[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

10 Supplements That Fight Inflammation

CNN Security Analyst Defends Agents Who Removed Senator Padilla From Kristi Noem Presser

Florida sheriff warns rioters: 'We will kill you graveyard dead'

DEMOCRATS' NIGHTMARE: Viral Video Shows Why They LOST The Election!

Israeli strikes on Iran. Five Waves. Might last 2 weeks?

Images Emerge Of Tehran Destruction After Major Israeli 'Preemptive Attack'

This Is What Happens Next After Israel Bombs Iran’s Nuclear Facilities…

Smartmatic accused of deleting evidence in 27 Billion Fox News Defamation Case Court Docs

White House Fears Iranian Response To An Attack Could Overwhelm Israel's Air Defenses

The Money and Power Behind the Riots: This is No Grass-Roots Movement

D.C. Judge Sides With Trump In Lawsuit Over Control Of Corrupt Foreign Aid Agency

Israel Iran Double Standard

Soros Funneled $8.3M into Leftist Group Trying to Turn Lone Star State Blue

California Democrats Under Fire for Buying Bricks During Protests

ICE Launches Campaign to Crack Down on Marriage Fraud Could Ilhan Omar Finally Face Justice?

Joe Rogan's podcast predicted violent LA riots two years ago leaving viewers stunned

Anti-migrant rioters shouting 'f*** off foreigners!'

Amazing things happen when you actually cut government spending.

25 Vaccine Death Stories To Share In Social Media

The White House just posted this:

US Anticipating Potential Israeli Attack on Iran

Grok Is Using a Far-Left Fact Check website to Smear and Censor Conservative Outlets on X

Over 300 UK Foreign Office staff told to consider resigning if they disagree with government's Gaza policy

Jimmy Dore: Here’s How Israel’s Massacres At Aid Sites Work!

Iran successfully tests missile with 2-ton warhead

Liberal Teachers Union Presidents Rally Behind LA Rioters

Ilhan Omars Daughter Applauds Anti-ICE Riots, Urges Death to Colonial Empire: U.S. and Israel One Oppressor

California Leaders Want United Nations Blue Helmets to Expel Federal Forces from the State

Tulsi Gabbard Warns of “Nuclear Holocaust” in Chilling 3-Minute Plea

LBMA Silver Short Position Now 2nd Largest In History


Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive'
Source: The Guardian (UK)
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201 ... theism-america-religious-right
Published: Oct 4, 2011
Author: Paul Harris
Post Date: 2011-10-04 16:12:24 by Original_Intent
Keywords: atheism, Israelism, false, idols
Views: 712
Comments: 19

Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive'

High profile of faith-based politicians such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry masks a steady growth in secularism

in New York

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.

#1. To: All (#0)

Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive'

Actually I think I would reword the headline as: Christian NeoCon pseudo-Christian Right puts atheism on the rise

Why?

Because the support of grotesque and inexcusable crimes against humanity are increasingly being rejected. To use a perversion of the Christian faith as justification for murder and pillage is a real turn off. That does not mean that there is no God nor that religion is without value, but that the perversion of religion is what many people perceive as the truth of religion.

As for the atheist kooks all they really want to do is exactly what they accuse others of i.e., to FORCE their beliefs upon others. Freedom OF Religion is not the same as Freedom FROM Religion. The former is tolerance of differing beliefs and the latter is the enshrinement of intolerance of differing beliefs.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-10-04   16:21:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Original_Intent, again, you did it again (#1)

As for the atheist kooks all they really want to do is exactly what they accuse others of i.e., to FORCE their beliefs upon others. Freedom OF Religion is not the same as Freedom FROM Religion. The former is tolerance of differing beliefs and the latter is the enshrinement of intolerance of differing beliefs.

And your proof for that unsupported idiotic assertion is?

Freedom OF religion is the right to choose for yourself whether to have a religion or not, and to choose a path of ones choice. Christians do not like others to that freedom. Not having others validation of their beliefs scares them to death.

Freedom FROM religion is the right to be left alone by others trying to convert them, AND not to be forced to live by religious standards of other people. Christians do NOT like others to have that freedom. It is their mission in life to convert the world, by hook or by crook.

Then they wonder why they meet such resistance.

PSUSA2  posted on  2011-10-05   8:31:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: PSUSA2 (#11)

Freedom FROM religion is the right to be left alone by others trying to convert them, AND not to be forced to live by religious standards of other people. Christians do NOT like others to have that freedom. It is their mission in life to convert the world, by hook or by crook.

i think you have it ass-backwards.

Feds' rhetoric imperils Christian values, beliefs

1/5/2011 4:15:00 AMBookmark and Share

christ cross banA California-based organization has released its annual list of anti-Christian acts in America for 2010 -- a list determined through an online poll.

The list [ http://defendchristians.org/comm...-christian-events-in-2010 ] included stories like the Department of Homeland Security's report on "Rightwing Extremism," which labeled conservative Christians as potential terrorists -- or when police officers were called to a middle school in Kentucky to stop eighth-graders from praying during lunch for a student whose mother was tragically killed.

The number-one anti-Christian event in 2010, according to the poll's final tally, was the continued push for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- a bill that, if made law, would force ministries to hire individuals who oppose their beliefs or who live in open defiance of their values.

Gary CassDr. Gary Cass, president and CEO of http://DefendChristians.org, says while the actions on the list are not as egregious as incidents in other parts of world, Christians should be concerned when anti-Christian rhetoric comes from political leaders.

"Attacks are real; the discrimination is growing; the threats are not just rhetorical now -- some of them have even resulted in physical violence," Cass shares. "And probably the most ominous thing is that some of the threats are now coming to us directly from the government.".......

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Persecution/Default.aspx?id=1266282

see also "Now It Is Legal for the Government to Kill Christians" [two of them. one by Dr. Lorraine Day and one by Congressman William Dannemeyer] at takebackourrights.com [or .org?]

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-10-05   13:25:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#13)

The number-one anti-Christian event in 2010, according to the poll's final tally, was the continued push for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- a bill that, if made law, would force ministries to hire individuals who oppose their beliefs or who live in open defiance of their values.

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

Now let us say it had become law. What would the law say? Let's look it up.

LET US SEE IF YOUR SOURCE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH, SHALL WE??????

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)).

What have we here? Hmmm? Did they lie? FUCK YES THEY LIED. Imagine that, a christian lied. Unthinkable! Surely the webmaster will end up in hell for that. Unless he is already forgiven by jebus, that is. Then he can do as he damn well pleases.

Now do you want me to continue ripping apart your post? Really? It took me all of 2 minutes to come up with that.

next time, check your references. It can only help.

PSUSA2  posted on  2011-10-05   13:53:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: PSUSA2 (#14) (Edited)

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)).

good work...let's see the rest of it...there may be more in the fine print...if not...it conflicts with the Noahide Law signed into "law" by GBush the First....which boils down to: all Christians are "idolators" according to the Judeo-British CorpUSA, which is punishable by death by decapitation...no "rights"/no "exemptions" allowed to "idolators"

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-10-05   14:30:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#15) (Edited)

I didn't see any fine print.

The only reason webmasters get away with this crap is because they know that if their readers cannot be bothered to read their own bibles, they will certainly not check out that webmasters allegations about what Bill X says. This is especially true if other websites pick up the story, which they always seem to do, without bothering to check it out first.

Alex Jones and others do the same thing.

And when it comes to the kikes vs christians, I'm safe. But that will not stop me from killing them if they try anything. I just disagree with christians. I fucking hate kikes.

PSUSA2  posted on  2011-10-05   14:50:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: PSUSA2 (#17)

I didn't see any fine print.

This Act shall not apply to [define] a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)). [text? revisions? court decisions? etc..... of such is "fine print" derived from]

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-10-05   15:35:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 18.

#19. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#18) (Edited)

www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._42_00002000---e001-.html

Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a)

§ 2000e–1. Exemption How Current is This? (a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees of religious entities This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

2000e-2(e)(2))

www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._42_00002000---e002-.html

(e) Businesses or enterprises with personnel qualified on basis of religion, sex, or national origin; educational institutions with personnel of particular religion Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and

(2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a)

www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

APPLICABILITY TO FOREIGN AND RELIGIOUS EMPLOYMENT

SEC. 2000e-1. [Section 702]

(a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees of religious entities

This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Rights Acts of 1964 703(e)(2)

www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

(e) Businesses or enterprises with personnel qualified on basis of religion, sex, or national origin; educational institutions with personnel of particular religion

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor­management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and

(2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

PSUSA2  posted on  2011-10-05 15:49:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]