Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a Jewish internet troll living in Florida, succeeded in encouraging Muslims to attack an exhibit in Garland, TX which exhibited images of Muhammed. The Muslim patsies were k**led in a shootout with police. Goldberg later attempted to incite more Muslim terrorism by instructing Muslims on how to make a bomb and where to place it near a crowd at a firefighters 9/11 memorial.
These incidents illustrate how outside forces can influence terrorist attacks. Imagine an organized group of Goldberg clones inciting Muslims in Paris and instructing them how to pul off an organized terrorist attack. The attacks in Paris did not benefit Muslims in any way but it certainly benefited those waging a war on Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Ryne_Goldberg

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/26/the_religious_have_gone_insane_the_separation_of_church_and_state_and_scalia_from_his_mind/

The religious have gone insane: The separation of church and state — and Scalia from his mind
A "strong and passionate" belief in God does real harm -- look no further than the GOP or the Supreme Court
JEFFREY TAYLER
Share 13K 661
Post
467
TOPICS: RELIGION, ANTONIN SCALIA, MIKE HUCKABEE, RICK SANTORUM, LIFE NEWS, NEWS

The religious have gone insane: The separation of church and state -- and Scalia from his mind
(Credit: Jeff Malet, maletphotos.com/Reuters/AP/Patrick Semansky)
The headline on the News Nerd was almost too good to be true: “American Psychological Association to Classify Belief in God As a Mental Illness.” A study, the story beneath it read, had led the APA to conclude that “a strong and passionate belief in a deity or higher power, to the point where it impairs one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, will now be classified as a mental illness.” Faith’s recurrent lethality was adduced: “Every year thousands of people die after refusing life-saving treatment on religious grounds.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, said the article, refuse lifesaving t***sfusions (on account of biblical prohibitions against the drinking of blood).

Most gratifyingly, for a rationalist, the author quoted a certain Dr. Lillian Andrews, who opined that, “Religious belief and the angry God phenomenon has caused chaos, destruction, death, and wars for centuries. The time for evolving into a modern society and classifying these archaic beliefs as a mental disorder has been long overdue.”

Finally, I thought, the educated elite is beginning to awaken to the threat that accepting, without evidence, the t***h of comprehensive propositions about our cosmos (that is, religion, in all its inglorious permutations), poses to the mental health of our society!

A “strong and passionate belief” in a (nonexistent) God does our world immeasurable harm: look no further than ISIS or al-Qaida. In fact, look no further than the damage religion causes to progressive causes of every sort (and thus to our psychological well-being) in the United States, from women’s reproductive rights to same-sex marriage to teaching science in schools to depriving federal coffers of $82.5 billion a year (in tax exemptions). Consider the enrichment of all sorts of faith-charlatans who thrive off the gullibility of millions of Americans. Recall the sick “purity movements” that allow meddlesome parents to ruin the lives of their daughters.

I could go on. In any case, it was to be expected that sooner or later psychologists would catch on to the quasi-psychotic elements (including detachment from reality, belief in spirits, hearing “the voice of the Lord, and so on) inherent in religion.

But no! I was wrong! The fine-print disclaimer at the foot of the News Nerd’s page ruthlessly dispelled my elation: The story, like the others the site publishes, was “for entertainment purposes only,” and “purely satirical.” In other words, a spoof. The hour was not nigh; psychologists were not yet ready to diagnose firm belief in God as what it is: an unhealthy delusion. Men in white jumpsuits won’t be forcing the faithful into straightjackets any time soon.

(Yet would that it were so! Imagine, so many Supreme Court justices and Republican politicians, from Antonin Scalia to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, disqualified in one fell swoop on mental health grounds from holding public office!)

In fact, religion, so potentially dangerous that the Founding Fathers established a “wall of separation” to keep it clear of our affairs of state, continues to enjoy an entirely unmerited imprimatur of respectability. Yet the satire in the News Nerd’s piece derives its efficacy from an obvious t***h: belief in a deity motivates people to behave in all sorts of ways — some childish and pathetic, others harmful, a few outright criminal — most of which, to the nonbeliever at least, mimic symptoms of an all-encompassing mental illness, if of widely varying severity.

Why childish? A majority of adults in one of the most developed countries on Earth believe, in all seriousness, that an invisible, inaudible, undetectable “father” exercises parental supervision over them, protecting them from evil (except when he doesn’t), and, for the mere price of surrendering their faculty of reason and behaving in ways spelled out in various magic books, will ensure their postmortem survival. Wishful thinking characterizes childhood, yes, but, where the religious are concerned, not only. That is childish.

True, belief, say the polls, is waning, but that it persists at all, given the advances of science in the past couple of centuries, and especially since Darwin published “The Origin of Species” in 1859, does nothing if not lead a rationalist to despair. Americans, by and large, cling to their religion (and, yes, their guns). To have all the resources to begin reliably fathoming the mysteries of the universe, and yet to cast them aside for slavish fidelity to primitive fables (most of which deserve no more “reverence” than tales from the Brothers Grimm) that no one past the age of six or seven should believe . . . well, such is the very definition of pathetic.

Harmful? Let’s leave aside the mass-market megachurch “God of Love” finding little or no textual support in the Old or New Testament, and take the terrifying deity as the sacred canon depicts Him. One Bible verse alone (Nahum 1:2) describes Him as vengeful, jealous, wrathful, and furious. Or let’s take His supposedly more clement son, who orders us (says Matthew 25:41) cast into everlasting hellfire for trivial t***sgressions. Who benefits from the misconception that a permanent, inescapable, unimpeachable tyrant oversees our thoughts and deeds, including those of a most intimate nature? The life- and society-damaging neuroses generated by this crazed delusion afflict many of those around us. That is harmful.

But the harm is greater than that. All in all, the most pernicious constellation of rubbish misbeliefs forming the core of the Abrahamic faiths concerns women, blamed for sin itself (the “original sin”), and the Fall of all mankind. Every mainstream misogynistic superstition stems from the rotten old myth of Genesis: woman as made not in God’s image, but from one of Adam’s spare parts, and thus inferior to man. Woman as temptress, woman as unreliable, woman as “unclean.” The rest of the Old and New Testaments inculcate an array of injurious ideas: that women depreciate after their initial sexual encounter, and serve only to bear children and satisfy the lust of their mates. That they must submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord,” keep silent in church, cover their (shameful) bodies and heads, and never have authority over men. It goes without saying that none of this fosters mental health.

Anyone capable of objective thought, read the information in the clip, then tell me if you STILL think all those kids are fighting for "mom and apple pie";

http://davidswanson.org/node/4914

Or was it, AIPAC and Halliburton?

The "giddy swabby" and "Dumbyankee" are excused. Those mutts couldn't form an objective thought between them if their lives depended on it.

PNAC even spoke of a "pearl harbor" type event to get all the "we never learn" behind the bastards. We all know how well THAT worked for 'em, don't we? Does it ever occur to any of you how they must laugh themselves to tears when they think of how easy it all was? Hell, one look at the clip should show all but the "JMHO's" and "dumbyankee's" how deeply Bush and his "base" mourn over the million plus that died, (so far), not to mention those from here that believed their f**king lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjXPOxnu2N8&feature=player_detailpage

So. Tell me; Did Mencken know what he was talking about when he was quoted saying this, or no?


“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the t***h.”

– H. L. Mencken

Perhaps we should ask the Mannings, Assanges and Snowdens of this country?

Sam Rolley | September 18, 2015
Hillsdale College, a 135-year-old liberal arts school in Michigan, eschews federal financial aid and provides students with an education steeped heavily in classical liberalism. So it probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Obama administration found a bogus excuse to omit the institution on its new “College Scorecard.”

According to the Department of Education, Hillsdale isn’t listed on its scorecard, touted as a government sponsored effort to help students “identify which schools provide the biggest bang for your buck,” because it hands out too few bachelor’s degrees.

“Hillsdale does offer bachelor’s degrees,” DOE spokesman Denise Horn told Hillsdale’s Collegian newspaper. “However, because the plurality of degrees it awards are certificates, not two-year or four-year degrees, it was not included on the Scorecard at launch.”

The claim is odd, considering a number of other colleges that offer fewer degrees made the cut. Burlington College in Vermont is just one example, with just 200 undergraduate students.

More likely is that DOE left the college off the list because of its long-standing rejection of federal interference.

As I explained in a 2012 piece about Hillsdale’s history:

“In the 1970s, the college made certain that liberal indoctrination on behalf of the status-quo Federal bureaucracy would never creep into its halls. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare set out to interfere with Hillsdale admissions policy during that period on the pretext that the school received Federal money in the form of student loans and financial aid. The Federal agency demanded that the college adopt an affirmative action admissions policy despite the fact that it was the first American college to prohibit in its charter any discrimination based on race, religion or sex, and became an early force for the abolition of s***ery. It was also the second college in the Nation to grant four-year liberal arts degrees to women. Because the government’s unConstitutional mandate would make the college subject its admission roster to levels of discrimination that it had never before practiced, Hillsdale’s trustees responded with two resolutions:

• The College would continue its policy of non-discrimination.
• “With the help of God,” it would “resist, by all legal means, any encroachments on its independence.”

“A decade of litigation ensued; and in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled against Hillsdale, saying it was indeed subject to bureaucratic mandates. The college announced that rather than comply with unConstitutional Federal regulation, it would no longer accept Federal taxpayer money to pay student tuition. In 2007, the school also rejected any tuition assistance funded by the State of Michigan, instead opting to aid students who need financial help with private contributions.”

In fact, the Collegian reported that Grove City College in Pennsylvania, which similarly rejects federal funds, was also left off the Obama-approved college list.

The political left has long relied on institutions of higher education to indoctrinate students about the importance of political correctness and big government. Hillsdale’s rejection of the status quo and principled financial decisions appear to have landed it a spot on the DOE’s enemies list.

School Sends Christian Student To The principal–For Wearing Rosary
CULTURE by Andrew McNealy
r
If you don’t think there’s a liberal war on Christianity, think again: Tibetts Middle School in Farmington, New Mexico, sent an 8th grader to the principal’s office for “inappropriate attire.”

But Latanyia Clah, the student in question, wasn’t violating the dress code with something like a short skirt or flip flops: she was wearing a rosary.

A rosary–you know, that incredibly important religious symbol?

School officials at Tibetts Middle School were having none of it.

Apparently, rosaries like the ones Latanyia was wearing are, in their mind, considered gang accessories. Because sometimes gang members wear rosaries, or something.

“The dress code is more, ‘what is appropriate or inappropriate,’ and we have come to the consensus that it is inappropriate,” said Assistant Superintendent Frank Stimac, completely unapologetically. “…If [the school official felt] like something is causing an uproar, wh**ever that may be, you have the right to step in and address that.”

A teenage girl’s rosary “caused an uproar” and was a safety concern. Really, Tibetts Middle School? Really?

Latanyia and her family were just as baffled by the situation as we are: since when does displaying Christian faith in a tasteful, non-disruptive way mean Latanyia is in a gang?!