Traveling by choo choo train

We always try to keep important information available and I am really starting to worry about not telling you of a serious issue we are facing for over a 100 years now. There is a rate of 11 Christians being killed every hour in a violent anti-Christian persecution around the world. In a low rate year there is 1 Christian being killed every hour, 24/7. We don’t see this very often in the west because if someone attacks our freedom of religion they would get sued and if the thing is really serious they would probably get a death row and probably give some reasons to keep Guantanamo opened! But the south my dear friends, it’s property of Sr. Matanza (Mr.Killer)

In an awful year there would be 150.000 Christians being killed all over the world in an anti-christian persecution and for reasons related to their faith. In the most luckiest of years there would be around 10.000 killings.

“In some (Islamic and Hindu) countries they kill Christians because they wear a cross or have a Bible, and before killing them they don’t ask if they’re Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholic or Orthodox.”

Conversation with a radical who said bragged of killing an entire Christian family in Syria:

“I killed them because they were Christians,” he quoted the radical as saying, adding that the assassin didn’t know if his victims were “Maronites, Catholics, Melkites, Chaldeans, Orthodox … just that they were Christians.”

The fact of being Christian was all it took to justify a death sentence.

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

According to Patriarch Louis Sako, more than 1,000 Christians have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, while scores of others have been “kidnapped and tortured.” He said 62 churches and monasteries have been attacked.

Sako cited a recent estimate from the U.N. High Commission for Refugees that 850,000 Christians have left Iraq since 2003, by some estimates representing almost two-thirds of the country’s Christian population.

That exodus, he added, includes both Orthodox and Catholics.

“We feel forgotten and isolated,” Sako said. “We sometimes wonder, if they kill us all, what would be the reaction of Christians in the West? Would they do something then?”

Sako made clear he’s not asking for a mobilization “to protect Christians,” but rather Western efforts to support “harmonious societies for all human beings”, based on “a civil state in which the only criterion is citizenship grounded in full equality under the law.”

Sako said that at the moment, the influence of Western nations in the region seems to be based primarily on self-interest: “All they do is create problems, sell weapons and take oil.”

Sako warned that the same trends are currently gathering force in both Syria and Egypt, citing estimates that in the last 18 months some 100 churches in Egypt have been attacked, while 67 churches have been assaulted in Syria and more than 45,000 Christians have left the country.

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

Most people would say that journalists had failed to provide the proper context to understand the news. Yet that’s routinely what media outlets do when it comes to outbreaks of anti-Christian persecution around the world, which is why the global war on Christians remains the greatest story never told of the early 21st century.

The carnage is occurring on such a vast scale that it represents not only the most dramatic Christian story of our time, but arguably the premier human rights challenge of this era as well.

In Baghdad, Islamic militants stormed the Syriac Catholic cathedral of Our Lady of Salvation on 31 October 2010, killing the two priests celebrating Mass and leaving a total of 58 people dead. Though shocking, the assault was far from unprecedented; of the 65 Christian churches in Baghdad, 40 have been bombed at least once since the beginning of the 2003 US-led invasion.

The effect of this campaign of violence and intimidation has been devastating for Christianity in the country. At the time of the first Gulf War in 1991, Iraq boasted a flourishing Christian population of at least 1.5 million. Today the high-end estimate for the number of Christians left is around 500,000, and realistically many believe it could be as low as 150,000. Most of these Iraqi Christians have gone into exile, but a staggering number have been killed.

India’s northeastern state of Orissa was the scene of the most violent anti-Christian pogrom of the early 21st century. In 2008, a series of riots ended with as many as 500 Christians killed, many hacked to death by machete-wielding Hindu radicals; thousands more were injured and at least 50,000 left homeless. Many Christians fled to hastily prepared displacement camps, where some languished for two years or more.

An estimated 5,000 Christian homes, along with 350 churches and schools, were destroyed. A Catholic nun, Sister Meena Barwa, was raped during the mayhem, then marched naked and beaten. Police sympathetic to the radicals discouraged the nun from filing a report, and declined to arrest her attackers.

In Burma, members of the Chin and Karen ethnic groups, who are strongly Christian, are considered dissidents by the regime and routinely subjected to imprisonment, torture, forced labour, and murder. In October 2010, the Burmese military launched helicopter strikes in territories where the country’s Christians are concentrated.

A Burmese Air Force source told reporters that the junta had declared these areas ‘black zones’, where military personnel were authorised to attack and kill Christian targets on sight. Though there are no precise counts, thousands of Burmese Christians are believed to have been killed in the offensive.

In Nigeria, the militant Islamic movement ‘Boko Haram’ is held responsible for almost 3,000 deaths since 2009, including 800 fatalities last year alone. The movement has made a speciality out of targeting Christians and their churches, and in some cases they seem determined to drive Christians out altogether from parts of the country.

In December 2011, local Boko Haram spokesmen announced that all Christians in the northern Yobe and Borno states had three days to get out, and followed up with a spate of church bombings on 5 and 6 January 2012, which left at least 26 Christians dead, as well as two separate shooting sprees in which eight more Christians died. In the aftermath, hundreds of Christians fled the area, and many are still displaced. Over Christmas last year, at least 15 Christians are believed to have had their throats cut by Boko Haram assailants.

North Korea is widely considered the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian, where roughly a quarter of the country’s 200,000 to 400,000 Christians are believed to be living in forced labour camps for their refusal to join the national cult around founder Kim Il Sung. The anti-Christian animus is so strong that people with Christian grandparents are frozen out of the most important jobs — even though Kim Il Sung’s mother was a Presbyterian deaconess. Since the armistice in 1953 that stabilised the division of the peninsula, some 300,000 Christians in North Korea have disappeared and are presumed dead.

As these examples illustrate, anti-Christian violence is hardly limited to a ‘clash of civilisations’ between Christianity and Islam. In truth, Christians face a bewildering variety of threats, with no single enemy and no single strategy best adapted to curb the violence.

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

Because the bulk of the globe’s 2.3 billion Christians today are impoverished and live in the developing world, and because they are often members of ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities, experts regard their treatment as a reliable indicator of a society’s broader record on human rights and dignity. Just as one didn’t have to be Jewish in the 1970s to care about dissident Jews in the Soviet Union, nor black in the 1980s to be outraged by the Apartheid regime in South Africa, one doesn’t have to be Christian today to see the defence of persecuted Christians as a towering priority.

Why are the dimensions of this global war so often overlooked? Aside from the root fact that the victims are largely non-white and poor, and thus not considered ‘newsmakers’ in the classic sense, and that they tend to live and die well off the radar screen of western attention, the global war also runs up against the outdated stereotype of Christianity as the oppressor rather than the oppressed.

Say ‘religious persecution’ to most makers of cultured secular opinion, and they will think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Bruno and Galileo, the Wars of Religion and the Salem witch trials. Today, however, we do not live on the pages of a Dan Brown potboiler, in which Christians are dispatching mad assassins to settle historical scores. Instead, they’re the ones fleeing assassins others have dispatched.

Moreover, public discussion of religious freedom issues often suffers from two sets of blinders. First, it’s generally phrased in terms of western church/state tensions, such as the recent tug-of-war between religious leaders in the United States and the Obama White House over contraception mandates as part of health care reform, or tensions in the United Kingdom over the 2010 Equality Act and its implications for church-affiliated adoption agencies vis-à-vis same-sex couples. The truth is that in the West, a threat to religious freedom means someone might get sued; in many other parts of the world, it means someone might get shot, and surely the latter is the more dramatic scenario.

Secondly, discussion is sometimes limited by an overly narrow conception of what constitutes ‘religious violence’. If a female catechist is killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, because she’s persuading young people to stay out of militias and criminal gangs, one might say that’s a tragedy but not martyrdom, because her assailants weren’t driven by hatred of the Christian faith. Yet the crucial point isn’t just what was in the mind of her killers, but what was in the heart of that catechist, who knowingly put her life on the line to serve the gospel. To make her attackers’ motives the only test, rather than her own, is to distort reality.

Whatever the motives for the silence, it’s well past time for it to end. Pope Francis recognised this in remarks during a General Audience last month.

‘When I hear that so many Christians in the world are suffering, am I indifferent, or is it as if a member of my own family is suffering?’ the Pope asked his following. ‘Am I open to that brother or that sister in my family who’s giving his or her life for Jesus Christ?’

In 2011, the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, who leads a church with more than its fair share of new martyrs, phrased the same questions more plaintively during a conference in London. He bluntly asked: ‘Does anybody hear our cry? How many atrocities must we endure before somebody, somewhere, comes to our aid?’

There may be no question about the destiny of Christianity in the early 21st century more deserving of a compelling answer.

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

Recently, the show focused on statistics used in my writing on anti-Christian persecution — not so much my recent book, The Global War on Christians, but rather a cover story I did for The Spectatorin early October. The gist was that three of the statistics I cited in that piece are exaggerated or, at least, open to question.

Those statistics are:

• A 2009 estimate from the chairman of the International Society for Human Rights, based in Frankfurt, Germany, to the effect that 80 percent of acts of religious discrimination today are directed at Christians. A spokesperson for the society told “More or Less” they no longer use this estimate because it’s impossible to know with precision what share of acts of discrimination are directed against specific populations.
• A September 2012 report from the Pew Forum indicating that between 2006 and 2010, Christians had faced some form of harassment in 139 nations, almost three-quarters of all the societies on Earth. Here, “More or Less” faulted me for leaving out important context because the Pew report also found that Muslims faced difficulties in almost as many nations and that other religious groups are also under threat.
• The estimate from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity that each year for the past decade, an average of 100,000 Christians per year have been killed “in a situation of witness.” The program charged that this estimate includes too many situations, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, in which Christians are being killed but not for reasons of faith. Moreover, a great deal of this killing is also Christian-on-Christian.

These are legitimate concerns, and you don’t have to be in denial about anti-Christian violence to raise them. I tried to respond in my interview with the BBC, and I’ll give a fuller version here.

My basic point was that virtually all of the numbers used to talk about religious violence, whether directed at Christians or anybody else, are estimates. Getting hard data is notoriously difficult, in part because victims often don’t make reports for fear of reprisals and in part because the neighborhoods where the most lethal activity is occurring don’t welcome independent investigators nosing around.

Everyone in the field wishes the data were more reliable, although they also realize that in the grand scheme of things, that’s a detail. The big picture is that whatever the exact numbers turn out to be, Christians are increasingly at risk.

80 percent

When Martin Lessenthin, chairman of the International Society for Human Rights, provided the 80 percent figure in 2009, he made clear that it was an estimate based upon conversations with colleagues and surveying the findings of other human rights observatories. Because there is no precise catalogue of all violations of religious freedom around the world, it’s impossible to know with certainty what share is actually directed against Christians or any other group.

In effect, Lessenthin was trying to make a fairly simple observation with his estimate. Because Christianity is the world’s largest religion, with 2.3 billion adherents, and because its greatest growth is in regions with a mixed record on human rights, the raw number of assaults on Christians is bound to be larger than any other group.

If it’s hard for some to believe that, it probably speaks to a problem with narratives. In the West, the usual narrative about Christianity is that it’s big, wealthy and politically powerful, which makes it hard for some people to get their minds around the fact that Christians can actually suffer persecution.

Yet that view of things is badly out of date. Two-thirds of the planet’s Christians now live in the developing world, a share projected to reach three-quarters my mid-century. The majority is poor, and they’re often members of ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities, so they’re doubly or triply at risk. The faith is growing in rough neighborhoods such as sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, where local Christians are often blindly (and erroneously) identified with “the West.”

The claim that these Christians endure 80 percent of all acts of religious discrimination may be no more than an educated guess, but it still reflects reality better than a badly outdated worldview styling Christians as more likely to be the oppressors rather than the oppressed.

139 countries

“More or Less” was absolutely correct in noting that according to the Pew data, Christians are hardly the only group being harassed. In the 2012 survey I quoted, the totals for the number of countries in which followers of a given religion faced difficulties were as follows:

• Christians: 139
• Muslims: 121
• Jews: 85
• Others: 72 (a catch-all category that includes Baha’is, Zoroastrians, etc.)
• Folk Religionists: 43
• Hindus: 30
• Buddhists: 21

The study documents what it calls a “rising tide” of restrictions on religion around the world in which Christians are not the only victims.

In the book, I note the risk in using the rhetoric of a “war on Christians” when other faith groups are also in the firing line, writing that it “could make the defense of religious freedom seem like a parochial matter of Christian self-interest, rather than principled support for the human rights of all persons.”

That said, the reason for paying special attention to the Christian data is because it challenges the narrative. It’s far easier for the typical Western mind to accept that Jews or Buddhists can experience persecution than that Christians do, and actually in much greater numbers given the larger overall size of the Christian population.

Waking up to the reality of the global war on Christians doesn’t mean other groups aren’t suffering as well. At the same time, nothing about their suffering means the global war isn’t happening.

Counting martyrs

I devote a section of chapter one in The Global War to the debate over the estimate provided by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity of 100,000 new martyrs every year. The BBC fact-checkers are right that there’s a lively debate about that number, with even some of the most concerned experts on anti-Christian persecution believing it’s inflated because it includes too many casualties whose deaths had nothing to do with religious motives.

I quote Thomas Schirrmacher of the World Evangelical Alliance, for instance, who said in August 2011 that he regards a tally of 20 Christian fatalities per day, which works out to 7,300 per year, as more realistic. Recently, the Christian missionary organization Gospel for Asia released its own estimate of 14,000 Christians killed for the faith every year around the world, claiming the number is based only on reported cases.

The debate almost certainly will go on. As Schirrmacher put it two years ago, “We are far from having a reliable report of the number of martyrs annually.”

Even Schirrmacher’s low-end estimate, however, works out to almost one new Christian martyr every hour. There may be an argument over the body count, but there’s no serious dispute that the “global war” is real.

In the book, I caution against an overly restrictive definition of what counts as anti-Christian violence, suggesting that the classic standard for martyrdom of a death in odium fidei, meaning in explicit hatred of the faith, leaves too much out of the picture.

Here’s the thought exercise I often use: Consider a devout female catechist in Congo who’s killed by a paramilitary group for resisting their forced enrollment of child soldiers. One could say that’s tragic but not martyrdom, because these thugs didn’t care about her faith. They just wanted to keep her hands off their new recruits. Yet drilling down, the catechist’s motives had everything to do with her faith. She put herself in harm’s way because she believed she was following God’s call to serve the vulnerable, so in a very real sense, she died for the Gospel every bit as much as an ancient martyr killed for refusing to sacrifice to pagan gods.

In a sound bite, it’s a mistake in surveying the global war on Christians to focus exclusively on the motives of those pulling the triggers. At some stage, we also have to consider what was in the hearts of the people getting shot.

That perspective does not resolve the debate over numbers, of course, but it does suggest a more expansive standard for deciding what counts in trying to determine the real scale of anti-Christian violence.

John L. Allen Jr is author of The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution.

[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His email address is jallen@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @JohnLAllenJr.] *working at the constitutional level to guarantee religious freedom and equal rights for believers of all faiths throughout the land.*

What if Jesus is the missing link ??

Ok Interenets I think is time for you to know that in all over the world there are many crying figures of the Virgin Mary. If you have see one that probably means you are poor. And who believes a poor person these days? Don’t get me wrong please, I don’t even believe the scientific elite ( Why? Trust me when I say that the scientific elite are more dogmatic than the Pope and he is also an intellectual, a politician, a pastor, a media superstar, a Fortune 500 CEO a scientist, a dogmatic and the elite himself )  Some of these figures and paintings of the Virgin Mary cry tears, some of them blood, and some of them leave a (holy) oil. Some of these figures and paintings do all of that and they might say something holy and prophetic and it will blink at you! So cool… and sad.

Obviously not all of them are real and that’s why we don’t care about them or for that poor KRAZZZY people. In fact making a fake weeping statue is relatively easy. At some skeptic conferences, “do it yourself weeping statue kits” are on sale. But when scientists show up and behold evidence that forces them to go back to their principles (Modern science is based upon the principle of give us a free miracle and we will explain the rest) we need to at least talk about it, since the media will never carry such a story unless the story is fake (Here read what Wikipedia says about it)  Have you ever thought about those scientists that analyzed evidence of some of the blood that has been cried through supernatural ways? You just can’t make up blood! That would be such huge market! You would be a trillionaire! So where did that blood came from? Cows? Cats? Pigs? Humans? Babies? (All of them probably)

In most of the cases where the blood has been proven human, if it is not from someone in that KRAZZZY circle of people it actually has no blood type, so they don’t know to what blood group they belong, meaning they have to go back to their modern principles…again. 32 blood-group systems have been identified and over 600 different blood group antigens have been found many of these are very rare or are mainly found in certain ethnic groups but peer reviewed scientific research is rarely, if ever, carried out into the phenomenon we are in. That’s why the Vatican would almost always reject stuff like this. Not only because they tend to be fake but even when they are real there are so many people who just makes it feel fake, and even if a miracle just happened people are people.

I know that anyone with their lab where they can test blood can easily find out if the blood comes from a guy, a girl or an animal. After analyzing some blood and proving that the blood is human and finding out it has no trails to what type and group belongs to: is impossible to make. How can someone really poor come up with a way to do that to blood!? Like seriously, the answers to their economic needs could be taken care just right there. The scientific advances of the people who can do that are way beyond modern science at the moment and I don’t think the creators of this red liquid would approach the market in that desperate way… We all know many universities have more money than the Vatican could handle. For example the Vatican uses 300 million a year to run the Vatican, while Notre Dame uses 1 billion a year to run the University. Another example could be that the Vatican Bank only manages about 9 billion dollars (which 8.5 billions belongs to  parishes) while Notre Dame handles more than 30 billions in assets. So why would they like to get the Vaticans attention? I don’t think is because maybe the Vatican would like to invest on this “red liquid” so they could attract followers. Why wouldn’t they approach where the real money is and where it could actually help?

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

The Basics on Blood

“While there have been reports of bone marrow or liver transplants having changed a person’s blood type, a person’s genetics stay consistent. The reported change is most likely due to a testing error. All tests have an error rate, which is why we tend to repeat blood type tests (or type and screens) before major surgeries in lieu of asking what the patient recalls. We have to do it to make sure.

Interestingly, I did find an article in the Telegraph that reveals that scientists have found a way to change a blood type. By using a special bacterial enzyme, they can turn donated type A, B, or AB blood into type O blood in the bag, which happens to be universal donor blood that can be donated to anyone.

This opens up the possibility that germs, viruses, or toxins may have the potential to change one’s blood type within our own bodies.

An article reported on a 4-month-old girl with congenital rubella who had type A blood that eventually switched to type O after weeks of testing. The scientists suspect an enzyme just “ate” the type A antigens, which made this little girl’s blood type appear to be type O. Science and the body never cease to amaze. It’s quite interesting. “

Rob Dubbin

Hello and welcome. There are a number of ways  you could have gotten here, but this one is  yours.

Did you know that the web is full of content?  This paragraph is but some of that content.

Furthermore, content content content. Content  between two slices of bread — a content sandwich. There is no telling what might happen  were it to fall into the wrong hands.

 

Thanks for stopping by.

“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.”

Negation will be televised

“Are you denying something?

-Who me? Denying? No, no…-“

Probably everyone has read or heard somewhere that Revolution may be or may not be televised. Revolution could be televised, doesn’t seem like it is so I will tell you what is: Negation. Negation like “the media” will be constantly manipulated. Even babies know that the media is so ridiculously and meticulously manipulated. But who is behind of all of this and why? We get it, it’s all about profits, one day guns are bad and the next day they are the most valuable constitutional right someone must have (or think about water: one day is super healthy and you should drink 8 glasses a day and shower with it and wash your food with it and bam! You probably need to stop everything because you watched the guy in the news say that there is a brain eating amoeba in potable water.. )  But I bet someone must know what is really going on.

 (-Would it be Henry Kissinger? -MMM, Why would it be him? -MMM Why not?)

Maybe it’s someone else like Rahm Emanuel or Frances Fox Piven who are behind elaborating economic crisis for profiting reasons, or it might be a disciple of Saul Alinsky or of Zbigniew Brzezinski who are the most controversial foreign policy gurus ( the creepiest presidents advisors) or the people who runs the Bilderberg group meetings, we are not sure, but I will tell you that it has to do with massive blood money (hipster trust-funds), people like Jared Cohen ( Condolezza Rice and Hillary Clinton’s advisor and co-author of Eric Shmidts latest book/Bridge man between Google and the US State Dep ), Eric Shmidt (Google’s CEO and NSA’s bff) , oil giants and former oil tycoons, and media moguls like: Rupert Murdoch and friends who are known for not only owning whatever you watch in TV (ex:FOX, National Geographic), Magazines and Newspapers (ex: the Private and Public laws), but also for  hacking the phones and emails of celebrities, royalty and public citizens… constantly. All of them face police and government investigations into bribery and corruption by the British government and FBI investigations in the US, or should. All of them plus the help of some people here and there from congress, white house, UN, Police Departments, Armies, Juries, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Federal Reserve, Banksters, Lawyers and many others who would and will Censored censored and more censored stuff.

Oh boy, just think of that power and that money that runs through their bloody pockets! That money means emancipation for billions of sinners (people like you and the pope who involuntarily are being part of WWIII) but enough of baseless details of the coolest and sexiest war ever; lets go back to why we have turned negation so monotonous that monsters are profiting on it.

(Isn’t it like that Hollywood? We are going to blame you for everything..)

“If you want to use the military’s toys, you’ve got to play by their rules,” says an outside military technical adviser to filmmakers. In exchange for providing Hollywood with military advice, personnel and awesome equipment for movies and TV shows, the Pentagon gets an advance look at scripts and has a chance to negotiate changes. Yep.

Negation has been so glamorized that who cares about… what was I writing about? Oh yes, revolution (Really? revolution?)… do we really need one? I mean, why can’t technology revolt or make justice for us already? Wouldn’t that be great? It will help me focus more on my attention spam and less in justice and inequities… Think about it while hollywood stars are adopting human clones for kids.. Aren’t they so cute?

( Maybe )

With the science and technology of today, with all those technologic breakthroughs we had lately, I think it is about time that we, as society, decide to avoid evolution, and is about time that we should start making something to our technology so it will do some rEVOLUTION for us instead! (Get it? Get it?) Life would be way much easier if some kind of human clones mixed with some sort of drone software could help us to overthrow the great ol’ debt empire and its atrocities!

(Wait a second, isn’t that plot really similar to the one of troopers in Star Wars, or to the one of Tom Cruise in Oblivion where technology and clones try to take over?)

“A weapon they are. Obey orders without question for good or ill. For now they fight for us. Who is to say what the future holds?” ―Yoda

Who knows? We might be able to broadcast the revolution Live, illegally, with the help of those fancy troopers  (If we dont have to pay them, we can let them starve to death). I guess we could even stream it somewhere in the internet where the NSA could save that information for us too.

(At least they are good at it, saving/hiding information and cloning humans, you know. Oh that’s right! You dont)

Some say that the day humanity/science could bring molecules back to life to an extent where we could resurrect humans, the human specie would have reached the next level of evolution. I can see why, humanity would kill 2 birds with one stone. While scientists are having their scientific revolution, opening markets and making science even way more profitable; others are at one payment away from evolution. So forget the NSA because if that ever happens, it would have cosmological problems trying to keep a secret from the most wealthy people who are on the next level of evolution.

(“The next level of evolution?”)

I remember when Pope John Paul II accepted evolution, he said  “truth cannot contradict truth.” The whole world was shocked! They were so shocked that the mainstream media had to forget everything about it! It was sort of one those mass posttraumatic stress disorders, when avoidance or numbing of memories of the event continue for more than a month after the traumatic event… Well, its been 202 months since the pope John Paul II said that, and they still seem like they haven’t assimilated it. So if the mainstream media (which has to do a lot with it) and the masses are not going to assimilate things that they should have moved on already with, then, why would I keep writing this?

The mainstream media is still making money portraying Catholics as fundamentalists. The way they put it is this way: those Catholics and Christians will never accept such things like evolution! Those kind of remarks may confuse some. In fact even some pseudo-Catholics (pagans who call themselves catholics) thought that when the pope accepted evolution back in 1996, it meant that the next time the church doesn’t want to accept some stuff related to hot science topics, the church will accept it later… so might as well accept the other scientific related topics now… topics like vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, donation of gametes,  morning-after pill, research on stem cells that by the way are totally banned from the church because of its abortive mentality towards embryos and babies.

(Think of all those babies Justin because Obama didn’t and he allowed to expand the limits with stem cell research)

But just imagine that we could resurrect/bring humans back to life for now and that we had reached the next level of evolution. (Pretty nice, huh?) Who we should bring back?  And why? MMM…What would we feed them while people starve in first world countries? How many people would we like to resurrect? Should we care for them like I care for my dog or like I care for my girl? Are they really them? You know, I mean can we have 2 of the same clones living at the same time with out any clone drama?  Do we keep them, bury them or we just throw them to the recycle bin/garbage waste disposal? There is no difference between the recycle bin and the garbage waste disposal…Duh!

Is there another level of evolution? Because this level has too many questions… (Should i keep asking or did I prove my point?)… Those are too many questions that we will probably never hear a reasonable answer so that I could later explain to you in a detailed way why they are all B.S in a future blog… unless if the questions are like: “can you have sex with someone else’s clone?”  Which the answer to that question is obviously YES, that’s why cloning was invented in the first place! Phew! No need of a future blog about it.

Im sorry for being a party-trooper, but I don’t think the next level of evolution is going to be met when scientists are finally and completely able to resurrect the death or when they could clone a human as a common school lab practice-test in a near future. Why? Because I am scared of it and because before getting to a stage where we can resurrect human beings we need to get rid of a lot of none sense that we keep dragging from the past like racism, oppression, world hunger, debt and stupidity. As soon as we eliminate all of those scary things we could later move on resurrecting all of those horrible things I just mentioned.

( If you have seen Almodovar’s movie: the skin that I live in…stuff like that happens under the ground in places like New Mexico, for-shizzle)

The first things that comes to my  mind is the power some individuals will get out of this technologial breakthroughs, then I think of all the media approach towards it. They have a long way to go but with the right minds, connections and yes, lots of zz bloody money, we are going to decide to screw the poor and to just go with it, like another trend, in fact, lets marketize it in any way we can! Kind of dark isn’t i? (Well you should tell that to the investors who wants to patent genes)

Technological innovations still carry some sort of dark history. Lets take some examples from Steve Jobs who we usually think he was someone great because he was a pro-life and because he loved apples. Think of all those unique minerals like coltan needed to be forged into your brand new Ipad. Where does coltan come from?

Imagine that you are in a David’s Attenborough BBC documentary that is about the richest patch of the whole World somewhere in the Congo… everything is beautiful, beautiful weather, beautiful animals, beautiful happy families raising their kids in the perfect place to transcend. And then out of the blue you and more than 6 million of congolese people get murdered by a foreign invasion power imposed first by the Ottoman empire and then by U.S and its allies. (You should inform yourself better about what is going down in the congo while you are not in the congo: Justice4congo.com.)

(Yes that’s where your apple products and most of our technologic innovations comes from… Mother Africa)

 ” (Congo) the richest country in the world, reduced to the very bottom to be the 187th out of 187 countries in the world in terms of human development” (as per the United Nations Development Program’s recent report).

 Now think of how apple has changed the life of so many hipsters. Do you think that they are willing to give up all of that technologic awesomeness of today and tomorrow for some starving, boney kid who all he or she can do is whale sounds with his or her belly-while his or her daddy is being oppressed working for miseries in a mine and when he is not working he is hunting down the neighborhood bully who raped his wife and sisters?… All of that just so i could write this blog?  Pretty intense isn’t it? Maybe they should show us that in the next Macbook air commercial for a change… (You must love and hate commercials)

So moving on, what about the dark history in genes, DNA, embryos, muscle tissues, organs? (Yeah! What about that history!?… ) Can you remember one of the craziest nazi scientists named Josef Mengele? (Oh no please! Not that story again!) Who here has a real concept of the way we had played with embryos (human fetuses) until this date? And where does human fetuses come from?

(?)

Today more than ever is more common to print a real organ than just drawing one. (Who draws organs anymore? Ok, if you draw cute hearts in a paper next to your name doesn’t count, at all. ) How did science and technology got so far?  ? Should we feel proud about it?  I don’t know if I could ever feel proud of all the naughty ways and means that led to such breakthroughs, there are really complicated technical questions in respect of playing with genes, stem cells and embryos in labs where an  “abortive mentality” has been predominant all of this years. ( If we find microscopic bacteria in another planet, we say we found life…How do we dare to debate over the life of a fetus?)

The means won’t justify the end no matter what. There are a lot of negative consequences: from adopting simple perspectives like being a pro-choice activist to being the Dr. “Aborting is one of my hobbies” Gosnell. The debt empire tried many times to just impose and force anti-christian perspectives and laws over the years but we didn’t let them, it was just as simple as that back then. So they found a new strategy which is to pay for beautiful and talented people to convince us in artistic ways so we could think what the string masters wants us to think, like we should think of not thinking whatsoever.

Only in China each year, there is about 13 million abortion of babies, the numbers says there was about 336 million abortions in China in the las 40 years (China has implicitly admitted its forty year-old one child per-family policy has been a failure) but I think that number is way much higher. So how did they managed to make abortion so normal without beautiful people at the front of the kill your baby campaign? (Im kidding my girlfriend is from china, Im kidding she is not) Easy, you must tell them big lies, you must tell them myths like overpopulation or that machismo rules. These sort of scenarios where people are influenced by really stupid paradigms are the perfect ones to find the most fanatic of the scientific fundamentalists, they are the most dogmatic people who accept their beliefs as universal and cosmological truths, and not as beliefs. They don’t even grasp that they are being even more dogmatic than religious people. This kind of people targets religious people with the excuse that the dogmas which religious people believe in are totally stupid! And the so called scientific dogmas and laws that they believe in are truer than truth and that can’t be question, and we shouldn’t call it dogma because dogmas are for religious dummies, so we should just call it reality…

They like to claim that no one could possibly prove the existence of God, and that when someone could finally prove that, they would consider believing in a creator. Pretty noble eh? Well if they claim that, and if you have the chance, just imitate them, please be as equally stubborn as them, and say: “No one can possibly prove that God doesn’t exist, and that when someone could finally prove that God doesn’t exist; you will still not believe that BS.” Why? Because you know how the world is run, you know that without the profit motive you can’t have “science” these days, and you know that proving the existence of God would only profit the church. So if investors can’t have money, they wont try to cure cancer or try to prove the existence of God. Hey but curing cancer will bring a lot of money to the investors? Yes, but not all of the money! That’s why “science” comes with advertising and lots of conflicted interests that raises blood money for unethical ventures and pig pile partners that profit on the fear of a life without God, or will profit on the fear of cancer or by patenting genes, they even make money each time there is an abortion.

Jesus used to categorized some people as pseudo-jews back then. This whole pseudo-religious-folks should not be of a huge shock to us. Just like there were some pseudo jews back then and today, there are also some pseudo christians, and some pseudo atheists and tons of pseudo scientists. In fact day by day, real Jewish people, real atheists, real fundamentalists and real scientists that are honestly opened to truth, reason and evidence, that are also well known by their peers and are recognized as an influential and really smart-intellectual individualities, they, are converting to Catholicism. Why? Because they know how to research (Matthew 7:8).

It is also true that the church is losing followers (Not true really, Jesus is adding 83000 followers a day, while agnosticism and atheists are losing 1000 followers), but all of those lost Jesus followers are not like the followers who got out their traditional beliefs system like the jewish that converted in Catholicism, they are more like the grapes you are not supposed to eat or even count on because they are meant to be thrown at people that are making bad jokes, like me…

Each and every day, tv shows, books, cartoons, news, commercials, movies, mainstream music videos and most of all those internet videos, will bleed to show us a world with out God’s history in this world. Yes, they are more willing to show you the life of Kanye’s West future ex wife than the life of a saint. But why should I complain if we love the lack of culture in our lives? Some will even get paid for that nonsense.

The problem is when this sort of anti-culture entertainment mixes with science and technology in a civilization that is looking forward to detach themselves from God and religion. We all learned the lesson when modern europe turned as the first society to detach religion of culture and even put one against the other. Forget every scientific breakthrough since the middle ages and keep in mind that without those old farts we probably couldn’t have come up with such great inventions like Poker-face. Just think of the names of celebrities back then and their contribution to society, I know, they have really beautiful biblical names like Ham, Job, On, Lot…  and now think of the names of celebrities that we have today… names like: Lady Gaga, Flo-rida, George Bush, Will.i.am, North West.

(Im running for NY mayor and my last name is the only thing I am ashamed of)

Definitively not everyone learned the lesson, recently an unanimous scientific board at TED  ( Which stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. ), the well known nonprofit devoted to “Ideas Worth Spreading”  decided that some of its paradigmatic ideas worth spreading are not so worth spreading anymore. A secret science board by unanimous votes banned some talks/conferences which caused a lot of  controversy among its own audience.

(I got to admit that TED is a great name for a stoned bear)

After finding out that a couple of video conferences went missing in TED.com, viewers felt completely disappointed of the decisions made by TED. It happened that a reputable scientist (Rupert Sheldrake) was publishing a book (the science delusion) at a TEDX conference in London, stating that science is dogmatic. Rupert Sheldrake’s conference and other talks were censored by an unanimous science board and deemed as pseudo scientific.

“The Science of Delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in.” –Rupert Sheldrake

What does this say about how science can be dogmatic without realizing it is dogmatic? Dont you think this whole controversy and the people who weighed and favored TED’s action do indeed confirm what Rupert Sheldrake is stating? Everything is questionable, specially SCIENCE! ‪#‎BOOM‬.

Among those talks there was a partially censored conference made by the super-rich, Seattle entrepreneur, Nick Hanauer. Nick states that rich people don’t create jobs and that lowering the taxes to the rich folks will be one of the worst solutions ever. Obviously that was too controversial for “TED” so there are no complete videos of all of his conference anywhere in the internet. You can only see parts of it but not the whole conference as it should be presented. The other 2 “talks” didn’t had such a terrible luck so they were not exactly censored but sent to the health warning section (or the “naughty corner” ) and removed from TED’s main site. One of those was Rupert Sheldrake’s talk which was later removed from the “naughty corner” and sent to another blog since it was also too controversial, these decision seemed to be made by Chris Anderson (head of TED). There was also another controversial conference that covered the war on consciousness by Graham Hancock, that one still remains at that naughty corner.

Reality is that there a lot of TED talks that are controversial, for example, there are conferences made by “militant atheists” that are totally opposed by large numbers of the public and which are not flagged up or put into the naughty corner, plus it seems that those talks will remain in the TED’s main site forever. It seems like the main issue here is that the filtered content has been separated in an extremely biased way.

(So next time you are craving a ted talk you should go straight up to the naughty corner and cut of the B.S)

According to the closing statement of TED on Rupert’s debate, the science board which deemed that talk as pseudo scientific declared that they (the science conference) shall remain secret because practically they are scared of bullies.

“Our science board has 5 members — all working scientists or distinguished science journalists. When we encounter a scientific talk that raises questions, they advise us on their position. I and my team here at TED make the final decisions. We keep the names of the science board private. This is a common practice for science review boards in the academic world, which preserves the objectivity of the recommendations and also protects the participants from retribution or harassment.“

(Hi I am Jerry Coyne and I am part of the 5 secret scientists in the scientific board of TED)

TED obviously has a public board of advisors known as the brain trust, where the main people in the area of consciousness studies are Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett/extreme militant atheists and materialists that could have possibly influenced these sort of decisions. Apparently from all the debates that these talks generated, people like Jerry Coyne and P.Z.Myers from the board of directors at TED appeared in the forum/debate at TED’s . Those guys would had ignore any attack from Christian Fundamentalists to Richard Dawkins (God’s delusion book) at the debate, but if they came across someone categorizing TED as unscientific or as “scientific fundamentalists” they would had to tear their vestments apart, out of rage.

We can’t know who is in the board of science and we can’t be even sure that they even exist. How credible would that science board of 5 secret scientists can be if we are not sure that those guys are not just another hipster trust fund seekers? We might never know, but we actually know that by TED’s criteria of elimination, the good ol’ Albert Einstein and the great Charles “I choose my cousin by natural selection” Darwin, would have been perfect candidates for being deemed as pseudo science, unscientific and censored away.

(Yes you did)

Here are some 10 interesting dogmas/beliefs questioned by Rupert Sheldrake in his book the “Science Delusion” that are taken as truths in a daily basis on any particular materialistic establishment run by scientific fundamentalists with a very limited mechanistic view of consciousness :

• Nature is mechanical – All creatures and systems in nature are but lumbering robots fulfilling a genetically programmed role. (Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth Lloyd—Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of the first technologically feasible design for a working quantum computer—the answer is yes.)
• Matter is unconscious – Stars, plants, animals, water, etc, are just material things and therefore do not and cannot have consciousness.
• The laws of nature are fixed – This is the idea that natural laws were fixed at the moment of the Big Bang, and will continue to be constant until the end of time. The habits of nature do not evolve.
• The total amount of matter and energy is the same
• Nature is purposeless – There is no design in nature, and the evolutionary process is merely a mechanical function. There is no higher purpose.
• Biological heredity – The traits of a species are composed of a physical material that resides in the genes.
• Memories are stored inside of the brain as material traces – Stored somewhere in the proteins and nerve endings are the memories of the mind. Like a physical filing cabinet.
• The mind is inside the head – The mind is physically bound to the head and brain in some way.
• Psychic phenomenon, like telepathy, is impossible – Thoughts have no effect on the outside world because the mind is inside the head.
• Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works – It is merely chance or the placebo effect if a natural remedy or other healing practice seems to affect physical healing.

(So who is the fundamentalist now?)

(They are pretty mediocre to be the 4 horsemen to me, but that quality might just play the trick)

But being the public voice of science for the last two centuries doesn’t make you by any means the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history as it is the Catholic church.

“It is clear from the historical record that the Catholic church has been probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were themselves Catholic, and that several Catholic institutions and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science.”  (Jesus of Nazareth vol I by Joseph Ratzinger) 

Since the 19th century we have seen that scientific fundamentalists have been the public voice for “science,” and I don’t mean priests or lay people, I mean agnostics, atheists, jews, protestants, masons,  have been the public voice of science since the 19th century. Why the 19th century? We know that from the 19th century and on the determining core of culture has been stripped away by taking religion and faith out of culture.  And you cant take faith and religion out of culture without bringing some terrible consequences. Like this one:

“Modern science  is based on this principle: give us free miracle and we will explain the rest (Terence Mckenna on the theory of the beginning of the universe and the Big Bang)

Here is a respected scientist like Mckenna helping us to grasp how mainstream media tries to detach God, faith and religion out of science, he also said once “If you are willing to believe in the big bang theory, you are not willing to believe!”  He is not trying to put God vs Science since he used to believe in God and was a scientists, but he is actually telling us about what is going on with that relationship, people don’t even know today that it was a priest who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe ( Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître called his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom‘), why dont we know these kind of things? Because mainstream media has done its job, it placed the big bang theory against God just like the asian communists imposed the machista ways of living down there. They will keep lying us about efficiency, religion, success, culture, faith, overpopulation, sex, science, love because deep down they are scared of losing their power. They know that knowledge mixed with reason and free will is the most powerful weapon a society may encounter, and to avoid that they have to brainwash you with their dogmatic materialism. They have to control what is said to the people, and to do that they need to keep neglecting common sense.

Dogmatic materialism is like the toxic smell of gas that some people really enjoy sniffing, but thanks to the internet, now we see a shift. Those people sniffing gas back at the gas station if they dont die of over dose of smelling fuel gases, would be run over by people like me who challenge their  standard arguments, demanding for evidence (which back then would have been really-really hard to come up with).  Forum debates are being easily heated up when there is lack of evidence, both sides could be really fundamentalist ( that is the common forum at TED and anywhere really), but the evidence is now at hand, there are places in the Web like EdX.org where you could study a whole MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, career for free!

With all that information at hand, Catholics are getting in-touch of their hidden authenticity, and are starting to come up with refined theological comics, cartoons, memes, quotes, blogs, podcasts, comebacks, jokes in the most modern ways possible so they could form and inform-announce and denounce the matters of the faith.

(The Chicken or the Egg?…I know the father of the chicken)

Sites like Catholic memes in Facebook are really bonding generations with a healthy and holy humor, somehow it seems like technology its actually doing some justice for us… I hope that means more educated prisoners because that means more presidents like Nelson Mandela who had to go to jail first to turn into a president.

( In my country we go to prison first for about 27 years and then we become president)

As Jesus said: For you will always have the poor with you (Matthew 26:11). While we dont stop our own unfair actions towards life and the unfair actions of the system we are going to stop evolving into this better being that evolution has breached for us. A revolution armed with weapons of peace has started. I wish that having a revolution was as easy as imaging it. I dont think I have imagined it for you yet: a world where some of my clones are getting rid of Federal Reserves and of the Bretton Woods complex, sending bankers, presidents, UN diplomats, CEO’s and cops to jail; Then one of those handsome clones will set  a new globalized monetary system where we dont have to work for survival or to cover our needs or the ones of our families, where if we wanted to make more money we just need to go out and make some good deeds, like caring for the sick or feeding a starving clone… while your needs are totally covered by the government from the day you are born until the day you die. Henry Kissinger would be dating the queen in a zoo for ever…

Now you know too much and that’s the thing, I would love to go on writing possible answers and solutions for a better world, and I will keep trying but not now, if I don’t start neglecting stuff this wont be televised. So these facts are “not” logical:

“We know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

All of that doesn’t make any sense but wikipedia “does.”

These guys are “lying”:

WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
Heisenberg wrote: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” [“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.”] (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10).

ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
“It pains me as much as it did Kelvin ‘to hear crudely atheistic views expressed by men who have never known the deeper side of existence.’ Let me, then, henceforth use the word God to describe that which is behind the mystery of existence and that which gives meaning to it. I think you will not misunderstand me, then, when I say that I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” (Millikan 1925).

GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
“Guglielmo Marconi wrote: “The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer [Creatore e Reggitore Eterno]; the more I feel that the so-called ‘science’ I am occupied with is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves.” (Marconi, as cited in Maria Cristina Marconi 1995, 244).

GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:
“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).

Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory:
“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”–

Double Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine, Chemist-Physicist Twice Recipient of Nobel Prizes in Chemistry:
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”–

“Nobody violates canon law like a pope.”