Showing posts with label anti-Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-Christian. Show all posts

Saturday, March 30, 2024

Here's what Joe Biden thinks of Christians' holiest day of the year

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/03/29/a-proclamation-on-transgender-day-of-visibility-2024/

Nothing must interfere with Joe's transgender agenda, the first American president officially to push it.

 



Friday, March 29, 2024

Few things are as funny as a WaPo ignoramus blaming the Christians for Moses turning the Nile to blood


 Christianity was a particularly blood-obsessed religion, with the Nile transformed to a river of blood in the Old Testament plagues of Egypt . . ..

It's going to be even more funny when The Washington Post blames the Christians for the fires in town.

Jewish Drudge curates ignorant, bigoted anti-Christian WaPo screed just in time for Good Friday

 The ancient, volatile Christian ideas behind Trump's obsession with blood...

Meanwhile this happens every year:


 

Thursday, November 23, 2023

Progressive lunatic Jamin Ben Raskin wants America to memorialize Thomas Paine as our greatest founding father lol

 It's no mystery why Paine came to be shunned by the founders. He was a radical, anti-Christian kook, kind of like Jamie Raskin.

Story here.

Monday, February 20, 2023

Tests used by hysterical sociologists show conservative Presbyterian who says the church should stay out of politics to be a Christian nationalist

 Like economics, sociology also is not much of a science.

If a conservative Presbyterian who has long argued that the church should stay out of politics tests positive for Christian nationalism, someone could wonder if sociologists need an equivalent to what epidemiologists have in asymptomatic carriers of COVID. Can a class of Christian nationalists exist who have no strong symptoms of this political virus? If so, do they need to be in political isolation?

Story.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Hm, guy born to Jewish parents but raised on a poultry farm notes quadrupling of anti-Christian attacks in France since 2008, where taking census data by race or religion has been against the law since 1872

 

Anti-Christian Attacks in France Quietly Quadrupled. Why?:

Still, the available evidence shows that attacks carried out by Muslims, both in France and elsewhere in Europe, account for a small fraction of anti-Christian crimes. Indeed, one reason alleged “Christianophobia” is being downplayed by the French government is the fear of stoking Islamophobia – the concern that some people would instinctively blame Muslims for the attacks and retaliate (which has not happened).

“For the majority of the attacks, we have no idea of the perpetrator,” Ellen Fantini, a former federal prosecutor in New Hampshire who heads the Observatory on Discrimination and Intolerance in Vienna, said in a telephone interview. But, Fantini continued, “it's safe to say that there are many attacks that have nothing to do with extremist groups.”

 

Saturday, August 4, 2018

An alt-right taxonomy one year after Charlottesville, and its prospects for survival

Provided by Paul Gottfried, with useful links, in Paul Gottfried: Charlottesville After A Year—As An Outsider, I Think The Alt-Right Far From Finished, from which this excerpt:

Growing racial tensions, reckless immigration and a further weakening of already-weakened social bonds could all help the Alt-Right expand its following.

Part of the Alt Right’s eventual success may come from its anti-traditionalism. The Alt-Right is mostly (but not entirely) anti-Christian and advances a Nietzschean or neo-pagan perspective. It is thereby in sync with the growing secularism of millennials.  

And the Alt-Right doesn’t wear itself out trying to defend the traditional bourgeois family. It appears to be made up largely of young, unattached bloggers. Most of those Alt-Right publicists I read focus on racial conflict or the struggle between civilizations; and they push these themes far more frankly and with less careerist backtracking than the well-paid propagandists of Conservatism, Inc. They also cite telling statistics about racial and gender differences; and they pride themselves on their openness to science as well as on their sometimes vaguely defined “radical traditionalism.”

The Alt-Right belongs to a post-conservative Right. 

This is another way of saying the future success of the alt-right depends on the continued splintering of the American experience occasioned by its enthusiasm for secular ideologies.

Hence the way to defeat the alt-right, if that is what the left really wants, is to reject multiculturalism and participate in unifying the country instead of working toward its demise. And that implies supporting the radical correction of America's immigration laws symbolized and actualized by Donald Trump's wall.

But, of course, that would make too much sense, as little sense as reproducing oneself the old-fashioned way, by marrying and having children.

Idealism, of whatever stripe, is poison, but our thirst for it, unfortunately, is the well nigh inescapable bastard patrimony of our Christian past. 

Or that the charm and venom, which they drunk,
Their blood with secret filth infected hath,
Being diffused through the senseless trunk
That, through the great contagion, direful deadly stunk.

-- Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, Canto II, iv.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

So what Bernard-Henri Levy and the EU really want is to tax the bejeebers out of Greek capital and the Greek church

BHL with celebrated child rapist
Venting his deconstructionist spleen, here:

Mr. Tsipras might defend his approach to the referendum by asserting that his goal was not so much to sound out the people as to reinforce his position in the confrontation with Greece’s creditors. But what is the justification for that confrontation? That creditors had the audacity to demand progress toward the rule of law and social justice, as well as efforts to tame Greece’s shipping magnates and its tax-avoiding clergy?

Evidently plank eight of Syriza's 40-point program is just window-dressing to BHL and isn't evidence that the goals of the EU and of Syriza in this regard are quite the same:

"8. Abolition of financial privileges for the Church and shipbuilding industry."

The French Jew and self-identified leftist and critic of the left has a passel of divergent opinions and loyalties, including to Roman Polanski, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Nicolas Sarkozy, but Tsipras' real offense to Levy is that, so far, he has been insufficiently anti-Christian.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Stephen Prothero Of Boston University Is Biased Against Whites And Christians

The overwhelming majority of bias crimes in the US are racially motivated, and only 20 percent are specifically religious. And of those, fully 65 percent are anti-Semitic in motivation. Just over 13 percent are anti-Islamic, and just under 8 percent specifically anti-Christian.

So says Kate Shellnutt here for The Houston Chronicle.

When it comes to crimes of religious bigotry in America, most of us have to take a number behind the Jews.

CNN blogger Stephen Prothero of Boston University, unfortunately, unhelpfully conflates the racial and religious motivations for bias crimes, and just decides out of thin air and without evidence that Christians and whites are to blame for all of it, here:

When murderers target and kill religious minorities simply because they are nonwhite or non-Christian, something of each of these traditions dies. So we need to redouble our efforts to keep both vibrant.

... [H]ateful invective is a weapon too, and it can be heard not only among white supremacist extremists but also on our mainstream radio and television talk shows.

Last time I checked, Jews are classified as whites. Do they endure the overwhelming number of cases of violence "because they are nonwhite"? Do Muslims attack Jews because Jews are non-Christian? And why do so many acts of violence against Christians come from disaffected Christians? And prejudice from denizens of the American academy?

Stephen Prothero hasn't committed an act of violence, but his bias against Christians and whites is a crime nonetheless, against intelligence.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Anti-Christian Army General Thomas Bostick Sued For Discriminating Against Women

Gen. Bostick and wife
The general who helped craft the Army's DADT policy and a five-year personnel reduction plan meant to weed-out members of the military who object to homosexuality on moral grounds has been sued by women in the military who want to fight in combat but are barred from doing so.

The general, Thomas Bostick, just assumed command of the US Army Corpse of Engineers on May 22 (a little Obama lingo there).

I'm guessing he's secretly happy he's named in the suit and that he hopes he'll lose so women, like homosexuals, can hit the front lines with the men.

In the job of transforming America, Obama's work is never done.  

The New York Times has the story here.

Friday, March 30, 2012

The Pantywaists at National Review Finally Notice the Hutaree, After Vindication

Mark Steyn does a nice job here in National Review of covering up for the way "the right" ignored the significance of the government's ridiculous entrapment of a bunch of religious nuts with guns in southeast Michigan the week ObamaCare passed in March 2010, but still misses the point by connecting their treatment to that of . . . Conrad Black!

I guess it's Canadian obsessive compulsive disorder, or something, on display there.

And I'll bet Conrad isn't too flattered with the comparison, either.

While some of these Hutaree ne'er-do-wells had to rot in jail for two years and others were released with monitoring devices attached to their ankles, all of these hapless souls had to rely on government attorneys to defend them against trumped-up charges while conservatives all across this country pretty much ignored them, except when the left tried to tar the right with their example.

What we got was the right stiff-arming that charge by participating in the marginalization which the Hutaree saw as confirming their peculiar position as God's chosen warriors against the imminent appearance of the AntiChrist. Only extremists or nuts buy guns and train on weekends in the woods. They might as well be the same as those who threw rocks through local Democrat Party offices to show displeasure at ramming government healthcare down our throats, or who made intemperate or even threatening phone calls to Congressmen, some of whom got tracked down, arrested and convicted.

Now vindicated, the Hutaree can become an example of "who's kookier?" Steyn writes:

But they weren’t paranoid, were they? They were convinced that one day the black helicopters would be hovering overhead. And one day they were. Or, actually, one night – in the wee small hours, descending from the skies with searchlights circling. Oh, and Humvees – just like in Waziristan. So Eric Holder proved their point. In Lenawee and Hillsdale counties, they still talk about it – and the general consensus is the pseudo-commandos of the federal constabulary looked way more ridiculous than the survivalist kooks.   

As at Waco, our feeble tyranny finds itself constrained to choose targets who are already estranged from the mainstream of society, in order the more easily to make an example of them to the rest of us who had better not get out of line when government decides to force its will on the people.

This week Rush Limbaugh has been complaining that it's astonishing that the question of government force, the individual mandate, at length comes down to just nine people in black robes who will decide the fate of a once free people.

It is astonishing. He's had the power of a microphone in all this and has done nothing to stop it coming to this pass, all because he's afraid of being called an extremist, just as are almost all conservatives. Rush Limbaugh is most certainly afraid of what people will say, which is why Rush protests so often that he doesn't care what people think. It's his livelihood to care, otherwise he's out of a job.

Let's suppose the Supremes uphold the mandate. What will become of people's fear then? They will have a choice, to let their children become Red, as we now know John F. Kennedy was prepared to do in the Cuban missile crisis, or to fight.

I have just one question for all you pantywaists. When George Washington and his ilk decided it was time to start shooting Red Coats (over taxes which were paltry compared to what we endure), was he an extremist?

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Spengler on the Christian Origins of Communism

From The Hour of Decision, 1933:

"But since the end of the World War the church - in Germany above all, where, being an ancient power of rigid traditions, it had to pay heavily in prestige with its own adherents by descending to street level - has sunk to class wars and association with Marxism. There is in Germany a Catholic Bolshevism which is more dangerous than the anti-Christian because it hides behind the mask of a religion.

"Now, all Communist systems in the West are in fact derived from Christian theological thought: More's Utopia, the Sun State of the Dominica Campanella, the doctrines of Luther's disciples Karlstadt and Thomas Münzer, and Fichte's State Socialism. What Fourier, Saint-Simon, Owen, Marx, and hundreds of others dreamed and wrote on the ideals of the future reaches back, quite without their knowledge and much against their intention, to priestly-moral indignation and Schoolmen concepts, which had their secret part in economic reasoning and in public opinion on social questions. How much of Thomas Aquinas' law of nature and conception of State is still to be found in Adam Smith and therefore - with the opposite sign - in the Communist Manifesto! Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism. All abstract brooding over economic concepts that are remote from any economic experience must, if courageously and honestly followed out, lead in one way or another to reasoned conclusions against State and property, and only lack of vision saves these materialist Schoolmen from seeing that at the end of their chain of thought stands the beginning once more: effective Communism is authoritative bureaucracy. To put through the ideal requires dictatorship, reign of terror, armed force, the inequality of a system of masters and slaves, men in command and men in obedience - in short: Moscow.

"But there are two sorts of Communist. The one, the credulous type, obsessed by doctrine or feminine sentimentality, remote from and hostile to the world, condemns the wealth of the wicked who prosper and also, at times, the poverty of the good who do not prosper. This lands him either in vague Utopias or throws him back upon asceticism, the monastic life, Bohemia, or vagabondism, which proclaims the futility of all economic effort. But the other, the "worldly" type with the realist political outlook, hopes through its followers to destroy society, either from envy or revenge, because of the low place assigned in it to their personality and talents, or, alternatively, to carry away the masses by some program or other for the satisfaction of his own will-to-power. But this, too, likes to hide itself under the cloak of some religion.

"Marxism is indeed a religion, not in the sense of its founder, but in that which his revolutionary following has imparted to it. Like any church it has its saints, apostles, martyrs, fathers, bible and mission. Like any church it has dogmas, heresy-tribunals, an orthodoxy and a scholasticism, and, above all, a popular moral - or rather two, for believers and unbelievers. And does it make any difference that its doctrine is materialistic through and through? Are those priests who agitate on economic questions any less so?"

Thursday, July 14, 2011

The Atlantic Doesn't Really Care What Kind of Nut Michele Bachmann Is

Just that you know she's a nut.

Joshua Green here thinks she's a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran anti-Catholic nut, even though she's formally separated herself from the group after many years.

The reason surely has to do with theological views she has which are errors according to these Lutherans. Green would like Bachmann to be all about the Lutheran position that the pope is the Antichrist, a position Bachmann has gone on record disavowing.

You'd think Green would dig a little deeper because of that, say at Salon here or especially Mother Jones here, to gain a little wider appreciation for Bachmann's interest in an apocalyptic timetable at the center of which is the state of Israel, and the dispensationalism and millennialism which goes with it, all of which are eschewed by Lutheran interpretation.

Lutheranism is amillennial, and Pauline in its insistence that the Church is the Israel of God, and has replaced it in the world. For Lutherans, the state of Israel is theologically irrelevant. And therefore it is impossible for them that one's relationship to the state of Israel could be talismanic in any way, as Bachmann appears to believe.

For end times enthusiasts like the Congresswoman, the Antichrist is an historical personage who is revealed before the end of the world, not a spirit of error who perennially inhabits the seat of Roman Catholic false doctrine, as the Lutherans believe.

I don't find it surprising at all that Bachmann has parted ways with Lutheranism in the light of these facts. What is surprising is that it took her so long.

She may herself be still quite confused about much of this. Lots of Christians are, and spend inordinate amounts of time trying to figure it all out. But who can really say, except Bachmann herself? About that Green is correct.

The political ramifications for Bachmann's presidential run are not inconsiderable, since many of the people on all sides of these issues in the churches are her potential base of support. For fervent believers as many of them are, positions taken on these issues can be fundamentally alienating.

It's fascinating in a way . . . kind of like a train wreck.