Ten Reasons the Quiverfull Movement is Idiotic

In case you’ve never heard of the Quiverfull movement in Christianity, here is its website:

http://www.quiverfull.com/index.php

We exalt Jesus Christ as Lord, and acknowledge His headship in all areas of our lives, including fertility. We exist to serve those believers who trust the Lord for family size, and to answer the questions of those seeking truth in this critical area of marriage.

Whether your quiver is large or small, you are welcome. Come browse our articles and resources. Also, be sure to check out the QuiverFull Digest, our email discussion group that was started in 1995.

Dedicated to providing encouragement and practical help to those who are striving to raise a large and growing, godly family in today’s world!

Continue reading

The Spice Girls were frauds from the beginning

One of the greatest failures of the public in the world was reflected in how the Spice Girls, with their slogan “Girl Power” became such an overwhelming success. If enough people had applied skepticism to the matter, they would have rejected the pop group en masse and they would have had only minor hits, if any at all.

Continue reading

Stop America’s political see-saw!

There was a time when the American people were not so blindly loyal to their political parties as they are now. During the American Revolution itself, the two opposing factions were the Loyalists who favored the American colonies remaining part of the British Empire, and the Patriots who wanted American independence. The Patriots won and most of those who remained Loyalists fled to Britain or Canada. Then there was another conflict between Federalists, who favored the new U S Constitution, and the anti-Federalists who opposed it. The anti-Federalists lost. The next conflict was between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Eventually, the Federalists lost and faded away. Then the Whigs rose to challenge the Democratic-Republicans (later, the Democratic Party), but they too failed before the Civil War, to be replaced by the Republicans.

So we had three political factions which died out due to being rejected by the American people: the Loyalists, the Federalists and the Whigs. But ever since the Civil War, the people have been stuck on a see-saw. Whenever they become dissatisfied with Democratic policies, they turn to vote Republican. Then when they are unhappy with Republican policies, they turn back towards the Democrats. Then when they are disappointed with Democratic policies, they go right back to the Republicans. Does this make ANY sense? I think not.

The Republicans led us into war in Iraq in 2003, based on claims regarding that country that turned out to be false. Any party that does that should have been thrown out of power the very next year, but it didn’t happen until 2006 and 2008 and the Democrats took over. Now there is a sizable movement to vote the Democrats out of power in 2010 and 2012……so the Republicans may take over again? No, there are other options for conservative voters to consider! Such as:

The Libertarian Party:  http://www.lp.org/

The Constitution Party: http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The Reform Party: http://www.rpusa.info/

The America First Party: http://www.americafirstparty.org/

Any one of these should rise to take the place of the Republican Party, which I feel has long outlived its usefulness, and likewise if the Democratic Party fails liberals in the future, they should look at:

The Green Party: http://www.gp.org/

The Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/ (It strongly appeals to both conservatives and liberals for various reasons)

The Socialist Party: http://socialistparty-usa.org/

And it should be an unwritten rule in American politics from now on that whenever a party is voted out of power, it should NEVER be voted back in! If we took such a stand, maybe we would truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Because right now that seems to not be the case!

A disturbing video about Islam

Watch this:

My response to it is as follows.

First, the Quran was not revealed in one piece, but in bits and pieces over several decades and was not even assembled in its final form until some years after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad. Thus we need not assume it is totally accurate in its statements. See these earlier blog entries:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/the-chain-of-abrahamic-religions-is-too-rusty-and-weak/

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/muslims-get-a-life/

Second, who is to say that Muslims have to assume that the “later” verses of the Quran that teach intolerance for non-Muslims have abrogated the “earlier” ones that preach tolerance? Only those who either want to promote Islamic extremism or those who want to destroy Islam itself. Ironic, that these two factions would have that in common, even while opposing each other as well as moderates among both Muslims and non-Muslims. This alone shows the absurdity of their positions. Also, who says we have to follow every detail of the barbaric Sharia law when adopting Islam? Shouldn’t it be enough to simply follow the Five Pillars of Islam?

  1. Proclaim publicly, “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet.”
  2. Pray five times daily.
  3. Give alms to the poor.
  4. Fast during the daytime at the month of Ramadan.
  5. Make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in your lifetime.

Anything beyond that seems irrelevant. Sharia Law seems to be a man-made addition to the original Islam. If it is indeed from Allah, why do Muslims leaders specify only Five Pillars and not more? These Five Pillars certainly do NOT imply attempts to subvert and destroy other religions and secular societies.

Third, if Muslims are allowed to lie in order to spread Islam, isn’t that a logical reason to conclude that Islam itself is full of lies and thus not worth following by anyone? One must wonder if Christians and followers of other faiths pull the same sort of stunts. See this:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/lying-about-history-for-the-bible/

The references to the Quran that are supposed to be so shocking are not specified in the video above. So where are they and what do they really say? Until those are revealed, that video should be held as skeptically as Islam itself may be.

Why I despise Alex Jones

Because the man is a fuked up lunatic, even worse than most of those right-wingers who spew their hate on FOX News!

Check this out:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/elite-moves-to-lobotomize-zombify-global-population.html

{{{Elite Moves To Lobotomize, Zombify Global Population

The Alex Jones Channel

Aug. 4, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3PYZ0N7Dg

THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING!!! LINKS ARE BELOW
The establishment media and the scientific dictatorship are promoting brain-eating vaccines that virtually lobotomize people and rewire their brains into a state of subservient compliance so that their natural instinct to get angry and rebel against the tyranny being imposed upon them is neutered and sterilized.
“Academics say they are close to developing the first vaccine for stress — a single jab that would help us relax without slowing down,” reports the Daily Mail.
FOR MORE INFO
FOOD THE ULTIMATE SECRET EXPOSED PT1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSpkLk…
FOOD THE ULTIMATE SECRET EXPOSED PT2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B9MeO…
http://www.infowars.com/food-the-ulti…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art…
http://www.infowars.com/new-york-time…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/establish…
http://www.infowars.com/oxford-bioeth…
http://www.infowars.com/category/feat…
}}}

Continue reading

Holding CNN accountable for phony “balance”

CNN published an article on its website about climate change. Two bloggers with a strong interest in the subject looked at it and quickly debunked its credibility.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/new-study-lays-out-11-indicators-of-a-warming-world-media-focuses-on-contrarian-views/

From time to time, journalists like Andy Revkin and Keith Kloor protest that the mainstream media doesn’t do an awful job covering the issue of climate change. They believe that the well-documented, systematic bias of undermining scientific conclusions by “balancing” them with contrarianism is behind us. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably false.

The above image is from the self-proclaimed “Most Trusted Name in News” CNN’s coverage of NOAA’s just-released 2009 State of the Climate Report, copy from The Financial Times. The State of the Climate report details how the planet is warming as captured by 11 different indices, from land surface temperature to glacial mass balance.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/misleading_reporting_from_fion.php

Thingsbreak has produced a graphic illustration of how lazy journalists mislead in the name of “balance”. On right is his colour coding of her story on the NOAA report on the State of the Climate in 2009, with red marking coverage of “Climategate” and contrarians and green marking coverage of the report that the story is ostensibly about. This, from the red coverage, quite takes your breath away:

David Herro, the financier, who follows climate science as a hobby, said NOAA also “lacks credibility”.

Tim Lambert, the blogger, who follows climate journalism as a hobby, says Harvey lacks credibility.

Harvey’s story was so bad that even Keith Kloor said that it was “glaringly flawed”.

CNN must have noticed the criticism and acted on it. The article has now been REMOVED from its website! Another victory for honest reporting, as opposed to fake “balance” in reporting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/29/climate.change.noaa.ft/

Page not found

We’re sorry! This page is not available. Please visit the CNN homepage or use the search box below.

A damning statement about public schools

Occationally I find a statement by someone so stunning in its brilliance, yet so obvious, that I feel the need to spread it around. Such as this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/i_am_the_wrong_person_to_answe.php#comment-2702235

Posted by: skeptifem Author Profile Page | August 3, 2010 10:28 PM   #9

Public school isn’t meant to genuinely educate. It never will. They dole out skills that increase the value of the lowest rung of workers. That is the purpose of it. Having customers and workers who can read and do basic math is something that power structures need, so we have it.

The current cirriculum in schools does not prepare students for huge portions of living, perpetuating privilege and disadvantage. People come out of school knowing nothing about how to go further than HS, medicine, the law, economics, and history. Children are taught obedience and discouraged from thinking critically. The liklihood of a state institution portraying the state honestly (which is to say, in a negative light) is unlikely. So it isn’t as though everyone who grew up in public school isn’t pumped full of ridiculous lies in the same way the homeschoolers are, it is just a different set of lies.
Real knowledge and the ability to think critically is kept to classes of people who are conditioned for obedience. The number and variety of meaningless hoops a person typically has to jump through in order to make it far in education weeds out radical people. Even on the K-12 level, people are branded “behavior problems” (of course there are genuine ones as well), or put into “slow” or “advanced” groups based on what people should know by a certain age, as if minds don’t vary wildly in that respect. It divides em, often along race/class/sex lines. It teaches learning is a chore (that takes place between 7 and 3), and you learn what other people say, and that you unwind by doing a bunch of non thinking by buying products or staring at screens all day. It kills the motivation to learn. Children don’t see the past or future of the world they are in, shut in with only people their own age except for authority figures.

SO yeah, I unschool. I don’t see the supremacy of public school at all. Crappy homeschools literally move school into homes- that is what creationist homeschoolers do in spades. School would have to be radically rethought for me to approve, and they have been before. Voluntary skill swaps, anarchist free schools from the early 1900s, that I would approve of in a school. As is public school is a crock of shit.

I must note that I was brought up in public schools, even in college. I guess I was lucky I learned to think as critically as I do. But I am not against public schools. But P Z Myers, who wrote the blog entry skeptifem was commenting on, said at the beginning:

I am not a fan of homeschooling; in fact, if I had my way, I’d make it illegal.

I am glad that P Z is not a dictator over us, then. Not all homeschoolers are religious fundamentalists. That’s an urban myth we need to stamp out.

There are indeed secular homeschoolers. Here are some of their websites:

http://www.secularhomeschool.com/

http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/

http://www.secularhomeschoolers.net/

http://www.atheistview.com/secular_homeschool.htm

There are also Unitarian Universalists who homeschool:

http://www.uuhomeschool.org/

Public schools may provide a valuble service, but no one should rely on them exclusively to educate their children. Parents and other adults also have a responsibility to be teachers, now and forever. Let it be so.

White Americans need to grow up!

Note: the writer of this blog is a white guy.

From the very beginning of the United States of America’s existence as an independent nation, it was totally white dominated. Not just the union as a whole, but every single state within that union, was white dominated. Not a single state was ever allowed to be ruled by non-whites, not Native American tribes, not blacks, nor Asian-Americans. Even states that you would expect to be ruled by non-whites were taken over by whites before they could become states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma#History

During the 19th century, thousands of Native Americans were expelled from their ancestral homelands from across North America and transported to the area including and surrounding present-day Oklahoma. The “Five Civilized Tribes” in the South were the most prominent nations displaced by American expulsion policy, an atrocity that came to be known as the Trail of Tears during the Cherokee Nation’s removals starting in 1831. The area, already occupied by Osage and Quapaw tribes, was called for the Cherokee Nation until revised American policy redefined the boundaries to include other Native Americans. By 1890, more than 30 Native American nations and tribes had been concentrated on land within Indian Territory or “Indian Country.”[45] In the period between 1866 and 1899,[43] cattle ranches in Texas strove to meet the demands for food in eastern cities and railroads in Kansas promised to deliver in a timely manner. Cattle trails and cattle ranches developed as cowboys either drove their product north or settled illegally in Indian Territory.[43] In 1881, four of five major cattle trails on the western frontier traveled through Indian Territory.[46] Increased presence of white settlers in Indian Territory prompted the United States Government to establish the Dawes Act in 1887, which divided the lands of individual tribes into allotments for individual families, encouraging farming and private land ownership among native Americans but expropriating land to the federal government. In the process, nearly half of Indian-held land within the territory was taken for outside settlers and for purchase by railroad companies.[47]

Major land runs, including the Land Run of 1889, were held for settlers on the hour that certain territories were opened to settlement. Usually, land was open to settlers on a first come first served basis.[48] Those who broke the rules by crossing the border into the territory before it was allowed were said to have been crossing the border sooner, leading to the term sooners, which eventually became the state’s official nickname.[49]

Delegations to make the territory into a state began near the turn of the 20th century, when the Curtis Act furthered the theft of Indian tribal lands in Indian Territory. Attempts to create an all-Indian state named Oklahoma and a later attempt to create an all-Indian state named Sequoyah failed but the Sequoyah Statehood Convention of 1905 eventually laid the groundwork for the Oklahoma Statehood Convention, which took place two years later.[50] On November 16, 1907, Oklahoma was established as the 46th state in the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#History

In 1887, Kalākaua was forced to sign the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which stripped the king of much of his authority. There was a property qualification for voting, which disenfranchised many poorer Hawaiians and favored the wealthier white community. Resident whites were allowed to vote, but resident Asians were excluded. Because the 1887 Constitution was signed under threat of violence, it is known as the “Bayonet Constitution”. King Kalākaua, reduced to a figurehead, reigned until his death in 1891. His sister, Liliʻuokalani, succeeded him on the throne.

In 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani announced plans for a new constitution. On January 14, 1893, a group of mostly Euro-American business leaders and residents formed a Committee of Safety to overthrow the Kingdom and seek annexation by the United States. United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, responding to a request from the Committee of Safety, summoned a company of U.S. Marines. As one historian noted, the presence of these troops effectively made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself.[36]

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused. Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen “not guilty” from any responsibility for the overthrow.[37] The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.[36][38][39][40]

Then, of course, there is the Mexican War of 1846-1848, in which nearly half of Mexico’s territory was taken over by the United States, along with Texas that had been annexed prior to the war’s beginning. All those territories and later states were later, you guessed it, WHITE dominated, not Hispanic dominated. Of course, it is understandable that allowing  Hispanics to rule those territories or states might eventually result in the secession of some of those states from the USA either to seek independence or to rejoin Mexico.

Also, Puerto Rico has never been allowed to become a state, even though it has been a protectorate of the USA for over a century!

Could that be what fuels anti-illegal immigrant agitation in the United States today? Fear of states that were once part of Mexico being returned to Mexico by the mostly Hispanic people wouldn’t be such a problem if the territories that made up those states had not been TAKEN BY FORCE FROM MEXICO IN THE FIRST PLACE! And liberalizing immigration laws would be a positive step to someday allow non-whites to rule at least one state in the USA, finally! Ironically, illegal immigrants are profitable for American businesses that employ them, since the businesses don’t have to pay the illegals according to minimum wage laws. But they would lose those profits if the illegals were able to gain American citizenship. And the 14th Amendment grants American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, so the proportion of Hispanic American citizens will rise dramatically a generation from now. OH, NO!

So to white politicians like Tom Tancredo who have made a career out of bashing illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, I have but one thing to say:

FUCK YOU!

NSYNC got it right, for once

This is a sequel to https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/how-christian-bigots-make-the-peace-process-of-israel-and-palestine-impossible/

I have little regard for most pop vocal stars and note that most of them profess to be Christians (at least they mention their faith in God and/or Jesus Christ in the liner notes of their albums). That includes NSYNC, five young boys who were ultra-hot a decade ago. But on one of their albums, “No Strings Attached”, they made a bold statement in one of their songs. Here is the lyrics for it:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nsync/spacecowboyyippieyiya.html

“Space Cowboy (Yippie-Yi-Ya)”

Here it comes, millennium
And everybody’s talkin’ bout Jerusalem
Is this the beginning or beginning of the end?
Well, I’ve got other thoughts my friend

See I’ve got my eyes on the skies
The heavenly bodies up high
And if you’re in the mood to take a ride
Then strap on a suit and get inside

If you wanna fly, come and take a ride
Take a space ride with the cowboy, baby
If you wanna fly, come and take a ride
Take a space ride with the cowboy, baby
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yay
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yo
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yay
Why-yi-yi-yippie-yi-yay-yippie-yi-yo-yippie-yi-yo

We don’t need all these prophecies
Telling us what’s a sign, what’s a sign
Cause paranoia ain’t the way to live your life from day to day
So leave your doubts and your fears behind

Don’t be afraid at all
Cause up in outer space there’s no gravity to fall
Put your mind and your body to the test
Cuz up in outer space is like the wild wild west

Boom and never let you try to stop me
Born to fly sky high up to the top see
Nothing to fear, no doubts and no tears
Millennium sound to motivate the future years
And you can either be scared or get prepared
Against all odds I bet you never would’ve dared
To make these moves and take flight like me
To come through for the world prophecy
Space connect to overthrow your interception
Ready or not make it hot
That ain’t no question
Get *N Sync and put your head to the sky
Keep the faith
One love from Left Eye

Continue reading

I’m from Texas, not Missouri

Take a look at this disgusting blog by anti-evolutionist and anti-Semite Larry Farfarman:

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/

The introduction of it alone is enough to make me barf:

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : “I`m from Missouri — you’ll have to show me.” This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Clearly, this bastard doesn’t know the difference between skepticism and denialism. Among scientists, evolution is not controversial and among historians, the holocaust is not controversial either. It is denialists among the lunatic fringes of society that have problems with such things. Those big babies need to grow up, that’s all.

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs — there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

 In other words, this @$$hat thrives on chaos and insists on his  stupid opinions being held as equally valid with all others without any attempt to sort out truth from falsehood. How can anyone do science with that attitude? And if nothing is to be deleted or closed, what point is there in saying that rude comments are to be “discouraged”? That is meaningless.

Here is a recent episode of Larry’s insanity:

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2010/06/systematic-holocaust-would-be.html

Saturday, June 05, 2010

“Systematic” holocaust would be impossible even with DNA testing! I have long contended that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews. This claim is often pooh-poohed with examples of how supposedly easy it was for the Nazis to objectively and reliably identify Jews. The stories go something like this: Nazis raiding a synagogue find the rabbi there. They torture him, forcing him to reveal the synagogue’s membership list. The Nazis then hunt the members down one by one.
 
I have speculated about whether the Nazis could have objectively and reliably identified Jews and non-Jews by means of DNA testing, which of course was not a available to them. This study shows that the answer to that question is no.
 

Clearly, this fucked up moron never lived among Jews, never studied how the Jewish religion is practiced, and thus thinks that Jewish people can be identified only by their DNA and nothing else. He would have failed Anthopology 101.

Need I say more?

Atheism is a DOGMA! Get over it!

I recently had a long argument with an atheist who not only openly disagreed with all religions, but insisted that all religious people were delusional, stupid, even insane, while totally denying that he was himself promoting an unproven belief of his own.

What is atheism? There appear to be two kinds:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

By the first definition, I am indeed an atheist, but I reject that term for myself because I know that people assume that atheism is about outright denial of God’s existence (the second definition) and nothing else. By contrast, I question God’s existence and do not deny it at all. My position is a neutral one regarding that specific issue.

And that is why Thomas Huxley in the 19th Century coined the term agnostic to describe himself and his beliefs, or lack thereof.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Thus by the first definition one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, though most people only know of the first kind (because that is consistent with the second definition) . What one cannot be is lumping all people who are religious into the same category of irrationality, delusion, and stupidity and then be nondogmatic at the same time. Not only are you being dogmatic, you are being a BIGOT.
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
And any atheist who does that is no better than someone who is a religious bigot.
Atheists say that the burden of proof should be on the religious person to support the claim that God exists. But producing such proof is exactly what the religious person does when he produces the Bible, the Quran, or some other religious text that is the basis for a God-centered religion. You can say that the proof is insufficent to establish belief in God beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is still a proof. And religion by definition requires faith, not absolute proof. If belief in God could be established beyond a reasonable doubt, it wouldn’t be part of religion. Conversely, atheism also cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, because there is no way to disprove the existence of God. Atheism is a dogma, not an objective point of view.
When an atheist says that the Bible is no more credible than the Harry Potter books, he is not making an objective statement at all, but giving a subjective opinion. That’s exactly what a DOGMA is!
Does this mean atheism is also a religion? It depends on your definition of religion. I say no, because you don’t need faith to be an athiest or agnostic. Faith involves belief in something that cannot be directly detected. But you do have to make a choice to be an atheist, agnostic, or theist. Belief in the non-existence of God is as much a religion as not playing chess is a form of gaming. But one still makes a choice if one refuses to learn how to play chess.

There is still hope even for those who are brainwashed

Check out this blog:

http://nolongerquivering.com/

It is a protest against men using religion to train women to be little more than breeding machines.

http://nolongerquivering.com/about/

by Vyckie

I am a single mother of 7 wonderful kids. I am a former “Quiverfull” mother who dedicated my life to bearing and raising up “Arrows for God’s army.”

My pregnancies nearly killed me on several occasions, but I was so dedicated to the ideal that I continued to risk my life. I left the movement and my Christian faith, so that’s led to learning a whole new way of thinking and living. My kids and I are really having a blast and enjoying the freedom to be ourselves rather than ordering our lives according to some predefined roles based upon an ancient patriarchal society.

I am a former Christian homeschooling mother of seven who finally walked away from fundamentalism after our radical extremism drove my oldest daughter to attempt suicide. I was so convinced of, and committed to, the Biblical family ideals espoused by what has been termed the “Quiverfull” or “Biblical Patriarchy” movement.

Mine is a candid story of one who was seriously sucked into a hate-filled worldview and was so committed that I was willing to die for the cause – and now I am equally bold in speaking up to say that the Quiverfull worldview and lifestyle overburdens women, enslaves the daughters and destroys families.

Of course, this is the sort of evil that trapped Andrea Yates and killed her five children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

Women shouldn’t teach at Christian schools

Take a look at this:

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/teacher_fired_for_having_premarital_sex

Teacher Fired for Having Premarital Sex

by Alex DiBranco

June 09, 2010   04:00 PM

Newlywed Jarretta Hamilton, an elementary school teacher in her late 30s at Southland Christian School in Florida, went to her supervisors last year to be congratulated on her pregnancy and request maternity leave. But things took an unexpected turn when administrators asked just when, exactly, did she conceive? Refusing to bear false witnesses, Hamilton admitted to the prying busybodies that she had become pregnant three weeks before her wedding day.

In response, Hamilton was fired for engaging in “fornication.” Conveniently, this also meant that the school was off the hook for paying maternity leave. Then, in an added insult and violation of Hamilton’s privacy, her premarital conception was made public to others in the school and parents.

A letter explained the school administrators’ supposed rationale for the firing: “as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school.” Fornication, of course, is not one of those values. Yet given that Hamilton conceived a mere three weeks before her wedding day, it would be impossible to claim that it was visibly obvious that she’d become pregnant outside of marriage. In fact, if they were concerned about the image and values being communicated, they would have given Hamilton maternity leave and not broadcast the length of her pregnancy to the entire community.

Hamilton is now suing for compensation for both her lost job and the emotional distress of being humiliated before the entire school. The invasion of a woman’s private life and high-handed moralizing makes me gag. And while the courts while decide whether legally this private religious school had the right to discriminate against Hamilton based on her marital status, morally I’d put Southland Christian School squarely in the wrong.

What Would Jesus Do? I imagine the mother of Jesus would also have been fired for fornication. The hypocrisy and self-serving attitude just sickens me!

China will eventually face an economic crisis

For decades, China has tried to solve its overpopulation problem via a one-child per couple policy that has indeed stabilized its population size at about 1.3 billion. This has resulted in the population aging over time. But at the same time, China has been encouraging more and more foreign businesses to outsource their manufacturing labor to China to take advantage of the vast amount of cheap labor there.

That will soon come to an end, because you cannot have it both ways for long. As population growth stops and eventually starts to decline, China will be forced to devote more economic resources to care for its elderly, which will grow in numbers at the expense of the younger workers. And Chinese workers will feel they are worth more and start organizing and even striking for better pay and work conditions, resulting in the era of cheap labor in China coming to an end.   Meanwhile….

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm

In the next few decades, India, the world’s second most populous country is expected to surpass China in population. By 2040, India’s population is expected to be 1.52 billion; that same year, China’s will be 1.45 billion and India will become the world’s most populous country. As of 2005, India has a total fertility rate of 2.8, well above replacement value, so it is growing much more quickly than China.

The result will most likely be a shift in outsourcing from China to India, at the very time China’s social and economic systems will be most dependent on the younger workers there to support welfare for the retired workers. So that will cause vast unemployment in China and poverty for all ages there, instead of the economic prosperity it has been striving for. We will see more and more products that say, “Made in India”,  “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”. And India will suffer from both overpopulation and increased pollution that will dwarf what China is suffering now.

Poor China! It would have been better not to have accepted the outsourcing in the first  place!

Goodbye, Arlen Specter!

I’m so pleased to see that two-faced turncoat ousted at last from his Senate seat. He wasn’t very loyal to the Republican Party and he then switched to the Democratic Party once he realised he would lose a Republican primary. But now he has also lost a Democratic primary, despite recieving support from President Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_primary_rdp

Specter loses in Pennsylvania, Paul wins in Ky.

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent – 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Veteran Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who switched parties hoping to prolong his career, lost his bid for a sixth term Tuesday night at the hands of impatient Democratic primary voters rejecting his plea to reward experience. Political novice Rand Paul rode support from tea party activists to a rout in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary.

In another race with national significance, Democrat Max Critz won a special House election to fill out the term of the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in southwestern Pennsylvania. Both political parties spent roughly $1 million to sway the outcome, and highlighted the contest as a possible bellwether for the fall.

On the busiest night of the primary season to date, Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln led in her bid for nomination to a third term, but she was forced into a potentially debilitating runoff on June 8 against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

Taken together, the results were indisputably unkind to the political establishments of both parties. But any attempt to read into the results a probable trend for the fall campaign was hazardous — particularly given Critz’s victory over Republican Tim Burns to succeed Murtha in Congress.

Now, what if Specter pulls the same stunt Sen. Joe Lieberman did and runs later as an Independent? Well, he can do that, and I myself favor independence in politics and would like to see both major parties in the United States brought down. But I can’t stand Lieberman either because, despite being a former Democrat, he  sells out to the right every chance he gets.  He might as well become a Republican. REAL independents run as such from the very beginning and that’s what America really needs. Not people like Lieberman or Specter!

The most insane channel on YouTube

The notorious VenomFangX finally came to his senses and left YouTube for good, but there are other deranged religious extremists out there that are just as horrible and rediculous. Case in point, this absurdity:

http://www.youtube.com/user/BereanBeacon

It’s not just anti-evolution, like most fundamentalist Christians would be, but vehemently anti-Catholic too. And it is obsessed with hell also.  It looks like a YouTube version of Jack T. Chick’s publications.

Continue reading

Bogus American history

Check out this nonsense; the parts in red are from the original blog entry and the rest of the words in blue are my responses:

http://farkash.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/faith-of-the-founders/

While much has been written in recent years to try to dismiss the fact that America was founded upon the biblical principles of Judeo-Christianity, all the revisionism in the world cannot change the facts. Anyone who examines the original writings, personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements of the individuals who were instrumental in the founding of America will find an abundance of quotations showing the profound extent to which their thinking and lives were influenced by a Christian worldview.

While Christianity was and still is the dominant religion in the United States, the actual Constitution of the federal republic was made to be SECULAR, not promoting religion in any form. Early attempts to establish American theocracies in colonial times were failures and the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent that from happening again.

Clearly, there was a predominant Christian consensus in colonial America that shaped the Founders’ thinking and their writing of the founding documents and laws, resulting in the republic we have today. The Declaration of Independence identified the source of all authority and rights as “Their Creator” and then accentuated that individual human rights were God-given, not man-made. Thus, there would be no king or established religion to stand in the way of human liberty or dignity – uniquely Judeo-Christian ideals.

The concept of the “divine right of kings” was also considered a Judeo-Christian concept, yet it is opposed to the above stated ideal. And there is no mention whatsoever of Jesus, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments in the U S Constitution.

Even a brief study of the Founders’ last will and testaments provides convincing declarations of the strong religious beliefs among so many of them. Add to that their personal writings concerning their faith in Christ, plus their leadership roles in establishing and guiding numerous Bible societies, plus their service in active ministries, and the evidence is overwhelming.

What some of the Founding Fathers did in their private lives should have no bearing on their duties as public officials.

Here is a small sample of the convictions of some of the Founders:

Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth…nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. | JOHN HANCOCK, signer of the Declaration of Independence

It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. | Attributed to PATRICK HENRY – Governor of Virginia

Either Patrick Henry was delusional or he was quote mined here. In any case, the claim is false, as noted earlier.

Only TWO quotes. Why not at least a dozen?

No more responses to the State of the Union Addresses, please!

Every time the President of the United States gives his State of the Union Address, a representative of the other dominant political party gives a response to it that is broadcast immediatly afterwards. If the President is a Democrat, the one responding will be a Republican, and vice versa.

I beleive this tradition must be brought to an end. While the President is required by the federal Constitution to give such an address, there is NO requirement that any member of an opposing party give any rebuttal that is given equal standing before the media or the American people. For this reason, this practice should be abolished. It perpetrates the two-party system that I consider to be the root of America’s excessive conservatism. Also, it encourages disrespect for the office of the Presidency.

Seriously, if the Democrats get to respond to a Republican President, and vice versa, why not allow responses from the Libertarians or the Greens as well? Why should only one opposing party have such an unfair advantage?

The U S Supreme Court has murdered democracy in America!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/ts_nm/us_usa_court_politics

By James Vicini  Thu Jan 21, 2:42 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.

“The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said after the 5-4 ruling that divided the nation’s high court along conservative and liberal lines.

Continue reading

Humanitarian work by the U S Military

There are reports that the United States military is heavily involved in the relief efforts in Haiti. They are indeed true.

The U.S. Military in Haiti: A Compassionate Invasion

First U.S. military aid reaches quake-stricken Haiti

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.us.coast.guard/?hpt=Sbin

Since the United States is sending over 10,000 Military troops

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-haiti-pentagon16-2010jan16,0,4508316.story

The US Navy hospital ship the USS Comfort – http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57558

The US Air Force and the US Marines who are operating the airports – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575004913901168380.html?mod=rss_Today

US Troops providing security to Haiti –

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOOVGZLZ_-6JjoTEyleoMzpW7qJw

And right-wingers boast about how important this is and thus how we must support the troops, no matter what. But they overlook three important issues that the leftists should remind them of:

  1. The only reason the American troops would be there at all is because they were ORDERED to go by the Obama Administration, the very people right-wingers have been bashing for a year!
  2. The soldiers and sailors taking part have no choice in the matter, just as they have no choice in going to Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else to wage war. And charity that is the result of coercion is nothing to boast about. If I were forced by the city of Arlington, Texas under threat of going to jail to pick up litter off the city streets for several weeks, should I be praised for it?   Of course not! That’s why groups like the American Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders should get far more credit for what they do than the U S military.
  3. The military, regardless of what party rules the USA, is far more likely to take away our freedoms than to defend them. That’s because the military is itself an authoritarian system, not even remotely democratic. How can you fight for freedom if you are yourself not free, even if you “volunteer” for service, and thus get virtually enslaved over the next several years?  It’s a false claim and I won’t let it slide anymore. It is the PEOPLE themselves who defend our freedoms, by voting, running for office, going to court, and staying informed about the issues. We need to WATCH the military, not blindly support everything it does.