1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | bottom
Quote# 136187

It has been established at CEC that the current portrayal of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds should be seen as nothing more than an act of deception orchestrated by academics in wilful disregard of the historical evidence for the sake of legitimizing the leftist/global corporate goal of creating a race-mixed Canada against its European heritage.

The record shows, rather, that ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain, that it was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from the Third World started to arrive in large numbers, that Canada was 96 percent ethnically European as late as 1971, and that immigration itself was not even the most important factor in Canada's population history but the high fertility rates of true born Canadian pioneers.

It has also been established at CEC that the French Canadiens were practically a new people born in the soil of New France, or within lands inside present-day Quebec, driven by the "exceptionally high" fertility rates of women, 5.6 surviving children on average, coupled with honourable patriarchal respect for women with children, the hard work and self-reliance of farmers.

In this article we will show that before the conquest, from Canada's origins up until the 1760s, immigrants played a very small role demographically in the making of Canada. Not only the Quebecois, but the Acadians as well, were a newly created people in the soil of North America. Native born Quebecois and Acadians were the main historical protagonists in the settlement of Canada for almost the first two hundred years.

Another Misleading Text about Canada's "Diverse" History

Don't you believe current historians who tell you that "New France was a multicultural society, with a considerable First Nations population and an African community". This is the message advocated by one of the most widely used texts in Canadian universities, consisting of two volumes, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, and Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. This very successful text, now in its seventh edition, claims that it is a major improvement over "the older texts", not only in incorporating "new historical research", but in showing that "anyone seeking to understand our diversity today must first examine the pre-Confederation era" (Origins, pp. 108, viii, fourth edition).

The two volumes seek to imprint upon students an image of Canada as "diverse" and "multicultural" from the beginning. Needless to say, Amerindians were the first inhabitants of territories that came to be identified as "Canada" only through the establishment of French and Anglo institutions during the 1600s to 1800s. But the "first peoples", the Hurons, Algonquins, Cree, Iroquois, and others, were organized in tribes spread over territories that can in no way be identified as part of "Canada" before Europeans arrived. They were territories actually contiguous with the United States rather than neatly located within Canada. Only in retrospect, through the European science of geography, have they been, and can be, demarcated in the continent of North America for pedagogical instruction, but not as actually existing tribal nations with definite geographical boundaries, since none of these tribes were organized as nations with marked boundaries.

Amerindian cultural areas

European geographers, not the Amerindians, have classified the natives of Canada in terms of six cultural areas, "Northwest Coast", "Plateau", "Plains", "Subarctic", "Arctic", and "Northeast". Indians had an intimate knowledge of the land, the soil, migration pathways of animals, weather, location of rivers, lakes, mountains, upon which the first European settlers and fur traders relied for survival. It was the Europeans, however, who mapped these territories and eventually created our modern institutions from the ground up.

It is extremely anachronistic and misleading to tell students that these tribal groups were members of a multicultural Canada. The French and English, for one, inhabited separate cultural lives, and in respect to the Natives, they inhabited totally different worlds. Their interactions with Natives are best described as interactions between separate peoples, commercial and military interactions, which affected both sides, but which essentially involved the modernizing encroachment of the Anglo-French side upon the Native cultures, leading to a situation in which, by the time of Confederation in 1867, only 1 percent of the racial population of Canada was Amerindian.

This reduction was of course tragic for the Aboriginals. But it is only by identifying them as a separate people that we can acknowledge their distinctive heritage instead of falsely assimilating them into a "multicultural Canada" as co-creators of a nation that only became multicultural in 1971 and in which, to this day, most Natives remain apart.

It is outlandish for Origins and Destinies to tell students that "in 1867" the Natives peoples were one of the three "major groups" that made up "Canada's multicultural society" (Destinies, third edition, p. 1). How can one percent of the population living in "lands reserved for Indians" — to use the official designation of the British North America Act — be identified as a "major" cultural group in Canada, equal to the French and the British, which made up 92 percent of the population?

The historians of these volumes want to have it both ways: an image of a European Canada that "decimated" the Natives through diseases, and an image of "First Nations" as co-partners in the creation of Canada's parliamentary institutions, legal system, schools and universities, churches, and modern economy. They want students to believe that the Natives were the "first peoples", followed by the French and English, as the next two "major groups", followed by the arrival of "non-British and non-French immigrants", as a fourth major group. This fourth group is portrayed as a multiracial lot, even though the statistics contradict any such picture.

The facts about the ethnic composition of immigrants, which this text cannot hide altogether, show that, at the time of Confederation, the English constituted about 60 percent of the population, the French 32 percent, and the remaining "non-British and non-French immigrants" about 8 percent. The non-British and non-French were all whites from Europe and the United States.

Origins: Canadian History to Confederation

There was no "considerable" African community in New France. The facts stated in Origins, which are the only facts that can be legitimately used, contradict this contrived interpretation: from its origins to 1759, only about 1,200 African slaves were brought to New France (p. 111). Another source says that "from 1681 to 1818 there were approximately 4100 slaves in French Canada, representing less than one per cent of the population".

The facts Origins has to rely on, since they are the only historically documented facts, contradict not only its claim that Canada was created by diverse racial groups but also the claim that the Europeans generally were "immigrants". In the case of New France (and let us not forget that the history of New France is basically the history of Canada up until 1763), the text offers a detailed table on the number of French immigrants "by decade" from 1608 to 1759, from which we learn that the total number of immigrants throughout this period was only 8,527 (p. 93). By contrast, the population of New France in 1759 was about 60,000. These numbers are consistent with the numbers I offered in The Canadiens of New France: A People Created Through the Fecundity of the Women — Not Immigration.

Since the French were the first Canadians, and the English proportion in Canada as a whole, before the Conquest of 1763, was scattered and incidental, it behooves us to conclude, on the basis of the above numbers, that immigrants played a minimal role from the time Samuel de Champlain planted the first permanent settlement at Quebec in 1608 up until 1763.

This point can be further accentuated through a consideration of the Acadians. In the calculation of the demographic history of French Canadians, the Acadians are sometimes included without a clear identification of their own demographic identity. The Acadians were another newly created people in the soil of America, not in present day Quebec, but in the maritime part of New France, or in the province of present day Nova Scotia.

The beginnings of the Acadians closely resembles that of the Quebecois; they too began as a small colony of men, or wooden buildings constructed in Port Royal in 1605 by Champlain, but these colonists were forced to return to France in 1607. In 1611, 20 new colonists, including a family, were brought back to Acadie, but this settlement failed as well.

It was only in 1651 that a demographic dynamic was set in Acadie, when about 50 families, or about 500 settlers, were brought in. After 1671, 40 more families were recruited from France, leading to a population of 800+ by 1686. By 1710, there were around 2,000 Acadians, "most of them born in North America" (J.M. Bumsted, 2003, p. 39). The text Origins likewise informs us that the "average Acadian couple usually married in their early twenties and had ten or eleven children, most of whom survived to adulthood" (p. 140).

Without any more French immigration, "the Acadian population multiplied by nearly 30 times between 1671 and 1755". By 1750, "there were more than 10,000", and "in 1755, more than 13,000 (excluding Louisbourg" (Origins, pp. 141-44). J.M. Bumsted tells us that Louisbourg's Acadian population was 3,500 in the 1750s (2011, p. 67).

The British gained control of Acadia in 1713, and in 1749 some 2500 British Americans were recruited, and then in 1750-51 about 1500 German Protestants settled at Lunenburg. This population, however, has not been counted in the above Francophone numbers. We will be writing about British immigration/birth rate patterns in a future article.

In the context of a full-scale war between France and Britain, and the refusal of the Acadians to give a formal pledge of loyalty to the British rulers in Acadia, in 1755-58 the British deported about three-quarters of the Acadian population. By 1762, they had expelled another 3000. However, in 1764, the British allowed about 3000 Acadians to resettle back in Nova Scotia, and by 1800 the Acadians numbered 4000.

It should be noted that in the 1740s there were about 700 Acadians in Prince Edward Island (PEI), then known as Île St-Jean, and categorized as part of Acadia (Nova Scotia). In 1757, approximately 2,000 Acadians had fled to PIE as refugees, which increased the population to about 4,500, but the British expelled many of these Acadians in 1758. A census of 1803 showed a population of nearly 700 in PEI. In New Brunswick, a territory carved out of former Nova Scotia in 1784, there was a population of 4,000 Acadians in 1803, a "result of high birth rates rather than the return of more exiles" (Origins, p. 153; Bumsted, 2011, p. 109).

The conclusion we must reach is quite self-evidential: the Acadians began as a small group of immigrant families, only to grow into a people with blood ties firmly set in Acadia, through a very high fertility rate, with its own unique Francophone identity, with speech patterns quite different from the Quebecois, in a very harsh environment that required the harvesting of salt from the salt marshes, the clearing of forested uplands, the building of dikes to reclaim land from the Bay of Fundy's strong tides; yet establishing themselves with a "far higher standard of living than all but the most privileged French peasants", coupled with a spirit of independence and refusal to submit to external authorities, which led to their expulsion, though not their demise, constituting today about 11,000+ in Nova Scotia, and 25,000 in New Brunswick.

The claim that Acadians were just immigrants no less different to the making of Canada than Sri Lankan Tamils, corrupt Chinese real estate millionaires, and Somalis is patently absurd, a discreditable claim that only academics who are out of touch with historical reality, and shamelessly unburdened by their traitorous attitudes towards their ancestors, would make.

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian 7 Comments [1/23/2018 1:13:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 93000

If religion was not real then why would people insist on atheism? I do not want to stereotype but most athiests i have met were gays. Yet they fail to notice that when they engage in sexual activity that goes against procreation they take part in a ritual that worships baal peor. Their flag has a relative symbol of that on the belly of baphomet (where a woman bears her child) thus being against procreation. If symbolism did not have such a powerful influence, would it be ok for your children to attend a kindergarten with nazi symbols all over the walls?

There are many people in this world who go about their day everyday without acknowledging their spirituality. Alot of people in this world are comfortable with this, some have never acknowledged measurement of themselves physically, emotionally, and in this case spiritually.

I have tested god in many ways, many sinful ways, when 'coincidences' happen too often i believe it is a miracle or the work of a spiritual being (oohh weee ooohh) My head was 10cm away from being crushed by a SUV type porsche while crossing great south road i tripped over. I have never believed in luck and i believe just as there is a god there is the devil or people involved in the devils work.

Erana Monica, topix New Zealand 93 Comments [3/6/2013 6:05:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 73
Submitted By: Hasan Prishtina

Quote# 831

One of the main reasons why the churches are filled with WAY more women than men is because nonchristian men view Christian men as feminized sissies who don't have the balls to ever make an unpopular stand. It's exactly what kept me from becoming a Christian for so many decades. I felt if I became a Christian, I would have to learn how to become a wimp. Most Christians worship "being liked" more than they worship Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, it appears that you are among their pathetic numbers.

Christians are supposed to be judgemental. To not judge is to be indecent, not to mention inhuman. The only kingdom in which there is no judging is the plant kingdom. Vegetables do not judge. In the animal kingdom, though, judgment is a must, and members of the Kingdom of God must do the most judging."

"'Judge not' is the prayer of those who want to hide light under a basket. The cliché describes salt which has lost its flavor, which no longer seasons or preserves. Christians like you who are seduced by this terrible lie are taken out of the game which is EXACTLY what the atheists on this forum want. As spectators on the sidelines, Christians only watch the spiritual battle. But they are in a comfort zone. Apathy is the craving. "Judge not" is the mantra for shirking responsibility."

"Extreme ignorance of the Bible has crippled the Church. And that crippling is obvious in virtually every denomination, and in almost all local fellowships. What is the percentage of Christians who have succumbed to the "Judge not" deception? Is there even one percent of believers who have not fallen for that diversion?"

"I think the main reason why Christians like you don't like to judge is because most Christians today are nicer than God.

Or at least they are trying to be so. In the Church there is a standard of niceness that Jesus failed to reach while on earth. Comparing God’s attitude and behavior with that of the Church today shows that believers are far more polite, tolerant, understanding and respectful to the wicked than God is."

"Jesus was a man, not a girl. Christianity today has been emasculated. Men and women are different and they communicate differently. Women are softer and nicer than men, and thank God that they are. However, men are not supposed to be women. Today, Christian ministers are expected to behave like women. That foolishness is a death sentence for many unbelievers."

"Today Christians like you are way nicer than God. It is tragic."

"Wimps, wimps, wimps. I'm sick and tired of Christian wimps!

Goriller, Internet Infidels 27 Comments [10/1/2002 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 136182

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Dear Congress, wearing black to the State of the Union helps no one. Let's have some action"

(Fox News opinion piece was cut and pasted, link here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/23/dear-congress-wearing-black-to-state-union-helps-no-one-lets-have-some-action.html)

Lady Checkmate:
That's another example of the silly, childish, theatrics and games the alt-left and it's leaders like to play (think of the pink kitty hats). Goofy! Grow up and get to work, adults

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 14 Comments [1/23/2018 9:47:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 136014

I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.”

But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. [b]Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.

As a Stanford undergraduate studying philosophy in the late 1980s, I naturally was drawn to the give-and-take of debate and the desire to bring about freedom through political means. I started a student newspaper to challenge the prevailing campus orthodoxies; we scored some limited victories, most notably in undoing speech codes instituted by the university. But in a broader sense we did not achieve all that much for all the effort expended. Much of it felt like trench warfare on the Western Front in World War I; there was a lot of carnage, but we did not move the center of the debate. In hindsight, we were preaching mainly to the choir — even if this had the important side benefit of convincing the choir’s members to continue singing for the rest of their lives.

As a young lawyer and trader in Manhattan in the 1990s, I began to understand why so many become disillusioned after college. The world appears too big a place. Rather than fight the relentless indifference of the universe, many of my saner peers retreated to tending their small gardens. The higher one’s IQ, the more pessimistic one became about free-market politics — capitalism simply is not that popular with the crowd. Among the smartest conservatives, this pessimism often manifested in heroic drinking; the smartest libertarians, by contrast, had fewer hang-ups about positive law and escaped not only to alcohol but beyond it.

As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a libertarian politics appear grim indeed. Exhibit A is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and leverage, facilitated by a government that insured against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that the response to this crisis involves way more debt and leverage, and way more government. Those who have argued for free markets have been screaming into a hurricane. The events of recent months shatter any remaining hopes of politically minded libertarians. For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our education culminates with the knowledge that the broader education of the body politic has become a fool’s errand.

Indeed, even more pessimistically, the trend has been going the wrong way for a long time. To return to finance, the last economic depression in the United States that did not result in massive government intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom. The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”

The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it. Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom. Let me briefly speak to three such technological frontiers:

(1) Cyberspace. As an entrepreneur and investor, I have focused my efforts on the Internet. In the late 1990s, the founding vision of PayPal centered on the creation of a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution — the end of monetary sovereignty, as it were. In the 2000s, companies like Facebook create the space for new modes of dissent and new ways to form communities not bounded by historical nation-states. By starting a new Internet business, an entrepreneur may create a new world. The hope of the Internet is that these new worlds will impact and force change on the existing social and political order. The limitation of the Internet is that these new worlds are virtual and that any escape may be more imaginary than real. The open question, which will not be resolved for many years, centers on which of these accounts of the Internet proves true.

(2) Outer space. Because the vast reaches of outer space represent a limitless frontier, they also represent a limitless possibility for escape from world politics. But the final frontier still has a barrier to entry: Rocket technologies have seen only modest advances since the 1960s, so that outer space still remains almost impossibly far away. We must redouble the efforts to commercialize space, but we also must be realistic about the time horizons involved. The libertarian future of classic science fiction, à la Heinlein, will not happen before the second half of the 21st century.

(3) Seasteading. Between cyberspace and outer space lies the possibility of settling the oceans. To my mind, the questions about whether people will live there (answer: enough will) are secondary to the questions about whether seasteading technology is imminent. From my vantage point, the technology involved is more tentative than the Internet, but much more realistic than space travel. We may have reached the stage at which it is economically feasible, or where it soon will be feasible. It is a realistic risk, and for this reason I eagerly support this initiative.

The future of technology is not pre-determined, and we must resist the temptation of technological utopianism — the notion that technology has a momentum or will of its own, that it will guarantee a more free future, and therefore that we can ignore the terrible arc of the political in our world.

A better metaphor is that we are in a deadly race between politics and technology. The future will be much better or much worse, but the question of the future remains very open indeed. We do not know exactly how close this race is, but I suspect that it may be very close, even down to the wire. Unlike the world of politics, in the world of technology the choices of individuals may still be paramount. The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism.

For this reason, all of us must wish Patri Friedman the very best in his extraordinary experiment.

(Emphasis added)

Peter Thiel, Cato Unbound 7 Comments [1/16/2018 12:12:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 136183

[Emphasis added to give you an idea what Vox considers wacky social justice nonsense]

This isn't Jon's fight. It certainly isn't the comics journalists' fight; they are on the other side. This is a fight for everyone, of the Left and of the Right, who doesn't want to be totally controlled by the social justice warriors. This is for everyone who wants to be able to write what he wants to write, to draw what he wants to draw, and to tell the stories that he wants to tell without facing immediate disemployment and permanent blackballing from the industry.

This is the GamerGate situation on steroids. It is as if all the game developers teamed up with the game journos against the gamers rather than quietly siding with the gamers.

Everyone to the left of me desperately wants to believe that a line will somehow be drawn between them and the evil crimethinkers of the extreme right. But Chuck Dixon, Will Caligan, and Jon Malin all demonstrate that the line will always and continuously move leftward until every individual and organization in the comics industry are forced to converge to the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice in the utmost degree.

That is the goal. Since 1861, that has always been the goal.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 9 Comments [1/23/2018 9:50:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 136178

Are Baha'i Christian?

The Biblical answer is No! But Baha'i will answer, 'yes.' They claim the foundations of Christianity and the religion of Baha'u'llah are one. The foundations of all the divine Prophets and Holy Books are one. The difference among them is one of terminology only.
The Baha'i Faith is essentially rationalistic. "We must not accept traditional dogmas that are contrary to reason, nor pretend to believe doctrines which we cannot understand. To do so is superstitious and not true religion."

Because of this inclination to reject any doctrine that does not seem reasonable to them, Baha'i interpret allegorically, rather than literally, the biblical doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the bodily Resurrection of Christ, the existence of angels and evil spirits, and the doctrines of heaven and hell. Yet, despite this insistence that everything must be understood in order to be believed, they hold that God Himself is impersonal and unknowable. He can only be perceived indirectly through the reflection of his Manifestations - Jesus being ONLY ONE of these NINE, in no manner superior to the other eight.

Baha'i deny that man fell through Adam from his original spiritual and moral state. They affirm that no one is "essentially" bad or evil, but merely imperfect. Sins are characteristics of the lower, baser plane of nature, and education brings deliverance from them. Baha'u'llah taught that men ought not to confess their sins to one another, for this would lead to humiliation and abasement, which he taught, are contrary to God's will.

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. [James 5:16]

Foundations of Christianity vs. Baha'u'llah

Baha'i will argue that whoever acts completely in accordance with the teachings of Christ is a Baha'i. The purpose, they claim, is the essential meaning of Christian, not the mere word.

The purpose is the sun itself and not the dawning points. For though the sun is one sun, its dawning points are many. We must not adore the dawning points but worship the sun. We must adore the reality of religion and not blindly cling to the appellation Christianity. The Sun of Reality must be worshiped and followed. We must seek the fragrance of the rose from whatever bush it is blooming - whether oriental or western.

Baha'i reject the foundation of Christianity - the essential meaning of Christian.

Jesus Christ is the foundation upon which Christianity rests - not one of several manifestations as Baha'i insist.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [John 14:6]

As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him - you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone," and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for. [1 Peter 2:4-8]

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. [Acts 4:12]

Concerning salvation, Baha'u'llah said, "Whoso keepeth the commandments of God shall attain everlasting felicity." And Abdul Baha stated that there is no sin-atoning value in Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. So inadequate was his concept of redemption that Baha'u'llah was able to say of himself: "Fix your gaze upon Him who is the Temple of God amongst men. He, in truth, hath offered up his life as a ransom for the redemption of the world."

The Central conflict between Baha'u'llah's concept of salvation and the biblical revelation on the subject is best shown in where Baha'u'llah stated: "Every age has its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require." In contrast to this, the Bible teaches that the one universal problem of man throughout the ages is sin, his state of moral guilt and consequent alienation from God. Thus the one remedy - the only possible remedy for mankind's dilemma - is the death of Jesus Christ for our sins, a sacrifice sufficient to save all who turn to Him for all time as God tells us in Hebrews 10:10-18.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 11 Comments [1/23/2018 9:45:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 136137

TVN this evening aired its undercover investigation into Polish neo-Nazis.

It focused on the group Duma i Nowoczesnosc (Pride and Modernity), showing how its president last year organised a celebration of the 128th anniversary of Hitler's birth.

At the event, Nazi flags were hung from trees, an 'altar' honouring Hitler was set up, and the participants, some of whom were dressed in Wehrmacht and SS uniforms, gathered around a flaming swastika. At the end they made a toast 'to Adolf Hitler and our homeland, beloved Poland'.

One leading figure in DiM, Jacek Lanuszny, is an assistant to member of parliament Robert Winnicki, the president of Ruch Narodowy (a movement that aims to be the respectable face of Polish nationalism).

TVN reports that, after Winnicki intervened in an investigation into the president of DiM, the national prosecutor's office, which is under the control of justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro, discontinued the case.

As NfP has notes previously, last year the prosecutor's office reportedly intervened to encourage a court to withdraw an indictment against radical-nationalist priest Jacek Miedlar and to reduce the sentence given to his colleague, Piotr Rybak, for publicly burning a Jewish effigy.

Duma i Nowoczesnosc, https://www.facebook.com/notesfrompoland/ 18 Comments [1/22/2018 6:04:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Skidie

Quote# 136177

(In reply to another member, who wrote: "I do not believe in miracles or the supernatural"):

That is like screaming in a public place, "I'm stupid."

A bacterial flagellum is a motorized system the size of a virus with more power than a NASCAR engine. Mankind couldn't recreate it. A motor has never been observed to be the result of anything but intelligence. But, you want us to believe a bacterial flagellum could be the result of anything but an intelligent being?

The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon. Yet, the same distance to form a perfect solar eclipse as it did last year. You want us to believe that kind of symmetry is result of random chance rather than an intelligent being?

Face it,[...], your belief system is a lie.


kirkz2006@yahoo.com, Realabortiondebate 13 Comments [1/23/2018 9:45:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 136174

Indian education minister dismisses theory of evolution

Scientists condemn Satyapal Singh for saying ‘Darwin’s theory is scientifically wrong’

India’s minister for higher education has been condemned by scientists for demanding the theory of evolution be removed from school curricula because no one “ever saw an ape turning into a human being”.

Satyapal Singh stood by his comments on Monday, saying his ministry was ready to host an international conference where “scientists can come out and say where they stand on the issue”.

“I have a list of around 10 to 15 great scientists of the world who have said there is no evidence to prove that the theory of evolution is correct,” Singh told a crowd at a university in Assam state, adding that Albert Einstein had agreed the theory was “unscientific”.

Singh, who has a postgraduate degree in chemistry from Delhi University, said he was speaking as a “man of science”.

“Darwin’s theory is scientifically wrong,” he said at the weekend. “It needs to change in the school and college curriculum.

“Since man is seen on Earth, he has always been a man. Nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral, said they ever saw an ape turning into a human being.”

More than 2,000 Indian scientists have signed a petition in response calling Singh’s remarks simplistic, misleading and lacking in any scientific basis.

“It is factually incorrect to state that the evolutionary principle has been rejected by the scientific community,” the statement said. “On the contrary, every new discovery adds support to Darwin’s insights. There is plentiful and undeniable scientific evidence to the fact that humans and the other great apes and monkeys had a common ancestor.”

Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution nearly 160 years ago, arguing that all species, including humans, evolved over time through a process of natural selection. He argued that humans and apes share a common ancestor who lived more than 7m years ago, an idea frequently misunderstood to be suggesting modern apes turned into human beings.

Ancient Indian scholars are credited with advances in astronomy and mathematics including the invention of the concept of zero, but religious nationalist figures have been accused in recent years of pushing “ideological science”.

That includes claims by the prime minister, Narendra Modi, that myths from the origin texts of Hinduism include evidence of plastic surgery and genetic science.

YS Rajan, a prominent scientist, said in response to Singh’s comments that Hindu texts such as the Rigveda included lines that explicitly embraced knowledge from across the world.

“Nothing in ... Bharatiya samskaar [Indian philosophy] would demand rejection of such theory or for that matter any scientific findings,” he wrote on Facebook.

Satyapal Singh, The Guardian 14 Comments [1/23/2018 5:12:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 43968

Dan +†+ said... [quoting someone else in the first line]

"If "atheism" is a "religion", then: abstinence" is a "sex position"

'abstinence' is indeed a 'position' taken on the subject of 'sex'

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"- Rush (Freewill)

So, atheism is a religion.

Dan +†+, Debunking Atheists 27 Comments [7/31/2008 8:13:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 136155

The PP abortion **doctors** are often butchers. Right after an abortion, they have to get to the next one $$$$$ so the woman is expected to get right up and leave. They do not have the women back for a check. Sometimes baby body parts are left inside causing infections and even death. Often the uterus is perforated meaning she can never have children when she wants.

And they do not tell her she could get breast cancer according to some doctors who are real.

Hospitals do not want those **doctors** because of the liability.

There are no mammogram machines even though they take in a fortune.

They charge an arm and a leg for a simple infection. They prefer to do $$$$$ abortions instead.

Many of the premises are unclean...filth everywhere, blood on the cots, instruments unclean.

Again -- if you know a woman that needs care, tell her to go to a clinic, not PP. The doctors are real at clinics and they are cheaper. And they do everything PP won't do and then some.

BTW, they call it Planned Parenthood but are hostile toward any woman pregnant that wants to keep her baby and they do not offer pre-natal care.


sharaleigh23, Realabortiondebate 24 Comments [1/21/2018 7:50:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 116845


One of the reasons why Contemporary Christian Music has gained such rapid influence in churches is that this generation is so completely addicted to rock music. Over the past 50 years, rock music has permeated society in practically every part of the world. It is on the radio and television, in commercials, in stores, at sporting events. Even the mildest form of rock music was shocking to people in the 1950s, but that which was shocking then is old hat today. As rock has gotten ever more violent and vicious, we have become desensitized to the milder forms of it. Many people don’t even recognize soft rock as rock music. When they think of rock, they think of heavy metal or punk or rap or some other kind of very hard rock. The average church member is so accustomed to and even addicted to rock music in his daily life, he craves for it even in church. Thus, practically every pastor today is faced with an ongoing battle if he attempts to hold the line in the area of music.

Many Christians who would not listen to “hard rock” nevertheless fill their minds with “soft rock.” But is soft rock really innocent and proper for a child of God? Is soft rock a godly influence? Following are six warnings against it.

1. THE MESSAGE OF “SOFT ROCK” IS OFTEN AS IMMORAL AS THAT OF HARD ROCK. From its earliest days, free sex has been one of the themes that has permeated all of rock music, soft, hard, pop, metal, punk, you name it. It promotes sensual, lustful relationships that are not grounded in marriage. The “love” that is so often the theme of rock music, is not love at all by God’s standards; it is lust. It is very dangerous to allow one’s mind to dwell on such things. “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints” (Ephesians 5:3).

2. EVEN SOFT ROCK USES SENSUAL “SEXY RHYTHMS” THAT APPEAL TO THE FLESH. Dr. David Elkind, Chairman, Department of Child Study, Tufts University, warned: “There is a great deal of powerful sexual stimulation in the rhythm of rock music.” Certain kinds of rhythms produce certain effects on people. In his history of music in Memphis, Tennessee, one of the homes of rock and roll, author Larry Nager observed that “…the forbidden pleasures of Beale Street had always come wrapped in the PULSING RHYTHMS of the blues” (Larry Nager, Memphis Beat). That part of Beale Street near the river was infamous for its bars, gambling dens, and houses of prostitution. Those are the forbidden pleasures referred to by Nager. It is not happenstance that those wicked activities were accompanied by certain types of rhythms. And those old blues and boogie woogie rhythms were not always loud and boisterous. Like rock music, there was soft blues as well as hard. Famous bluesman Robert Johnson knew that his music had a licentious affect on women. He said, “This sound [the blues] affected most women in a way that I could never understand.” B.B. King, one of the most famous of the bluesmen, made the same observation in his autobiography: “The women reacted with their bodies flowing to a rhythm coming out of my guitar…” (B.B. King, Blues All Around Me). These unsaved blues musicians admit that certain rhythms are sexy. This is a loud warning to those who have ears to hear. “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:17).

David Cloud, Way of Life 30 Comments [2/17/2016 9:54:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 110136

This is the final nail as now anything goes in defining deviancy down and God will not be mocked...if he doesn't bring terrible judgment upon the heads of Americans then God owes Sodom and Gomorrah a huge apology..

dpetty121263, Rapture Ready 14 Comments [6/28/2015 3:30:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Nemo

Quote# 34139

How could he be so deceived? From the beginning, I'd taught him about Jesus, whom he had invited into his life at the age of five.

Through the years, I'd had no inkling something was wrong. Did Tim ever hint at trouble? Did I really listen? Were there dark secrets in our household? I don't know.

After Tim's letter in 1992, I regarded my adult son as a victim. "They" had caught and trapped him. "They" were faceless, nameless, evil people. Homosexuals. Enemies.

Shirley A. Rorvik, Todays Christian Woman 53 Comments [1/26/2008 4:09:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Nny

Quote# 34169

As I have indicated many times, the fact that numbers (0123456789 and all multiples) exist in some form in every aspect of existence (chemically, psysically etc.), and in every letter of the alphabets of the original words of the Bible is more than sufficient evidence (proof) that God exists. and that the Bible is exactly what it claims to be. The veritable word of God Himself to mankind.

Glorybe21, BBC Religion and Ethics 85 Comments [1/26/2008 5:48:16 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: JenniferT

Quote# 34198

if you did any study at all, you will see that all scholars (except for the nutcase fringe) accept that the Bible has not been changed since its original manuscripts.

Homunculus, Amazon.com religion forums 58 Comments [1/27/2008 8:10:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By:

Quote# 136094

Sermon 21: Against Materialism

By The Rev. William H. Grimes

1 Timothy 2:9 says: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"

1 Peter 3:2-5 likewise says "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands"

Let's talk about these women these days. They go out, trying to look good, with all of this jewelry and this makeup and all of these garments that are immodest and exist solely for them to show off their wicked curves and breasts and whatnot. There is all of these cosmetics, taking HOURS AND HOURS to get ready just to put it on, and then wearing this floral perfume with the raspberry and the vanilla notes or whatever, instead of taking that time to read the Word of God! Get yourself out of the bathroom and into the den reading the Gospel of Matthew! Stop going to the mall to shop and be catty and gossip and all of this, and read the Book of Judges! Get your head into Genesis and not going and buying "cute" garments at Victoria's Secret or Forever 21!!!!!!!! I GUESS THEY ARE ALL TRYING TO LOOK LIKE TAYLOR SWIFT OR SOMETHING!!!! OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!



The Rev. William H. Grimes, New Testament Baptist Church 21 Comments [1/22/2018 5:51:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 37584

Lake County, IL. -- A Waukegan mother, charged today with fatally stabbing her 6-year-old daughter, first claimed the girl attacked her, then told police she thought the girl was possessed by a demon, Lake County prosecutors said as a judge set bail for 25-year-old Nelly Vasquez-Salazar at $5 million.
Vasquez-Salazar was charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the death of her only child, Evelyn, 6.

The girl was found dead early Monday in the Waukegan apartment she shared with her mother.

Vasquez-Salazar reportedly told police she believed her daughter - who had recently began sleepwalking - was possessed.

"She claimed the little girl was possessed by a demon," prosecutor Steve Scheller said in court. "She was an intelligent, vibrant, beautiful little girl. She was, in fact, an angel."

Nelly Vasquez-Salazar, Fox Chicago 38 Comments [4/12/2008 3:05:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Feminazi

Quote# 117900

Responding to another poster who said: "Our laws in America forbid killing over sexual orientation"

Too bad. Maybe someday we can get that changed.

GracetotheHumble, Christian Forums 40 Comments [4/4/2016 3:26:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 25

Quote# 95792

Solution to sexual assault problem in military: no women, no homosexuals in uniform. Problem solved.

Bryan Fischer, Twitter 66 Comments [8/1/2013 3:49:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 53

Quote# 73147

*Obama admits he's a Muslim*

Get him out!!!
Get him out now!!!
Congratulations to everyone who voted for this abomination. You helped get an enemy of this nation into it's highest office. Had this been the early 40's it would have been a nazi instead of a muslim. Don't forget, now, that the nazis and muslims worked together during WWII.

How people can be so blind and ignorant can only be attributed to supernatural delusion over time. Take God (JEHOVAH, not allah!!!) out of everything and the enemy will be ready to fill in the void. And he has been. I'm not saying that McCain was the perfect candidate to choose either. Both have problems but THIS guy was the worst of the two of them. This guy has the anti-christ spirit all over him and it's painfully obvious.

Once again congratulations to all those out there who bought into the lies this guy and his handlers were spewing forth. Treasonous sheeple everywhere thank you.

WarriorX, RR 67 Comments [5/26/2010 4:50:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 75

Quote# 136126

Believe what you will The sad thing is there are two places that are inclusive irregardless of who you are or what you have said or done. One of those is prison, and the other is Hell.

Michael Ralph Short, Facebook 17 Comments [1/20/2018 1:15:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 136164

Absolutely. When I give my loyalty to someone, they always come first. I don't give my loyalty to the law or society; when I take on a partner, their welfare takes precedence.

How would I help them? Send them away, somewhere with cameras, so that they have an alibi while I dispose of the body. I move the body into a remote wooded area, dig a pit, body goes in, burn for half a day (have myself a camping trip) smash up any bone fragments so they're unidentifiable, then meet up with spouse for victory celebration.

So your morals go out the window just like that? It's murder, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a murderer.

So your love for your partner goes out the window just like that? If that's morality, then I don't need morals.

Yes, itd be very hard for me to say "I love you, especially the way you murdered that person. I don't care what their family is going through."

Maybe I haven't loved someone enough to see your perspective.

I haven't loved anyone that much. I'm just stating what my idea of love is. It's not something shallow that disappears when it's inconvenient.

Disappears because murdering someone is inconvenient? Wow.

YES. Honestly, this morality bullshit kind of creeps me out.

"I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a murderer." "I couldn't live with myself knowing I'm just letting someone cause harm to society."

They're talking about their significant others, but it sounds like they're talking about complete strangers. Something bad happens and they just completely turn on their partner. Sorry, guess when you got married you should have said "for better or for worse (unless you kill someone; I ain't going to jail)."

I guess murder isn't a huge deal to you.

Betraying someone's trust is more of a big deal to me.

So your SO kills your mother you'll still help her hide the body?

Probably. My mother can be insufferable. Plus it's not like I can bring her back by turning in my SO.

SteadyHandMcduff, Reddit 14 Comments [1/22/2018 6:34:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 136098

Like I said, she doesn't read my articles and couldn't care less about my ministry. She never did. She has no part in my labors for the Lord Jesus Christ! The day she filed for a legal divorce, she no longer had any part in my ministry. Her loss will be great in eternity. Of the thousands of souls saved by God's grace through this ministry, she has no part in any of it. Daniel 12:3, “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” I humbly believe that thousands of people will one day thank me in Heaven, appreciate that they were led to Christ through my ministry labors for Christ. To God be all the glory. I have already received many such e-mails from grateful web visitors who've been saved through this ministry. God doesn't reward rebellious, slackard, lazy wives.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 30 Comments [1/22/2018 5:53:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | top