“I must have missed the moment that racism ended, I wonder when that was.”

As it reads on Yahoo Answers:

If white people stand up agaisnt Obama, they are called racist?

Question: if white people openly talk about there distain of Obama LIBERALS come back with, your racist! But what do they say to black people that are against Obama? A simple google search can prove that Obama’s ratings with African Americans are at an all time low. So are Blacks racist to? If Martin Luther King was here, he would be leading a group of Americans who are agaisnt Obama. MLK was A smart man! To bad Obama couldn’t have been like him.

Answer: Just look at the news over the past few weeks/months, Zimmerman defending himself is called racist, but two blacks murdering a toddler in his stroller is not, three blacks beating a 13yo half to death is not, a black rodeo clown making fun of Hillary is not, but a white rodeo clown making fun of Obama is, a black beating an 88yo Vet to death is not racist, a group of blacks gunning down a jogger is not racist (even though they have tweets and text that show it was racially motivated).

I hate to say it because I have many black friends but I honestly see a race war coming unless the like of Sharpton and Jackson stop their race baiting and demand justice for all instead of inciting racial divide for their own gain.

*********************

So US presidents means: a racist-deist.

“From the 1820s until the late 1850s, as the country (United States) moved unstoppably toward civil war, presidents reverted back to the safer territory of Almighty Being and Divine Providence.

In his first inaugural, Abraham Lincoln referred to the “Almighty ruler of nations,” but by the time of his second, in 1865 at the end of the Civil War — a speech famously inscribed at his memorial in Washington, D.C. — Lincoln talked of God. Lincoln’s words:

“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.”

From Lincoln’s time forward, most presidents have invoked God in their inaugural speeches. Theodore Roosevelt was a notable exception.

The word “God” doesn’t even show up in an inaugural speech until 1821, when James Monroe vowed during his second inaugural to carry out his presidential duties “with a firm reliance on the protection of Almighty God.”

Washington referred to “that Almighty Being,” Adams invoked “His providence,” and Jefferson spoke of “that Being in whose hands we are.”

Chester A. Arthur added the phrase “so help me God” to the presidential oath in 1881, when he was sworn in after the assassination of James Garfield. Every president since has added it, too.[1]

From the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 — which most observers view as the beginning of the modern presidency — to the end of Carter’s term in January 1981, Presidents gave 229 major addresses. Forty years ago, something remarkable happened: A U.S. President concluded a major address with the words “God bless America.” Today, that would not be a big deal. At the time, however, it was unprecedented. In fact, it was the first time in modern history that it had happened. President Richard Nixon’s use of “God bless America” was the only time the phrase passed a President’s lips.[2]

Some time passed and Nixon also turned out to be the first president of the United States to resign to the presidency. Why? Because of the Watergate Scandal. Thank you, God.

Then President Ronald Reagan appeared and made “God bless America” the omnipresent political slogan that it is today. He used the phrase to conclude his dramatic nomination acceptance address at the Republican Party convention in July 1980, and once in office, made it his standard sign-off. Presidents since Reagan have followed suit, and the shift in presidential rhetoric could hardly be more striking.

From Reagan’s inauguration through the six-year mark of the Former George W. Bush Administration, Presidents gave 129 major speeches, yet they said “God bless America” (or the United States) 49 times. It’s a pattern we unearthed in our book The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America.

Since World War I, every incoming president has made the God reference.

“If you look at the world wars, both of them, and how religious language was used, it’s pretty incredible how effective both [Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt] used religious imagery to swing public opinion from an otherwise deeply entrenched reluctance to enter into war into an almost crusade mentality among many people.”

President Obama mentioned him five times in his inaugural address — God, that is.

Both of Obama’s inaugural speeches mentioned God the same number of times — five, more than either of predecessor George W. Bush’s two inaugural speeches (three times each). Ronald Reagan’s second inaugural holds the record, with eight references, while Richard Nixon mentioned God six times in his first inaugural in 1969.

I actually hate the way it co-opts the language of faith for the pursuit of power and, very often, the endorsement of terrible policy. But that’s sugar coating it… Im going to start dropping it now:

Half a century ago, John Lewis, a 23-year-old student leader, stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and looked out a sea of black and white faces. It was 1963, and the crowd had gathered in Washington for the most significant protest of the civil rights era.

The March on Washington gave the campaign for equal rights an unstoppable momentum, helping to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act – the two legislative pillars to emerge from the civil rights era. But according to Lewis, the 50th anniversary comes at difficult time for race relations in America. In an interview with the Guardian, he said:

“The legacy of slavery and segregation dehumanises people. We have not yet escaped the bitterness. And we don’t want to talk about it.” – John Lewis.

Two recent developments have jarred with the image of a country progressive enough to elect a black man to the White House. A recent Supreme Court decision effectively dismantled one of the key enforcement provisions in the Voting Rights Act, allowing southern states like Texas and North Carolina to implement changes to election rulesthan experts say discriminate against minority voters.

The later decision by a jury in Florida to acquit George Zimmerman over the killing of the black teenager Trayvon Martin has been cited by many – including president Barack Obama – as evidence of a legacy of persistent racial prejudice. “This is not a post-racial society,” Lewis said. “Racism is still deeply embedded in American society, and you can’t cover it up.”

Lewis is revered today is because he was not only one of the “big six” civil rights leaders of the 60s, but a brave activist on the front line of often brutal encounters with segregationist authorities in the deep south. As chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) at the height of the civil rights movement, he was arrested more than 40 times and knew many of those who lost their lives fighting for the cause. Now a 73-year-old Democratic congressman, Lewis is the only surviving speaker from the March on Washington, the landmark protest that culminated in Martin Luther King‘s famous “I have a dream” speech

When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, in 1965, he gave Lewis the pen he used…[3]

😦

The Voting Rights Act, the historic law passed in 1965 to ensure fair treatment of African-Americans at the polls in states with a history of racial discrimination.

1965!! That is just 48 years ago.

68 years ago World War II was “over,” that means that for about 20 years, America and allies were so proud of defeating racist Nazis, that they decided to move those racists to the US  (giving them high profile jobs at NASA and CIA)so they could help them handle racism in america by experimenting (brain washing) their black and latino troops in projects like MK-Ultra. Or by scaring Americans with fake meteorites and Armageddon days brought to you by NASA brightest Nazi German refugees.

Lets see how leaders bungles racism in the US:

For years, African-Americans faced roadblocks at the polls like literacy tests, poll taxes and “You must be this white to vote” signs. On May 2013, Shelby County, Alabama is challenging the law before the Supreme Court, saying its unfair of the federal government to single out states with histories of racial discrimination.

Shelby County’s lawyer, Bert Rein, argued before the court on Feb. 27 that “The problem which the Voting Rights Act addressed is solved.”

“You heard him folks,” “Racism is solved!”

Obviously The Voting Rights Act is acting like an old restraining order on the states that it encompasses.

The Voting Rights Act seems obsolete to some.  “These states are saying, ‘Yes I used to beat my girlfriend, but I haven’t since the restraining order so we don’t need it anymore.’”[4]

Post-racial America . . . (not-so-much).

‘This is not a post-racial society’

Recent Examples:

At issue, folks, is Richwine’s 2009 Harvard dissertation, “IQ and Immigration Policy”, which states that:

JASON RICHWINE (5/1/2009): The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations.

“That is shocking!  Especially when you consider that the white native population of the United States is zero.”

Richwine gets even more specific to say:

JASON RICHWINE (5/1/2009): No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.

But, even if Richwine were a racist, that doesn’t invalidate the Heritage report…

And the Heritage Foundation’s VP of Communications, Mike Gonzalez, put up a blog post saying:

MIKE GONZALEZ, HERITAGE VP (5/8/2013): Dr. Richwine did not shape the methodology or the policy recommendations in the Heritage paper. … The dissertation was written while Dr. Richwine was a student at Harvard, supervised and approved by a committee of respected scholars. … Its findings do not reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation or the conclusions of our study….

“Well said.  That Mike Gonzalez sounds pretty smart — he’s probably adopted.”

Now Heritage is saying they find no credence in Richwine’s dissertation, which they are careful to point out was “supervised and approved by … respected scholars” at Harvard.  In other words, Richwine’s paper, which says that today’s Hispanic immigrants have low IQs, and will for several generations, dooming them to failure, is reprehensible — and had no influence on this paper, co-written by the same guy, which says Hispanic immigrants are a burdensome underclass, and will be for several generations, because they’re doomed to failure.

“Because Heritage is based on hard numbers, unlike this dissertation, which is an offensive screed with no credibility, approved by Harvard, so it must be pretty good.  These two papers are totally different.  It’s like apple pickers and orange pickers.”

STEVE DOOCY (5/9/2013): A new report from the Heritage Foundation, saying legalizing immigration is going to cost the country trillions and trillions of dollars.

GERRI WILLIS (5/7/2013): … $6.3 trillion dollars …

LOU DOBBS (5/6/2013): … $6 trillion dollars …

BRIAN KILMEADE (5/7/2013): It’s up to $6 trillion dollars, if you believe that study.  Can we afford that?

STUART VARNEY (5/9/2013): $6.3 trillion dollars.  Now you cannot dismiss Heritage as a fringe group, they’re very much mainstream, and you cannot dismiss that number, because it’s going to be dropped right in the middle of the immigration debate.

“Folks, the Heritage report’s $6.3 trillion price tag is a game-changer.  It’s a deal-breaker.  It might even be a break-dancer.”[5]

When the american Congress left for an August recess, one thing we thought the House would be turning to is immigration reform. The Senate passed by overwhelming bipartisan majority a comprehensive bill. Lawmakers on the House side are not as in favor of a comprehensive approach so they are going to put some piecemeal pieces of legislation on the floor to start considering those that might address the visa system and that would get people closer towards some sort of compromise package. That’s not going to happen, especially given what is happening with Syria. But the other major piece of this is spending: the debt, the deficit and what they are doing about funding the government.[6]

Another recent Example:

NARRATOR: Concerned about Americans’ huge carbon footprint?  Then you should be concerned about immigration.  Sound crazy?  Immigrants produce four times more carbon emissions in the U.S. than in their home countries.  Reducing immigration won’t solve global warming, but it is part of the solution.

“Yes.  Immigrants cause global warming.  I never noticed the connection before, but it makes sense.  It’s always an immigrant who’s cutting my grass with that exhaust-spewing lawn mower.  (A Juan Deere)  Not to mention, folks, and their spicy food always increases my emissions.  (Cilantro But Deadly)

Now, folks, I don’t believe global warming exists, and even if it does, you can never convince me it’s man-made.  But now I know it’s caused by immigrants.  (Manuel-Made)

Saving the planet by demonizing immigrants gives liberals and conservatives something they can do together.  (Other Than Shouting At Thanksgiving Dinner)  Now, when a liberal yammers on about the record heat we had this winter, a conservative can say, “Let’s save the environment by building an electrified border fence that runs on alternative energy.”  (Solar Death Panels)

And liberals, you know you can trust this ad because the group behind it, Californians for Population Stabilization, shares your concerns about the environment.  That’s why their website talks about anchor babies, the Mexican reconquista movement to reclaim California, and… recycling.  Or as they call it, bottle and can deportation.  (Reduce, Reuse, Revile)

And they know immigrants have four times the carbon footprint once they get to the U.S., because of a study that says, on average, Americans burn much more carbon per capita than the countries immigrants typically come from.

So, any immigrant who comes to our country is immediately one of the worst polluters on the planet!  (Who Do They Think They Are? Us?)

Ladies and gentlemen, again, lefty environmentalists, you can trust this study because it came from the Center for Immigration Studies, which was founded by John Tanton, who, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene“, and “has met with leading white supremacists”.  Now, I’m sure he’s just pressuring the Klan to make their cross burnings carbon neutral.  (Ku Klux Konservation) .”

I say, why stop with global warming?  There are so many problems on which conservatives and liberals can come together to blame immigrants.  (The Enemy Of My Enemy Is Mi Amigo)  For instance, liberals, listen up.  Are you concerned about our lax gun laws?  Then you should be concerned about immigration.  Did you know that when immigrants come to America, they can waltz into any gun show and buy a firearm with no waiting period or background check?  (Even If Their Background Is Czech).

And liberals, let me ask you this.  Are you concerned about poverty?  Then you should be concerned about immigration.  Did you know that no matter what their economic status back home, 23% of non-naturalized immigrants here live below the poverty line?  I think it’s time we finally did something to help the poor… by sending them away.  (Explore Somewhere Else, Dora).

So, liberals, conservatives, let’s make sure America continues to be a country people strive to come to, by kicking out the people who came here.  Because only by finding someone we can blame for the issues that divide us, can Americans ever hope to come together to not address them.  (United We Can’t Stand Them)[7]

The election of a Black President only served to bring the always-there racism in America to a boil.

Obama Bungles the Guantánamo Closing…that must be racist.

Several advocates of closing the prison (GITMO) as Obama pledged to do within 1 year as one of his first acts as president, 2991 days later seems like nothing is going to happen.[8] 

I really love science but… (FAQ)

(I like that Cat)

– Can science explain everything? 

Of course not. So don’t try to answer religious and philosophical matters with Darwinian theories, that is what scientific elitism expects you to do (Marry your cousin!) That is how they want to marginalize creativity, political activism, and social critique with non-democratic agendas; killing philosophy. All of these while they profit on your lack of everything (You know if you marginalize wisdom you marginalize everything ) Just think of atheism or agnosticism. They think they are always right when it is insane to believe whatever they believe, all of these while we watch them on TV. Well, today we don’t even let Catholics with Nobel prizes in physics influence our view of the world. Do you even know the name of one of them? Of course not!

Elite physics professors funded by multinational corporations and national governments tend to be wack and very fanatic haters.  Science today is based on profit, which means it has a western bank account. But real Science always had a vatican relationship. The church in historical records is the longest term patron of science (Historical Record Proved) so whatever we are calling science these days is not even science. Is just a business. Like atheism or scientology! (Cult$)

“Stephen Hawking is much more of a Lady Gaga than a Johann Sebastian Bach… He’s a pop culture figure, like the Kardashians.”

Modern science is based on the principle of give us a free miracle and we will explain the rest… Just think about it, if you don’t get it then you don’t have a clue about the beginning.

– Can science explain why do some species reproduce sexually and others reproduce asexually?

Nope. It can explain you how but the real reason why still bothers Richard Dawkins and real Biologists and whatnot (Except Catholics)

– Can science explain what is consciousness?

No. Science doesn’t even know where memories are stored. If neurons or brain popped in your minds and you thought consciousness was in your head, Im afraid you are suffering from a serious case of scientific fundamentalism/dogmatism. Poser.

– Are we alone in the universe?

Science can’t explain if there has ever been life on other planets, in our solar system… Actually, it seems like the most probable possibility of life in another planet is: if the monkeys that suspiciously got “lost” in space and couldn’t comeback from the trips that NASA, Soviet Union or Asians have been sponsoring in the past decades to chimpanzees; and those chimpanzees had secretly landed in a nearby planet, died in action,and their body was left in a planet where their decomposing bacteria could survive  (welcome to the planet of the apes)  Besides that remote possibility, planet earth seems to be the only planet with unique characteristics to sustain life. “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Wald 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46). And vice-versa. But Double Nobel Prize winner said:
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”– Ilya Prigogine, Chemist-Physicist Twice Recipient of Nobel Prizes in Chemistry

– Can science explain what is the universe made of?

Love! Just kidding, in the last couple of years they just discovered “nothing” (dark matter, dark energy phenomena)

No one knows what dark matter is. There’s a lot of debate among physicists about what it could be. Is it lots of little black holes? Is it made up of small particles, sometimes called WIMPS, weakly interacting massive particles. Nobody knows. Is it hot, is it cold? Again, nobody knows.

So that makes of all the discoveries of the ordinary matter that makes up stars, planets, and even human beings, account for only 5 percent of everything in the universe. Plus the way the universe is expanding we might just have to put this question on hold. They did found the “god particle” ( probably for war reasons but they “surely” did again, for the third time).

– Are memories somewhere in the brain? (What Is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?) 

The results don’t provide a blinding insight into how consciousness arises from tangles of neurons.

– How Does Earth’s Interior Work?

“There’s another 6,300 kilometers [3,900 miles] of rock and iron beneath the tectonic plates whose churning constitute the inner workings of planetary heat engine,” in other words, there is a huge bunch of s### going on down there, and it is doing something we don’t know what it is, but perhaps Dante was right. Hell is busy.

– How and where did life on earth arise?

Recent experiments suggest that Earth’s earliest life-forms could have been based on RNA—not the DNA and proteins essential to all free-living organisms today. So see you later.

– Is overpopulation a real problem?

Only if tyrants are in charge. But so far overpopulation is a myth. And tons of false idiots are worried about shit like that. 

Polite conversation on the internet is more endangered than atheism

***Comment of a blog in a fundamentalist website that proves that atheism and agnosticism are losing almost 1000 followers a day, each; while Christians are adding 83000 followers a day***

Rory   August 2, 2012 at 2:40 AM

Hey

I just happened across this website, and I’ve no interest in this particular ideological battle. I would probably say that I am agnostic, I really don’t care one way or the other, and I certainly don’t lose an sleep over it. But I find myself compelled to post a quick comment.

I recently watch the very excellent document ‘Fog of War’ in which former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara shares the lessons that he learnt during the wars he was involved in. One of the lessons he highlighted was to always, no matter what, maintain the ability to empathise with your enemy. I feel like the tone taken in this blog is very combative and, to be honest, a little snarky. It’s like a high-school ‘throw down’ in which someone is trying to egg the other one on. Except, I get the feeling, and this is particularly exacerbated by the aggressive tone of the site, that you’re shouting at a small number of individuals. There are some atheists, granted, who have also taken a combative and snarky tone, but (and from an entirely subjective viewpoint) I don’t see how the vast majority could be characterised like this. Just as I don’t believe all Christians would feel well represented by the tone on this site. Atheism will never have the same sense of community and history that religions do. It is just not that sort of thing, and attacking it seems a little naive.

Anyway, I really don’t feel like this site is even trying to be constructive, it’s just pointing and jeering because of how it reads the situation and trends. Surely this might come across as immature to anyone, know matter what their take on the debate.

Just my two cents.

Peace

************

Im used to Christians writing this sort of witty remarks all over the web. I love it. The shame that minorities spray all over the internet, makes the most disgraceful reading being feel way much better about themselves. When I stop across this kind of ludicrous comments (for trolls like me) I get stuck in a moment, sometimes, feeling totally embarrassed for them,  or sometimes I just get angry at myself (I guess) for stopping and reading someone else’s lack of opinion. Well sadly, most of the times, I am totally indifferent towards their gonorrhea.

(doobie or not doobie?)

I usually imagine someone sad, a bit bored, typing from the bottom of his chaotic heart, trying to leave a message. Maybe someone like a pastor or Jehovah witness, you know what I mean… that old grandma spirit (fart) adventuring for the first time in the gutsy world of the internet!…Yeah! That kind of fresh and hypocrite heckler we all hate and we secretly love, deep in our hearts. Somehow, they figured out a way so their smell that they drag of inferiority could be transmitted through the choice of words and sentences they craftily typed and finally leaving its smell on my eyes? TOTALLY WEIRD, I KNOW, that’s why crackheads are my favorite.

(BAKED LIKE THE AKERY)

It seems like for our first time, this unique and once in a lifetime experience, we have been blessed with an agnostic (an atheists without balls, or in this particular case: a guy, a gay or a girl.. maybe just a travesty, that wants so bad to be a Christian and an atheist at the same time, but, he/she/he-she is still confused, identified as: “rory”) redemptory and virtual epitaph. MMMM, what should I do with you, Rory?

I chose “rory’s” comment because it is the best and perfect example of a polite and constructive critique, but, also for the reaction that rory’s sincere words created in me. We don’t care if rory is congruent or not, the superimposed sincerity might not be readable, smellable, it might be invisible, but it will always be metaphysically recognizable, evident to the spirit.. if you really open your mind, and your heart, deep inside your..Im just kidding.

I know for a fact that everywhere in this world, sincerity is getting totally confused with irony and sarcasm, everywhere. But, we as humans, somehow, we are still gifted enough to see beyond words (mysteries) voluntarily, and involuntarily. And that’s when we can get a glimpse of that “hidden or superimposed sincerity.”

To get results from a random stranger (like positive actions), first, we have to presuppose and assume that the stranger (messanger/Rory) carries an invisible/maybe hidden sincerity within. Second, just remember a happy feeling, this will be your protection, and don’t let it go, because you are about to have sex with a stranger, I mean with his or her ideas ( Warning: This is only if we want to reach an efficient and creative communication with another party).

(95% TRUE)

So how do you get yourselves pregnant with an “ideal” son? Or how ideas have sex?? Let’s find what the other parent has in mind first… So Rory is in fact applying bible based concepts and approaches that christians are instructed to follow, actually Rory is applying specific bible concepts in our every day life! (Isn’t that what christians and jewish people are supposed to do?) With that Rory is telling us about his or hers experience and availability with fathering/mothering an idea. For example: The give all that you got attitude! Or in hebrew words “that’s my two cents!”  Double check his announce and denounce aptitudes, his McNamara version of love your enemies, and finally (my favorite) his-her shaking the dust farewell with his own interpretation of: “Peace”. Shalom rory, the peace be with you, PAX.

Rory’s words lead us to how the expected mating partner will possible be, or the targeted demographics. Rory displays some observing characteristics/skills that he/she relies upon to attract it’s mating partner/prey.

Did you noticed how consistent is rory’s first sentence with the rest of his bipolar comment? Let me remember you that Rory has no interest in this particular ideological battle, although he would like us to empathize with the enemy at all times. So if Rory decides to recommend the administrators on how to write their articles like he/she did, You have to remember that Rory has no interest in this particular ideological battle .. Easy cake.

While Rory keeps sharp with the constructive critiques, he is settling clear that according to McNamara “to always, no matter what, maintain the ability to empathize with your enemy.” How noble! I guess if the administrators of the blog (where “rory” commented) wouldn’t like to empathize with their enemies, they would had never replied or even accept Rory’s comment to be posted, it is also true that administrators might have never made their stuff public if they didn’t want to empathize with their enemies (or anyone else in that case).

(I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOU, SWEET BABY JESUS, LOOK!! ME TOO–> 😉 )

I guess that after swallowing a decent amount of solid data, our friend “rory” couldn’t resist commenting on this really random website (Trust me I know how that feels, and probably we all have been there). But why is Rory looking to “mate” his ideas in a blog that in its core tries to impose creationism by putting evolution against christianity?  That’s, That is anti christian…

It seems like there had to be something somewhat unique that pushed rory’s button.

(RORY? IS THAT YOU?)

“Rory” focused on the (pseudo) “attacks” that atheists and agnostics were receiving from the website (Hasn’t “rory”  never heard of what public figures and leaders in atheism/agnosticism say about religious people, everyday?). I got to admit that the blog connotation is somewhat strong but, non-offensive whatsoever; at least not like atheist/agnostic blogs tend to be. So boohoohoo!

Doesn’t Rory know that God has always chosen minorities to work with? Like when God picked the jewish people when they were nobodies and weak, for example. Even after that, when God only chose 12 jewish guys to keep carrying on his humble will, remember? Perhaps God is finally choosing the atheists and agnostics to finally do something for the world, who knows? I don’t think so. Unless it is to make atheists and agnostics evangelize the web against their will. So why can’t you be happy for that (rory) huh!?

I watched the same documentary that Rory referred to in his comment ( Fog of War about McNamara), and I would recommend you to watch it as well. He is old and still nuts, and his stories are too f’d up (McNamara was about to test nuclear weapons, with the moon). Before I tell you why an agnostic (rory) is telling christians to empathize with enemies (while Jesus tells you to love your enemies on Matthew 5:43-48)… You know what? Enough of rory here is why atheism and agnosticism are really endangered:

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally, every day, there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day. WOW!

A few year earlier in 2009, the book A sceptics guide to atheism indicated: “A worldwide poll taken in 1991 put the global figure for atheists at just 4.4% of the population. By 2006 it was estimated that only 2% of the world population were atheists.” MADNESS.

“Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050.”

Michael Blume, a researcher at the University of Jena in Germany, wrote “Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century.” Blume also indicated concerning concerning his research on this matter: “What I found was the complete lack of a single case of a secular population, community or movement that would just manage to retain replacement level.”

In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the ‘Redeemer Nation’ to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.

The Eurozone is increasingly showing many signs of decline (economy, rioting, etc.) and no doubt European influence on the world in terms of its secular ideology will also decline as people are less likely to admire and emulate failure. Also, amidst the many financial and natural disaster problems Japan is having, Christianity is growing in Japan.

During the period of 2008 to 2012, the atheist community made a concerted effort to spread atheism through means of the internet. However, leading atheist websites have seen plunges in web traffic during this same period and during the first half of 2012.

By in large, these outspoken evolutionists are awfully silent about the aforementioned decline: Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennette, Penn Jillette, Eugenie Scott, Dan Barker, atheists and agnostics in academia, evolutionists in academia, British Humanist Society, National Academies of Sciences, National Center for Science Education, evolution promoting natural science journals, evolution promoting social science journals, evolution leaning journalists, American Atheists, YouTube atheists Thunderf00t and TheAmazingAtheist, Matt Dillahunty, the Skepchick community, prominent French evolutionists and atheists/agnostics, prominent secularist Europeans in other countries, Chinese communists and others.

And the cursory treatment of this issue by atheists PZ Myers and Nigel Barber were absolutely a joke. Barber confidently proclaimed that atheism would prevail against religion by 2038 without providing detailed analysis. It’s almost as if he picked the year 2038 out of a hat! I mean why not 2040? See: Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy

Even the immensely weird and bellicose North Korean atheists and communists are silent about this matter. Recently, I saw a documentary on North Korea and the narrator for that documentary said that North Korea was the weirdest place on earth. I said to myself, the most friendly land towards atheism and evolutionism and the most unfriendly land towards biblical Christianity is also the weirdest. Go figure!

North Korea is a surreal country abounding in phoniness and propaganda. Sounds a lot like the ideologies of atheism and evolutionism, doesn’t it? Given the bizarre behavior of many atheists/agnostics and evolutionists that I have seen, I cannot say that I am surprised.

(EW)

In China, which is an atheistic communist state, Christianity is exploding which is bad news for global atheism. Atheism is not a strong ideology when faced with fervent biblical Christianity competition. Although China and Asia as a whole may have short term setbacks, they are increasingly gaining influence in the world.

All false ideologies are able to be effectively conquered and history is littered with false ideologies which are defunct or have been greatly reduced in terms of their adherents. Atheism and agnosticism are no different and globally they are losing adherents and market share. There is no reason this process cannot be accelerated. A good case can be made that confronting evolutionary pseudoscience and increasing Christian evangelism are both effective means of reducing atheism and agnosticism in the world. Biblical Christianity and creationism are growing in many places in the world and this blog has documented this matter.

******   “… it is in the Bible not to wrestle your neighbour.” *******

“Luckily a recent survey in the American Sociological review revealed that Atheists are the least trusted group in America– less trusted, even, than homosexuals.”

Last night I read a tweet saying :

''What's wrong with a country that has 80% atheists?

Nothing! pic.twitter.com/BVfAPH0dwK"

— FreeFlowerThinker (@FreeFlowerThink) September 9, 2013

Well I just had to read some replies to that tweet to get the real side of the story:

@Brasilmagic @jfcarpio Atheists are 34% in SWE, not 80%.

— El Vulvaláxico 🌌 (@Iraqundo) September 8, 2013

I thought atheism was merely a squeak in American society. I guess not. So watch out for the tsunamis of lies coming from the least trusted group in the world.

EVERYONE KNOWS YOU JUST CAN’T TRUST AN ATHEIST!

“What the researchers say is that we use religiosity as a signal for trustworthiness. If you have no religion, then you are deemed untrustworthy. And, as the researchers say, “trustworthiness is the most valued trait in other people”. This clearly does not bode well for general attitudes about atheists.”

**If you are interested more in atheists are the least trusted group you can read Negation will be televised by Sister Encarnacion. **

“And frankly, I have had it up to here with atheists. They’re so smug and annoying, and if they’re created in your image, then you are a jerk.”.

“For Lent, I’m giving up Catholicism. This is terrible. Now there’s nothing to keep me from masturbating.”

Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report Quotes ( I humbly copy & paste authentic and hilarious christian quotes everywhere in this blog ).

The Bible started as a diet book: Don’t eat that apple; no pork. But then as Moses said “God really let his people go!” 

“Abel said unto Cain “Yo momma so fat she doesn’t wear a fig leaf, she wears a fig tree!” & Cain did slay his brother.”

“Jesus was a booty fan. He did say, “Turn the other cheek” (so he could watch the ladies twerk it!)”

“You think you’re humbler than me? F*ck you.”

Of course Jesus was a hipster. Those 40 days he spent wandering the desert? He was trying to find Burning Man!

“The Bible says marriage is between one man, and that man’s rib. Nothing gay.”

“All these Vatican scandals make me wish for the uncontroversial good old days of Inquisitions and Crusades.”

“It’s Ash Wednesday– and we all know what the pope gave up for Lent!” (On Pope Benedict’s retirement)

“What’s the past tense of “Pope”? Puppe? Porpe?”

“If even atheists are redeemed by Christ, why have I been going to Mass? I could’ve gotten another nine holes in.”

I love Xmas decorations! I spray all my windows with fake frost, including my windshield. Apologies to everyone I hit on my way 2 work.

Forgot to ask Father Reese: Could God make a government so big, even he couldn’t budget?

I was bummed that the Pope didn’t leave Cuba on a Pope-mo-raft.

God is so bad at matchmaking that he set Lot up with a salt lick.

Dead people are ruining our values with their promiscuous afterlife. Whose idea do you think it was to make marriage Til Death Do Us Part?

If the Pope got in a car accident, wouldn’t wearing a seat belt make it harder for God to pull him up to Heaven?

“The point is, no one is more qualified to tell me what the world means to me, than me. And don’t you think you’re any different: No one is more qualified to tell you what the world means to you than me.”

Evolutionist’s main claim is that one day we decided to stop being
monkeys and turned ourselves into humans. Well, if that’s true, why aren’t more monkeys escaping from zoos? Think about it. They could turn into humans, then disguise themselves as janitors and walk out of their cages. But I guess evolution doesn’t have an answer for that one. The main perpetrator of this monkey lie is Charles Darwin. He wrote all about it in his 1859 book “The Origin of Species.” He claimed to have developed this “theory” after studying “finches” on the Galapagos “Islands,” but I can guess why he
really came up with it. He was on the Galapagos Islands for Spring Break, got smashed, woke up in bed next to a monkey, and then had to come up with a theory that made it all okay.

“Luckily a recent survey in the American Sociological review revealed that Atheists are the least trusted group in America- less trusted, even, than homosexuals.”

The Fool says in his heart that there is no God, but by God he means that thing then which no greater thing can be conceived! but by conceiving of that thing he automatically defines God as whatever he can greatest imagine! Therefore God does exist because he has imagined that thing which must be greater in reality than in his imagination.

Bad news for the godless: religion is inescapable. There has never been a human society without some form of worship. And don’t point to communist societies like the Soviet Union- they worshipped blue jeans. Of course beatniks, peaceniks, and no-goodniks question why we need religion. “Imagine,” they croon, “there’s no countries. It isn’t hard, it’s true. Nothing to fight or kill for, and no religion too.” You may find that idea appealing because it rhymes. But so does this: “God said to Noah there’s gonna be a floody-floody/ Get those children out of the muddy-muddy.”

The “children” mentioned in that Bible verse didn’t think they needed religion either, and look what happened to them (drowny-drowny). Bottom line: Religion is the cornerstone of civilization. Without it, we would have no laws, no morality, no social structure, and no guidelines for furnishing our tabernacles. We would exist in a state of valueless depravity, like they do in Holland.

Good news: Religion does exist. And so mankind can benefit from its numerous gifts.

“I’ve got an incoming news flash: I believe in God,”

“I mean, baby Jesus is in so much danger this year that to protect his identity we had to call his birthday Xmas,”

“Folks, the secular progressives are coming after our Christmas displays, I can’t even put up a reindeer without some guy telling me to get off the roof of Temple Beth Elohim.”

‘Oh, yeah, kids, look, there’s baby Jesus behind the Festivus pole made out of beer cans! It’s nuts!”

“Yes, it’s nuts – and I’m allergic,”

“Santa is based on the Visigoth warlord, Kringle the Un-jolly, who laid waste to his enemies with coal fire. His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry, and from the blood of the vanquished whose bodies he buried.”

¨The only country to be sure never to have a coup d’Etat is the United States, because it hasn’t got a U.S. embassy.”

Rafael Correa (Ecuador’s president) joking with Julian Assange on The World Tomorrow (Julian Assange’s show broadcasted on RT)

Ecuador’s President to the U.S. Ambassador: “Don’t come lecturing us about liberty…Here we haven’t invaded anyone. Here we don’t torture like in Guantanamo. Here we don’t have drones killing alleged terrorist without any due trial, killing also the women and children of those supposed terrorists. So don’t come lecturing us about life, law, dignity, or liberty. You don’t have the moral right to do so.”