The survey found that all Christian groups have millennials leaving their ranks. Catholics saw the the biggest drop of nearly 8 percent less millennials identifying with the religion.
Now, 25 percent of those in this age group say they are “religiously unaffiliated.” Nearly 14 percent of millennials have left the religious traditions of their childhoods to become unaffiliated.
“Millennials are much less likely to say they have a personal belief in God like someone you can have a relationship with,” Robert Jones, with the Berkley Center at Georgetown, explained.
I believe there is a reason for this; many of the young people of today, see the utter hypocrisy of Christians today and the lack of separation from the world and they just decide that this sort of Worldly lite Christianity is really not for them. I cannot say that I honestly blame them, if I were in this age group, I would most likely be the same way.
What these young people are making the mistake of doing is this; they basing their beliefs or lack of, on what other people do. Christianity is not about what other people do or, in other words, Christianity is Faith that Christ died on the cross, 2012 years ago for my sins and because of that, I invited him into my heart, when I was 9 years old. I have been saved ever since. What other people do — or do not do — does not affect my walk with the Lord. admittedly, it has been tough for me, I have been wronged by so-called “Christians” in the past. However, I have made the decision, I am not going to stop serving the Lord, because of what other people do.
That, is what these young people have done. The only thing we can do, is pray for them.
Just a personal note of observation; I did not always agree with her and I even once gently criticized her. But, I always respected her opinions —– even if I did not agree with them all. I also noticed another thing too; the commenters over at HotAir.com could be downright brutal with Tina. I believe this was fueled by resentment of a woman blogging at HotAir or something. I never made my criticisms of Tina personal. I simply stated that I disagreed with her. Some of the comments on Tina’s postings were personal, brutal, sexist and nasty. So, I can see why Tina left.
Either way, I wish Tina the best. She is a very smart woman, that I am sure will do well in whatever she does. Tina is also a very, very, beautiful woman; and the man she is going to marry is going to be one lucky guy. I wish him and Tina the very best. 🙂
"And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (Luke 24:4-7 KJV)
Some Music for the Holiday:
Some Bible:
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. — (John 20:1-31 KJV)
Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.
Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.
During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.
She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right.
Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama’s eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton’s remained silent about Obama’s birth certificate or lack thereof.
Normally, I would not give a story like this the time of day; but I put nothing and I mean nothing past Barack Obama. I remember that murder story and at the time, I sort of thought about what was said above, but I figured maybe it was explainable. But, I have to say; no motive? Something stinks here and I believe this might be actually true or at least partially true. I believe an Congressional Investigation into this is warranted, however, I will not hold my breath, least I turn blue and croak.
I really think that it is time that the Republican Party finally grew a pair of gonads and actually started taking this whole eligibility thing seriously. Because if this President actually did this; who is to say that another President, like a Republican one could not do it. An investigation by the FBI should be conducted; unless of course, the FBI is in on it too. Which would have to be, seeing they are the ones who clear someone to be President in the first place.
One reason I think this discussion is so important is because the manipulation of the term “terrorism” this way permits and bolsters (even if unintentionally) an extremely ugly, destructive, and toxic worldview, one which the Editor-in-Chief of Commentary Magazine, John Podhoretz, vividly expressed last night on Twitter when discussing the firing of Keith Olbermann by Current TV:
That’s about as overtly racist a statement from a media figure with a platform as you’ll see (and the it’s-just-a-joke excuse is obviously irrelevant: just imagine analogous “jokes” about how disfavored journalists would be punished at The Jerusalem Post, or Black Entertainment Television, etc.). To Podhoretz, Al Jazeera is filled with Arabs and Muslims, which means: The Terrorists (for many years after 9/11, that was virtually official U.S. governmentpolicy). Podhoretz is the same person who wrote a New York Post column in 2006 lamenting that in the early stages of the Iraq War, “we didn’t kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything,” suggesting that the big U.S. mistake in the war was allowing “the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35.” Remember, though: it’s those Muslims who are The Terrorists (when influential American “terrorism experts” start talking about the John Podhoretzes of the world as terrorism advocates, and about “Shock and Awe“, the assault on Fallujah and the bombing of Gaza as terrorism, and about Ronald Reagan as a “state sponsor of terrorism” for his funding of El Salvadoran death squads and Nicaraguan contras, and about the parties responsible for the assassination of Iranian civilian scientists as international terrorists, then I’ll start to take the honorific more seriously).
I have no doubt that most respected “terrorism experts” would find Podhoretz’s comment about Al Jazeera repugnant. But the mentality on display here — and it’s quite pervasive (which is why this is one of the few remaining forms of overt bigotry that provokes no real sanction) — finds nourishment in the constant discussion of Terrorism, the Supreme Evil, as: acts of violence by Muslims directed at us (but not violence by our own government or those of its allies directed at Muslims).
The above is exactly why the libertarian crowd hates the Zionist crowd with a passion. This is why I am not a huge fan of John Podhoretz and his ilk. It is because they can make statements like this, without any repercussions. If someone, who is not a Zionist made a similar statement about Israel and Jews; they would be excoriated from one end of the blogosphere to the other. Mr. Glennwald has a very good point and I think everyone on the Jewish Conservative side of the political isle, ought to take a hard look at this and take it very seriously. If the Zionists want respect, they have to learn to respect others. Because not all Arabs out there are terrorists; just like not all blacks are murders, robbers, and so forth —- not all white people are robe and hood carrying Klansman. Some black liberals might think that, but I digress. Furthermore, not all Jews are evil bankers trying to overthrow the Country. See? It goes both ways. Someone needs to tell Podhoretz to keep his damned bigotry towards Arabs to himself.
Also too; anyone who believes that Jews can be insulted like this, and can get away with it —- ought to have a nice long talk — with Rick Sanchez.
There’s a lot of stupid crap there, but I’m just going to make three brief points:
1. The problem with a lot of the garbage for which public figures end up having to apologize isn’t that it’s “offensive” (although it is). The problem is that it creates, entrenches, and maintains oppressions: It is the pervasive, ubiquitous, inescapable little things that create the foundation of a kyriarchal culture on which the big stuff is dependent for its survival. It’s the little things, the constant drumbeat of inequality and dehumanization, that inure us to increasingly horrible acts and attitudes toward non-privileged people.
2. Maher routinely mistakes for “offended” what is actually contempt, and reads calls for an apology as a game of gotcha instead of a request for meaningfully accountability. See previously.
3. This line, ugh, this line: “I don’t want to live in a country where no one says anything offensive.” My question to that is WHY. Why would he not want to live in a country where no one ever says anything offensive (marginalizing)? What’s the net positive of people saying marginalizing things?
Of course it comes down to the reason he doesn’t want to live in a country where no one says anything offensive is because HE WANTS TO SAY OFFENSIVE THINGS, and the only kind of country in which no one says offensive things that he can imagine is one in which IT’S NOT ALLOWED.
Whereas, when I imagine a country where no one says offensive things, it’s because it’s populated by people who give a fuck about not offending other people, and thus CHOOSE not to offend them, no censorship required.
Unlike Bill Maher, I expect more. Firstly of myself.
Believe it or not; I am actually glad to see a liberal blog taking this issue up. Because if we are going to have this sort of dialog on what is acceptable and what is not, then BOTH SIDES have to be fair and agree to a standard. Not just one side be held and the other not be held to any kind of a standard.
Phew! Grumpy old feller ain’t he? Well, he is a Baptist and he is old and he is from Louisiana. I would tend to guess that this sort of thing is basically par for the course; at least with him anyhow. In other words, yeah, he is one of ours. 🙄
For the record, I do not believe for a minute that Rick Santorum believes any of that stuff that Dennis Terry was preaching from his bully pulpit. In fact, he said as much yesterday; over to you ABC NEWS:
MOLINE, Ill. – Rick Santorum told reporters Monday he did not agree with a controversial statement about non-Christians made by a Louisiana pastor at a church service Santorum attended Sunday in Greenwell Springs, La.
[…..] After an event in Moline Monday evening, Santorum was asked repeatedly by reporters if he agreed with the pastor’s words.
“If the question is, do I agree with his statement that America shouldn’t do that? No, if he was speaking for himself he’s obviously allowed to believe what he wants to believe but, obviously I believe in freedom of religion and all religions are welcome and should be. I think I’ve made that pretty clear throughout my campaign that I believe very much in freedom of religion, and folks should be able to worship whoever they want to worship and bring their thoughts in the public square and have at it and give them the opportunity to make their faith claims, and make their claims to reason and any other claims. That’s what America’s all about. As far as I’m concerned they should be here and make their arguments the best they can,” said Santorum.
Santorum said he did not clap when the pastor made these comments.
“I didn’t clap when he said that. I do remember him saying that, I said, well, I wasn’t quite sure he was saying it for himself, I wasn’t quite listening to everything to be honest with you. But I wasn’t sure whether he was speaking for himself or speaking generally, but I didn’t clap when he said that because it’s not how I feel.”
Here is why I feel a bit sorry for Rick Santorum. Because quite frankly, there are times when these guys who are running for President, will find themselves in awful situations like these and to be quite honest with you; there is not much he can do about it. I mean, it would be totally disrespectful for Mr. Santorum to try and interrupt, or worse, get up and leave. Now, I am sure liberals would think he should have done that; but some things are just best left alone.
For the record, and this is for the Conservatives and Republicans who will actually read this; I do not fault this Pastor for what he believes. Pastor Dennis Terry is an old salt from the America that once was; and I do not think he should be punished for his remarks, no more than I would want a far-leftist liberal Democrat punished for he believes. Like Rick Santorum said, that is what makes America great, diversity of opinion and beliefs. If we all believed alike, this Country would be more boring than watching a Martha Stewart peep show.
I have been known to fault Rick Santorum on many things; one being his big Government Statist stupidity. But, this one here, I just cannot muster the outrage. I mean, it just is not his fault that Pastor Dennis Terry believes the way that he does.
I have not really blogged on this much; the kudos goes to this blogger for his fishing out the story on Sandra Fluck’s connections in the progressive movement.
Now the Democrats are crying antisemitism. Where were they when Alan Dershowitz was pointing out to everyone that Media Matters for America was antisemitic? These same democrats are now whining about privacy. The same people who dug up Joe the plumbers private records and exposed them.
Difference is, Joe’s info was private; this info on Fluck was ALL public info. Besides all that, this stupid woman put herself out there as some sort of victim; when in fact she is a professional activist and she got exposed. Boo hoo, crap happens. Take two mydol’s and call me in the morning.
Again, I love it when the left gets exposed like this. The hypocrisy is stunning.
I have for many years held the belief, that Jerry Falwell was a not a true-blue Fundamentalist Baptist, but rather a “go along to get along” soft evangelical that would sell a Fundamentalist up the river for the cause of political and religious unity. This posting in the Christian Post about a book that has come out, confirms what I suspected for years:
WASHINGTON – Michael Sean Winters, a biographer of the late Jerry Falwell, said that the controversial preacher and Christian Right leader helped remove the stigma conservative Protestants had working alongside Roman Catholics and Mormons for common political goals.
Winters, author of God’s Right Hand: How Jerry Falwell Made God a Republican and Baptized the American Right, was a guest speaker at an event Monday that carried the same title as his book. The event was sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF).
“He dispensed with this idea that you could not be yoked with nonbelievers or non-fundamentalists,” said Winters to The Christian Post.
“[Falwell] was very proud of the fact that even in the early years of the Moral Majority it was 30 percent conservative Roman Catholic.
[……]
At the discussion-based presentation, Winters talked to those gathered about how one of the amiable qualities of Falwell was his “capacity for friendship.”
“He has this incredible capacity for friendship, which extended to people who were not like-minded,” said Winters.
Winters noted as examples that Falwell’s friendships included people like Ted Kennedy, a liberal political figure, and Larry Flynt, a pornographer who fought Falwell in the courts over issues of defamation and libel.
“Every time he was in Los Angeles, Jerry Falwell would always visit Larry Flynt,” said Winters.
“When Falwell died, Flynt wrote this very moving tribute in the L.A. Times how ‘we agreed on nothing but he was my friend.'”
This above proves what I pretty much knew about Jerry Falwell. To be fair; I should point out that this was not always the case with Falwell. At one time, Falwell did preach the hardcore Fundamentalist stance on Biblical separation at one time. However, as Falwell became involved with politics, he toned down his message of separation. This was because Falwell knew that his hardcore stance on Biblical separation would not be popular with the Republican Party establishment. I also feel the need to point out that Jerry Falwell was a dishonest snake; I say this because of his baldfaced lies that he told to then-Pastor Jim Bakker, when he had his troubles with his Ministry. Falwell simply wanted the television network and nothing else. When Falwell saw that he could not get said network, he pushed that ministry into bankruptcy and washed his hands of it.
