The Most Futile Lawsuit an Atheist Can File

                                                      +AJPM+

A new lawsuit filed on behalf of several Atheist plaintiffs argues the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. money is unconstitutional, and calls for the government to get rid of it.

Sacramento attorney Michael Newdow filed the lawsuit Monday in Akron, Ohio. He'd unsuccessfully sued the government at least twice challenging the use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Throughout much of his lawsuit, the word appears as "G-d."

Newdow claims "In God We Trust" violates the separation of church and state. One plaintiff says his Atheism is "substantially burdened because he is forced to bear on his person a religious statement that causes him to sense his government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally."The lawsuit represents 41 plaintiffs from Ohio and Michigan, including many unnamed parents and children who are atheists or are being raised as atheists. Defendants include Congress, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and various federal agencies.

A message seeking comment was left Wednesday at the office of U.S. attorney for Ohio's northern district. 

(For the link, click here.)

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
To the surprise of absolutely no one, this is not the first time this atheist tool has tried this garbage.
Those who follow idiotic lawsuits will recall in early 2002 a California man tried to sue his daughter's school over her saying "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegience. While he did win over the local courts, the circuit court overturned the ruling after it was discovered he did not have legal custody of his daughter, thus could not sue on her behalf.
The idiot lawyer in the news story IS that man.

In fact, to show how futile this lawsuit is, let's look at some past history relevant to this issue:

In law, there exists a concept called standing, defined as the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case..in other words, having the legal right to sue. 
In 1923,  the concept was first formed when the US Supreme Court heard a case called Massachusetts vs Mellon. In the case, two men sued to prevent certain government expenditures because they claimed said expenditures violated the Tenth Amendment. The Court ruled against both because neither man could prove they suffered any particular harm.
From that, it was believed no taxpaying citizen had the right to sue against what they felt was improper use of public funds…until 1968 when the Court created what became known as the Flast Test.

Now, any atheist reading this should NOT get cocky and think they've found a loophole because a) the majority of legal scholars admit there are VERY FEW scenarios where plaintiffs would pass the Flast Test and b) two atheist groups tried this argument in front of the Supreme Court…and both lost their respective cases.

An individual suing the State doesn't look too promising either. In 1970 a man named Stephen Aronow was the first man to file a suit against IN GOD WE TRUST in US currency. Citing the previously mentioned cases, an appeals court ruled he had no standing to sue. 

"But wait," a blathering atheist fool will object. "How do you explain the motto has the word God in it? Isn't that promoting religion over atheism?"

Nope.

McGowan v. Maryland says a law might sound religious but as long as it has a secular purpose, it doesn't violate the law. 

In other words, the person in the article claiming the phrase is causing harm is full of it because a) legally, he doesn't have the right to sue and b) even if he did, no one is forcing him to have paper currency in his pocket. 


Next thing you know, atheists will sue the Constitution because it has the phrase "in the year of our lord" written in it.

Oops…better not give them any ideas: they've shown what idiots they are.

Huffington Post..the Secular Fish Wrap

                                                  +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

For my first article of 2016, I have to admit something right out of the gate:

The religion section of the Huffington Post never ceases to be a source of entertainment for me.

Recently they included this article about why Christians should warm up to atheists…and here's me proving they have no idea what they're talking about.

1. Atheists are generally good people.

Remind me again of a few things:
Who are the ones suing schools to prevent prayer? Who are the ones filing lawsuits against military monuments because they contain a cross? Who are the ones threatening people into not expressing their religious beliefs? Who are the ones expressing the most lies and distortions about religious people?
And lest we forget atheists like Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Hitler, Stalin and many others.
Before any atheist goes into a "what about Christian so and so"…there is NO Christian an atheist can name that takes away the superb reputation Christians have. 

2. Atheists make for good Americans.

Based on what? If my previous remarks were any indication, atheists are not only bad people, they're bad Americans too.
To be fair, being a good American is a broad term and the article itself doesn't set many parameters…but that doesn't mean I can't!

According to statistical evidence, atheists:
-are less likely to donate to charities
-are less likely to be blood and/or organ donors
-are less likely to sign up for the armed forces
-are less likely to do volunteer work

In fact, the only study I can find that shows atheists being more generous fudged the numbers and did not include the same amount of children per religious persuasion…and the majority of children were Muslims and conducted it in a nation that does not have a Muslim majority. 


3. Atheists are valuable for religious conviction.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
Heretics make much better opponents to religious belief than atheists: at least in the heretics case, their stand has some basis in solid belief. 
For a quick clarification, heresy is a belief or theory at odds with established belief.  Atheism isn't a heresy, however: since it involves violating the First Commandment, it more qualifies as apostasy. 

Let me give an example:
You can believe Jesus is the only way to salvation but if you believe Jesus wasn't divine, then you're promoting a heresy. If you believe He wasn't divine but you're basing that on your rejection of Jesus, then you're an apostate.

Why would someone in a faith care for the view of someone who rejected it?

Speaking of rejection, some might wonder about the meaning of "fish wrap" in the title. In the Catholic media, there exists a paper called the National Catholic Reporter…nicknamed the Distorter and Fish Wrap because it deviates from Catholic teaching so much it's only good for wrapping fish.

And that's why I'm surprised people still read the Huffington Post or subscribe to it. I have yet to find anything useful or informative in it. 

But with sources like that..is it any wonder atheists are such idiots?

Ten Things I've Learned in 2015

                                                     +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

With 2015 almost behind us, I thought I'd take time out to reflect on valuable lessons I've learned in the past year and make them into a list.

Quick disclosure: unlike some top ten lists, these are in no particular order of importance and I can't guarantee people learned the same lessons from it, but then again, there's a reason common sense isn't very common.

So here's what I've learned:

1. A constitutional amendment really IS the only way to put a stop to this "gay marriage" nonsense.

After all, an amendment did put a stop to the federal income tax issue as well as the women's suffrage issue.

2. It's not a question of whether or not the Church has addressed an issue; it's a question of whether Catholics have the guts to point it out.

  This goes for anything from "Protestants are not 'separated brethren'; they are heretics" to "Islam is a danger to people" to "Outside the church there is NO salvation."
And don't think for a moment I've overlooked bishops or cardinals: they most of all need to have the guts to stand up to secular nonsense and will be judged more harshly if they fail at their job.

3. Hell does exist, and you might go there in the same sense you might go to heaven.

Let me make one thing clear: I am not saying if you don't believe exactly as I do, you will be sent to hell. I don't know whether or not you'll go to hell. In fact, I don't even know if I'm going to heaven. The only one who knows for a fact who's saved or damned is God.
Yes, it is preferable if you don't commit any mortal sins but since "all have fallen short of God's glory", I don't know whether this has dawned on you or how seriously you're taking it.
Once you fully understand what I just said, then you'll understand how stupid the traditional Protestant view is.
Speaking of which...

4. Protestants really ARE to blame for the rise of religious "nones".

No…I will not back down from that statement. No, I will not change my mind on it anytime soon. No, I am not saying that out of ignorance. No, I am not going to stop using the term Protestant: if you say you're Christian and you're not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, then you're Protestant. Plain and simple.
Out of all the non-religious people I've come across, some were raised in non-religious households but the vast majority came from Protestant families.
Just look at all these errors one orthodox person put together.
If you still aren't convinced, consider this: What's to stop someone using Protestant theology to read the Bible and conclude the whole thing is nonsense? Sure, you can say their take is wrong…but how are they wrong? The Protestant mindset doesn't have a leg to stand on.

5. Atheists really, REALLY suck at mind reading.

I've learned that when you try to argue with atheists, they have no real interest in logical debate. Instead, they'll try to psychoanalyze you and accuse you of having a hidden agenda or accuse you of having some mental problem.

This is no different than the tactics used by the former Soviet Union: they too had the "if you disagree with us, you must be crazy" attitude.
News flash, atheists: when someone asks you a question, they expect an answer. If you don't give an answer, they will automatically assume you don't have one.

Speaking of which…

6. If you say atheism is a religion, atheists will have NO actual response to it.

I'm not kidding. They don't have a sound refutation to this. Sure, they'll go on about some sound-bite bull about "atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color" but of course that won't work because atheism is a religion like baldness is a physical trait.
I'll go into more detail about this in another post some time in 2016 but for now, I'll say atheists can claim all they want, but they can't deny atheism being a religion any longer.
I've seen too much about it, I have too many sources and I have observed atheist behavior myself to conclude atheism is a religion.

7. Despite what I put on my Rules list, I still will NOT read or heed anything promoting atheism.

Again, I am not kidding about this. I still have atheists messaging me as recently as a week ago telling me I should look at this atheist material or that atheist material and then by magic (symbolically speaking, of course) I'll drop this religion nonsense and be atheist.

To that I say….no.

No I will not read it and I will not heed it.

I had enough of atheist nonsense for most of my life and I will NEVER go back to that dark area.
If you think I won't read it because I'm afraid to be wrong or I'm too childish or I'm too close-minded…I refer you back to point #5.

8. The overall difficulty in finding sources for particular teachings.

Good example of this concerns the teaching about the Great Apostasy. Do any of you have any idea how hard it is to find any credible sources on this that have nothing to do with Mormonism or some fundamentalist idiot that uses the Whore of Babylon ruse?
Another example is the "Outside the church there is NO salvation" I mentioned earlier. Does anyone else have any idea how hard it is to locate solid teachings on this not written by a sedevacantist?
I can only find one that I would recommend on criteria alone.

9. A good number of traditionalist Catholic websites are run by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Note I'm saying some have no idea, not all of them. I think this can be traced back to Vatican II, but Vatican II isn't the problem: it's the lies some websites tell concerning Vatican II. These lies lead to rejecting the authority of the current pontiff, leaving one outside the mystical bride of Christ. A good way to tell is if they call any pope after Pius XII an antipope.
If that wasn't bad enough, the site owners refuse to admit their errors even if you present their error in the fraternal correction spirit.
Some websites I've found that give solid Catholic teaching fully in line with the Chair of Peter include (but by no means are limited to):
fisheaters.com
thecatholictreasurechest.com
churchmilitant.com
catholicbible101.com

Finally, the main lesson I've learned in 2015….

                                    Atheists are a whole lot dumber than I thought.

The Meaning of Christmas

                                                       +AJPM+


THe MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

              

What Happens When A Christian Country Turns its Back on its Past

                                                            +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

After reading this, is there any doubt in your mind atheists are idiots?

Family loses appeal for reunion

NAUSTDAL, Norway (ChurchMilitant.com) - A Christian family in Norway has lost its appeal to have its children returned, after the government forcibly removed five children from their home. The public is reacting with outrage.

Marius Bodnariu, a Romanian, and his Norwegian wife Ruth, former members of the Pentecostal Church in Bucharest, moved to Naustdal, Norway 10 years ago, where they raised five children. As reported by Marius' brother Daniel, on November 16, Norway's child welfare services took away the Bodnarius' two oldest children, showing up at their school and removing them from class without their parents' knowledge. Police later that day arrived at the Bodnarius' home and also forcibly removed the two older boys, leaving Ruth with her three-month-old baby, who was taken away the following day by police as well. 

Two days later, child welfare services notified the parents that their children were in the care of two separate foster families and were "integrating" well. One of the officials reportedy said to Ruth, "The kids don't even miss you. What kind of parents are you?" Marius and Ruth were later informed by the government that they were guilty of "Christian radicalism and indoctrination."

Apparently, the children's removal was instigated by the school principal, who complained to child welfare services that the Bodnarius were "very Christian" and their belief that God punishes sin "creates a disability in the children." Accordingly, the principal believed the parents needed "guidance" from the government in raising their family. The principal also cited concerns over discipline in the family home, as occasional corporal punishment is used. But after physical examination of the children (the three-month-old was subjected to x-rays and a CT scan), no physical abuse was discovered. Child welfare services is claiming, however, that Marius is physically abusive, while he and Ruth are vehemently denying the claims.

A hearing held November 27 dismissed the Bodnarius' appeal to be reunited with their children. The court ruled instead that they were to remain in the care of their foster parents, while Marius and Ruth could visit their three-month-old son twice a week for two hours. They could see their two older sons as well, but the court refused to grant them visitation rights for their daughters. The parents are considering further legal action. 

Meanwhile, a petition begun in support of the family has collected nearly 30,000 signatures, and a Facebook page has been set up documenting the family's ordeal.

On December 2, Romanian senator Titus Corlatean spoke on the Bodnarius' behalfto the Commission for equality and nondiscrimination of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council (PAEC) in Paris. Corlatean condemned what he deemed abusive conduct on the part of the Norwegian government, and asked that the Assembly investigate. He also noted prior actions on the part of Norway's child welfare services that involved splitting children from their parents based on groundless accusations.

Marius' brother writes: 

I testify, and vehemently vouch, for Marius and Ruth having given birth to and raised a 'normal' family with Christian values. These parents love their children and have taken every imaginable step in raising their children with loving caring in all aspects of their well-being. The tearing apart of their family by the Barnevernet [child welfare services] is a living nightmare for Marius and Ruth. Their hope is founded, and rests, in God; He can change any situation and He is always in control!

A mass protest is being urged this weekend on their behalf. Instructions for sending emails are available on the relevant Facebook page, and request as many emails as possible be sent to Norwegian officials by Monday, December 7.

What You Never Knew about: St Nicholas

                                                              +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

 I figured I'd do another list of things people don't know about  a particular figure, with this one being the subject of today's feast day: St Nicholas.

1. He's actually Greek.
That's right: his parents were both Greek and he was raised in Greece. Some may think he was Turkish but that's only because he was a bishop of a Turkish area. This also explains why St Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors.

So come Christmas Eve, you might want to leave ouzo more than cookies.

2. He got the name Santa Claus because the English misheard a version of his name.

It may shock some people today, but when America was being colonized, the English settlers didn't celebrate Christmas.
Why? Because they were mostly Puritans who viewed Christmas as too Catholic or too "popish." As more people started settling in the area, more traditions and customs came over as well. One such group were the Dutch who brought their tradition of a gift giver. The English children were intrigued by this but neither they nor their parents were used to hearing Dutch words, so when they heard the name Sinterklaas, they thought the name was Santa Claus.

3. He once saved three young women from prostitution.

In life, Nicholas knew a man with three daughters. At one point, he wanted to marry them off but had no money to do so. Desperate because of his situation, he was getting ready to sell his daughters into prostitution.
Nicholas, not wanting to have the young women go into a life of sin but knowing full well the man was too proud to ask for help, came by his house late in the night and put three bags of gold coins down the man's chimney.
This is why some depictions of Nicholas has him holding three coin bags (sometimes three gold balls; they stand for the same thing).

4. He signed off on one of the key creeds of Christianity.

That creed is called the Nicene Creed, one of the oldest and most widely used creeds in Christianity. I'll get to the need for writing it in a moment, but for now, I'll say the creed is used to clarify the relationship between Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Unlike the Apostle's Creed, it does address Jesus' divinity but it does not say one needs the Catholic faith to be saved. This is why some Protestants use the creed, like Lutherans and Baptists but not used by Mormons or Jehovah's Witness (then again those last two aren't real Christians anyway so what difference does it make?)


5. He is a Catholic bishop.

This is the reason why he is portrayed with red robes, as that's the garment of the bishop office---unless someone is from an area with a more Eastern Rite or Eastern Orthodox influence. In that case, he wears purple robes.


7. One of the key parts of his life has long been misunderstood.

This is going back to the Nicene Creed mentioned earlier. What I did not bring up was why the creed was written in the first place.
At the time, a bishop named Arius was promoting the idea that Jesus was less than the Father, even going so far as to extend the teaching to saying Jesus is a created being. This became so rampant in the Church a special meeting of bishops was called by none other than Constantine. Nicholas, being a bishop himself, went to the meeting to settle the issue. He with the other bishops sat back while Arius presented his case for this stand.

Now pretty much everyone gets that part right; this is the part people get wrong.

According to the ignorant, Nicholas got up, punched Arius right in the face, sat back down and suffered no consequences for his actions and since Nicholas is a saint, this supposedly shows hypocrisy in Christianity.

This is of course NOT what actually happened.

Here's what it did happen: Nicholas did go up and strike Arius but it was a slap, not a punch.
Second of all, while a bishop arguing with another bishop wasn't frowned upon (as long as it was in the spirit of fraternal correction), a bishop striking another bishop was looked down on…especially considering he did it right in front of the emperor.
Third, he in fact did not get away with it. The other bishops were so shocked and horrified, they banned him from the remainder of the council, stripped him of his bishop authority and vestments, and confined him to a make-shift quarters wrapped in chains.
When the jailer checked on him the next mourning, he found the chains unwrapped and Nicholas back in his vestments.
This was taken as a sign to give Nicholas his office back..which they did and ruled against Arius.

My Stand on Mass Shootings

                                                                    +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

Before I begin, I would like to first address my prayers are with those killed in San Bernidino. It's sad we have to go through this tragedy again.
And I know we shouldn't go into this before all the facts are known, but I've put together something that will be applicable to this and (I fear) any other mass shootings in the future.

Many have asked quite rightly when these tragedies will stop. That is a fair question, and I do have the three point solution:

1. We need to admit gun free zones don't work and neither does any gun control law.
Even the CDC couldn't find any gun control law that actually worked at reducing gun crime.

2. We need to admit we as a nation are wrong and God does exist.

3. Once we admit #2, we must also admit every life has inherent value and life is worth living.

I'm afraid unless all three of these events happen….these shootings will never, ever stop.