Christian radio hosts: Feminists are ‘selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores’

(The Raw Story) - Conservative Christian radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner explained on a Tuesday segment of their “Generations with a Vision” show that there are “two kinds of feminism,” the “Sarah Palin kind of feminism that wants to have a husband” kind and the “selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores” kind.

“Now remember, the goal is that these women have to be independent,” Swanson said on a show devoted to the idea that rising college costs were contributing to an alleged spike in prostitution. “The goal is lots and lots of birth control. The goal is lots and lots and lots of fornication. The goal is abortion. The day-after pill will help. And it will help a lot. Remember, the goal is to get that girl a job because she needs no stinkin’ husband, she’s got the fascist corporation and government-mandated insurance programs and socialist welfare that will take care of her womb to tomb. Who needs a cotton-pickin’ husband? Who needs a family? That’s pretty much the worldview that’s dominating, my friends. That’s what the college is all about.”

read more (if you can stomach it)

Of course they say this. It’s in the church’s interests to say it. It sounds like these guys are scared fucking shitless of the idea of a woman not needing a husband.

Disgusting

atheismfuckyeah:

Further details on the Galway death.

Savita Halappanavar, who was 17 weeks pregnant, died of septicaemia a week after presenting with back pain on 21 October at University hospital in Galway, where she was found to be miscarrying.

After the 31-year-old dentist was told that she was miscarrying, her husband reportedly said that she had asked for a medical termination a number of times over a three day period, during which she was in severe pain.

But he said these requests were denied because a foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told at one point: “This is a Catholic country.”

Pro … “life”?

I think the term to use here is, “I can’t even”.

As in, I can’t even fucking wrap my head around fucking DOCTORS denying a medical procedure to someone who’s life is in danger and letting them FUCKING DIE because for some fucking reason they value this idea of protecting a non-fully formed fetus over the life of a fully autonomous, fully formed, living, breathing person.

It’s precisely shit like this that is the reason I’m so harsh of advocates of outlawing abortion and religious fundamentalists.

(via feurety)

Religious Right Comes to Grips With Rejection

by Steve Benen | The Maddow Blog

To put it mildly, the religious right movement has fallen on hard times. Its wishes were largely ignored by their Republican allies during the Bush/Cheney era; they were dejected by President Obama’s win in 2008; and these social conservatives were never especially comfortable with Tea Partiers, whom they saw as overly secular.

But conditions deteriorated further in 2012, which the movement had seen as a comeback opportunity. Not only did the religious right’s allies lose badly in state and national elections, but voters moved to the left on social issues, including marriage, which appeared on the ballot. Evangelical efforts from Ralph Reed and the Graham family failed miserably.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told the New York Times, “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out. It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed. An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”

The question is what socially-conservative, politically-active evangelicals intend to do about it. Jim Daly, who succeeded James Dobson as head of Focus on the Family, is answering the question in an exceedingly provocative way (thanks to Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).

…Daly threw the considerable resources of his organization - which opposes abortion and same-sex marriage - behind the campaign to defeat President Barack Obama, paying for millions of mailers that listed the presidential candidates’ positions on issues that were important to “values voters.”

In the aftermath of the election, however, Daly is willing to say things that few conservative evangelical leaders are likely to say. He believes, for instance, that the Christian right lost the fight against same-sex marriage in four states in part because it is on the losing side of a cultural paradigm. He says the evangelical community should have been considering immigration reform years ago, “but we were led more by political-think than church-think.”

And, along the same lines, he argues that evangelicals have made a mistake by marching in lock step with the Republican Party.

Daly specifically told McClatchy, “If the Christian message has been too wrapped around the axle of the Republican Party, then, (a) that’s our fault, and, (b) we’ve got to rethink that.”

That’s a rather striking thing for the head of Focus on the Family to say out loud.

This won’t surprise those familiar with the evangelical community, but there’s long been a quiet divide among many social conservatives. Most believe strongly in positioning themselves as foot soldiers in a culture war, combating perceived social ills — church-state separation, reproductive rights, sexual-orientation diversity, etc. — while electing like-minded candidates to public office.

But there’s another group who take seriously John 18:36, in which Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” For these Christian conservatives, the idea of aligning their faith with a political party and political ideology has always been a poor fit — their focus is less on this kingdom, and more on the next.

This latter group was largely pushed aside years ago as radical televangelists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell became influential political players, and the religious right became a legitimate, full-fledged movement, but Daly’s comments suggest the “not of this world” contingent hasn’t disappeared, and may yet soon grow.

read more

Election results raise questions about Christian right’s influence

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) – For many conservative Christian leaders, it was a nightmare scenario: Barack Obama decisively re-elected. Same-sex marriage adopted by voters in some states. Rigorously anti-abortion candidates defeated in conservative red states.

On multiple levels, Tuesday’s election results seemed to mark a dramatic rejection of the Christian right’s agenda, eight years after the movement helped sweep President George W. Bush into a second term and opened the era of state bans on same-sex marriage.

“For the first time tonight, same-sex marriage has been passed by popular vote in Maine and Maryland,” said Robert P. Jones, a Washington-based pollster who specializes in questions about politics and religion.

“The historic nature of these results are hard to overstate,” Jones said. “Given the strong support of younger Americans for same-sex marriage, it is unlikely this issue will reappear as a major national wedge issue.”

Some conservative evangelical leaders echoed that line. Albert Mohler, who heads the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on Twitter that votes for same-sex marriage suggested that “we are witnessing a fundamental moral realignment of the country.”

Thirty-eight states have banned same-sex marriage, mostly via constitutional amendments.

Obama’s victory also raised questions about the Christian right’s influence in the electorate.

Though evangelical leaders as diverse as the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land and Christian icon Billy Graham voiced support for Mitt Romney (Graham stopped short of an official endorsement), Obama performed better among white evangelicals than he did in 2008 in some states.

read more

This seems almost like a reverse course of sorts when compared to the Bush years. As diverse as the US is as a country, it was making me sick that so much of the conservative christian agenda was being pushed into government.

This whole thing is far from over, but I’m glad to see a majority of Americans pushing back against  evangelical principals that the GOP was trying so hard to push onto everyone else.

It may be that getting into bed with religious radicals may ultimately be the GOP’s undoing. 

(Source: stfueverything)

hatefulatheist:

For the third day in a row the local news channel posted a story on Facebook about Chick-fil-a and for the third day in a row the homophobes come out in droves to comment on it. It is beyond frustrating to read the comments.

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/american-injustice/in-memorium-unsung-gay-americans/

hatefulatheist:

For the third day in a row the local news channel posted a story on Facebook about Chick-fil-a and for the third day in a row the homophobes come out in droves to comment on it. It is beyond frustrating to read the comments.

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/american-injustice/in-memorium-unsung-gay-americans/

hatefulatheist:

Those who grow up in an atheist household are least likely to maintain their beliefs about religion as adults, according to a study by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA).

Only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults. This “retention rate” was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.

I honestly find these results very surprising, the entire article is available at the link above.

I honestly wonder how much of that is due to social pressure, such as joining a church because one’s partner is part of the church.

I went to church up until I was about 12 or so, then my mother decided to let me make my own choice, she did the same with both of my brothers as well.

One of us joined a christian church after getting engaged to a member of the church, my other brother is agnostic, and I’m a complete skeptical non-believer but didn’t come to that until my early 30’s (I was pantheistic and then agnostic before that).  

Again, it would be interesting to see the reasons behind atheists deciding to join a religion.

thisgingersnapsback:

On the conservative Christian radio show AFA Today, evangelical spokesperson Jerry Newcombe blamed the tragedy of the Aurora shooting on the nation’s loss of fear of God and hell. Discussing the victims, Newcombe argued that the non-Christians were going to Hell:

If a Christian dies early, if a Christian dies young, it seems tragic, but really it is not tragic because they are going to a wonderful place.. on the other hand, if a person doesn’t know Jesus Christ.. if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.

[Read More] …if you can stomach it.

This is fucking disgusting for something like this to be co-opted by anyone, and even more so to use it as fear-mongering and pushing a fucking religious agenda.

These people seriously make me sick. 

(via glittertitties-deactivated20130)

eightblackguys:

This should be required to be placed on all bibles.

eightblackguys:

This should be required to be placed on all bibles.

(via ragingbeard)

Mister Gorbachev, you will now face the awe that is I charging into Russia mounted atop a velociraptor, machine guns blazing, FOR FREEDOM AND FOR GOD!!!
—Ronald Reagan 

Mister Gorbachev, you will now face the awe that is I charging into Russia mounted atop a velociraptor, machine guns blazing, FOR FREEDOM AND FOR GOD!!!

—Ronald Reagan 

religiousragings:

fauxerious:

Whaaa…  Whole blog dedicated to it.

Well, I suppose that this would be treason or something, but on the other hand, I’m tempted to encourage it.  I’d far rather have the nutbags form their own country as opposed to having the nutbags take over this one.

I’d be worried about sharing boarders with a Christian version on Iran… 

(via skepticalavenger)

Amino Acid Synthesis (1953)

religiousragings:

accidentordesign:

When Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed, “Life has been created!” But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur. The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 274).

You know what’s interesting?

It’s not so much that it’s obvious that your taking an experiment from sixty (SIXTY!) years ago and almost certainly misinterpreting the results is an act of desperation.  That you aren’t talking about current research in abiogenesis and that it has progressed incredibly since this point must be clear to the most simple of minds.

It’s not just that your confusing evolution with abiogenesis shows with blinding clarity that you don’t even have the most rudimentary knowledge on either topic, and are just likely quoting from another source, which also clearly demonstrates that it’s author likewise didn’t have even the most rudimentary knowledge on either topic.

It’s really, rather, what the implication of this leaves for your god.

How the mighty have fallen, huh?  From the creation of life all in a single day to the manipulator of a some molecules on a microscopic scale 3.8 billion years ago.  Even if we grant that your god created the first reproducing molecules (which we by no means do), where, honestly, does that leave you?

Oh, I know.  This is just part of your argument, and you have similar arguments against all of evolution. (And by similar arguments, I of course mean highly strained, amateur, and deliberately misleading arguments, just as this one is.)

But it really all kind of comes down to the same thing, doesn’t it?  All of it a laughably fallacious arguments showing where science has it wrong, and none of it giving the slightest evidence as to why creation is right.

~ Steve

BOOM

I have nothing to add.

(via skepticalavenger)

People don’t want to admit that pro-lifers are religious terrorists.

happyonaccident:

abaldwin360:

Sorry. That’s what they are. When you threaten people, try to prevent access to clinics, fire-bomb clinics, threaten doctors, release their personal information, and in some cases kill them, that is terrorism.

I’m sorry that society at large in the US doesn’t want to call it what it is because of it’s affiliation with Christianity and it’s pretty name, but when you support pro-life activists, you are supporting domestic terrorism. 

99% of pro-life people don’t do any of those things! You are taking the minority and the extremists and making it out to be the majority which is completely wrong in every sense. Your generalizations are not spot on at all. I think you need to educate yourself and maybe talk to pro-life people and have conversations with them instead of assuming. 

Here is a post by rabbleprochoice that explains what I am talking about.

religiousragings:

Yes.  This is a joke.  It is seriously a joke.  :)

Yep, satire. It’s pretty hilarious too because sometimes it’s really hard to tell. (Poe’s law! DUN DUN DAAAA).

(Source: deeplysuperficialperson, via skepticalavenger)