court of Justice ruling from 2013 that banned municipal rabbis from demanding further proof of a convert’s Jewishness, Davidson said the reality is that many Jewish converts in Israel regularly face what he called an “inquisition” into their commitment to Orthodox Judaism.

He said the recent measures by Israel, the Rabbinical Council of America and other groups to standardize and centralize the conversion process has made it virtually impossible to undergo an Orthodox conversion that is universally recognized.

Ultimately, Davidson said it was “the most vulnerable Jews who suffer from this, because their entire identity rests in the hands of a single converting rabbi.”

Binyamin Atias and other rabbis, The Times of Israel 29 Comments [2/26/2016 4:00:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 117041

A Turkish truck driver has lodged a legal complaint against his own wife for insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, pro-government media reported on Monday.

Ali D., 40, who married G.D. three years ago, warned his wife repeatedly not to curse at the president when he appeared on television, Yeni Safak newspaper reported on its website.

But her wife defied his warning and challenged her husband, saying: "Record and lodge a complaint."

The man duly recorded his wife's "insults" as evidence for the case and lodged a complaint with Izmir prosecutors. It was not immediately clear if and when the case would go to trial.

"I kept on warning her, saying why are you doing this? Our president is a good person and did good things for Turkey," Ali D. was quoted as saying by Yeni Safak.

But he said his wife kept on insulting Erdogan or just changed the channel whenever the president appeared on television.

"Even if it is my father who swears against or insults the president, I would not forgive and I would complain," the husband said.

In return, the 38-year-old woman opened a case against her husband for divorce, according to the report.

Ali D, ahramonline 15 Comments [2/26/2016 4:00:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 117039

There is Hope for Atheists!

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

WE DO OUR BEST TO DEFEND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH USING APOLOGETICS AGAINST THE SECULAR ATTACKS OF OUR DAY.
At Answers in Genesis, through our resources, conferences, and other outreaches, we do our best to defend the Christian faith using apologetics against the secular attacks of our day. But in doing so, we need to also point people to the truth of God’s Word and challenge them concerning the saving gospel. We use apologetics to answer questions and direct people to God’s Word and its message of salvation.

There’s no greater thrill in this ministry than to hear how God has used what has been taught by AiG to touch someone’s life—for eternity. Last week, I was introduced to one of our new volunteers, Donna, who is helping sew some of the costumes for the figures that will be placed inside our full-size Ark. She had responded to my Facebook post asking for seamstresses.

I discovered that she became a Christian in 1993 after attending one of my seminars (called “Back to Genesis” with the Institute for Creation Research ministry) at Cedarville University in Ohio. The Bible-upholding seminar was such an eye-opener to her about the reliability of the Bible that she became a Christian.

We asked if she would share her testimony.

"Ken:

The Lord opened up this atheistic evolutionist’s eyes decades ago, through exposure to Ken’s ministry.

I was a die-hard evolutionist, completely convinced that the fossil finds in Olduvai Gorge supported the “evidence” that we evolved from less-complicated, early hominid creatures, like the so-called “Lucy".

To keep a long story short: I attended a Creation Seminar at Cedarville College [now Cedarville University], sat in rapt attention as Ken Ham told me “the rest of the story,” and I realized that all of the fossil finds I believed supported evolution were, in all cases, misinterpreted. I was blown away! So, learning the truth about evolution preceded my realizing that God was real (after all!) and that the Bible was His Word. I became a creationist before I became a believer in Christ.

I was raised and educated Roman Catholic. My parents took all seven of us to church every Sunday. And for all that religiosity, we never spoke of Jesus at home.

After twelve years of Catholic schools, and being taught that Noah's Ark, for example, was just an allegorical way to relay the story that “if you come on board with belief in God, he'll keep you through the storm,” that there probably was no actual Noah's Ark, and probably no actual Adam and Eve, it was easy to throw out the Bible as any believable “Word of God.”

I became a non-Christian. I used to say, “How can I believe a book that's been copied over and over and over, translated in so many different versions, when it probably doesn't even look like the original, like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy?” It was easy to walk away from what little faith I'd been taught.

But then being exposed to creation science ministries, I had to look honestly at what I'd come to believe about God. I can't name a specific date that I came to saving knowledge of what Christ had done for me—it was more of a season. I was that thick headed. It took a while for it all to unfold.

Today, I am feasting on apologetics, Christian music, and the inerrant Word of God. I never thought the Bible could make so much sense. Christ has loved and protected me through my years of doubt, even though I never deserved it. I know where I came from, and I know exactly where I’m going. I am free of the fears and superstitions of religion, because I have a deep, personal relationship with the most awesome Creator of the Universe!

By the way, my twin daughters are both graduates of Cedarville, and one is a pastor's wife!

I am so honored to be doing any little thing to make the presentation at the Ark Encounter come alive, and look forward to many more days helping with the sewing effort."


Thank you, Donna. What a wonderful account!
We were able to find some information on the 1993 seminar that she attended at Cedarville University; Cedarville is a university that has a close affiliation with AiG today. See a photo of me (with dark hair) on page 4 of Torch, summer 1993.

In explaining how we conduct apologetics evangelism at AiG, I like to use the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11). When Jesus came to the tomb of Lazarus, He told people to roll the stone away. Now, Jesus could have moved the stone with one command—but what people could do for themselves, He asked them to do. Then what people couldn’t do, He did with a command—His Word. He raised Lazarus from the dead.

At AiG, we know that non-Christians are really walking dead people “who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Only God’s Word can raise the dead. So when we are witnessing to “dead” people, we do the best we can to give answers (1 Peter 3:15) to defend the faith, and in so doing, point them to the Word of God that saves! God is the One who opens people’s hearts (including atheists) and “who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Yes, God’s Word reaches even the most hardened heart. There is hope for every atheist, for the Lord “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

If the Lord has used AiG, including our Creation Museum, in your life to bring you to salvation, would you please let me know? Thank you.


Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 41 Comments [2/26/2016 3:59:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 117037

Heresy – I’ve had enough

I must inform you that I’ve reached my limit with regard to the antics of the Holy Father.
I will continue to pray for the Holy Father, the man. Most especially, I pray for his conversion. But I can no longer remain quiet on his actions. Words have meaning, and the damage is real. I have spent three years in the shadows, only blogging anonymously or commenting anonymously on his multitude of errors, blasphemies, calumnies, and ad hominem attacks. My silence ends today.
I’m going public, and I’m attaching my name to the truth. I’m proclaiming that contraception is an intrinsic evil; does he even understand what that means? I’m proclaiming eugenics as an intrinsic evil. I’m proclaiming that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a conflict between the Fifth and Sixth Commandment. I’m proclaiming that a sovereign nation has not just a right, but indeed a duty, to defend its border and protect its citizens.
Oh, and that’s just since Thursday. Three years of this, and I’m worn out.
Have a look at the quote on our offertory envelopes for the Third Sunday of Lent: “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil, and must choose to follow the good and fight the evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”
I don’t even know where to begin. This kind of heresy makes the world, in fact, a terrible place; a haven for abortionists, jihadis, and sodomites, all of whom think their actions are good. This isn’t garden variety heresy, wherein a drop of poison is added to otherwise sound doctrine. No, this is a whopper. In short, it’s the opposite of what the Church teaches. Surely we can find a different envelope supplier.
This blog will remain anonymous, at least for now. It provides me certain options should things get ugly, which they surely will. Unfortunately, the main vehicle for my public defense of the faith will need to be facebook. There is just no other means to get the message out as effectively. I await with interest to be condemned by my Pollyanna Catholic friends and lauded by the Evangelicals.

docmx001, non veni pacem 20 Comments [2/26/2016 3:56:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Ivurm

Quote# 117034

Anti-government attorney Kory Langhofer argued over the weekend that the Supreme Court could continue to decide cases 5-4 in favor of conservatives after the death of Antonin Scalia because the deceased justice could effectively cast votes from the grave.

“There’s no Ouija board required to figure out how Justice Scalia would vote on these things, he’s already voted,” Langhofer told KPNX during a panel discussion on Sunday. “We’re at the second-to-last step in how these cases unfold when Justice Scalia died.”

“We know exactly what he thought,” Langhofer continued. “And it’s not unprincipled to say we should give affect to that.”

Attorney Thomas Ryan pointed out, however, that Langhofer’s theory was only wishful thinking.

“Justices, after they do the conferences can also change their minds,” he explained, recalling Chief Justice John Roberts’ last minute decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

“The general rule is dead justices don’t vote,” Ryan said. “I mean, that sounds cruel, but that’s it.”

Langhofer insisted that it is “incredibly speculative” to suggest that Scalia might have voted against his conservative ideology.

“They virtually never change their minds,” Langhofer opined. “It almost never happens.”

Kory Langhofer, Raw Story 44 Comments [2/25/2016 6:42:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Ibuki Mioda

Quote# 117028

Neanderthals—Descendants of Adam

A popular news item was trending this week on Facebook involving Neanderthals. Headlines declared things like “Neanderthals and humans interbred ‘100,000 years ago.’” Really, the idea that Neanderthals and humans share DNA from “interbreeding” isn’t new—it’s been known and well documented for years. What’s different about this news item is the timeline. The 100,000-year date, according to evolutionists, pushes the date back another 40,000 years.

Now, as we’ve said many times before, Neanderthals were human. They used fire, buried their dead with rituals, wore jewelry, possibly wore make-up, and even organized and heated the water in their homes. They were humans, made in God’s image and descended from Adam and Eve just like us. Neanderthals simply represent a people group that formed after the dispersion at the Tower of Babel, after the Flood, just a few thousand (not hundreds of thousands) years ago. They had unique characteristics that likely became more prominent as they were isolated from other people by the divinely created language barrier. So it’s to be expected in a biblical worldview that modern humans and Neanderthals share DNA.

You can learn more about Neanderthals on our website.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 28 Comments [2/25/2016 4:58:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 117027



Eric Hovind, Eric Hovind's Facebook page 44 Comments [2/25/2016 4:58:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 117026

Germany was the winner of the 2014 World Cup, defeating rivals which, unlike Germany, have adopted homosexual marriage.

Conservapedia, Conservapedia 40 Comments [2/25/2016 4:58:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 20

Quote# 117025

Do you think they should legalize child molestation?

Well, I am going to be provocative again. Molestation is only "molestation" when it is unwelcome. When it's welcome, it's "love," "sex," "petting" or something. When it's unwelcome, it should be illegal whatever the age of the person being molested. When it's welcome, it should be legal and unremarked.

Here's some more controversial stuff. I would like to see the age of consent lowered to 9 years. I'd like the law on rape to be tightened up so that it becomes harder to get a man convicted of rape when there is no evidence against him. I would like to see sex between close relatives living together legalised irrespective of the age of the partners. I would also like all victimless sex crime to be legalised.

jcoldstream, Yahoo! Answers 40 Comments [2/25/2016 4:58:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 31
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 117024

When Is a Butterfly Not a Butterfly?

Anyone familiar with the ministry of Answers in Genesis will know that we’ve said many times before that what you believe about the past influences how you interpret the observational evidence we see in the present.

This concept is so important that it’s addressed in the first exhibit inside our Creation Museum. It explains why creationists and evolutionists can look at the same evidence about origins and reach completely different conclusions. So if you start with the belief of slow and gradual change over millions of years, that’s how you will interpret the evidence we can study in the present. But if you start with God’s Word, then you see and interpret the evidence through the lens of Scripture and what it teaches us about history. And you know what? What we see in the present confirms what we read in God’s Word, not man’s made-up evolutionary story about the past.

“Butterfly-Like” Fossil Found

Well, a recent, popular news item provides a vivid reminder of this important principle. This news piece was reporting on Smithsonian scientists’ study of some well-preserved insect fossils. Supposedly, according to the evolution story, these “large butterfly-like insects known as Kalligrammatid lacewings” have been extinct for 120 million years and lived during the so-called Mesozoic Era.

Now, by closely observing these fossils, Smithsonian scientists discovered that these insects had elongated, tubular mouthparts “strikingly similar” to the proboscis of modern butterflies. Based on the presence of carbon in this “food tube,” the scientists concluded that they feasted on “sugary pollen drops” and served as pollinators. These insects also had eyespot patterns that might have contained melanin (pigment) and possibly bright colors and patterns—just like modern butterflies. And they even have fine scales on their wings—just like butterflies do. In fact, these insects seem so similar to butterflies that the researchers concluded that all of these butterfly features evolved twice due to so-called “convergent evolution.” This means that the researchers believe that “two distinct groups of organisms evolve similar traits as they interact to similar features in their environments.”

Evolutionists Refuse to Admit a Butterfly Is a Butterfly

So if they have mouths, feeding tubes, wings, scales, and maybe even pigment just like butterflies, why not call them butterflies? Well, these researchers can’t do that because butterflies supposedly didn’t evolve for another 50 million years! And, according to the evolutionists’ worldview, the plants that butterflies feed from also hadn’t evolved yet. So instead of interpreting these fossils as butterfly fossils and questioning their presuppositions about the evolutionary timeline for butterflies, the scientists call them something entirely different and say that evolution just evolved the same body design and features in strikingly similar ways twice. The verse 2 Peter 3:5 really sums up these scientists: they are “willingly ignorant.”

During my debate with Bill Nye “The Science Guy” two years ago, he implied that there aren’t any fossils out of place in the evolutionary tree and said that, “If you can find just one fossil that has swum between the layers, bring it on! You could change the world!” Well, there are plenty of examples—like these butterfly fossils! But instead of recognizing that they’ve discovered a fossil totally out of order within the evolutionary timeline, the evolutionists either adjust the timeline to make it fit, or they create a whole new species or kind of animal to explain the fossil!

So, it’s not about the evidence—it’s about an interpretation of the evidence! Evolution is just a story, and evolutionists will change the story to fit whatever they find! By the way, God’s Word never changes!

It’s a Worldview Debate

The origins debate isn’t science vs. religion as so many people think it is. It’s one worldview vs. a different worldview; man’s word about the past vs. God’s Word about history. It’s all about an interpretation of the evidence and what you believe about the past, because your belief about the past influences how you interpret the evidence in the present. As Christians, we need to start with God’s Word as we interpret the past. God does not lie (Titus 1:2), and His Word will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 31 Comments [2/25/2016 4:58:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 117022

In my opinion, the idea of “forcing” someone to carry a pregnancy is equivalent to the idea of forcing the grass to grow or the sun to rise and set. It’s natural. Just because you don’t interfere doesn’t mean that you’re somehow “forcing” the process to happen.

greater-than-the-sword, Tumblr 17 Comments [2/25/2016 4:55:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 117021

Boys and Girls and Geese

Use This Evolutionary Children’s Book To Teach Your Kids the Fairy Tale

Imagine a dad sitting down with his children to tell them a story. He begins, “Children, did you know you are related to every moose, every dog, every goose, every finch, every tortoise and every cat?”

The dad continues, “But it’s not just animals you are related to. You are also related to all living things, every plant too.”

Can you then imagine the children’s questions and the dad’s answers?

“Dad, am I related to a banana?”

“Of course, Son, you are related to everything—bananas, tapeworms, ticks, bacteria, flies, ants, bees, camels, pigs—yes, every living thing is related to you.”

Another child responds, “But, Dad. That’s a fairy tale—it doesn’t make sense.”

“Well, children, I have this new book that I’ll read to you called Charlie and The Tortoise.1 The author tells a story about a man named Charles Darwin who popularized an idea to explain how living things arose by themselves. Let me read you the story.”

Yes, there is a recently released children’s book that tries to indoctrinate children into believing that a fairy tale is true!

Notes about Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species are found at the end of the book. They include this statement:

His book showed how all living things are connected, and how animals and plants adapt over long periods of time!
The children’s book states the following:

After years of study, Charlie taught the world, that we’re all connected, every boy and girl. Every horse and every moose. Every dog and every cat. Every finch and every goose. Even tortoises that chat!
Now, what is the author’s main evidence to show children that all life is related and that all boys and girls evolved from ape-like creatures?

Well, it’s depicted in this diagram:



Now, isn’t that powerful evidence? Isn’t it obvious that different species of finches prove that all life is connected, and that boys and girls are related to all animals and plants? Unfortunately, generations of high school and college students have already been led to believe that speciation in finches is evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

Following the finch illustration, the book shows a diagram of reptiles supposedly evolving into birds, and ape-like creatures evolving into humans.



From variation in finches to reptiles becoming birds, and from ape-like creatures becoming humans! Actually, I think I might use this book with my own grandchildren to help them see that evolution is simply a fairy tale! Then I will take our grandkids to the Creation Museum and show them our display of Darwin’s finches, plus an exhibit on our dog skulls.



I would explain to my grandchildren that there is actually more variation in species of dog skulls than in finches. Then I would talk to them about the fact that finches remain finches and dogs remain dogs. I would then read God’s Word in Genesis out loud, where we are told that God created each kind of animal after its own kind. According to the Bible, we would expect each kind to produce its own kind—and that’s exactly what we observe in nature.

Sadly, many parents will read this new Darwin book for children and present the evolutionary content as true! To counter the massive indoctrination of evolution in popular books and videos, public schools, media, and museums, Answers in Genesis has made a large range of books, DVDs, and other resources available to help parents teach children the truth of Creation, the Fall, and the saving gospel.

What are the implications of teaching generations of children that they are just animals who are related to all living things like animals and plants? The more such a view permeates their thinking, the more they will see human life as nothing special. This would have an effect on how they view abortion, for example. After all, humans are just animals—if you can get rid of an animal you don’t want, why not also get rid of a child in the womb? It would also have an effect on how young people view suicide. After all, if we are just animals and we cease to exist when we die, what’s the point of living anyway? Unfortunately, there is an alarming increase in teenage suicide (as reported recently). Also, why not kill fellow humans if you don’t like them, as they are just animals anyway in a survival-of-the-fittest world?

Now don’t get me wrong. A young person will not wake up one day and say, “Oh, I’m just an evolved animal; therefore, I’m going to abort a baby, or kill someone, or commit suicide.” But in reality, what they are being taught concerning atheistic evolution will permeate their thinking. Over time, they will begin to act consistently with this evolutionary mindset that has saturated their worldview.

Indeed, evil ideas like atheistic evolution have evil consequences.

I urge you to do your best to raise up generations of children who understand that they are special—made in the image of God. But at the same time, we need to share with them that they have a problem called sin, and that’s why God sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sin so that the relationship with our God can be restored. After all, God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son to provide a gift of salvation for us.

No, we’re not related to geese, finches, dogs, cats, or bananas. We were created in the image of God, separate from all living things (Genesis 1:27). That’s why God sees us as so valuable, in fact, so much so that He Himself paid the price so we can be saved and live with Him for eternity.

To help your children understand the true purpose and meaning of life, bring them to the Creation Museum and take advantage of our More Kids Free program through June. Also, visit the Answers in Genesis online bookstore and obtain resources that will teach your children the truth about who they are, where they came from, what their problem is (sin), and what the solution is in Jesus Christ. And plan to bring them to the life-size Ark that opens July 7 here in Northern Kentucky and teach them the truth about God’s Word and its accounts of the Flood, Ark, and Christ coming to earth to offer salvation.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 41 Comments [2/25/2016 4:55:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 25
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 117020

Because we start from the right foundation, we’re going to get the right answer. Now, one of the things evolutionists commonly challenge us with is, “Well, you’re not scientists. You don’t make testable predictions. You just say ‘God did it, that’s the end of it.” This is a stereotype, a straw man, and it’s not true. For example, the most important question of the evolutionary model is, “How’s evolution supposed to work?” The answer: mutations. Now, young-earth creationists can predict the mutation rate for whatever DNA sequence you want better than the evolutionists can. So, the irony of this, if there’s ever a topic where the evolutionists should excel, that one topic is actually where the creationists are the strongest in terms of the biological model.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Answers in Genesis 21 Comments [2/25/2016 4:35:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 117016

Watch for this strategy:

A homosexual comes into your business and starts talking to you about your service or products. They act normal to their outward gender, intentionally. You're kind and helpful, focusing on serving them in whatever particular business you do or work at. However, you can sense something evil, something sinful about them and the slightest apprehension is noticeable, because the devil controlling them makes them aware that you can sense his presence. He then prompts them to mention they have a spouse (opposite gender spouse) and they watch your reaction closely. If your apprehension subsides, even in the slightest, at the mention of their "spouse", then they mark you as being homophobic and communicate that to all the friends in their network.

I'm not telling you this so you will hide your beliefs, just to warn you about a common strategy employed by demons to "root out" and identify those who love the LORD to those who are following the Devil's lies.

FoJC_Forever, Christian News Network 34 Comments [2/25/2016 4:28:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: Jocasta McFucken

Quote# 117015

Every kind of ethnic group is enormously sensitive to any slight. If one made a derogatory remark about the Kurds of Iran, dozens of voices would leap to their defense. But no one speaks out for businessmen, when they are attacked and insulted by everyone as a matter of routine. What causes this overwhelming injustice? The businessmen’s own policies: their betrayal of their own values, their appeasement of enemies, their compromises—all of which add up to an air of moral cowardice. Add to it the fact that businessmen are creating and supporting their own destroyers.

The sources and centers of today’s philosophical corruption are the universities . . . It is the businessmen’s money that supports American universities—not merely in the form of taxes and government handouts, but much worse: in the form of voluntary, private contributions, donations, endowments, etc. In preparation for this lecture, I tried to do some research on the nature and amounts of such contributions. I had to give it up: it is too complex and too vast a field for the efforts of one person. To untangle it now would require a major research project and, probably, years of work. All I can say is only that millions and millions and millions of dollars are being donated to universities by big business enterprises every year, and that the donors have no idea of what their money is being spent on or whom it is supporting. What is certain is only the fact that some of the worst anti-business, anti-capitalism propaganda has been financed by businessmen in such projects.

Money is a great power—because, in a free or even a semi-free society, it is a frozen form of productive energy. And, therefore, the spending of money is a grave responsibility. Contrary to the altruists and the advocates of the so-called “academic freedom,” it is a moral crime to give money to support ideas with which you disagree; it means: ideas which you consider wrong, false, evil. It is a moral crime to give money to support your own destroyers. Yet that is what businessmen are doing with such reckless irresponsibility.

Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand Lexicon 29 Comments [2/25/2016 4:24:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Ivurm