Quote# 128336

Depressed Teens: They Need More Than Happiness

By Eric Metaxas and Stan Guthrie, BreakPoint.org, June 14, 2017

The numbers are shocking. According to the journal Translational Psychiatry, more than 36 percent of teen girls in America are depressed or have had a recent “major depressive episode.” For boys, it’s a slightly less alarming–but only slightly less–13.6 percent.

It wasn’t always this bad. Writing at the National Review Online, Mona Charen reports that rates for depression and anxiety “were much lower during the Great Depression, World War II, and the turbulent 1970s than they are today.”

Mental-health issues are spreading like wildfire on college campuses, too. Ohio State, for example, reports a 43-percent jump in students seeking mental-health counseling in the last five years.

As Charen writes, “Something is robbing young people of happiness and well-being.”

Indeed–but what, exactly? Charen looks at several factors, eventually landing on changing family dynamics, such as divorce and single parenting. And this is right, as far as it goes. Not having a mom and dad at home can be very hard on young people. But it goes deeper. I think religious myopia has something to do with it, too.

Back in 2005, Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton described a corruption of the historic Christian faith growing among young people in America, including those in our churches, which they call Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. It is, they say, “centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amicably with other people.”

But despite Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’s focus on feeling good, it’s clear that many young people don’t. The question is why?

Perhaps what they need is not more encouragement to be nice, but more opportunities to encounter Love Himeslf–who gives them not a list of do’s and don’t’s, but an invitation to a banquet. “Come to me,” Jesus says, “all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. (Matt 11:28).

Somewhere deep inside, unhappy young people know that they were meant for more, much more, than this world can possibly offer. As Augustine said, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.”

It’s not about mere happiness. As C.S. Lewis said, “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that.” And yet Lewis claimed that there is something beyond mere happiness. He called it Joy, saying that the Lord uses it to draw us to Himself. “It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong,” Lewis wrote, “but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us…. We are far too easily pleased.”

So how do we connect young people with Jesus? Well, we need to pursue and know Him with this same holy dissatisfaction ourselves. Do we? You cannot share what you don’t have.

Eric Metaxas and Stan Guthrie, Tumblr 5 Comments [6/21/2017 4:12:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 128350

We do indeed need & value your prayers. It's heartbreaking to watch the news here & see comments from members of the public who support Islam. No one with any other opinion ever gets interviewed. It feels very lonely at the moment to have biblical views on Islam- something that not even many Christians seem to have.

Those of us who encounter the unsaved on a daily basis & are blessed to be able to witness the Gospel are being criticised & ridiculed for Who our faith is in. Muslims are getting no end of support & if we dare to speak out against it we are in the wrong. The only people who are against Islam are (as I read in another thread) white supremasists who are sadly anti semetic too.

My country has gone mad - calling good evil & evil good, just as scripture says. I no longer feel anything good about this land & every day with every news story it is more & more dismaying. DH & I knew that here we would read sense. Praise God we have His Word to find the truth in.

so-blessed, Rapture Ready 4 Comments [6/21/2017 4:17:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 128319

[Bob Blaylock opposes public accommodation non-discrimination laws.]

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment is the law, and as part of the Constitution, is the highest law in this nation. Those who abused the power of government to punish decent people for refusing to participate in openly immoral activities violated the law. Why is it that corrupt public servants get to violate the highest law with impunity, in order to impose unjust and blatantly unconstitutional laws under which to violate the rights of their rightful masters?

Croquet_Player:
Don't want to bake wedding cakes for some people? Fine! Don't sell wedding cakes in states that have anti-discrimination laws. No one's being forced to sell wedding cakes, or wedding flowers against their wishes. And nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated by non-discrimination laws. Don't like the laws? Take it up with the voters.

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment cannot be legitimately superseded by a mere vote. It can only be superseded by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution that overturns it.

The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.

Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Croquet_Player:
I seem to have missed the part of the Constitution where citizens are guaranteed the right to run a business any way they like, regardless of the laws regulating businesses.

Bob Blaylock:
And I seem to have missed the part where sick, immoral perverts have a right to impose their evil on sane, decent people.

In any event, it certainly strands to reason that engaging in commerce, in order to make an honest living, is a necessary part of life, and although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, at least falls among those rights implied in the Ninth Amendment, as an area in which government needs to have a strong case for a need to intervene before it can be allowed to do so.

There isn't really any similar case that can be made for any “right” on the part of immoral perverts to force their evil on sane, decent people, where the sane, decent people can't at least as equally claim a right not to have this filth forced on us against our wills.

Croquet_Player:
I understand that you feel some of your fellow Americans are "sick, immoral perverts", and you are entitled to that opinion. I feel the same way. I believe it is sick, immoral, and perverted, that in the United States, right now, some people can avoid prosecution by claiming "religious privilege" because they believe that modern medicine (or any medicine) is an affront to God, and they will simply "pray" over fatally ill people, instead of taking them to a doctor or calling 911, as a remedy, and if they die, it's simply "the will of God". And I'm working on laws to prevent this. Not because I think people can't believe what they like, but because when it comes to the point of a tumor the size of a grapefruit on a three year old's eye socket, I think it's better to remove the child from the parent's care, and remove the tumor and hopefully save the eye, or if that ship has sailed, remove the tumor so it doesn't spread and kill them in the next few years.

I don't understand where you are being force to "agree" with things you feel are wrong. No one is making you marry a gay person, or preside over a gay wedding. And you have every right to say what you like.

Do you "agree" with gay weddings? No, you clearly don't. Who is stopping you from holding that opinion? Or talking about it,as you are here? I really want to know. Because I will the first one on your side against anyone who says you can't hold that opinion, for religious reasons or otherwise. I'm an American, and you're my fellow American. (I think, I could be wrong, but whatever. I think everyone has a right to their religious opinions.)

Bob Blaylock:
Everyone needs to make a living. This means either running one's own business, or working for someone else who runs a business.

Nothing in the Constitution supports any power of government to compel anyone to waive any of his Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to engage in commerce.

Bob Blaylock, Christian News Network 3 Comments [6/21/2017 3:59:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 128343

Religion and religious freedom gone wild

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of religion in the “establishment” clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Words matter, so the first question that must be answered is a matter of definition.

What is religion?

The dictionary defines religion as:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.
3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Dictionaries have been used for centuries to help codify the meaning of words in an attempt to make language useful. Without accepted specific meanings for words it is impossible to communicate through language effectively. Language is the common denominator of speech. Even biblical stories express the importance of the meaning of words as they are understood or misunderstood in any language. The most famous example is the biblical story of The Tower of Babel that begins with everyone on Earth speaking the same language and able to understand each other. Whether the scattering of people around the world was a punishment for hubris or not, the consequence was that people began speaking different languages and could no longer understand each other.

But what happens when people speaking the same language no longer understand each other because they interpret the meaning of the same words differently? That is the situation we are facing in contemporary American society today.

The second question that must be answered is a matter of interpretation.

What does religion mean to you?

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently on the subject in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists who worried about their minority status in Connecticut. Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that being a minority religion would not be a problem in a Protestant majority state as far as the federal government was concerned.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (Wikipedia)


Jefferson’s letter clearly indicates that for Jefferson, religion was a matter of Man and God. Jefferson’s interpretation was the widely accepted and understood view of religion in the early 18th century. By the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court “incorporated” the Establishment Clause and expanded its application from the federal government to the state governments as well.

Practical application

The practical application of the freedom of religion also requires a uniform understanding of the meaning and interpretation of the word religion. The Exercise Clause clarifies the supremacy of Constitutional laws and freedoms over religious laws and freedoms. This is particularly important in contemporary America because we are facing “religious” practices of Islam that threaten our Constitutional freedoms.

The Free Exercise Clause distinguishes between religions beliefs and religious practices. It is the equivalence of distinguishing between thinking and doing. In America an individual is free to think murderous thoughts but he is not free to murder. Islam is a religion governed by religious Sharia Law that endorses honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage and pedophilia. American jurisprudence does not have the will or authority to change people’s beliefs. This applies equally to citizens of the United States, guests in this country, illegal aliens, or citizens of other countries. But we most certainly have the right and legal obligation to disallow any and all practices in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our cultural norms. Free Exercise Clause (Wikipedia)

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”[28] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”[29]

Words mean things

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/case.html

In Jefferson’s time as in Truman’s time the meaning of the word religion included items 1 and 2:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.

Seventy years later in 2017 we must reconsider the meaning of the word religion and ask the question:

What is Islam?

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Instead, Islam is a unified supremacist socio-political system with a military wing and a religious wing. Islam features religious sharia law. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is to make the world Islamic and impose sharia law worldwide.

Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. It is also intolerant. Islam is a political force seeking world dominion. So we cannot allow it religious protections like the Baptists in Connecticut during Jefferson’s times.

Islam is far more like the Nazis during Hitler’s time. Consider this question. What if Hitler declared Nazism to be a religion. It certainly qualifies as a religion according to Item 3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Suppose Adolph Hitler declared his Nazism a religion. Then would the left-wing liberal apologists for Islam defend Nazism? Would they defend its determination to rule the world and rid the Earth of every Jew? Would the lefty-wing liberals declare murder of Jews protected by religious freedom? How is this different from allowing Muslims to perpetrate honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage, and pedophilia?

There is no difference.

Apologists for Islamic barbarity claim that Islamists have perverted their religion. If so, it is also true that they have perverted our concept of religious freedom. Islam is not a religion like any other. Moreover its savage practices do not deserve protection under our religious freedom laws and the free exercise clause.

Linda Goudsmit, Conservative News and Views 23 Comments [6/20/2017 9:54:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 126056

At first glance, the average person would think think Discordianism is a joke, but it's no joke. It's actually a witchcraft tradition. It's interesting that www.discordianism.com is saturated with links promoting Wiccan witchcraft, spells, magick, and the occult. The following "Wiccan Tradition" page at www.wicca.com states...

"The Discordian or Erisian movement is described as a 'Non- Prophet Irreligious Disorganization and has claimed 'The Erisian revelation is not a complicated put-on disguised as a new religion, but a new religion disguised as a complicated put-on. "It all started with the *'Principia Discordia, or How I Found the Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her'*, a collection of articles and ideas compiled by Greg Hill (Malaclypse the Younger). The central theme is 'Chaos is every bit as important as Order' as illustrated in the story of The curse of Greyface:

*Humor is central to Discordianism, but Discordianism should not be dismissed as a joke. Profound experiences frequently accompany the practice or Erisinaism. It is a perceptual game, one which demonstrates that the absurd is just as valid as the mundane and chaos is just as valid as order. It frees the practitioner from the order games (that most have forgotten are games) to play games with order or games with chaos, or both. The effects of Discordianism upon an individual can be far reaching and amazingly liberating. [Although a great many immature individuals have played at Discordianism and thereby side stepped any chance of spiritual growth."

"Discordians believe that Chaos is as important as Order, and have a very dark sense of sarcasm/humor to prove it. Their main text is the "Principia Discordia." Though they may not seem like it, Discordians take their beliefs as seriously as any Gardnerian High Priest/ess. There are some groups that blend Discordianism with Wicca, making those particular groups a Wiccan tradition as well."

It is clear that Discordianism is a form of witchcraft. According to collegewicca.com (witchcraft)...

"The word "tradition" comes up when discussing Wicca. Basically, a tradition is the same as a Christian denomination."

What a deceit! There is NOTHING in Wicca even remotely related to a "Christian" tradition. Wicca is a false religion according to the Word of God, the Bible. 1st John 2:22 declares Wiccans as liars and Anti-Christs because they deny that Jesus is the Christ (the Saviour of the world)...

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

Discordianism is a form of Paganism which mocks decency and order. The Word of God condemns such nonsense, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1st Corinthians 14:40). Discordianism is a chaos promoting philosophy (religion), with many bizarre teachings and claims. An introductory course is offered at witchschool.com on Discordianism. Clearly, Discordianism is witchcraft. I didn't wrote this article to refute all the details of Discordianism; but, rather, to EXPOSE Discordianism for what it truly is, WITCHCRAFT!!! Discordianism is an inherent part of modern witchcraft.

David J. Stewart, jesus-is-savior 10 Comments [4/6/2017 12:39:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Mayasmom

Quote# 128351

(Kallah): It was only a matter of time before people began to fight back. So very sad indeed.....

But there is certainly so much anger and resentment. As in the US people are going to be inclined to take matters in their own hands if they cannot trust their leaders.

(billiefan2000): I know and with many on both sides riled up a civil war in the UK is likely inevitable.

(Hidden): Peace is fast eluding this world. Why is the media so quick to label this as an "attack on muslims" but when it's the other way around, they're pretty much mum about it... sigh...

Kallah, billiefan2000 , Rapture Forums 3 Comments [6/21/2017 4:17:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 128358


(Lady Checkmate writes the following headline):
European court rules in favor of Russian gay radicals, allowing them to prey upon and groom innocent children

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/european-court-angers-russia-gay-propaganda-ruling-n774521

Satan is after the children and reprobates are leading the charge. Stand against them Russia. Protect your children. Debased minds should not lead anyone.
(Bible quote removed)

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - Faith & Religion 3 Comments [6/21/2017 4:18:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 89088

i used to wear verrrryyy revealing clothing

then i learned that the nazis used to force girls to take off their clothes all the time and that when the jewish girls were given clothing, it was just a small dress. i realized that if the nazis, who were brutalizing and killing jews, used little and no clothing as a way to demean jewish women, that i should think twice if i want to do this to myself. i realized that nazis yank off clothing and keep girls undressed in order to demean them, but i have a choice, and i chose to stop demeaning myself. it wasn't always easy at times, but the more a person does anything at all--including wearing revealing clothes, too, until it seems totally normal--the easier it becomes.

ana, aish.com 55 Comments [8/20/2012 5:34:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 71

Quote# 10734

No one should ever have sex with anyone unless you want to have a child with that person, it is simply that.

If a man doesn't want to have a child he can use a condom [doesn't this choice contradict the first sentence?], not have ex, or get a vasectomy, that is where his choices are.

Freeper, Rapture Ready 22 Comments [4/10/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 128290

(tellville): Now, it seems to me, a consistent Baptist would acknowledge that Babies dying in infancy go to Hell, including the children of believers. I (currently) don't see any Biblical evidence that seems to suggest otherwise (God does have the freedom to save some infants and not others, but where does the Bible even bring that up?) Personally, I have no problems with infants going to Hell as I believe the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity and children are just as much under the wrath of God as I am, whether the children are mine or someone else's.

(matt01): I attended a evening chapel at The Master's College where Dr. MacArthur opened the floor to questions. One of my classmates stood and asked about the state of her daughter, who had died in infancy. Dr. M. assured her that all infants go to heaven. As a Reformed baptist, I would disagree. We do not know, nor can we know what the Lord determines for those who die in infancy. While I would hope that these children spend eternity in the presence of the Lord, I know that they may just as easliy receive the same reward that the unreached people receive upon death...

tellville and matt01, Puritan Board 12 Comments [6/19/2017 1:37:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 128296

Not a Slippery Slope? LGBTQ Are Now Going After Children!

I remember when proponents of the so-called LGBT movement said that they needed hate laws to “protect” them, and they got it. I remember when LGBT wanted “gay marriage,” insisting it was not a sexual “slippery slope;” and they got it. Now it’s legal to have sex with animals in Canada and now they’re coming after your children.

irst of all, I don’t care what your sexual orientation is; exposing children to sexuality (homo or hetero) only helps desensitize pedophilia. And now that the organized LGBTQ movement have achieved all its past supposed grievances (hate crime bill, gay marriage, etc), what else do they have to fight for?

Lest we forget that we’re talking about a group of people (LGBTQ) who define their life’s identity on how they like to f*ck. And if one’s existence is defined by lust and carnality, then what does that truly say about one’s modus operandi? Below is a video that may answer that question.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxGTqRFjzY

What you just witnessed is a microcosm of the slippery slope” that the LGBTQ movement said was a rhetorical figment of religious imaginations over 20 years ago. That “rhetorical figment” has become reality. Are we, as mature adults who are supposed to protect children, just going to accept this pro-pedo behavior? Is this the reason why the Leftist LGBTQ movement champions Islam and the protection of its sexually accepted practices?

This is NOT a Right or Left political issue! You are either pro-pedophile or you believe (like I do) that pedophilia should be an automatic death sentence. This is the last line of morality left in our morally bankrupt society. If we cross this line, what will be next? Legalized sex sacrifices, cannibalism and/or necrophilia? Don’t think it’s out of the question! Everyone ignored the “slippery slope” the last time.

Ghost


Ghost, Ghost.Report 10 Comments [6/19/2017 1:38:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 128283



unstumpable, Know Your Meme 21 Comments [6/19/2017 7:47:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 128131

You don't want to obey a man? How about your don't get married. No man forces his wife to do anything and can call himself a good Muslim. Good Muslim husbands ensure their wife is cared for and she doesn't go against Islam. Islam says a woman shouldn't travel without a mahram, so your husband and you would be sinning if you decided to do that and he allowed it to happen. As for not working, you'll find a lot of men, this includes myself don't want our wives working because we feel it's our duty and ours alone to earn the income and the woman doesn't need. Another reason would be because og the working environment being mixed, we don't want our wives in and amongst men.

Your view of marriage is not healthy.

An obediant wife is one, who will listen and understand what the husband wants. An obedient wife will also realise her duty comes to Allah first then next her husband. A husband being the head of the household has all responsibility on his shoulders, he will be held accountable if his house is in tatters.

If you don't want to obey or listen to your husband, don't get married. With the attitude you have, I doubt any Muslim man would want to marry you anyway.

johnfisher, Ummah 11 Comments [6/14/2017 2:00:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 128269

Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada's Supreme Court.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html

Canada is a pit of depravity....possibly worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Come quick Lord.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - Faith & Religion 23 Comments [6/19/2017 5:29:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 128239

Perhaps the problem is the identification of terms. "Freedom" is not something that can be very definitively described. What can be is clearly defined is independence. The modern revolutionary state is all awash in "freedom" and "rights" but very little independence. We might gain new "freedoms" every day and extent "rights" to this group or that group but across the world our independence is slipping away -no actually it is running away at breakneck speed! That was an important difference between feudal monarchies and revolutionary republics that are just dripping with "freedoms". True, your average person in the Middle Ages could not vote, worship the devil or marry someone of the same gender but that person was independent. Back then the government stuck to big issues like wars, upholding religion and regulating trade. Even in far off America just prior to the "War for Independence" I doubt that King George III was concerned with how fast someone rode their horse, how much water their out-house used, if they smoked in public or were eating anything too high in cholesterol.

The Mad Monarchist, madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz 12 Comments [6/19/2017 1:27:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 128308

Llod Pye's work showed we didn't evolve from apes. And there were ET's on this planet. Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomena however how it occurs and why is were they get it wrong and their interpretation of its meaning is their own ego and lack of understanding. I read a critic of Darwinism in a book on genetics'. It takes as much faith to believe in Darwinism as it does jesus. Darwinism today is now the vanguard of this strange materialist Marxist cult of neo-atheism.

HP Mageson666, Joy of Satan 7 Comments [6/19/2017 1:53:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 128316

An Arkansas lawmaker who owns a day care where a child died in a hot van previously fought a proposal that might have saved the boy’s life.

State Rep. Dan Sullivan (R-Jonesboro) is the chief executive officer of Ascent, a child care organization where 5-year-old Christopher Gardner died last week after spending eight hours strapped in a booster seat as the heat index soared over 100 degrees, reported KATV-TV.

Four employees of the West Memphis facility have been charged with manslaughter in the boy’s death.

“Staff did not follow company policies and procedures, and if they had, this tragedy would not have occurred,” Sullivan said in a statement.

He later offered to pay the boy’s funeral expenses, but the family declined.

“It didn’t take them but two minutes or one minute to go back and get off they lazy ass and go see where the kids at — they didn’t check for my grandbaby?” said the boy’s grandmother, Carrie Smith.

Sullivan asked the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission last year to reduce a requirement that at least half of child care employees at any facility be certified in CPR and first aid.

Four of the commissioners told KATV that Sullivan questioned whether the oversight body should exist after they refused to cut the requirement, and he sponsored a bill stripping the commission of its authority to regulate child care centers.

That measure became law, the only bill sponsored by Sullivan to pass during that legislative session.

Sullivan drew national attention in 2001, when he suspended an 8-year-old boy from school for three days for pointing a chicken finger at a teacher and saying, “Pow, pow, pow.”

The former principal justified the suspension under a zero-tolerance policy enacted at South School after two teens killed four classmates and a teacher and wounding 10 other students in 1998 at Jonesboro’s Westside Middle School.

The same Ascent facility where the boy died last week experienced a shigella outbreak in April, sickening nearly 40 children and employees, and the facility was temporarily closed Wednesday to stop the continued spread of the bacterial infection, reported Arkansas Times.

The Department of Human Services has also launched an investigation into Ascent for possible Medicaid fraud after the boy’s death.

A spokeswoman for DHS told the Arkansas Times that the boy had been inaccurately marked as present in class, which would have made the day care center eligible for reimbursement, raising concerns about the facility’s Medicaid procedures.

Dan Sullivan, Raw Story 14 Comments [6/19/2017 2:46:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 128279

This notion that Christians' belief in hell results in contempt for non-Christians is not something this old geezer thought up by himself, this is something he picked up from some of his young flunkies, the little snowflakes who have the Thought Police mentality and are certain that "bigots" (defined as "people we don't like") are out to get them. When you get down to it, liberalism is really just politicized paranoia. Someone who doesn't think like them must be a horrible person, and if that person believes in hell, he must be planning to treat unbelievers badly - and never mind that his actions have never shown him to be a bigot.

Tianzhu, Patheos 8 Comments [6/19/2017 7:46:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Nemo

Quote# 10714

[Someone who apparently isn't aware of Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek"]

The KILLING of ONES ENEMY is SUPPORTED in the New Testament !! ~Have at it!!

Firstly, one must apply logic and reason . . .
If we do NOT kill OUR ENEMIES, they WILL mutilate and/ or KILL US!! If we allow ourselves to be "terminated", we will cease to exist and/or to have affect in the present MATERIAL and very real WORLD!!

Take for instance, this example:
The Moselm people ~BELIEVE~ in HUMAN SACRIFICE and they are in the process of proving this fact and practicing this belief {as they terrorize todays world}. . . They wish to OFFER-up to THEIR GOD ~allah~every FREEDOM LOVING INDIVIDUAL in the USA {and their supporters} . . .

Sooo, the Q is: Do we cower and given in and become Moselm ourselves or do we FIGHT-BACK??? A: We fight back and terminate them ~everyone of them~ so that WEcan get a good nights' sleep again!! And we must ask ourselves WHY we AMERICANS send ONLY our VERY BEST into war, leaving the rejects, the very lowest of persons behind to reproduce and mate with the WOMEN left behind . . . EVERYONE should be eligible to GO to WAR to defend FREEDOM . . . AND most of all we should send the worst of the worst FIRST to MAINTAIN the POPULATION BALANCE So that the BEST-OF-THe-BEST can continue to reproduce and KEEP AMERICA STRONG!!

HolyGuardianAngels, Christian Forums 33 Comments [4/9/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 10728

[The poster is male.]
o yeah and i seem to recall a verse that explains why women go through pain in childbirth......o yeah, it's a consequence of SINNING. so it's something that they are just gonna have to deal with, because it's the consequence of their own actions. or arent you a strong enough woman to accept the reprocusions of what you've done?

i wonder if there are roses in heaven, Myspace 46 Comments [4/10/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Shiny Mirror Award

Quote# 128297



Mr Americana, Overpasses for America 12 Comments [6/19/2017 1:38:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew

Quote# 128305

We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as “surplus.”

This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.

Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to houses, yards, or cages for their own safety.

PETA, PETA 19 Comments [6/19/2017 1:41:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 128320

[Bob Blaylock continues his crusade against anti-discrimination laws.]

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, but it doesn't specify where the line gets drawn when that right conflicts with other rights.

Bob Blaylock:
Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Ambulance Chaser:
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that the First Amendment didn't forbid the government from passing laws that forced public accommodations to serve a specified class of clientele.

Bob Blaylock:
There is no right to another person's labor. Nothing in the Constitution implies or hints at any such right.

There is no legitimate basis on which to conclude that a nonexistent right, nowhere stated, implied, nor even hinted at in the Constitution, can take precedence over a genuine right, explicitly stated or strongly implied in the Constitution.

Ambulance Chaser:
The "legitimate basis" is that the Supreme Court ruled it. You can disagree with the ruling all you want but it's there and it's law, and your disagreement is irrelevant to American jurisprudence.

Bob Blaylock:
The Supreme Court does not have the authority—no matter how many times it has gotten away with illegally usurping it—to override the Constitution. No part of the Constitution can legitimately be overridden or overturned by anything short of a Constitutional Amendment

TheKingofRhye:
They don't "override" the Constitution, they interpret it.

Bob Blaylock:
Calling a thing by a different name doesn't change what it is.

When the courts “interpret” the Constitution to mean something contrary to what it clearly says, then they are overriding it, and engaging in open corruption and malfeasance.

Ambulance Chaser:
I don't understand what kind of system you think we run. Do you think that Supreme Court rulings are only valid conditionally? Who gets to determine when rulings are valid or not? Any random person? Is our system just anarchy?

Bob Blaylock:
The Constitution is the highest law, and all public servants, in all levels of government, are under a sworn duty to uphold, obey, and defend it. Any act of any public servant, which violates the Constitution, is invalid and illegal. This certainly includes the acts of corrupt judges who “interpret” the Constitution contrary to what it clearly says.

There is a problem, of course, when those who we charge with the duty of upholding the law choose, instead, to pervert and violate it.

Ambulance Chaser:
Still not answering my question, just soapboxing.

Bob Blaylock:
It's unclear what answer you are expecting, or what answer would satisfy you. The Constitution is the highest law; and you seem bent on arguing that it is subordinate to the wills of corrupt judges who would “interpret” it away from its clear meaning. You are simply wrong in that position.

Ambulance Chaser:
No, I'm asking you who makes the final decision about what the Constitution means. You keep saying that the judges are corrupt. Who decides that? You? Who determines when judges' rulings can be ignored because they're "corrupt?"

Bob Johnson:
Certainly some interpretation is required. What does “press” in the 1st Amendment or “his” in the 6th Amendment mean? However, in this case, it seems that what is clear to you is not the same as what is clear to several courts with scores of judges over several decades.

Bob Blaylock:
To a very limited degree, yes, some legitimate interpretation is called for. But then we have plenty of instances where the Constitution is absolutely clear on a matter, and we have courts trying to twist it to mean something other than what it says. Consider the Second Amendment. We have courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, issuing rulings about when and where and how the government may infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment already clarified that. Government is forbidden from infringing this right at all. Period. Yet the courts and other parts of government absolutely refuse to obey this part of the Constitution.

The First Amendment is clear about religious freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. And yet our government violates these rights, in order to uphold fake “rights” that are nowhere even hinted at in the Constitution. This is not “interpretation”; it is corruption and malfeasance.

Bob Blaylock, Christian News Network 13 Comments [6/19/2017 9:45:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 47547

Liberal police force ignores blasphemy; Christian sues

A Christian activist is bringing a private prosecution for outraging public decency against an art centre in Gateshead, north-east England, after the local police force in the socialist-controlled region declined to take action. Christian Emily Mapfua (40) was outraged by the decision of the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art to display an obscenely-modified statue of Jesus as so-called 'art'. But Northumbria Police declined to act on her complaint, so Emily is going it alone. Well, not quite alone, as we suspect all Christians and people with any decency at all will support her.

conservapedia main page, conservapedia 57 Comments [9/15/2008 3:03:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 6824

It's just so sad to me the way these [Islamic] clerics preach lies and hate. If only they knew the truth about the 'god' they serve.

mld726, Rapture Ready 21 Comments [4/1/2004 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30 35 40 | top