News

German cardinal tarred as ‘Antichrist’ for defending Muslims

Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki of Germany receives guests in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican on Feb. 18, 2012. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Tony Gentile *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-GERMAN-CLERIC, originally transmitted on April 28, 2016.

(RNS) A German Catholic leader’s defense of religious freedom has triggered a backlash after anti-Muslim statements by far-right politicians in the country.

Editor-in-Chief Ingo Brueggenjuergen of the Catholic broadcaster Dom Radio, which ran the interview with Archbishop Rainer Maria Woelki of Cologne earlier this week, said in a commentary Wednesday (April 27) that some critics are claiming the cardinal is out to destroy the Catholic Church.

“These self-appointed saviors of the Christian West who are looking for an absolute antichrist should take a look in the mirror,” he said. The editor added that in his views, Woelki was “in good company” with Pope Francis and his immediate predecessors who talked about Muslims as brothers in faith.

In an online video earlier this week, Woelki tarred the far-right Alternative for Germany party as fearmongers.

“Anyone who denigrates Muslims as the AfD leadership does should realize prayer rooms and mosques are equally protected by our constitution as our churches and chapels,” he said, according to a translation of his remarks.

“Whoever says ‘yes’ to church towers must also say ‘yes’ to minarets,” he added. “Never again must people in this country be marginalized or persecuted for their race, ethnicity or religion.”

Supporters of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) demonstrate against the German government's new policy for migrants in Berlin, Germany, on November 7, 2015. The texts read 'Germany abolishes itself' and 'Merkel (Islam belongs to Germany).’ Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-GERMAN-CLERIC, originally transmitted on April 28, 2016.

Supporters of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) demonstrate in Berlin on Nov. 7, 2015, against the German government’s new policy for migrants. The texts read “Germany abolishes itself” and “Merkel (Islam belongs to Germany).” Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-GERMAN-CLERIC, originally transmitted on April 28, 2016.

Earlier this month the AfD’s deputy leader, Beatrix von Storch, described Islam as a “political ideology” and vowed to press on with calls to ban burqas and minarets.

The Catholic archbishop’s comments follow AfD making ground in local elections on a platform that took aim at refugees and migrants entering Germany. The party’s leader in Brandenburg, Alexander Gauland, has said the country is in danger from “Islamization.”

“Islam is not a religion like Catholic or Protestant Christianity, but rather intellectually always associated with the takeover of the state,” he was quoted by Reuters as saying.

Support for AfD has grown amid the influx of over 1 million immigrants to Germany last year. The party has so far won seats in eight regional assemblies.

Meanwhile, mainstream politicians are worried about right-wing attacks on migrants. German police near Dresden recently arrested five people they suspect of forming a far-right militant group and preparing attacks using explosives on asylum seekers.

(This story includes material from Reuters)

About the author

Rosie Scammell

117 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • I’d like to shake my head, sigh, and say, “tsk-tsk! Those Germans,” except that we have exactly the same thing here in the US. The shorthand for it is “Naziism,” and it’s an ugly, ugly disease that seems to know no national or ethnic boundaries.

  • Which is ironic to say since the AfD are modern day iterations of Nazis. People who claimed to be saving Europe from itself and gathering support by demonizing a minority religion. It’s telling that violence is as much part of their position as harsh rhetoric.

    Quislings/Collaborators/Willing participants in atrocity, justified their actions by claiming the ultra right wing/Nazis were the only ones fighting the Communists. They murdered millions of their own people to do it.

    Religious freedom can never be defended by arguments that a given religion is evil and it’s adherents must be attacked under color of law.

    The quisling of today is not the one preaching tolerance and freedom for all faiths.

  • Ya Danny you go ahead and shout down those so called Nazis, all the while some Muslim will be lopping off your head.

  • Got it. Scammell has (probably briefly) suspended deifying the pope and is now glorifying his hierarchs. But nothing about the pope and his men continuing to aid and abet the sexual abuse of children, or the suffering and deaths of women and LGBT persons around the world due to their anti-women and anti-gay campaigns.

  • The quisling of today is not the one preaching tolerance and freedom for all faiths.

    Then the overwhelming majority of Muslims are “quislings,” as the overwhelming majority of them do not believe in tolerance and freedom for all faiths.

    How much tolerance for, say, “gays” is there in Saudi Arabia?

  • Exactly, Islam-ism and Nazi-ism do have a lot in common. It’s no accident that The Third Reich and Palestinian Muslims were strong allies during WWII.

  • The overwhelming majority of Muslims live in dictatorship hell holes or countries going through nasty conflicts.

    To judge the entire faith of 1.2 billion people based on what goes on there is like comparing all Europeans to Nazis or Soviets. Saudis and all those middle East autocrats can die horribly for all I care. Muslims come to the West to get away from those types.

    If the US treated its Muslim immigrants like continental Europe did, Deerborn Michigan, Downtown Brooklyn, and North Jersey would resemble war zones. Instead the Muslim communities there are well off, politically moderate and FREQUENTLY call out the excess of extremists.

    You are not going to fight religious extremism through being extreme. By demonizing an entire faith in such a patently bigoted manner. In fact all that does is make the extremists more powerful. People like AfD are nothing but recruiters for ISIS. They are part of the problem.

    Our best weapon against religious extremists is our freedom. Proving to the world that ISIS does not represent all Islam. That the west actually lives up to its professed ideas of religious liberties FOR ALL. That doesn’t happen when you demonize and entire religion and extol discrimination/attack for being a member of one. That sort of thing is simply being a quisling for extremists.

  • “Our best weapon against religious extremists is our freedom.”

    And history demonstrates that the type of freedom you espouse disappears when Muslims gain a majority.

    Every. Single. Time.

    Which planet do you live on?

  • History, where? In any democratic country? No. You can’t come up with a single example of that happening.

    There were plenty of secular nationalist dictatorships where Islamicism took over.

    Turkey’s population has been fighting hard against islamicism. (That country’s devotion to democracy has always fluctuated)

    Bosnia, the only Muslim majority democracy has more worries from Orthodox Christian separatists than Islamicism. Muslim majority communities in this nation are staunch supporters of political freedom and as I mentioned before frequently criticize Islamic extremists..

    You really have no idea what you are talking about. You taking bigoted propaganda and pretending it’s facts.

  • History, where? In any democratic country? No. You can’t come up with a single example of that happening.

    You’re apparently missing the point completely.

    Not all countries are “democratic countries,” and there is no reason to believe that, once a country is “democratic,” it will remain thus.

    That’s the whole point.

    When Muslims gain ascendancy in a nation, the “democracy” leaves.

    How in the world do you think Islam became the dominant religion in many countries?

    You don’t know that sharia law is being practiced in “democratic countries” like England?

    You don’t know that “democratic countries” like, say, France, have “No Go Zones”?

    The valueless of your ideas is EASILY demonstrable. You can test it empirically.

    Go to Hamtramck, Michigan, and demand to have a “gay rights” parade.

    You will see how “democratic” things become.

    Then get back with us as to how successful you were. If you’re still alive, that is.

    I know several people whose families are historically Muslim who have left Islam. They hate it.

  • What point? If you claim history has shown something, then give an example. Otherwise it’s safe to assume you are just full of it.

    What happens in a dictatorship is pretty much a function of repression and autocracy. Religion typically is used as a political tool in such places.

    Where has democracy left a place due to rising Muslim influence? Cite an example. If you are going to make such a claim, back it up with a fact or two.

    Go to Hammtrack Michigan and file permits for a gay rights march and it will be granted. Even the KKK can get permits to march anywhere in the US. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

    People leave repressive religion in the US all the time. Did any of your alleged acquaintances suffer penalties for leaving the faith besides the usual family and clique social stuff. We have religious freedom. Nobody tolerates honor killing or attacking apostates.

    One thing you are too thick to understand is religious extremism thrives in repression. Even secular versions.

    Pakistan’s islamicism problem comes from a military government overthrowing its democratic government 20 years ago and proxy Wars with India.

    Saudi Arabia didn’t become particularly theocratic until 1979, when it faced a cold war with Iran.

    Europe’s Muslims get radicalized because immigration policies and notions of religious liberties there marginalize anyone not white and Christian. They really don’t do those well.

  • Where has democracy left a place due to rising Muslim influence? Cite an example. If you are going to make such a claim, back it up with a fact or two.

    Your reading comprehension is not very strong. I suggest you read the thread again.

    I never made any claims whatsoever regarding “democracy”; you’re the one who introduced that concept into the discussion.

    My statement was this: “And history demonstrates that the type of freedom you espouse disappears when Muslims gain a majority.”

    I didn’t say a word about “democracy.” You did, and it’s irrelevant to my point.

    “Democracy” and “freedom” are not synonymous. If you think they are, then you are delusional. The words “slavery,” “segregation,” and “apartheid” come to mind.

    Do you contend that those things never happened in a “democracy”?

    Further, you seem to assume that “democracy” is some kind of static entity that can never be replaced.

    I suggest you look up the term “Weimar Republic.”

    The very thing you apparently deny is happening before your very eyes.

    Go to Hammtrack Michigan and file permits for a gay rights march and it will be granted.

    Really? Do you speak from experience? Have you done it? Cite the proof, please.

  • so if one “denigrates” it is bad? Isn’t that just another word for “criticism”? Woelki is then saying we should have no right to criticize Islam. Note also that “religious freedom” and criticism of religion are two very different things. One can have, should have, both. Does Woelki think that there is no freedom of religion in Germany for Muslims? yes there is and more than in any Islamic society. What he wants is that we not criticize Islam so he and Muslims can feel good, and not have to face the ugly facts about Islam and its dogma. The fact is that Muslims do not believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and separation of church and state. Their values are not those of the West. Remember, according to the Quran, they are the “best of people” and we, infidels, are “lower than animals”. That may explain the integration problem. Woelki is just another one of our elites (political, business, academia, media, etc…) that say silly cute things because it makes them feel good.

  • Islam has a two major sects, and within those a variety of flavors … thus ISIS might be described as the Islamic equivalent of American religious bomb throwers such as the once ‘Church of Jesus Christ Christian’ that set off bombs here in the US of A a few years ago. Islam shares with Christianity an ancestry common with Judaism, Jehovah = Yahweh = God = Gott = Dieu = Allah. There is at this time a flavor of violence within Islam between Shia and Sunni reminiscent of the Protestant-vs Catholic slaughters during wars of the Middle Ages — so as we were behaving that way once, we might be a little less arrogant about radical Islam behaves today . For myself, I would wish that Judaism and Christianity and Islam would recognize each other as cousins, not enemies.

  • You can’t back up a single claim you made. You can’t show me a single example of what you said “History shows. .”. If history showed something, you could point to something that happened which supports your statement.

    BTW you can’t say freedom is taken away in a dictatorship, because it never existed in one. So it would only be democracies we talk about when we discuss civil liberties. You are making ridiculous statements.

    If you want to claim that Islam snuffs out freedom where Muslims gain a majority you need to show where it has happened.

    As for Michigan, show me a law on the books or even a news story which precluded the ability to have a gay rights rally. As for the Klan getting permits, one need no go further than the infamous “Town of Skokie” case with the Supreme Court. Again you make claims you can’t support.

    Your statements are hysterical garbage. After 2 requests for you to show examples of what you are talking about, all I get is evasion and nonsense. There is,no reason to take you seriously.

  • Those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their lord and Savior can expect eternal damnation, are OK to enslave or must be wiped out. This sort of sentiment didn’t die off as mainstream Christian belief until only 2 generations ago. 50 years out of 2000. Yet we expect naively to believe Christianity is a religion of civilized freedom loving people.

    See how that works, to demonize an entire faith of over a billion people with rank generalities, skewed versions of statements if faith and prejudicial takes on belief.

    There is no such thing as a sane or rational argument that begins with “____ religion is inherently evil”.

    One will never protect freedom by denigrating it’s practice. People like yourself are contemptuous of religious freedom. You don’t trust it, you don’t appreciate it. There is more to worry about those like yourself, those willing to compromise principle for the false perception of safety, than any suicide bomber could ever be. They can only kill people and break things. People like yourself destroy an entire way of life.

  • All I can say is I hope you get a chance to live in “islamicized” Europe…..or better yet move to an Islamic country……you are in for quite the wake up call.

  • BTW you can’t say freedom is taken away in a dictatorship, because it never existed in one. So it would only be democracies we talk about when we discuss civil liberties. You are making ridiculous statements.

    Wrong.

    I’m not talking about democracies at all. They have no relevance to the point.

    “Democracy” and “civil liberties” are not necessarily concurring things, which you seem to imply.

    Was the U.S. a “democracy: in 1850?

    Can you think of anyone who had a tad bit of a problem with their civil liberties in that “democracy”?

    A “dictatorship” has as much freedom, and some of them even more, as the slaves in the U.S. had for nearly a century in this “democracy.”

    I repeat what I said above, which anyone with half a brain would understand: “History demonstrates that the type of freedom you espouse disappears when Muslims gain a majority.”

    Nothing about “democracy,” which is irrelevant when talking about freedom.

    The very word “Islam” means submission. The lands where Muslims have gained a majority do not have religious freedom. Religious minorities have existed, but they are taxed and heavily regulated.

    That’s not what you consider “freedom.”

    You mentioned Muslims in Bosnia above, but you forgot to say anything about how Muslims got to Bosnia in the first place.

    It’s called “conquest” because “Islam” means “submission.”

  • Spuddie thinks that all will be well if we just keep protecting our “freedom.” Live and let live.

    Myopic in the extreme.

    Doesn’t seem to realize that there are people in the world who do not value his notion of “freedom” at all. They don’t agree with him; they don’t think like him.

    And if they gain power, his “freedom” will be gone.

    And when he’s being blown to smithereens by an Islamic suicide bomber (is there any other type in today’s world), he’ll be yelling, “See, I knew you dangerous, freedom-hating Christians would destroy my way of life!”

    Poor blind soul.

  • Like those phony “no go zones” in Birmingham that Bobby Jindal pretended existed? You sound like someone who would freak the minute you see a falafel vendor or a woman in a hijab working in a Walmart.

    I live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim population. It even has a madrassa. Right next to a Catholic school. Guess what? They are like every other immigrant group here. In fact they used to be a steady Republican vote base here before that party figured that bigotry got more votes.

    So where does ISIS send you the checks? You are doing such a great job as their local recruiter.

  • You are so full of [email protected] Where are those examples of Muslims destroying the rights of free people? Where did history show anything you said was true? You got nothing but nonsense.

    “Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither” Benjamin Goddamned Franklin! If you have to destroy our freedoms to save yourself or your nation, you save nothing.

  • So you were full of garbage. You had no examples. History obvious demonstrates nothing because you can’t show me anything which supports your claim.

    We’re we a democracy in 1850, yes. Just not as perfect one as it is today. You still are talking nonsense. Don’t bother responding. You talk trash you can’t be bothered to support.

  • You haven’t said one thing which was accurate or could support your claims. You are full of it.

    The AfD are doing the same thing the Nazis did. Whip up hysteria and pretend they are an alternative to a threat. But in reality they are the same thing they pretend to oppose. They are destroying property themselves, they are inciting violence and they are trying to demolish democratic civil liberties, Extremists are not a real opposition to extremists. How much of the democracy of Germany will these guys destroy in their effort to “protect the nation from Islam”.

    If you wanted to use the Weimar Republic as an example, well they are a perfect example of the nonsense you spout. Weimar fell because they compromised their democratic values in letting the ultra-right wing Freikorps deal with Communists. They let people destroy the freedom of their nation in order to “feel safe” from the threat of extremists. Once they opened that door, it was easy for the Nazis to take over. The AfD are no different.

    Nothing you posted has shown a shred of intelligence, honesty or the slightest bit of awareness.

  • Now you’re dividing “democracies” into “perfect” and “non-perfect”?

    Your empathy for the African Americans who lived under your “democracy,” enjoying their “freedom,” appears boundless.

    The U.S. is now a “perfect” democracy? Are Muslims allowed to marry 4 wives here in the U.S? Are Mormons?

    If not, why not?

    Is that your idea of “religious freedom”?

    I gave you your examples. The No Go Zones of Europe are in “democracies.” Those areas are NOT free in the way you define “freedom.”

    If you think they are, you can test it.

    Go to Europe, enter one of the many No Go Zones, and see whether you can have a “gay parade.”

    But before you go, tell us which funeral home you want to hold your wake, because that’s what’s in store for you.

    Delusional.

    My statement stands: “And history demonstrates that the type of freedom you espouse disappears when Muslims gain a majority.”

    Perhaps you live on a different planet. On earth, the statement above is true.

  • Says the freedom-loving man who doesn’t live in a Muslim land and has no intention of going there because he knows what will happen to his “freedom.”

  • On the contrary, you appear to be unaware of what is happening in Germany. I suggest reading.

    You’d be amazed what you learn.

  • I live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim population. It even has a madrassa. Right next to a Catholic school. Guess what? They are like every other immigrant group here.

    Why don’t you test your assertion that “they are like every other immigrant group here”?

    Hold a “gay rights/gay marriage” freedom rally in front of the Catholic school, with bullhorn, and see what type of response, if any, you get.

    Then after you’re through, hold another “gay rights/gay marriage” freedom rally in front of the madrassa and see what the response is there.

    Then come back to us (if you’re still alive) and let us know how “they are like every other immigrant group” there.

    I dare you to do that.

    Unless you have the nerve to do that, we can assume that you don’t actually believe what you’re saying.

  • One other comment.

    You seem oblivious to history in general, and the history of Europe in particular.

    You are worried about “democracy” and “freedom,” but you don’t explain how “democracy” and “freedom” will exist in a completely Muslim culture.

    Nor do you seem to understand that it was the blood of Catholics that kept Muslims out of Europe for centuries. Muslims had invaded Europe from the east and made it all the way to Vienna, and they invaded Europe from the west and invaded all the way into France.

    Had the Catholics not fought the Muslims and defeated them at such battles as Lepanto, you would not have “freedom” and “democracy,” because those things come to you from Europeans.

    If Europe had fallen to Islam in the Middle Ages, you would be Muslim now, and your “freedom” would be non-existent.

  • Slightly less than available from right wing Christians. The only difference is that here, the Kevin swansons of the world are restrained by civil law.

  • The same one wherein if right wing Christians ran the show, gay people would be in prison.

  • The fact is that A certain class of so called Christian– Ted sCruz being the obvious example–do not believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and separation of church and state. Their values are not those of the West that theocrats likesCruz, the Huckster, Sanctormonious, and a host of others wish to live in.

  • You don’t think “gays” will end up in jail if Muslims gain ascendancy in our country?

    Strange, the ideas people have.

  • How many “gays” have been thrown off buildings in our country?

    How can the existence of a law prevent anyone from ignoring it?

  • Well, I can sympathize with your plight because, you know, I’m Catholic, and Catholics don’t fare too well sometimes.

    But I’m sure you’re okay with Catholics going to prison.

    More Catholics have been murdered, outlawed, and imprisoned just for being Catholic than any “gays” have.

    Catholicism was outlawed in France during the French Revolution, in Holland, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, all of Scandinavia during the Reformation, in the colonies here on our shores (Christmas was at one time outlawed), in Mexico during the Mexican Revolution, in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and of course for the first several centuries of its existence, outlawed by Rome.

    Catholicism is still illegal in China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, on and on.

    So, yes, “gays” have it so bad.

    Well, join the club.

  • Hilarious!

    You’re quoting something about “liberty” stated by a man who at one time owned slaves and ran ads for the sale of slaves in his newspaper.

    “If you have to destroy our freedoms…”

    In Benjamin Franklin’s case, that included the “freedom” to own slaves.

    So much for your precious “democracy”! LOL.

    Our “democracy” is no more “free” than any of the nations invaded by Muslims down through the ages.

    The U.S. “democracy” began as a slave state run by an oligarchy of wealthy men, where women were not allowed to vote.

    After the slavery issue was settled after the war, the “freedom” of emancipated slaves in your “democracy” resulted in their being excluded from much of society until a few short decades ago.

    So, “democracy” has never been inconsistent with slavery, segregation, and male-only voting.

    To deny that, is to deny history.

    You realize, do you not, that “democracy” and Islamic rule hold those things in common?

  • Your sole example of “Muslim takeover” was fictional. You make claims you can’t support. You got nothing.

    Now you are trying to claim the US in the 18th to mid 19th century is no different from the autocracies of the middle East. Some outright absolute monarchies, military dictatorships and Hitler like totalitarians. Good luck with that. Just keep digging that hole.

    BTW prior to 1979 the entire “Muslim world” was huge into SECULARIST nationalism.

    I am done wasting time with such ignorance.

  • What? You think the owner of the kebab place around the corner is secretly trying to kill me? I am a good tipper.

    In my state, the legislators had a majority vote for gay marriage before it was legal nationwide. Gay rights was actually a popular platform for most residents.

    You don’t understand how demonstration permits work either. Go figure. The KKK has held marches in the middle of Manhattan without being their lives being endangered. Your “see what happens” remark is stupid beyond belief.

    Where do you live where you see political demonstrations met with sectarian violence?

  • Says the man who referenced not only something completely untrue but famously so. You don’t live “in a Muslim land” nor know a damn thing about them. I am pretty certain I live in far closer proximity to real live Muslim people than you do.

    You are an ignorant hysteric.

  • If you want to claim the US in the 19th century was no different than the kingdom of Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, good luck with that.

  • Well, if you want to talk about Catholic persecution, you shouldn’t talk to me, you should talk to your fellow Christians. If anyone was murdering Catholics, it was Protestants– when the Catholics weren’t murdering each other

    You put a lot of words in my mouth. So let me out in some of my own.

    We gay people have been murdered, imprisoned, executed, vilified, goaded to suicide, ostracized, fired, demonized, sinnerized, and criminalizedand blamed for every possible social ill for nearly 2000 years. This is a fact, whether you wish to believe it or not. I’m not interested in competing in your oppression olympics.

    No, I do not wish to see Catholics imprisoned. But then, I believe in freedom, not freedom for some. And I have empathy, not God. If Catholics were imprisoned for being Catholic, you might look at the history of your church in those countries.

  • How many gay people have been murdered for the crime of walking down the street?

    Please spare me your persecution complex in your oppression olympics. That’s your need, not mine.

  • ItS quite a pathetic day when the best you can come up with is, “at least we’re not as bad as the muslims.”

  • I just saw the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots, whose head was lopped off by a Protestant.

    The only reason Christians can’t do this any more to each other is because of religious freedom guaranteed by secular law,

  • It’s no accident that the third reich was in a Christian country run by avowed Christians, either,

  • I don’t know the answer to your question. Do you?

    Oh, and let’s not forget your confreres across the Bay who passed a public resolution condemning the Catholic Church. “Free government” at its finest.

    As if Muslims don’t attack “gays.”

    Yet SF types don’t have the fortitude to pass a resolution attacking Islam.

    I dare you to petition them to do it. What do you think the result would be?

    If pointing out that Catholics get murdered is a “persecution complex,” then gays suffer from the same defect, only their numbers being “persecuted” are much smaller.

  • I would claim this to be a lie except for the fact that I don’t know what “the third Erich” (sic) is, so it’s hard to tell whether it’s true.

    The Nazis were not Christians. They attacked the Catholic Church. The biggest opponents of the Third Reich were Catholics.

    It’s a documented fact.

  • The only reason Christians can’t do this any more to each other is because of religious freedom guaranteed by secular law.

    You’ve never heard of Northern Ireland?

    Who are “Acots”?

  • Now you are trying to claim the US in the 18th to mid 19th century is no different from the autocracies of the middle East. Some outright absolute monarchies, military dictatorships and Hitler like totalitarians. Good luck with that. Just keep digging that hole.

    Go back in time and ask one of the slaves in the U.S. whether there is much difference between his plight and the things you mention.

    Your empathy for others is most remarkable.

    Tell us: Is France a “democracy”?

    Are you unaware that in France there are laws that govern the clothes people are allowed to wear?

    Is that your idea of “freedom” and “democracy”?

    Is Germany a “democracy”?

    Are you unaware that in Germany a person can go to prison for denying the Jewish holocaust?

    It is, no doubt, ludicrous to deny the holocaust, as it certainly happened, but some people apparently don’t believe that it happened.

    Nevertheless, should they go to prison for that?

    Is that your idea of “freedom” and “democracy”?

    The U.S., Canada, and Europe are inching towards totalitarianism. You may think it cannot happen here, but you’re wrong.

    BTW prior to 1979 the entire “Muslim world” was huge into SECULARIST nationalism.

    Well, what happened? It didn’t stick, did it?

    And you think you’re going to somehow be successful in keeping Muslims secular?

    You do, you surely do, live on a different planet.

    Your blindness is caused by your atheism; thus, your idea of “freedom” is completely skewed.

    And because you have a false idea of what constitutes true freedom, you won’t be able to withstand the loss of even the liberties you think you possess, because secularism contains the seeds of its own downfall.

    Particularly when confronted by an ideology such as Islam.

  • I worked for a Muslim owned firm, staffed by Muslims, on a daily basis for years. Not only that, but I know several ex-Muslims that would tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    How many ex-Muslims do you know? What have they told you about “Islam”?

    The area where I live has one of the largest mosques in the U.S., and there are two smaller ones within 20 minutes of my home, one east and one west.

    There is a large Muslim cultural center less than two minutes from my front door.

    I have no doubt that you agree with the people at Charlie Hebdo, but I also have no doubt that you don’t truly believe what you have been saying.

    And my point can be tested empirically.

    All you need to do is walk around your neighborhood with the types of cartoons found in Charlie Hebdo, using your “freedom” to pass them out to your “secular” Muslim neighbors.

    Tell them “Allah” is fake, “Mohammed” was (fill in the blank), et cetera, and then see what reaction you receive.

    But you won’t do that because you don’t actually believe what you’ve stated in this thread with regard to Islam/Muslims.

    We both know what the results would be. If you don’t think so, then, again, you must live on a different planet.

  • Yet you believed the no go zone thing. Pathetic.

    You can’t even tell the difference between free speech and giving offense. Nobody is trying to legally keep you from expressing bigotry in public. But obviously you are too spineless to deal with people being annoyed at you for it.

  • France is not a democracy? They regularly elect their leadership. As does Germany.

    If by democracy, you mean “like the US in its present political state” it’s a ridiculously narrow definition. You are just spinning wheels here.

    You still can’t even demonstrate one example of Islam taking freedoms away from people as you claimed history allegedly shows. Those were your words.

    Oh well.

  • New York Times:

    “Branded by France’s police intelligence agency as one of the country’s 150 “no go zones,” where police officers should enter only with major reinforcements, La Courneuve was caught up in the violence in which rioters torched cars, trashed businesses and ambushed the police.”

    Associated Press:

    Some officials suspect the unrest that reached into Paris proper early Sunday has in part been instigated by gangs hoping to turn their neighborhoods into no-go zones for police so drug trafficking and racketeering can thrive.

    But the roots are broader than that.

    The violence is forcing France to confront the long-simmering anger in its suburbs. They are fertile terrain for crime of all sorts as well as Muslim extremists who recruit frustrated youths. France has some 5 million Muslims, the biggest Islamic population in western Europe.

  • But when are you going to publicly exercise your free speech in your neighborhood regarding whether you believe Islam is an authentic religion?

    You don’t have the courage of your convictions.

    The reason is simple: You know what the outcome would be.

    You wouldn’t have the least qualms doing something like that to Catholics, but you will never, ever do it to Muslims.

    There’s a reason for that. We both know what that reason is.

    Who are you kidding?

  • No link. Do you even read what you copy and paste? A riot and a high crime slum are your examples of Muslim takeover. Pathetic. You know something is truly stupidly untrue when even snopes.com points it out. Buh-bye.

  • Your problem is with your concept of “freedom.”

    Muslims took “freedoms” from millions of people whose lands they invaded.

    But you don’t think those people were “free” because they weren’t “democracies,” which is an idiotic concept.

    I pointed out to you that “democracy” does not equate to “freedom,” as any first grade student learns.

    You consider the U.S. a “democracy” in 1850.

    Answer the question: Was there “freedom” for all? Suffrage for all?
    Hmmmmm?

    If your answer is yes, you need to go back to school.

    If your answer is no, then you would have to admit that, if Muslims came to the U.S. in 1850 and took over, they would not be taking away anyone’s freedom, because the U.S. did not have “freedom,” as you understand that concept, during that time period.

    Ludicrous.

  • Do you go yelling n-gg-r at the top of your lungs in a African American neighborhood?

    I bet you want to. You know what the outcome will be. But I strongly suggest you do so. Maybe even play in traffic while you are at it.

  • The problem being I know what it means and you are a rambling bigot who can’t even back up what they claim.

  • No, Kactuz, “denigrat[ion]” is not the same as “criticism”.

    “Denigrate” means to disparage, belittle, treat as worthless: to trash, facts be damned.
    “Criticize” means to find fault or assess merits and faults: to judge, based upon facts.

    Your statement, “The fact is that Muslims do not believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and separation of church and state,” is technically neither. Rather, it is a prejudicial generalization, an otherizing falsehood, a lie.

    Many Christians believe in respecting other-believers and their personal beliefs, etc.
    Many Muslims believe in respecting other-believers and their personal beliefs, etc.
    Many people(!) believe in respecting other-believers and their personal beliefs, etc.
    Some Christians — Muslims — people(!) — do not.

    See how much we have in common?

  • “Your blindness is caused by your atheism; thus, your idea of “freedom” is completely skewed.”

    I agree with a number of your statements, but that statement leads toward destroying your credibility.

  • In general, I’m a proponent of diversity, and the acceptance of people from different cultures/religions. And, in the wake of the Holocaust, I’m adamant in subscribing to the the classic admonition, “never again.” But, I don’t believe any of that means we must find it unacceptable to ever reject a particular culture/religion when they demonstrate an overwhelmingly vile, reprehensible, and depraved eagerness to resort to torture and murder as the solution to disagreements and non-conformity. In today’s world Islam is in a class by itself. Until the Islamic world becomes at least half-way civilized, I don’t want any more of them allowed into the United States. But, I do want all Muslims that are already in the U.S. legally to be treated with full equality, and without discrimination.

    Some would say that my attitude is playing right into the hands of the Islamic State, but then I would say that the Islamic State is being willfully ignorant of the legitimate reasons for rejecting immigrants from the Islamic world.

    I would not have these views if we were talking about potential immigrants of other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or Shinto, but Islam is a unique threat in today’s world.

  • From AP.

    And you say Muslims don’t take away people’s “freedom”?

    Is this an example of your type of “freedom”?

    AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — Jordan has banned a performance by a popular Lebanese rock band on religious grounds, spurring criticism of the Western-allied kingdom, which portrays itself as an island of tolerance in a turbulent region.

    The band Mashrou’ Leila (“Leila’s Project”) is known internationally for violin-laced pop music with catchy Arabic lyrics. Songs often tackle controversial subjects such as corruption, censorship, state violence and sexual freedom.

    Jordan’s Antiquities Department initially said it would not permit a show at the Roman Theater in the capital Amman later this week because it would contradict the “authenticity” of the ancient venue.

    However, Amman district governor Khalid Abu Zeid told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the band’s material “contradicts” the beliefs of the three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

  • Can you not see that you’ve already lost a measure of freedom because of the rise of Islam in this country?

    You see how you are not fooling anyone but yourself?

    You are COMPLETELY UNAFRAID to express your right to free speech in front of a Catholic Church and would have no qualms whatsoever picketing, or perhaps passing out pamphlets denouncing some aspect of Church teaching, whether it be about “gay” marriage, abortion, religious rights, what have you.

    You would have no worries doing that whatsoever.

    But you would never, EVER do that in front of a mosque even though the Muslims inside hold the exact same views as the Catholics on various social issues.

    You would never do that, would you?

    Would you?

    And the reason you would never, EVER do that in front of a mosque is because you know darn well that the people against whom you would be demonstrating (who happen to hold the EXACT same views as Catholics on things such as abortion, contraception, “gay” marriage) would NOT treat you in the same fashion as the treatment you would receive in front of a Catholic church.

    You refuse to admit it, but you don’t have to.

    Everyone reading this thread knows you believe that. And you know it also.

    And you claim that there is no loss of freedom when Muslims gain ascendancy?

    You don’t even realize that, psychologically, you’ve already given up some of the freedom that you claim you would not lose.

    Do you not see that?

  • So is the Reichskonkordat, still in effect, wherein the Church promised not to bother the Reich if the Reich wouldn’t bother the church.

  • You would have to understand all the nuances of the statements made in this thread to understand why I said that. It’s 100% true.

    Spuddie’s position is an absurdity because he holds two opposing viewpoints at the same time, which is the definition of illogical.

    If you want me to elaborate, I will, but it would take a lengthy post.

    It starts with the premise that Spuddie equates “democracy”
    and “freedom,” which is one of his underlying errors.

  • I agree with you Richard, except that I want all immigration put on hold, with the exception of foreigners legally married to US citizens. We have a lot of problems to solve, and more people in significant numbers isn’t going to solve them.

  • No, it’s not.

    But that’s an oversimplification of what that document was and ignores what was happening at the time.

    It’s false that Germany was a “Christian” country run by “avowed Christians.”

    You’ve never heard of Oskar Schindler (he was a member of the Nazi party) or Corrie Ten Boom?

    The Nazis attacked the Catholic Church, and other churches, and established their own fake church.

    Decree of June 6, 1941, Martin Bormann (private secretary to Hitler):

    “More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs the pastors . . . Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must the possibility of church influence also be totally removed . . . Not until this has happened, does the state leadership have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are the people and Reich secure in their existence for all time.”

    (Relationship of National Socialism and Christianity)

    It’s a demonstrable fact that Bavaria, which is the most Catholic part of Germany, was opposed to Hitler and the Nazi Party.

    Here is a list of some of the Catholics either killed or imprisoned by the Nazis, which you assert were “avowed Christians”:

    1. Saint Edit Stein (nun who died in a concentration camp).

    2. Saint Maximilian Kolbe (priest who took the place of another prisoner and was murdered in a concentration camp).

    3. Erich Klausener, head of Catholic Action, shot to death on the Night of the Long Knives.

    You can find a much longer list of Catholic martyrs, killed by the Nazis, here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108_Martyrs_of_World_War_II

    In 1937, Pope Pius XI issued MIT BRENNENDER SORGE, which can be read at the Vatican website in its entirety.

    The pope specifically condemned Nazi racism. It’s blatant for all the world to see.

    By 1941, the Catholic Press was completely shut down. On and on.

    Therese Neumann lived in Konnersreuth, Germany, during WWII and had the stigmata. Thousands of people witnessed the phenomenon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtmRDGzflJw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcOJ9f5QH9Y

    She was part of a circle of people who opposed Hitler, some of whom were killed.

    List of anti-Nazi Catholics in Germany, part of the “Konnersreuth Circle”:

    1. Dr. Fritz Michael Gerlich
    2. Father Ingbert Naab, OFM Cap.
    3. Dr. Franz Zaver Wutz
    4. Father Cosmas
    5. Pfarrer Joseph Naber
    6. Fuerst Erich von Waldburg
    7. Maria Benedikta von Spiegel
    8. Joseph Lechner
    9. Erwein Freiherr von Aretin
    10. Johannes Steiner
    11. Sister Walburga OSB
    12. Dr. Emslander
    13. Anni Spiegl
    14. Therese Neumann’s brothers, Ferdinand and Hans, and her sister Ottilie

    That was just one small group in a rural area. There were many, many more.

  • The problem is that there is a glaring contradiction in your thought process and you’re completely oblivious to it.

    You assert that you know what “freedom” means, but then you quote the slaveholder Benjamin Franklin regarding “civil liberties”?

    Are you serious???

    You’ve resorted to name calling and ignoring the issues, which is a sign that you recognize the fallacy of your position.

    Your statement above: “So it would only be democracies we talk about when we discuss civil liberties.”

    Okay. Well, then let’s talk about the U.S. “democracy” and the “civil liberties” of, say, African American women in the year 1850 in that “democracy.”

    In your opinion, is such a “democracy” a “free country” with “civil liberties”?

    What’s your answer?

    Again, you stated: “BTW you can’t say freedom is taken away in a dictatorship, because it never existed in one.”

    Then that begs the question: How could you possibly, with a straight face, assert that the U.S. in, say, 1850, was “free”?

    Again I ask: If Muslims had invaded and taken over the U.S. in the year 1850, would you state that “freedom” was taken away?

    From whom?

    African Americans?

    Various governments in the U.S. to this very day restrict the freedom of certain groups.

    For example, Muslims cannot practice polygamy in the U.S., which they are free to practice in other lands, even though, according to a secular outlook, it’s none of the government’s business, or anyone else’s, how many wives a person has.

    Ditto for Mormons.

    For goodness sake, France has laws governing the way people DRESS.

    Germany has laws forbidding the public questioning of the Holocaust. A person can go to prison for transgressing that law.

    The bottom line is that your thought process is completely contradictory.

    On the one hand, you don’t believe Muslims took away any freedoms in the past if they invaded some country that was a “dictatorship,” because, according to you, there is no freedom in a dictatorship, only in “democracies.”

    But it’s wrong to assert that NO ONE has freedom in a dictatorship. Someone has to have freedom. Otherwise, how could the place be governed? In a dictatorship, there is freedom for at least SOME people: a ruler and his collaborators.

    But you would aver that it does not count as “freedom” if only SOME people in a country are free.

    But there’s your error!

    In the same breath, you admit that the U.S. was a democracy, and you also admit, by your silence, that it had “freedom” ONLY FOR SOME PEOPLE.

    In other words, the U.S. “democracy” can no more be considered “free” than your above mentioned “dictatorships” because it suffers from the exact same defect: ONLY SOME people are, or have been, “free.”

    How in the world can a country, a “democracy,” be considered “free,” with “civil liberties,” when millions of people in that country are slaves?

    Muslims are not “free” to practice their religion completely in this country. Neither can Mormons. Gays are not free to practice polygamy and marry two other people of the same sex. On and on.

    So, either your initial statement is incorrect regarding Muslims taking away freedoms in the places you claim were never “free” to begin with because only some of the people there were free, or the U.S. is not, as you believe, a “democracy,” i.e., a “free” nation.

    You can’t have it both ways because those two positions are mutually exclusive. Logic dictates that to be so.

    You can’t see the glaring contradiction in your assertions?

  • Mary Queen of Scots died for the crime of treason, big difference. Mary Queen of Scots was involved in multiple conspiracies to murder Queen Elizabeth. She wasn’t murdered for her religion but for her actions. If you are looking for a despot, look to the Catholic English Queen Mary, Catholic Bloody Mary, who executed Protestants for their faith.

  • You are devoid of historical knowledge, accuracy, or truth. However, I do admire your willingness to displays your writings publicly. Most people with your level of imbecility try to hide it.

  • You are an 1diot. You don’t defend freedom by attacking it for others. Religious freedom means free exercise of all faiths. It means no government endorsement or attack of any faiths.

    You can’t even tell the difference between Ben Franklin and Adolf Hitler. You know nothing of freedom.

    Junk like yours does more to help extremism than fight it. ISIS might as well put you on their payroll for all the help you give them.

  • Religious freedom means free exercise of all faiths. It means no government endorsement or attack of any faiths.

    If that is true, there is no such thing as “religious freedom,” nor has there ever been.

    No country has ever had that, and no country has it now.

    Name the country that does not have laws restricting the religious practice of some faith.

    France bans Muslims from wearing their religious dress; the U.S. forbids them from polygamy.

    That’s not religious freedom.

    If I “know nothing of freedom,” the same is true of you because we do not live in a free country; we live in the “democracy” of the United States.

    That “democracy” restricts religious freedom, just as it used to restrict people’s right to vote, allowed slaves, segregation, et cetera.

    That’s not religious freedom.

  • Thank you for your slander.

    Germany Was a Christian country before WWII. iT was a Christian country after WWII. It is a Christian country right now, though church attendance is falling. There is a church tax.

    The Lutheran church and the Catholic Church either turned a blind eye to the holocaust, or actively supported it. Hitler frequently made references to how Christian the nazi movement was. The nazi movement was the end product of 1950 years of documented antisemitism in Europe.

    This is well documented for anyone but the reality challenged.

    But sure. I’m sure you’re going to trot out the No True Christian fallacy.

    Have a nice life.

  • I’m sure you believe that as well. It is certainly not what the history books say. Nor do those same books say that about all of the other Catholics murdered by Protestants in England and the rest of Europe.

    But sure, believe whatever you like.

  • You ought to get to know DJR, who likes to complain about how Protestants have been murdering Catholics, just like you enjoy complaining how about Catholics have been murdering Protestants.

    My only point is that you dear people have been murdering each other in the name of your God for centuries…

    When you haven’t been murdering other Protestants, other Catholics, Muslims, Jews, gay people, and anyone else.

  • As stated in another post, it wouldn’t matter to “gay people” even if every single Catholic and Protestant were like Mother Teresa and never harmed a fly.

    That’s not the point.

    All the bad things about the Catholic Church are brought up, but never one good thing, as if there has never been a Catholic, during the entire history of the Church, that ever did anything good.

    Nothing about any of the achievements of good Catholics, nothing about charitable work done in hospitals, schools, orphanages, et cetera.

    All we hear about are “bad Catholics” and homosexuals who entered the priesthood and sodomized young men.

    Why is that, do you suppose?

    Answer: “Gay people” hate the teaching of the Catholic Church, and those Protestant churches that agree with it, regarding homosexual acts, and where those acts, without repentance, lead at the time of death.

    Sodomy is a mortal sin.

    A person who engages in that activity will end up in the eternal fires of hell at the time of his death unless he repents of that sin, and he will have done so of his own free will.

    That teaching, which the Catholic Church will never change, is the real reason “gay people” hate the Catholic Church.

    The Inquisition, the Reformation, the Crusades, on and on, if none of that had happened, “gay people” would STILL hate the Church as long as it kept the teaching on homosexuality.

    That’s the truth, and anyone who denies that, is just kidding himself.

  • Keep telling yourself that no freedoms are being lost.

    United States: The Principal of the Bruce Vento Elementary School in St. Paul, Minnesota, Scott Masini, banned the celebration of Valentine’s Day, a move that accords with Islamic teaching.

    As St. Valentine’s Day has its origins in the Christian religion, it is banned throughout the Muslim world.

    In a letter to parents, Masini said that, “my personal feeling is we need to find a way to honor and engage in holidays that are inclusive of our student population.”

    He went on to explain that the holiday was cancelled as it violates some students’ religious beliefs: “I have come to the difficult decision to discontinue the celebration of the dominant holidays until we can come to a better understanding of how the dominant view will suppress someone else’s view.”

    He added that the school would also no longer celebrate Halloween, Thanksgiving, or Christmas, as celebrating those holidays “is encroaching on the educational opportunities of others and threatening the culture of tolerance and respect for all.”

    Several parents were unhappy with the decision. One parent on the school’s Facebook page wrote, “Very sad. All the fun is gone.”

    Another wrote, “Tired of the PC. Totally ridiculous.”

  • My only point is that you dear people have been murdering each other in the name of your God for centuries…

    So, which Jewish websites have you logged onto in order to comment about how they have killed in the name of their God for centuries?

    What? None, you say?

    My goodness me. Why is that?

    Answer: Because the real focus of animosity is the Church teaching regarding homosexual acts.

    That sticks in the craw, and THAT is the real reason we read such comments here but would never be able to read such comments on Jewish websites even though the Jewish people suffer from the same defect “gay people” are so quick to point out in Christians.

  • I don’t log onto Christian or Jewish websites. This one is neither.

    But thanks for condemning your own church with your own mouth. You did it very well. Murders, wars, witch burnings, heretic burnings, oppression of women, a love of wealth and ostentation. You listed most of them.

    Every one of those sodomizing priests, whose victims were not young men but INNOCENT CHILDREN, had one thing in common with each other. Each and every one of them was a catholic priest. And for the most part, as it has done for centuries, the church protected them. Each and everyone of those catholic priests were called to the priesthood by your very own version of God, given the gift of priesthood, even though your God knew who they were and what they would do.

    You have one thing wrong. I don’t hate your church. If it didn’t insist on harming people, I wouldn’t care about it at all.

    But sure. Believe that I hate your church, and it is all about homosexuality.

    Not its crimes against humanity.

  • I don’t hate your church. I hate dominionism. I hate using God as your excuse for your crimes against humanity. I hate fascism disguised as sincere religious belief, using God to justify what you cannot justify by any other means. I despise your church as much as I despise radical Islam, radical Orthodox Judaism, bomb throwing Protestants in Northern Ireland, fundamentalist Hindus, Muslim murdering Buddhists, and every other single faith based hypocrisy that is an enemy to peace, human dignity, freedom, and enlightenment.

    But if you need to believe that it is about homosexuality, go ahead, I frankly don’t care what you believe.

    Have a nice Christian life.

  • Every one of those sodomizing priests, whose victims were not young men but INNOCENT CHILDREN, had one thing in common with each other. Each and every one of them was a catholic priest.

    WRONG:

    They had TWO things in common.

    1. First and foremost, THEY WERE HOMOSEXUALS FIRST.

    The “gay” propaganda is that “gays” are BORN “gay.” Well, no one is born a priest. It takes years of training to become one.

    2. And, NO, they weren’t “called to the priesthood.” They infiltrated the priesthood.

    The Catholic Church has a ban on “gays” in the priesthood. That ban has been reiterated several times.

    Pope John XXIII issued a mandatum in 1962 banning “gays,” so it’s not Catholic teaching… in the least… that God called gays to the priesthood.

    That’s a lie.

    A man can’t be a priest until he is in his mid 20s. HE ALREADY KNOWS HE’S “GAY” BY THAT TIME.

    These were “gays” that infiltrated the priesthood, knowing that they don’t belong there, in order to engage in homosexual acts.

    And many of the people involved were young men, not children.

    “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders”, published by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious. At the time of its publication, the document was referred to by the Sacred Congregation for Religious as “a matter of public law”.

    The ban, as published in The Canon Law Digest, Vol.5, 1963, Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, stated:

    “Advancement to religious vows and ordinations should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers…”

  • But sure. Believe that I hate your church, and it is all about homosexuality. Not its crimes against humanity.

    What about the good things the Catholic Church has done for humanity? Do you hate it for that, too?

    No.

    You don’t even recognize the good that the Catholic Church has done for humanity.

    Because your focus is its teaching on homosexuality.

    That’s the true reason, and we both know it.

  • The “crimes against humanity” allegedly perpetrated by “the Church” pale in comparison to the wanton slaughter of unborn children that has been going on for many years now, to the tune of OVER 50 MILLION IN OUR COUNTRY ALONE according to the CDC, perpetrated by freethinkers such as yourself.

    When God finally intervenes to chastise the human race and correct the present era, the people of our time will be viewed as the murderous barbarians that they are.

    A correction is coming. You will witness it with your own eyes, wherever you are at that time.

  • ” there is no such thing as “religious freedom,” nor has there ever been”

    Then we have nothing to talk about. Because I understand freedoms and you do not. You deny their existence. You are admitting you want nothing more than to give in to your virulent hatred of an “other”. We are never going to see eye to eye, nor will I ever consider you an intelligent person with sane ideas worth respecting.

    You are nothing but a tool for ISIS and a toady for the new iteration of Nazis. What you are stumping for is the eradication of an entire faith of over a billion people. Go eff yourself and the horse you rode in on.

  • I despise your church as much as I despise radical Islam, radical Orthodox Judaism, bomb throwing Protestants in Northern Ireland, fundamentalist Hindus…

    You see what you did there?

    You don’t despise Islam or Judaism or Hinduism. You despise the “radical” aspects of those religions.

    But with the Catholic Church, you just despise the whole structure, period.

    Because, to you, “radicalism” is part and parcel of the Catholic Church.

    That’s why you mention “crimes against humanity,” not by any “radical” portion of the Church, but by the Church, period.

    You despise the Catholic Church for its teachings on homosexuality, and surely contraception and abortion as well.
    It is easy to see right through the smokescreen.

  • You never heard of the Good Friday Accords creating a secular government in Northern Ireland as a way to defuse the Christian sectarian violence.

  • Because I understand freedoms and you do not.

    That’s too funny!

    This, said by the person who quoted, as his expert on “civil liberties,” a privileged white, wealthy male who owned slaves and did not believe in women’s sufferage!

    If we talk about chastity, who’s your “expert” going to be on that?

    Bill Clinton?

    LMAO!!!

    Yeah, you know what “freedoms” are all right. You and Ben.

    ROFL!!!

  • Pretty much. the IRA is now a political party and its most violent members have become apolitical gangsters. Really, how ignorant are you?

  • “Pretty much”?

    LOL.

    If something works only “pretty much,” that means it didn’t work.

    Have you been to college?

    I used to live in Ireland (the Republic). Things happen there on a near weekly basis that never get reported here Stateside.

    There was an IRA bombing in March of this year in Belfast.

    So much for your “secular government” that has defused the “sectarian violence.”

    “Pretty much”?

    Really, how ignorant are you?

  • Was Japan a “Christian country” when it entered WWII and the Japanese began killing tens of thousands of people?

    Where are the condemnations of Japan’s religion?

    Where is your righteous anger directed at the atheist regimes of Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia, who killed tens of millions of people?

    You raise your voice in antipathy of all things Christian when a Christian does something you abhor but fall silent when that very same thing is done by an atheist.

    You see, it is all about homosexuality.

    Atheists don’t condemn “gay” lifestyles; therefore, they earn no antipathy in return.

  • The Real IRA has become a criminal mob, already said that. The British are out of Northern Ireland. You still manage to underwhelm me with how shallow and ignorant you are.

    So what is the alternative to secular government, Sharia Law. Given your prior posts, you don’t seem to have a problem with it as long as its Christian Sharia making life miserable for people who understand and appreciate civil liberties.

    I am done going down the sewer of what passes for your thoughts on any given subject. Bye bye.

  • The 1934 Barmen Declaration was a call to resistance against the theological claims of the Nazi state. Almost immediately after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Protestant Christians faced pressure to “aryanize” the Church, expel Jewish Christians from the ordained ministry and adopt the Nazi “Führer Principle” as the organizing principle of church government. In general, the churches succumbed to these pressures, and many Christians embraced them willingly. The pro-Nazi “German Christian” movement became a force in the church. They glorified Adolf Hitler as a “German prophet” and preached that racial consciousness was a source of revelation alongside the Bible. But some Christians in Germany—including Lutheran and Reformed, liberal and neo-orthodox—opposed the encroachment of Nazi ideology on the Church’s proclamation. At Barmen, this emerging “Confessing Church” adopted a declaration drafted by Reformed theologian Karl Barth and Lutheran theologian Hans Asmussen, which expressly repudiated the claim that other powers apart from Christ could be sources of God’s revelation.

  • In other words, your prior post was nonsense.

    The secular government has NOT been able to “pretty much” stop the “sectarian violence.”

    It continues.

    Oh, by the way, one last thought for the lover of “civil liberties” (you know, like your buddy Ben Franklin espoused… minus the slavery, et cetera, of course):

    You are the beneficiary of Christian European culture. If it weren’t for Christianity existing in Europe, you would not have any “civil liberties” at all.

    Are you so blind and foolish that you cannot see that???

    What would you be doing right now if the Battle of Lepanto had been lost by the Catholics, and the Muslims had overrun Europe completely?

    Catholics wait in vain for you to even acknowledge that, let alone thank the Catholic Church for it.

    Just yesterday I went to the symphony orchestra and heard Beethoven’s Ninth. It was beautiful.

    When is the last time any Muslim culture produced anything even remotely comparable?

    Because of your rejection of the laws of God, you will lose the “civil liberties” you think you now enjoy, as secular society has no anchor with which to protect itself against the onslaught of totalitarianism.

    Only the Catholic Church can outlast such a thing.

    And She will.

    Bye.

    (And you don’t even realize that the very term you used, “bye,” is a Catholic term, taken from “goodbye,” brought to you by English Catholics, and it means “God be with ye.”)

    And you probably celebrate Christmas, don’t you?

    Completely blind.

  • So, some Christians were all for the holocaust, and others were against it.

    Nothing new here.

  • None of those atheist regimes pretended to speak for the prince of peace. They murdered in service to murderous ideology.

  • Easy for you, but then, You believe gay people have infiltrated your church. You obviously know nothing about how someone becomes a priest. You cannot be a priest unless you have a vocation. The church has its means of ensuring the priests do have a vocation, because many do not.

  • If you oppose birth control, then you support abortion.

    For the record, I don’t care for abortion myself.

    God has had 2000 years to intervene. He obviously Doesn’t care.

  • Not believing in Jesus is a mortal sin. Divorce without adultery is a mortal sin. There are lots of mortal sins, but only ones seems to get you excited.

  • I for one firmly believe that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem wanted the Germans (Nazis) to murder as many Jews as possible so that less or none would be able to enter the promise land (Palestine now known as Israel). The Prime Minister of Israel is correct in this comment also.

  • Every nation and country should have a constitution in writing and a totally independent judiciary and be governed by the rule of law at all times. No religion or adherents of any religion has the right to force their religious beliefs on others. There must be laws to deal with persecution and hate speech and laws that deal harshly with anyone in who persecutes, abuse or ill treat anyone within a given religion. Citizens must have the right to follow the religion they are comfortable with.

  • On the contrary, that’s the issue that gets you excited, and that’s your sole focus for opposing “dominionism” and Christianity, of whatever stripe, in general.

    Because, you see, murderous atheistic regimes of the 20th century, such as Russia, China, N. Korea, N. Vietnam, Cambodia, and non-Christian regimes such as Japan during WWII, get a pass from you.
    It’s the big, bad, horrible, horrible anti-Semitic Catholic Church that commits “crimes against humanity” and must be opposed.

    The fact is that atheistic regimes have slaughtered tens of millions but get a free ride from you and escape your ire.

    You don’t spend two seconds on the Internet attacking such regimes.

    Why?

    It comes down to one thing, and one thing along: the H word.

    The Catholic Church could be made up of angels who never committed a single sin since Day 1, but as long as it retains the teaching that homosexual acts are morally depraved, perverse, intrinsically disordered, and lead to the pains of eternal hell, which teaching you despise, you would hate the Church.

    That’s the truth, and to deny that, is to deny reality.

  • To those who agree with Kactuz’s comment, “The fact is that Muslims do not believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and separation of church and state. Their values are not those of the West.”:

    I invite you to read RNS’s recent article entitled, “Michigan mosque takes in homeless Unitarian Church”. It’s a real mind-opener.

  • If you oppose birth control, then you support abortion.

    ???

    A bizarre statement, as if abortion were somehow a requirement.

    Neither one is permitted by the law of God.

    The primary purpose of the marital act is to produce children who can go to Heaven and be forever happy with God, Who created them.

    That’s why conjugal relations are reserved only for a man and woman who are validly married, and they are forbidden by the law of God to all other persons.

    That explains why God does not permit homosexual acts; they are a perversion of what He Himself has established and are intrinsically disordered.

    Anyone who engages in conjugal conduct outside a marriage sins mortally against God and will, without repentance, experience the eternal torments of the damned at the end of his/her life.

    There is absolutely one thing that is certain in your future: You will one day die.

    When that happens, you will no longer be tied to physical things, but your soul lives on. You will then experience the “particular judgment” (as opposed to the final judgment).

    At that time, your will will be determined, either for good or bad, and will never change thereafter.

    Every act you do in this life either tends toward God or away from Him. If, at the end of your life, you are not in the state of grace, i.e., the state of God’s friendship, because you have chosen not to be, then God allows you your choice.

    God condemns no one to hell; the souls in hell condemn themselves because they choose to live apart from God.

    Getting to Heaven is the only thing that matters in this life because this life is transitory. In 100 years, both of us will not be here. Where we will be at that time is determined by us.

    We hold our own destiny in our hands: either forever with God in eternal bliss or apart from him in eternal suffering.

    But the same freedom remains for all of us: the choice of where we end up is ours. God coerces no one.

  • You cannot be a priest unless you have a vocation.

    That is an absurd statement. A man can become a priest and not have a vocation at all.

    The fact that someone gets ordained doesn’t mean he has a vocation. It just means he was male, baptized, and did not have any known, or disclosed, impediments.

    Men who hide their homosexuality can still get ordained, even though they are not supposed to.

    You have never heard of any instances where “gay” men have originally been married to women?

    Some of them knew they were “gay” at the time they married. That doesn’t stop them from being actually married.

    There is a ban, which I posted earlier, on accepting men with homosexual inclinations into the priesthood. If that ban is ignored, or if the man hides his true nature, it would not stop him from becoming a priest.

    The “gays” who entered the priesthood prior to Vatican II did not announce their inclinations; they hid them.

    According to you, they were born “gay.”

    None of them were born as a priest.

  • And what the heck difference does that make?

    If agents of an atheistic communist regime come to your home, grab you by the hair, and drag you outside in front of a firing squad, you’re going to say to yourself, “Whew, boy, as long as it’s not a bunch of Christians that are about to put a bullet through my head, I’m okay with this”?

    I don’t get it.

    You don’t spend your time on the Internet railing against communists in the service of murderous ideology, even though the number of murders is well into the tens of millions.

    No.

    You spend your time railing against Christians.

    There is a reason for that, and I’ve stated it above.

    It is quite easy to see.

  • You need to take a break to meditate on your last end. One day you are going to die. What are you going to do about that? Do you think you just dissolve into thin air?

    You have an immortal soul, of infinite worth because it was created by an infinite Being and purchased at a great price.

    If that infinite Being did not exist, your entire life would be a meaningless absurdity, and there would be no such thing as “crimes against humanity” because there would be no such thing as “crimes.”

    If God does not exist, there is no such thing as “good” and “bad” because there would exist no standard by which to judge an act that wouldn’t be anything more than an arbitrary prejudice that those who disagree could ignore.

    Then the whole idea of a justice system becomes absurd.

    Why should a murderer be punished? If there is no God, there is no hell, in which case the murderer can kill with impunity and not worry about a divine sanction in the next life.

    But if there is no sanction in the next life, why should there be one in this life? Because murder hurts somebody? Who cares? If a killer wants to murder, and there is no God, why should he worry about what other people think about his conduct?

    And why should anyone even think his conduct is “wrong”? Without God, there is no such thing as “wrong.”

    In the deepest recesses of your conscience, you know that that is not correct. You know that there is a sanction for evil and that that sanction, if not met in this life, will be met in the next.

    You need to meditate deeply on your end because the end approaches for each of us and gets closer by the hour. One day it will hit.

    Then what?

  • I wasn’t going to bother to respond again to you. But here ya go.

    Enjoy.

    You are morally a child, having no empathy, ethics, or sense. There is no morality without God? Even your own faith doesn’t believe that. If you cannot tell right from wrong, you need empathy, not religion. Jesus told you so himself. Do unto others, love God, love your neighbor. The entirety of his law lay there.

    You know nothing of your own faith. You should read your catechism to understand what a charisma, a gift from God, a vocation, is. Hell, you should read Wikipedia.

    You think you’re just a fab Christian. But you are so full of anger, hate, and despite. Like a child, you need to be right, and are furious that other people disagree with you.

    I found it so amazing. first, it was at least we Christians are not as bad as the Muslims. Then it was, at least we Christians are better than the fascists. Do you listen to yourself? What you really mean is, “I’m better than you.” It is obvious to anyone

    Grow up, or don’t. I don’t really care. You have to live your life. I have no interest in it. Unfortunately, the world has too many people in it, and way too many that that think that whatever God they believe in, or whatever ideology they serve that is destructive to human health and happiness, justifies whatever they do, whatever they think, however they treat others.

    Those of us who wish to live in peace with our neighbors just have to hope that your ilk don’t take us out in service to your ideology, whether religious or otherwise.

ADVERTISEMENTs