Quote# 121126

(Pages from a workbook used by the Institute of Basic Life Principles, the ministry founded by Bill Gothard.)




Institute of Basic Life Principles, Joe. My. God 49 Comments [8/17/2016 3:19:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 60
Submitted By: Ibuki Mioda

Quote# 121124

Kerri Walsh Jennings you are truly an inspiration for women! Wish you all the best for your career and family. Sadly there are some who doesn't have a great mindset like yours but we pro-life do hope that these people will realize someday of how important life is.

Just more proof that poor choicers really are pro-aborts.

3 Gold Medals and she didn't have to kill any of her children to win them - gasp!

There goes Hillary's number one talking point.

Way to go, Kerri - God bless you for choosing LIFE!

WorldGoneCrazy, Live Action News 20 Comments [8/16/2016 7:57:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 121122

When you sincerely want to please God, He is going to be pleased with you. Maybe you were the guy who kidnapped little Tina, raped her, and chopped her up into little pieces which the police recently discovered. Now Tina’s family hates your guts and they’ve been quoted in the news as declaring your actions to be unforgivable. But what does God say? Does He consult with Tina’s people before talking to you? No, He doesn’t. How God responds to you is going to depend on how your own soul is responding to Him. If you’re being an unrepentant little brat, then God is going to be convicting you to repent and threatening you with dire consequences if you don’t submit to His Authority. But if instead you are horrified by the depths to which you’ve sunk and you desperately want to get right with God somehow someway, then He is going to eagerly embrace you and help you start working on the underlying issues that motivated you to snatch little Tina in the first place.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 25 Comments [8/16/2016 7:57:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 121121

God is the only One we should be viewing as vital, priceless, and irreplaceable. While we should certainly be respecting other humans as creatures who God places a high value on, at the end of the day, all created beings are expendable. We shouldn’t be viewing each other as our lifelines, because we’re so not. All human relationships are temporary at best, and most of the people we meet in this world will end up in Hell, thus eliminating any opportunity to develop positive relationships with them in eternity. Naturally we resist facing these facts, but ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. It is God who shapes reality for us, and the reality He’s made for us is one in which He is the only One who can be counted on to stay with us no matter what. He is the only One who can satisfy our souls, and He is the only One who is capable of taking care of us. So it is God we need to be depending on, trusting, and submitting to. When He takes loved ones before we want Him to, we need to focus our energy on respecting His right to do whatever He wants with His own property.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 9 Comments [8/16/2016 7:57:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 121113

(In response to Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American Muslim woman, winning the Democratic nomination in a race for a place in the Minnesota House of Representatives.)

People are so stupid. There is no such thing as good Muslim. The people there will learn the hard way as usual. But think about it she won in an area full of bad people and young college idiots. People in the United States will one day see Muslims have no place here
Until then we can only hope we are ready for the bloody right to come when America realizes these parasites should be eradicated.

Marc Forman, WND 27 Comments [8/15/2016 3:31:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 24
Submitted By: Ibuki Mioda

Quote# 121111

Conservative talk show host Michael Savage said yesterday that he finds Hillary Clinton’s voice to be “very offensive,” expressing dismay at her “grating,” “hard voice.”

“What do you fear most about a Hillary presidency, other than hearing her grating voice for eight years?” he asked. “That’s the part I can’t take, it’s listening to her, that hard voice. It’s not that it scares me, it offends me deeply. I find it very offensive.”

He added: “I don’t like women who are not feminine. I don’t like hard women who are like men without, let’s put it this way, men without pants.”

Savage, a close ally of Donald Trump, said he doesn’t understand “why women are so excited about, ‘Oh she’s the first woman.’ In what sense is she the first woman president? What does that matter?”

While speaking to a caller, Dan, who said that he was also fearful of “listening to that shrill voice for the next eight years” along with Clinton’s “lust for absolute power,” Savage said that Clinton “will continue to attack the white male portion of the population” and “has a vendetta for white males.”

Clinton, according to Savage, plans on “importing” new voters and believes, “Give us all the minorities, give us all the gays, give us all the immigrants because eventually we will win by demographics. How can any white male ever vote for a Democrat? I’ll never understand. I don’t understand it because they’re digging their own grave.”

Michael Savage, Right Wing Watch 34 Comments [8/15/2016 3:27:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Ibuki Mioda

Quote# 121107

Why would anyone buy into Darwin's theory? He wasn't even a scientist, he was an author; and one who didn't even believe his own theory.

If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

Why isn't there a cross species jump anywhere in the fossil record?

It doesn't even make logical sense to believe in evolution when one looks at the mathematical probability. For example, take a relatively simple 200 component organism. That organism would require 200 successive and successful mutations. The chances of that happening are 1 in 10 to the 60th power. Borel's Law states that anything with a probability more than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is mathematically absurd and has a zero chance of ever happening. That's just a simple organism, nothing like the extremely complex organisms that human are.

This is what I meant when I said that it takes more faith to not believe in God (thus believing in evolution) than it does to believe in Him.


4Given, Christian News Network 77 Comments [8/15/2016 3:26:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 26
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 121106

Taken together, does it make sense? If we hold to these presuppositions, then we are saying that: 1) God made our bodies to naturally and reliably produce babies whenever a man and a woman have intercourse at the right time of the month; and 2) God expects us to find ways to either time our relations or develop other techniques and technologies to control when conception will occur so as to limit our number of children.

Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 7, for husbands and wives not to deprive one another, seem to run counter to the idea of avoiding relations at a certain time of the month in an effort to prevent conception. The one reason Paul cites as acceptable is a spiritual reason, and then only for a limited time and by pre-agreement. Trying to consistently avoid relations on likely fertile days will invariably run into conflict with the command to not deprive one another and to meet one another’s needs.

Also it is not so easy to know with certainty when the fertile days will be. Many women's cycles have just enough irregularity to keep you guessing. Even with the use of special thermometers and temperature charting, efforts to either conceive or avoid conception often fail. In fact, a great many pregnancies result from relations at times when the charts say there should be no fertility!

Isn't it interesting how differently God made many animals? There is no problem knowing when a female dog or goat is fertile. The female knows, as does all the males around. When the female is in heat, she is receptive and conception seems to almost always occur. But the animals don't use this knowledge to try and prevent births, but rather for the opposite reason. All mating occurs when conception is almost assured.

So why would God make birth control so easy for the animals but so hard for humans? Perhaps because the animals would instinctively follow His commands to be fruitful and multiply while the humans would tend to resist and rebel - desiring to control every aspect of their lives themselves? Does God really desire us to control the number and timing of our children in accordance with what we think is best, while also commanding husbands and wives to meet each others needs regularly? If so, why didn't He give us a "fertility off" switch? Think about it!

If God desired every husband and wife to regularly have relations and, if this would naturally result in pregnancies every 9-12 months, but He only wanted them to have just a few children spaced apart at their own choice, then what was He thinking?? Look at how difficult He made it to prevent and time births while having regular marital relations! Even with all of our modern science and medicines we have a hard time doing this with a high degree of reliability and without inflicting other harm to our bodies through surgery or hormonal tampering.

Think about the different forms of birth control man has been able to invent after these many thousands of years. Consider the ones that have very serious side effects for some or sometimes result in abortions. Consider the other devices and how unnatural they seem, what they take away from the experience and yet how they occasionally fail also. Consider even "natural family planning" and its dependence on very regular cycles, monitoring, the requirement of sometimes refraining from relations when they may be most needed by one of the partners. And look at the frequency at which pregnancy still results in spite of these attempts. Does birth control really look like a part of God's wonderful design for us?

Is this really the way God designed us? And is this really what He expects us to do with His design? If anything, the evidence is that God favors a sort of birth control than maximizes conception rather than restrains it. For the Jews under the Law, God prescribed certain times during and just following the woman's menstruation when relations were forbidden. The point when relations were again permitted coincides closely with the approximate time of a woman's greatest fertility. Doesn't this sound more like a plan to encourage large families rather than small ones?

Is use of birth control like use of medicine? I know some compare birth control to modern medicine. If we think we should make use of modern medicine to help us when we are sick, and not just trust God alone, how is that any different from using birth control? Well, for most of us, birth control has nothing to do with something going wrong in our body. Our bodies were designed to produce babies. Becoming pregnant is not a sickness from a bacteriological or viral attack, nor is it a breakdown in our body systems. Modern birth control medicines and devices are uses of modern science to thwart rather than aid God's design.

Where else will this viewpoint lead? Much as Darwinism had an impact on people's worldview far beyond the scientific theory itself, even so the worldview that accepts birth control as both a right and a responsibility has far reaching impact. Without this acceptance of birth control and its philosophical justification, we would not have legalized abortions today. Without its widespread availability we would probably not have nearly the incidence of immorality and infidelity that we have today. Even one of the very things birth control was supposed to help - out of wedlock births - has in fact become much worse! Faith in birth control has encouraged many more to be immoral with less fear of consequences. Yet neither the birth control methods, nor their personal application of them, are perfect, resulting in more rather than less out of wedlock births.

Where next? A great deal of research is being devoted to genetics today. Ostensibly the results are to help prevent and repair genetic problems prior to birth. But when the accepted philosophy is one of planning and choosing your children and "no unwanted children", the use may be something altogether different. Would not many want to choose everything about their child? Will it be a boy or a girl? With what eye and hair color and shade of skin? What facial features, height and build, or personality type would you like?

Will the scientists ever achieve this? I don't know, but I am sure many would jump at the chance to use it if it were available! If you believe life is all a matter of biology and chance without God, just how far will you go to try and control life? Have we perhaps already gone too far with our efforts to control things that God did not intend us to control?


David Crank, unlessthelordmagazine.com 31 Comments [8/14/2016 4:38:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: PETF

Quote# 121104

<i> continuing</i>...
Consider the Fruit. So what was the fruit - the result of widespread acceptance of birth control in America? Within a period of about 40-50 years we had widespread promiscuity, more out of wedlock babies than ever before, rampant marriage infidelity and divorce, and the legalization of abortion with millions of babies being killed. Has it done wonderful things to benefit families? Well, it did result in smaller families for most people. Were the smaller families a good thing? They might seem so in terms of higher living standards and more space per person in homes. But I think you will also find generally weaker families, with less helping and caring for one another. Families in the 1800s weren't perfect, but it seems like there were a lot of large, close and caring families then.
Consider God's Commands. Twice in Genesis God gives the command for us to be fruitful and multiply. There is no record of His ever withdrawing or modifying this instruction. Some will argue that God only meant this to apply for a certain period, until there were lots of people living all around the globe. But without God ever saying "enough", there is no way for us to conclude when it is enough, or if there will ever be enough in God's judgment. Without further revelation, we disobey at our own peril.

But of course this command was given to the human race as a whole. From other Scriptures we know God does not require everyone to marry and that we are not to engage in relations outside of marriage. Also we know that God Himself does not choose to bless everyone with children. So, by God's own choice, not everyone can be fruitful and multiply. But if anything, that just puts the greater requirement of this command on those who do marry and whom God enables to have children. If those of us who are married and able to have children, refuse to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth, then just who will? As Christians we have the opportunity to further advance the kingdom of God simply by having children and leading as many of them as possible to the Lord. If any people should be having lots of babies, it is Christians.

David Crank, unlessthelordmagazine.com 18 Comments [8/14/2016 4:28:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: PETF

Quote# 121103

Birth Control in America. Birth control was first popularized in America by a few women's rights advocates in the early 1900s. Most prominent and influential was Margaret Sanger, founder of the "Birth Control Federation of America" which later became "Planned Parenthood" - a more pro-family sounding name which helped improve the acceptability of birth control. Of course Planned Parenthood was never about truly planning to be a parent - it was about planning how NOT to be a parent or to have as few children as possible.

Prior to this time, birth control was almost universally rejected by Christians in America. It was viewed as being sinful and interfering with God. Most Christians held to the same views as the great Protestant reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.). These same views clearly dated back at least as far as the early church fathers.

But in Europe in the previous century, Malthus had argued the dangers of overpopulation. Others had joined him in concern that the lower classes were breeding too rapidly, damaging the genetic stock of their nations! Birth control was first advocated primarily for the poor, but it was the rich and the immoral who really saw its value. When Margaret Sanger began her association with these European free thinkers, much of the “right to choose” she was personally looking for was the right to choose infidelity and immorality without fear of resulting pregnancy. She made very full use of her new rights in spite of her marriage.

Are many "Pro-Life" Christians more "Pro-Choice" than they think? The "Pro-Choice" position is that every woman has the right to choose for herself whether or not to have a baby. The "Pro-Life" position is one of giving babies a chance for life outside the womb.

Though most Christians consider themselves "Pro-Life" and are clearly anti-abortion, many seem close to the "Pro-Choice" camp in what they believe and actually practice. Though generally denying a choice for an abortion, many will insist that every woman does have the right and the responsibility to choose for herself, if and when she will have a baby.

Most Christians today wholeheartedly endorse this right to choose, that is championed by the “Pro-Choice” groups. The difference is that most Christians believe the choice is already made, intentional or not, once conception has occurred. But the "Pro-Choice" groups maintain that the right to choose continues up to the point of birth. Focusing only on the woman’s rights, this seems a logical end for this viewpoint. If every woman has a fundamental right to choose whether she will have a child, what difference is there whether she prevents it's life from starting or if failing that she ends its life before it is born? Either way there is one less life and she has avoided the birth experience and any subsequent responsibility for the child. [Yes, in the one instance a life is destroyed - murdered. But from their point of view, what is the difference? In both instances the birth does not take place. They don’t see such a big difference between preventing the birth at the point of conception or doing so shortly thereafter.]

Though Christians are mostly opposed to abortion, some favor certain exceptions such as rape or incest. Others fail to realize the fact that certain forms of birth control are also producing early abortions. Increasingly Christians are becoming aware of how these forms of birth control actually work and avoiding them. But you can be very anti-abortion without being very pro-life. Few are pro-life in the sense of granting life in the first place, by encouraging as many children as God will provide or seeking to raise as many children for the Lord as possible.
Uncomfortable Similarity. Now I know some of this sounds really hard, comparing advocates of birth control with advocates of abortion. Of course there is a difference. With abortion an already living child is murdered. With birth control, the gift of life is mostly never given in the first place. The point is to get you to think about the uncomfortable similarity between the abortionists and many Christians who believe in birth control. Consider that the same people who finally convinced the churches to accept and even advocate birth control are those who also have championed abortion, immorality and a good many other things contrary to God's Word.

David Crank, unlessthelordmagazine.com 11 Comments [8/14/2016 4:20:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: PETF

Quote# 121102

Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that gun-rights proponents might take action to defend the Second Amendment from a liberal Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton were elected president – and was immediately accused of inciting an assassination attempt against her.

'Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,' Trump said, repeating a frequent claim he makes on the campaign trail.

'And by the way, if – if she gets to pick her judges, [there's] nothing you can do, folks.'

Then without explanation he added: 'Although, the Second Amendment people – maybe there is. I don't know. But I tell you what: That would be a horrible day if – if Hillary gets to put her judges in.'

Donald Trump, Daily Mail 19 Comments [8/14/2016 4:20:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 121100

"Equalism” is really an invention of the white elite, just as “communism” was

Biff, Abagond  13 Comments [8/14/2016 4:20:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 121099

Why a problem to be transcended? Because this evolutionary selected instinct is characterized by xenophobia, fear of those groups who are different, and preference for one's ethnic group. But why is this a problem if it is a behavioral disposition selected by nature for its survival advantages? Because this is a panel of Western scientists committed to the idea that diversity is a strength and that Western societies must be open to mass immigration. Why? Because these scientists are members of a European-created culture that has come to believe that European ethnocentrism, and only this ethnocentrism, is harmful to humanity. Therefore, Europeans, and only Europeans, must work towards universal forms of community and human solidarity without outside-ness and without fear of the other.

The word "self-delusion" came often to my mind as I heard these speakers. Self-delusion is defined as the act or state of deceiving or deluding oneself. A common example, the dictionary tell us, "is a person who believes himself to be much smarter than he actually is." But these scientists are smart. Perhaps the definition by Voltaire would apply: "The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe." But the self-delusion here is even worse since these scientists have found reasons (based on their life-long research) not to believe whatever it is they want us to believe, but they still believe what they are ideologically expected to believe. And they are doing this openly in front of a large audience without anyone pondering over this self-imposed contradiction.

So, who is irrational? Those who fear the mass colonization of their countries by out-groups, or these scientists? These panelists are not the only cases of irrational reactions by researchers facing findings that question the mandated program of diversity. A well-known one is Harvard professor Robert Putnam's reaction to his own research discovery that ethnic diversity decreases trust and co-operation in communities. But his liberal convictions persuaded him to keep this research hidden for half a decade "until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity". The proposals essentially came down to additional, more effective methods of indoctrination in favor of diversity. As he put it, "the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies is to create a new, broader sense of 'we'".

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian 10 Comments [8/14/2016 4:19:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 121097

Almost all the sports were invented by Whites including the very notion of competition. Whites win most of the contests in the Olympics, totally the Winter ones, and the majority of the contests in the summer, even though they are a minority in the world.

Edward Norton, Eurocanadian 20 Comments [8/14/2016 11:56:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 121095

But the evidence we have so far is that only in the case of intra-European mixing do we have evidence of successful assimilation to a common "American" or "Canadian" culture. Canadians in the 1960s from different European backgrounds were well assimilated, despite their ethnic differences, to Canada's Anglo heritage. Once we look at the data for black and White integration, in the case of the United States, for which we have the most data, or, for that matter, White and Indian integration in Canada, Australia, and the US, we find that tensions, ethnic segregation in places of living, where children go to schools, and in cultural activities, have not declined one bit, even though all blacks and Aboriginals now enjoy the same civic rights. The evidence shows, to the contrary, that the closer to each other different races live, the less tolerant they are of each other.

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian 11 Comments [8/14/2016 7:38:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 121094

Japan, Korea, and many other countries today have a high degree of homogeneity, including the Nordic countries Sachs mentions, but none of them are engaged in wars of exclusion and violence against other ethnic groups in other places. Why then is everyone presuming that if Western countries decide to end mass immigration they are thereby engaged in acts of exclusion and violence? The evidence is clearly pointing in the opposite direction: violence and rapes against out-groups have increased dramatically in those Nordic countries that decided to "enrich" themselves with diversity. Britain was a very peaceful country (devoid of hatred towards other groups) when it was overwhelmingly populated by native Brits in the 1960s.

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian 13 Comments [8/14/2016 7:38:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 121088

Everything is religious. There's no escaping it; there's no getting away from it. The only ones who don't realize this are those who haven't taken the time to do the research.

Take this symbol here for an example. It's the logo for Paramount Pictures. Looks simple enough on the surface - but when you dig deep you'll learn that it's anything but simple or ordinary.

This logo for Paramount Pics is actually a very highly religious symbol. It actually borders on the occult. But you wouldn't know this if you weren't educated on a few key things. So I'll break it down for you just to prove my point.

These aren't just ordinary stars in this logo. These are *fallen* stars. Fallen stars from the biblical perspective are indicative of fallen angels who left their first heavenly estate in order to come to Earth, get with human women and create their own genetic line of hybrid creatures: half human/half angel.

God judged the old world during the days of Noah with a catastrophic flood that was necessary to rid the world of these hybrid creatures and the ill effects it had on the rest of nature. We have evidence of this world wide flood event found all over the planet today.

Only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were spared of the human race; along with a select species of genetically untainted animals and other species from the world of nature.

The mountain used in this logo is no ordinary mountain. This is the mountain where the fallen angels came to when they arrived on Earth: believed by Bible scholars to be Mount Hermon - known in Arabic as Jabal al-Shaykh, which means "Mountain of the Chief.'

According to ancient Semetic traditions it was believed to be where the palace of the god 'Baal' was located. This mountain range separates the borders between Lebanon and Syria, and has the highest manned United Nations post in the world sitting on top of there today. Interesting that they chose that particular spot - the palace of Baal and the place where a group of angels committed their sin - to set up their highest command post.

This angelic incursion is believed to have taken place during the days of Jared (Genesis 5:16-20). It's recorded in greater detail in Genesis 6:1-4. I use the International Standard Version here because it gives greater clarity for our modern understanding:

"Now after the population of human beings had increased throughout the earth, and daughters had been born to them, some divine beings noticed how attractive human women were, so they took wives for themselves from a selection that pleased them.

So the LORD said, “My Spirit won’t remain with human beings forever, because they’re truly mortal. Their lifespan will be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. These children became the heroes and legendary figures of ancient times." Genesis 6:1-4

This Bible passage tells us some stunning info: Not only did angels (described as divine beings) come to Earth and take human wives for themselves: they actually fathered children with these women. And those children were not human beings at all. They had human attributes; but equally had supernatural angelic ones as well. And because of this they became rulers over mankind.

One day we'll realize that what we call 'mythology' today is actually real history!

Many believe that this genetic bloodline of hybrid angel-men survived the great flood and are still with us today. And these people are the real hidden movers and shakers on planet Earth.

I'm not here to convince you one way or another. I'm simply pointing out how a major motion picture company decided to tell that exact same story about the fallen angels and their weird genetic offspring by using that story as their corporate logo. It's a religious story found only in religious texts, including our Bible.

One day Christians will wake up and realize that EVERYTHING is religious: from your Nike tennis shoes (named after the Roman goddess of victory) to Hermes high end fashion (named in honor of the Greek messenger god Hermes); to the way that banks are designed to look like ancient temples.

We don't need to separate ourselves from our religious foundations as Christians in order to feel more relevant to a sinful world. The powers that be which move and shake this world are highly religious. They believe in our God and His Son more than we do! And they're not afraid to let it be known.

The majority of them just choose to side with the other team against God - which will ultimately be to their own undoing.

So embrace your Christianity. Be proud of your religion. And take time to read something other than gossip and silly non-relevant news stories that have zero bearing on your life.

Christians need to stop championing ignorance and LEARN. Read, educate yourselves and you'll have a better understanding about what's happening in the world around you. That's what I do. I suggest you do the same.



Mack Major, Facebook 38 Comments [8/13/2016 10:34:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 20

Quote# 121082

A judge in Columbus, OH was told by a 71-year-old defendant that he should read the Bible before deciding on a sentence for her crime of vandalizing a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The Columbus Dispatch reported on the courtroom exchange, which took place on Monday when Common Pleas Judge Guy L. Reece was accepting a guilty plea from Rachel A. Jackson

“Do you go to church?” Jackson asked Reece.

“Ma’am –,” the judge began.

“You read Genesis 1:27-28,” Jackson said as her attorney led her from the room.

“I’ll see you on the 29th, ma’am,” said the judge, which is when Jackson is scheduled for sentencing.

On the morning of March 7, Jackson drove to the Planned Parenthood clinic on East Main Street, where surveillance cameras caught her spray-painting on the building, “SATAN DEN OF BABY KILLERS GOD SEE ALLLL (sic) MARK 9:42.”

She pleaded guilty in court and explained her actions by saying, “I believe what the Bible says about the little children.”

Reece responded by saying, “No one wants to belittle your religious beliefs, but the Bible also talks about render unto Caesar that which should be rendered unto Caesar, I believe.”

“That’s right,” Jackson replied.

“All right, so remember all the Bible, not just some of the Bible,” said the judge.

A court-ordered psychiatric evaluation found that Jackson suffers from “serious mental illness,” but also found that she is of sound enough mind to stand trial and to assist her attorney in her defense.

Jackson was not taken to jail, but on May 31, she was placed under house arrest after she returned to the Planned Parenthood surgical center and threatened to “damage or destroy” the facility.

Reece explained to Jackson that her behavior in the coming weeks would greatly impact her sentence. As her attorney led her from the courtroom, she said, “And I’m not crazy.”

The Bible verse Jackson recommended to Reece states, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”

Rachel A. Jackson, Raw Story 18 Comments [8/13/2016 4:33:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 121081

I must preface this by admitting that I cannot claim to be a pure minded Neoreactionary. I don't know what I am exactly, but I know that Libertarianism and Neoreactionary ideas make more sense to me than anything else, that said...

The government structure I would prefer is a representative republic, with strict controls on who holds voting power and eligibility for office. I think the simplest, fairest, most transparent requirement for voting rights would be one of either:

a) current employment in the private sector
b) ownership of property which clearly generates employment in the private sector

Of course, this requires clear definitions of what constitutes "private sector" employment. In the U.S., the line between companies who live in the free market and those rent-seeking through legislation are blurred. The core idea is to preserve political and leadership power for those living in the marketplace, those adding to the wealth, and those carrying the burden of responsibility for the rest.

This state solution is surely not perfect, but it did accomplish a couple key things: it takes all voting power from the welfare dependent degenerates and government employees who are dependable at voting themselves raises and reckless authority. Admittedly, it also strips power from the people who were once responsible market participants but suffered injuries which placed them on disability or the retired private sector workers, but sacrifices must be made.

This system also served to remove a staggering number of female voters, while not discriminating against women specifically, but just those in rent-seeking jobs and life roles.

On a shallow level, this government would revert strongly back to being controlled by healthy, while, males. But, eliminating people based on just gender, race, and disability is unnecessary and I'd say even immoral. What IS NOT immoral is taking power from the irresponsible, degenerate, children who suck resources without adding anything.

rickster67, r/DarkEnlightenment 15 Comments [8/13/2016 4:33:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Dr. Killjoy

Quote# 121080

Link to "Chinese Democracy Isn't Inevitable" (The Atlantic) which can't be used:

"The top of the China model is characterized by political meritocracy—the idea that high-level officials should be selected and promoted on the basis of ability and virtue."

Republics essentially are like this. The Founding Fathers wanted only a small percentage of the overall population to hold power. These top level men were landowners.

So generally the goal is fewer people holding power and those people have higher virtue than average.

Degenerate Marxism / Feminism / Racism seeks the opposite goals by calling virtue privilege and then trying to destroy virtue.

NeoreactionSafe, r/DarkEnlightenment 6 Comments [8/13/2016 4:33:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Dr. Killjoy

Quote# 121079

Republican voters in the Minnesota Second Congressional District just nominated former right-wing radio host Jason Lewis as their nominee, despite criticisms from his own party.

Lewis’s homophobic and racist rhetoric came back to haunt him when the Deputy Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party weighed in on the candidate’s attempt to score the nomination.

In 2009, Lewis complained that “real Americans” believe Hurricane Katrina victims were “a bunch of whiners.” Last year he claimed, “the median income for blacks in America would make them rich in most African nations, not most – all.” He went on to argue that the United States government lacks the authority to outlaw slavery.”

“In fact, if you really want to be quite frank about it, how does somebody else owning a slave affect me?” Lewis said in an audio commentary added to his book Power Divided is Power Checked: The Argument for States’ Rights. “It doesn’t. If I don’t think it is right, I won’t own one, and people always say, ‘Well, if you don’t want to marry somebody of the same sex, you don’t have to, but why tell somebody else they can’t?’ Uh, you know if you don’t want to own a slave, don’t. But don’t tell other people they can’t.”

The commentary was added after the Supreme Court declared laws barring couples from same-sex marriages were unconstitutional and not long after Lewis declared his candidacy for the House seat. Lewis has also come out against transgender people using their bathroom of choice, calling it “an abomination.”

As Lewis left his radio business, he told listeners he was “going Gault,” a reference to the Ayn Rand book Atlas Shrugged. In the novel, John Galt leads a revolt of elite business owners who turn their backs on civilization to build their own society and reject paying into the government system. “Going Gault” is a cry for someone to avoid paying taxes and avoid contributing to a capitalist system where one works for money and then buys things with the money.

Lewis is not only homophobic, not only has controversial views about African Americans and the country’s history with slavery, he attacked single women as “ignorant and “non-thinking.”

Fusion cites a November 2012 broadcast of Lewis’ show in which he says, “You’ve got a vast majority of young single women who couldn’t explain to you what GDP means. You know what they care about? They care about abortion. They care about abortion and gay marriage. They care about ‘The View.’ They are non-thinking.”

Despite the claim that he was “going Galt,” Lewis declared his intentions to run for Congress and has been begging for money for the last year. He’s spent their money on capitalist things like fundraisers on Capitol Hill, yard signs, print advertising in for corporate overlords, video production and $6,288 in payroll taxes to the federal government he once said he opposed, according to FEC reports.

While the Minnesota Republican Party spent a lot of time talking about how unelectable Lewis is and distancing themselves from him and his past statements, he’s now their candidate for Congress and they’ll have to work to elect him.

Jason Lewis, Raw Story 12 Comments [8/13/2016 4:33:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 121077

Everyone has had a time in their life when they have been rejected or turned down by someone they were interested it, even the most “beautiful” of people. These encounters are either dismissed by a simple phrase: “Sorry, I’m not interested.” Or the more common: “You’re just not my type.” However, more often then not the line, “You’re just not my type,” has been used and associated with racial preference.

In 2014, it is unfortunate that race continues to be an issue of social segregation and particularly in the dating scene. Although there are many people who are willing to befriend people of different cultures, races, and ethnicities, but less likely to date them. The friendliness often ends when romantic or sexual relations are involved. Despite making claims that they are “not racist,” these people provide excuses such as: “we don’t have anything in common” or “I’m just not attracted to (insert race here) people.”

[...]

Often people do not perceive racial preferences as something negative. They fail to understand how their sexual desires can be considered racist because of the belief that it is “natural” to either not be attracted or overly attracted to people of different races. We need to acknowledge the racial reasoning behind who finds whom attractive or not is a form of subconscious racism that leads to racist practices.

Everyone should be accountable for their actions and these dating apps should also be accountable. They are enabling racist attitudes by designing features that give users the ability to only be matched with, or see other users of, a particular race. Both Grindr and Jack’d have filters, which allow the tailoring of your search results to only view people of a certain race or races that you desire. Not to mention they also include the problematic and superficial body type features such as desired height and weight.

Why is so much emphasis placed on ethnicity and race? Why are we not challenging the way race, alongside weight, height, body type, and relationship status, are acceptable dating deal breakers?

You may argue that these apps only provide these features per request of the consumer—consumer demand. However by creating these features, these apps promote the conditions of further racial segregation and racist attitudes. What may be marketed as only a small group of users choosing racial preference has a consequence of opening the door for more users to be “acceptable” racists and take advantage of these features to further discrimination. How you choose your type or preference is not out of ignorance because it attributes certain characteristics to entire groups of people; it is a racist logic in which racism can be understood as the belief in distinct racial groups and all members of each racial group possess characteristics and abilities specific to that race.

Dating sites suggest that we are all humans searching for acceptance by one another through some form of partnership. What would you decide about racial preferences– are you racist?

Denio Lourenco Jr., The Feminist Wire 22 Comments [8/13/2016 4:17:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 121075

Trump and about a quarter to maybe half of the GOP are the only ones not under the complete control of the globalist, communist, Central Banker run NWO.

Hillary is the one with no support. But the Zionist, communist owned media are putting out fake polls and doing hit pieces on Trump nearly everyday. They're terrified of the man because he's for America and not in the pocket of the Muslim terrorists and their globalist handlers.

If they do here what they've done to Europe you'll be looking at the very real possibility of Civil War and a coup d'etat from the part of the American Military and Pentagon not under central banker, communist control.

People who value freedom and will not live under a globalist police state with muslim terror groups used to instill fear in the population and take away rights will not go down quietly.

CK78, City Data 21 Comments [8/12/2016 2:17:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: ScrappyB

Quote# 121073

Hollywood in particular is obsessed with pedophilia, which is a common theme in numerous of producer Clint Eastwood's movies. At some point in Eastwood's movies, the viewer's mind is taken to the issue of child molesting, such as in his film, “The Hereafter.” In the film, “Mystic River,” Eastwood's film portrays a Catholic priest as a psychotic ruthless child molester (a pederast). The movie centers around this dark theme until the end. What's with Hollywood's infatuation with raping and sodomizing underaged children?

It's not just Mr. Eastwood. In Tom Hanks' movies, “Forrest Gump” and “The Green Mile,” there are themes of child rape in both films. Ironically, Hollywood is a hotbed (no pun intended) of adultery, fornication, homosexuality and child abuse.

In real life, Hollywood is a Devil's playground, ground zero in the United States for child molesting, particular by film producers.

David J. Stewart, Jesus-is-Savior.com 30 Comments [8/12/2016 2:16:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 121072

(veganism is not at all accessible to everyone. my diet due to my disability is not a fucking “taste preference”. vegans are often classist, ableist, and racist. when we criticise your bigotry, maybe listen instead of invalidating us and reducing the many valid reasons to not be vegan to a “taste preference”. fuck off OP.)

If you didn’t do a single iota of research on how to lessen your impact, you don’t get to talk, if you didn’t seek out vegans with your disability - as the vegan community is large and vast, you don’t get to talk, if you do not reflect on the language you use that degrades animals or the other everyday products that exploit animals, you do not get to talk. If you don’t understand that 99 percent of the animal eating and using community is done purely out of hatred of animals,- born from systematic oppression of animals, you don’t get to talk. Why don’t YOU understand that the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE that IS thing single reason they use to continue hurting animals? Point of fact, when carnists are challenged that they don’t really like the “taste of meat”, their immediate reaction is to defend that they do. Like on This post here

IF YOU EVER ACTUALLY LISTENED AND WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS YOU WOULD KNOW THAT VEGANISM IS NOT A DIET.
AND WANT TO KNOW IF IT IS ACCESSIBLE TO YOU INSTEAD OF PRETENDING ITS NOT.

SO WHY WON’T YOU LISTEN TO THE MANY VALID REASONS VEGANS HAVE AND THE EXAMINATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS AND THE ARRAY OF DISABLED VEGANS THAT ARE PART OF IT?

Strategicgoat, Tumblr 23 Comments [8/12/2016 2:16:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Ivurm