Islam and the US Constitution
Robert Arvay
While some of the framers of the US Constitution were Deists, there is
no doubt that even among them, Christian principles were paramount in
constructing a form of government based upon human rights, human
dignity, and human worth.
The hypothetical has been asked, and I will ask again: supposing that
the settlers to North America had come not from Europe but from among
the Islamic nations, say Morocco or Egypt. Suppose they had
constructed a constitution not on Christian principle, but on Sharia
(Koranic) law.
Would the US of A today be a champion of human rights, or its
malefactor?
God bless you all.
Mr Mahdi
>constructing a form of government based upon human rights, human
>dignity, and human worth.
Give me a fricking break. Yeah, racism against blacks, Native Americans, and
other ethnic groups is a champion of "human rights" based on Christian
principles. If it were not for Christianity, racism would hardly be an issue
in America. But since Christianity has a major presence in America, racism
flourishes to the point that the MOST SEGEGRATED hour in America is when church
services are held on Sunday. In Islam, Friday where Jum`ah prayers are
conducted is the most racially diverse time, while for Christians on Sunday, it
is the exact opposite.
And let's nor forget women who were not given the right to vote until 1919.
Women are still seen as sex objects in the West, and have been exploited so
much that most people in America don't care because it seems normal to them.
You are speaking from a typical white christian missionary mindset. It is
basically your beliefs that made racism and hatred of everything that is not
white and christian common place in America, while ignoring the human rights
abuses of so-called minorities in America.
America has jailed 1000s of innocent people all because they fit a certain
profile (they call it "secret evidence"). America is taking slack for its
human rights abuses to the prisoners of war in Camp X Ray and elsewhere.
As for as christianity being behind "human rights," you can blame secularism
humanism and not Christianity for that. It was a time where Christians in
America regarded blacks as 3/5 of a human being.
Islam has laws protecting non Muslims. Christianity does not have laws
protecting non Christians. Islam forbids the exploitation of people and their
resources, Christians could care less.
Maybe if the settlers of North America were Muslims, then we would not have all
the wars that we have today, since America was founded on war against Britian
and continue to wage war against nations, even using false evidence like what
they used to go to war with Iraq.
Christianity by far has been a curse upon mankind.
Mahdi Muhammad
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings to all;
>
(snip)
Welcome back! Did you see we have an active Christian contributer to the
newsgroup who is discussing the Baha'i Faith, and Christian stuff, too?
I wish you luck in finding an appropriate newsgroup to post your
anti-Islamic bigotry, if that is what you really prefer to discuss. I
think it is off-topic here.
Blessings!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Freethought110
> Greetings to all;
>
> While some of the framers of the US Constitution were Deists, there is
> no doubt that even among them, Christian principles were paramount in
> constructing a form of government based upon human rights, human
> dignity, and human worth.
Nonsense. The Founding Father's ENLIGHTENMENT principles were
responsible for that not Churchianity.
On an unrelated note. The [guerilla] war in "Eye-rak" ain't going too
well for Shrub. American soldiers are being killed on a daily basis
now and Abizaid himself stated for the record that they are now
fighting a guerilla war there. I said "Eye-rak" would eventually turn
in a quagmire, and it now has.
No WMDs, either, or were they just looted as Shrub stupidly claimed
they had been.
QisQos
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > Greetings to all;
> >
> > While some of the framers of the US Constitution were Deists, there is
> > no doubt that even among them, Christian principles were paramount in
> > constructing a form of government based upon human rights, human
> > dignity, and human worth.
>
> Nonsense. The Founding Father's ENLIGHTENMENT principles were
> responsible for that not Churchianity.
>
You mean by "Enlightenment" of course the freemasonic principles and
the *Illuminati* behind such. Truly anti-Christian in origin, aim and
objective, the Freemasonic founders of the United States sought only
to fatten their own purses, disenfranchise the landed nobility and
further oppress the unpropertied freeman and the slave.
The myths and legends which surround the founding of the United States
are so prevalent that it is unfortunate that Mr. Arvay has shown such
incuriousity to delve into the great myth of America's alleged
Christian origins. America's founding principles are Freemasonic - and
originate from an occult order dedicated towards the rule by synarchy,
not freedom as is so hotly claimed by American "patriots".
Hence the sinister resemblance of Bahaism to Freemasonic American
principles: the *appearance* of democratic suffrage with an unseen
cabal steering the outcomes, the *appearance* of personal liberties,
while real freedom of thought is gradually replaced by a homogenous
system of belief in the State and its all powerful "beneficence", the
marginalization of dissent and dissenters, the silencing of those who
speak against the power and might of the State (or the UHJ). Yes, the
principles of Grand Orient Freemasonry, American democracy, and the
Bahai Faith share much in common, especially the denial of Jesus
Christ as the Son of God who redeemed the world with his blood on the
Cross. This denial of Christ is particularly shared by the likes of
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi.
The New World Order of Caius Georgius Bushius and that of the false
Prophet Baha Allah as envisioned by Shoghi Effendi share too many
fascist principles to be merely coincidental - hence the apparent
pedigree of ideology which leads to the salons of Paris and Voltaire,
Rousseau, the Jacobins and the eventual guillotine.
True, America was NOT founded on Christian principles and Mr. Arvay
might wish to study some history to see the evident truth that America
is NOT a Christian nation and never has been.
QisQos
QisQos
>
> While some of the framers of the US Constitution were Deists, there is
> no doubt that even among them, Christian principles were paramount in
> constructing a form of government based upon human rights, human
> dignity, and human worth.
>
>
The idea of intrinsic human worth is a most unchristian ideal:
Romans 1:22. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
1:23. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the
likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of
fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.
The Apostle Paul uses the very words "corruptible man", a far cry from
the human dignity and worth you champion.
He further goes on to say:
Romans 3:23. For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.
The glory of God is not the misinterpretation created by bahais to
refer to Baha Allah, but to God's divine Kingship through the second
person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. But Mister Arvay, contrast the
ideas of human dignity and worth that you profess with the idea of
man as sinner and in need of the Glory of God, hardly worthy or lofty
is the state of the unregenerate man.
The ideas of intrinsic human dignity and worth are in fact freemasonic
in origin and anti-christian in premise; for if man would obtain his
own salvation and construct his own paradise as the American
Revolutionaries, the Jacobins, Leninists and their heirs, the
Bahaists, mankind would have succeeded in constructing the heaven on
earth each of these ideologies so desire.
The fact stands that without the kingship of Christ no peace or human
dignity is possible.
Romans 5:14. But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them
also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of
Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.
5:15. But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence
of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the
grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
So Mister Arvay it is time to put away childish things and to be a
Christian, and not an apologist for the Prince of this World who is
Satan (or Baha Allah if we go by Abdul Baha's interpretation of the
scriptures, and dare we say there is a difference except in degree?).
1 Corinthians 10:21. You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the
chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord
and of the table of devils.
But not the grace of God abounds to MANY, not to all , and it is only
through the submission to Christian faith and the apostolic means of
grace that human dignity is obtained, not by intrinsic merit by by
justification through the Blood of Jesus Christ:
1 Corinthians 11:25. In like manner also the chalice, after he had
supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do
ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
We are not justified by our own fallen and sinful nature, but by
taking of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and in like manner
becoming of His Body and of His Blood -
Romans 6:6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that
the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no
longer.
Americanism, with its denial of sin and the fallen nature of man is by
its very establishment unchristian, and in many regards
anti-christian.
Bahaism, established on similar humanistic principles has only diffuse
and nebulous insights into human failings, and sin for Bahais is
simply "remoteness" from God, as if God is located by proximity or
distance to His creatures. God for the Bahai is an unknowable essence,
a deistic principle shared by the American Freemasonic
Revolutionaries, and their compatriot, Lafayette. Deism, Voltaire and
Rousseau all appear to be the underpinning of Americanism and bahaism,
both are originated in revolution against authority and both acclaim
an appearance of democracy but in fact are founded in plutocracy and
synarchy.
You would do well to abandon the cherished myth of America's Christian
origins as promoted by *ministers* like Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell and take a long hard look at the truth: the origin of American
principles in the anti-christian movement of Freemasonry.
QisQos
Robert Arvay
> > Greetings to all;
In posing my question, I notice that no one really answered. Mahdi
came closest. But take a look at the 22 member states of the Arab
league, and ask yourself, in which of them do the human rights of
women and gays and foreigners exceed those of the USA?
I’ve been to Saudi Arabia. Going through customs, I had a book
confiscated from me, because on its cover there was a non-Islamic
religious symbol--- an image of the Buddha. An American attaché
intervened on my behalf--- not to retrieve my book, but to warn me
that if I did not immediately smile at the customs agent and
apologize, the consequences to me could be severe, and that the US
agencies would not intervene in my behalf in defense of my rights. In
Arabia, I had none.
Unless you have actually experienced firsthand your basic rights being
violated, you might shrug that off as an innocuous bureaucratic event.
But once you realize that you can be imprisoned and tortured for
exercising your basic rights, it forever changes your appreciation of
those rights.
As for Mahdi’s accusations against American and Christian
practices, I make every acknowledgment of the inexcusable history he
points out. I have never made the absurd claim that Americans or
Christians are any better people than anyone else.
But even imperfect people, when they do their best to adhere to divine
principle, are over time uplifted from their animal state toward their
spiritual state.
I see America as a nation which has risen above some of the basic
flaws of its people, but which at the same time is also falling prey
to other flaws. We can do a better job. (I am a critic of the Bush
administration's imprisonment of suspected terrorists--- we can
achieve the right goals only by the right means.)
But I do believe that the guiding principle which has lifted us from
some of our shameful past practices can also lift us even higher yet.
And while there is much that I respect in the Arab societies, even
urge our people to imitate--- I think that we have more freedoms than
anywhere else. There are many mosques in America, but no synagogues
or churches in Arabia.
As for the "quagmire" in Iraq--- none of our options were, or are,
pleasant. To do nothing is the worst mistake. If our goal is to put
the rule of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people, then the long-term
advantage will outweigh the short-term sacrifices.
As for WMD, not even the UN denies Saddam had them. He proved his
willingness to use them! The only question is, where are they? To
say that Saddam destroyed them, but refused to produce the evidence,
is to say that he voluntarily disarmed himself but deliberately
forfeited any advantage from having done so. If that is the case,
then he was truly an unpredictable madman.
Reason compels us to believe otherwise. (It is more logical to
suppose that the US actually has the proof, but because the weapons
were made and sold by the French and Germans, GW is using the WMD to
extort cooperation from them. Not a likely scenario at all, but more
likely than the Saddam version.)
May God bless all who read this!
===========
Count 1
> And let's nor forget women who were not given the right to vote until
1919.
> Women are still seen as sex objects in the West, and have been exploited
so
> much that most people in America don't care because it seems normal to
them.
Many women TODAY do not have the right to vote in an Islamic country. Many
of the men too.
Would a women be allowed to become the ruling Caliphate in the political
Islam you endorse?
> Islam has laws protecting non Muslims. Christianity does not have laws
> protecting non Christians. Islam forbids the exploitation of people and
their
> resources, Christians could care less.
False.
> Maybe if the settlers of North America were Muslims, then we would not
have all
> the wars that we have today, since America was founded on war against
Britian
> and continue to wage war against nations, even using false evidence like
what
> they used to go to war with Iraq.
>
> Christianity by far has been a curse upon mankind.
If you really believed that (I don't think you do, you're just being
argumentative and trolling this board to pick fights) then by all logic you
must condemn Political Islam as well. It has its own grocery list of human
atrocities to deal with too.
>
> Mahdi Muhammad
>
> http://brothermahdi.tripod.com/index.html
Randy Burns
Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03072...@posting.google.com...
SNIP> QisQos
Randy Burns
reply?
Randy
--
Robert Arvay <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e247d7b6.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Greetings;
>
> > > Greetings to all;
>
> In posing my question, I notice that no one really answered. Mahdi
snip
Mr Mahdi
>then by all logic you
>must condemn Political Islam as well.
You have yet to prove that a manifestation of "Political Islam" exists today,
since there is no Caliphate since the downfall of the Ottoman Caliphate in the
1920s.
Your whole premise is based on what doesn't exist in implementation today. If
you want to show the flaws of "Politcal Islam", at least have the common sense
and fairness to point out a manifestation of it. In order to have a "political
islam", a country must adopt Islam as its sole ideology, with systems and all.
Not a single country is doing this, especially countries that claimed to be
Islamic such as the Taliban rule of Afghanistan.
Mahdi Muhammad
Mr Mahdi
>pleasant. To do nothing is the worst mistake. If our goal is to put
>the rule of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people, then the long-term
>advantage will outweigh the short-term sacrifices.
Man, you are more naive than I thought. You think America waged a war against
Iraq because they really wanted to see Iraq (not "Eye-Rak" like Nima pointed
out to the ignorant Americans who can't even pronounce the name of the country
they are at war with) under the leadership of the Iraqi people? One of the
first things the US said is that they would not allow Iraq to be another
"Islamic republic", despite the fact that Iraqis in general are calling for
Islam, seeing that secularism and other man-made systems failed them and the
rest of the world. America wants to install a puppet regime there just like
they did in Afghanistan. If Iraqis want a Caliphate, the Americans would try
their best to not allow it, although the US told the world they they want to
see Iraq under a leadership picked by the Iraqi people.
Also, why don't America wage war against the leadership in Uzbekistan who have
a horrible human rights violation record? Bush and Islam Karimov are good
friends, despite the fact that Karimov is a brutal, sadistic dictator just like
Saddam.
So to buy this "America wants to liberate" BS shows how the naivete and even
stupidity of the people run their lives.
I wanted to add another thing. People like you probably thought that when
America "liberated" the country you call "Eye-Rak", Iraqis en masse will open
their arms and toss the America troops flowers. I bet you and your
imperialistic friends were "shocked" when you guys were rejected and face daily
attacks from not just "Saddam loyalists", but both Sunni and Shi`ah Muslims.
It is funny that the media wanted to say how the Shi`ah are happy that America
"liberated" Iraq and yet Shi`ah and Sunni Muslims are resisting the America
occupation.
Is Iraq going to be another Vietnam for America? If I were a betting man, I
think it would and the results would be the same: America would have to
withdraw like they did in Vietnam. So in reality, America will lose the war
against "Eye-Rak", instead of winning it.
Mahdi Muhammad
Count 1
Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030721123516...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> (Typical Octopus BS snipped)
>
> >then by all logic you
> >must condemn Political Islam as well.
>
> You have yet to prove that a manifestation of "Political Islam" exists
today,
> since there is no Caliphate since the downfall of the Ottoman Caliphate in
the
> 1920s.
You snipped away the question.
Would a women be allowed to become the ruling Caliphate in the political
Islam you endorse?
I clearly said the political Islam you endorse. I did not say the political
Islam we see today.
Feel free to answer the question you snipped. It was asked in response to
what you wrote:
"And let's nor forget women who were not given the right to vote until 1919.
Women are still seen as sex objects in the West, and have been exploited so
much that most people in America don't care because it seems normal to
them."
You don't think the Taliban was political Islam, many muslims don't see the
Ottoman's as political Islam. But we know what you endorse, it is found at
the HuT sight and includes a 'constitution' which allows for slavery.
Tell me - under this system, would a women be allowed to be 'elected' to the
top job? Could a women be the Caliphate in the political Islam you endorse.
Mr Mahdi
>Islam you endorse?
Of course not. I never said that Islam gave women the right to rule, all I
pointed out what Avray's hypocrisy of saying that America is a champion of what
is called "human rights" when women were not given the right to vote until
1919, among other things.
In Islam, women and men have EQUAL RIGHT in giving bay`ah (oath of allegience)
to a Caliph. A Caliph is elected via the "bay`ah" process, and as I said,
women and men have equal right.
Mahdi Muhammad
Count 1
> >Would a women be allowed to become the ruling Caliphate in the political
> >Islam you endorse?
>
> Of course not.
Then you're concerns regarding the voting status of women in America is pure
hypocriscy. You are more than willing to deny women equal status in your
islamic caliphate.
Period.
QisQos
>
> As for Mahdi’s accusations against American and Christian
> practices, I make every acknowledgment of the inexcusable history he
> points out. I have never made the absurd claim that Americans or
> Christians are any better people than anyone else.
>
Now you apologize to pagans Mister Arvay, you did say you are a
Christian ?
Apologies for what inexcusable history pray tell?
The Crusades? Defense of Christian Europe and liberation of the
Christians oppressed under the Mohhamedan Dhimmi laws in Syria, the
Levant and Palestine. Again, we need a truth telling history, not this
gussied up liberal history afraid to tell of the horrors of Muslim
occupation.
The Reconquista of Spain? Yes, the mohammedans driven therefrom and
rightly so too for their rapine of the Catholic populace.
The Catholic defeat of the Turks at Lepanto and Vienna while the
Protestants were undermining Christendom with their princely greed? No
apologies needed there either.
No apologies are needed, since of course this is an ongoing struggle
between Truth and falsehood, and by compromising with falsehood Mr.
Arvay, you sip the chalice of idolaters.
Religious indifferentism is a curse of Americanism with its inevitable
result: if all religions are the same, and this religion is false,
then it stands to reason all religions are false - or so the thinking
appears to go.
The inevitable decline in religion, public morals and ethics with the
resultant popularity of non-religions like Bahai, New Ageism,
encounter groups and seminars taking the place of the good old kneeler
and the pew.
Americans seek religions which are "self-affirming", "positive" and
"nice" which make people feel good, instead of that spirituality which
calls to self-denial, discipline and obedience - self indulgence seems
to be more the case these days in America everyone seeking their
"personal relationship with Christ" as if He were some sort of divine
fishin' buddy. While Americans self-indulgently pursue their
personal spiritual fulfillment and the gods of their individual
conscience the mahometan has attacked our cities and killed our
citizens and yet we say "Islam means peace".
Islam means peace alright, at the end of a sword and the Franks knew
it and the Spaniards knew it, and in a generation or two the Americans
will know it all to well. the time is coming when it will be necessary
to repatriate Muslims and other people of middle eastern origin to
their lands of origin for the sake of securing Christendom within
America's borders. I thank God I am too old now to live to see the
day.
Know full well that Mohammedans do NOT respect the religious rights of
others and that when enough have infiltrated the US and Europe,
decades of turmoil will ensue as these enclaves assert their dominance
over the local culture - Chechnia is a good example, Bosnia is
another. Bahaism is of course just a Fifth Column of shiite thinking
which in due time will be repleaced by formal sharia under mullocracy.
Many lessons lie in store for the US, lessons which were learned in
Spain 500 years ago, lessons ignored by the protestant and freemasonic
founders of the US all the more because Spain was and remains
Catholic, and has restored monarchy.
So Mister Arvay, I would urge you to read some good history, I
recommend H.W. Crocker's book:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/rubin1.html
No milquetoast Christianity, or feel good faith based initiatives
there - just good old hard core analysis of what has happened, what
is happening now, and what needs to happen, or your daughter could end
up being some Sultan's concubine.
Mister Mahdi sees America as degenerate and perverse, and he is
correct, and this degeneracy has its roots in the protestant idea of
justification by faith alone, and personal interpretation of
scripture, which in itself is a recipe for antinomianism and has its
consequent result - apostasy, libertinism, and self centeredness. We
have been weakened for the kill by Luther and Calvin's rebellion.
Qisqos
Robert Arvay
I am not at all unaware of the masonic (and other secret societies)
influence among the founders.
But the Christian influence was by far the more prevalent.
A read of the original state constitutions makes that clear. And in
those days, state constitutions existed in their own right, not at the
whim of USSC justices bent on discovering penumbra among the
punctuation marks. (Today's USSC actually references EU documents as
precedential in value OVER the US Constitution!)
Also, I try not to overstate the case against Baha'is. My last direct
contact with the faith was many years ago. I understand that much has
happened in it since then, mostly toward tyranny--- but I try to limit
myself to speaking about things where I have a direct basis.
May God bless you and yours!
=============
Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03072...@posting.google.com>...
Robert Arvay
The intrinsic worth (but NOT worthiness) of man is amply illustrated
in the trilogy of parables: the lost sheep, the lost coin, the
prodigal son.
(1) The individual, not the group, is paramount.
(2) Although tarnished, God still regards man as gold--- much in need
of refinement, but valuable to God.
(3) Man is not a stepchild of God, but rather, we are His very
children. And even when we transgress horribly, God still yearns to
reunite with us.
Both Peter and Paul tell us that God has set us free--- but that we
are NOT to use our freedom for selfish or evil ends.
God tells us that if we place ourselves first, He will place us last.
But if we humble ourselves, He will exalt us.
Despite his wretched sinfulness, God preferrred the prayer of the
publican tax collector over the devout Pharisee. God is not a
respector of rank or status, but rather He loves each individual on a
one-to-one basis.
Therefore, I submit that individual human dignity and worth are
Judeo-Christian ideals, more so than in any other tradition. And
while sinful man could not translate these ideals into a Utopian
society (as Jesus will upon His return), their influence in the United
States led us along a far better path than would have been trod by
settlers from a nonChristian tradition.
God bless you and yours!
========
Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03072...@posting.google.com>...
Denis Giron
> Yeah, racism against blacks, Native Americans, and
> other ethnic groups is a champion of "human rights" based on Christian
> principles.
There is a difference between Christianity promoting racism and
specific Christians being racist. As you know, in the Arab world there
is a large amount of anti-Desi racism, but this does not mean that
Islam promotes anti-Desi racism. You seem to be able to clearly see
the demarcation between religion in practice and religion in theory
when it comes to Islam, but prove wholly incapable of delineating the
two when it comes to Christianity. That's what we call being
duplicitous.
> If it were not for Christianity, racism would hardly be an issue
> in America. But since Christianity has a major presence in America, racism
> flourishes to the point that the MOST SEGEGRATED hour in America is when
> church services are held on Sunday.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and have obviously
never been to a large church service before. Your knowledge of the
state of American Christianity seems to be drawn wholly from the
comments of a prominent civil rights leader made over 30 years ago.
Maybe you fail to realize that things can change in 30 years.
Most of the Evangelical churches I have been to are especially diverse
and mixed. With Catholicism, there seems to be a bit more ethnic
division because sometimes people like to be amongst "their own kind"
(whatever that means), with Mexican congegations here, Italian
congegations there, Armenian congregations elsewhere, and so on.
Contrary to what you claim, this also happens in Islam in America
(even in New York!). Islam in New York is like Christianity in New
York: most places of worship are pretty diverse, but then there are
rather segregated ones as well. For example, Masjid at-Taqwa in
Brooklyn seems overwhelmingly African-American, while Masjid Madina on
11th street in Manhattan seems overwhelmingly Desi (and Bangladeshi at
that), while the New York Islamic Center on 3rd avenue in Manhattan is
particularly diverse (a complete mix, kind of like the New York City
Church of Christ Evangelical congregation that packs itself into
Madison Square Garden).
A while back Shibli Zaman noted in an email exchange with me that in
your own home state of Texas, many of the Masajid have diverse
congregations, but some others are somewhat ethnically homogenous
(this one being predominantly Desi, another being mostly Turkish, and
so on...). I bet the same is the case with Churches in Texas if you
took the time to look. Those that are segregated more often just
happen to fall together that way. I doubt a "black" Church or a
"white" Church would forbid a person of a different "race" to join,
unless it was some fringe ultra-nationalist sect. The same is the case
with Islam. Just as the masajid that are, for example, predominantly
Desi would not reject a non-Desi who wanted to pray there.
Finally, you should note that Christianity in America influenced by
American culture as much as the reverse. If you went to church
services in Cuba or even Puerto Rico[!], you'll see there is no
segregation. This is because despite the fact that different people
clearly have morphological features that fall in line with popular
notions of what someone of African ancestry should look like, or what
someone of European ancestry should look like, the issue of "black"
and "white" is nowhere near as prominant.
Matt Menge
>
> > > Greetings to all;
>
> In posing my question, I notice that no one really answered. Mahdi
> came closest. But take a look at the 22 member states of the Arab
> league, and ask yourself, in which of them do the human rights of
> women and gays and foreigners exceed those of the USA?
Human rights is not really an Islamic issue. As a Baha'i I would say
that if Islam didn't suffer from certain deficincies, than there would
be no point to a post-Islamic revelation.
>
> I’ve been to Saudi Arabia. Going through customs, I had a book
> confiscated from me, because on its cover there was a non-Islamic
> religious symbol--- an image of the Buddha. An American attaché
> intervened on my behalf--- not to retrieve my book, but to warn me
> that if I did not immediately smile at the customs agent and
> apologize, the consequences to me could be severe, and that the US
> agencies would not intervene in my behalf in defense of my rights. In
> Arabia, I had none.
Arabia is supposedly one of the most dictatorial parts of the world.
Although even the poorest citizens are pretty well off materially. I
will give the rulers that much credit.
>
> I see America as a nation which has risen above some of the basic
> flaws of its people, but which at the same time is also falling prey
> to other flaws. We can do a better job. (I am a critic of the Bush
> administration's imprisonment of suspected terrorists--- we can
> achieve the right goals only by the right means.)
>
> But I do believe that the guiding principle which has lifted us from
> some of our shameful past practices can also lift us even higher yet.
Yes, America is the land of innovation, materially, morally, and
spiritually. Although I am not sure I buy your premise that America
is better off morally than it was, say, a century ago. Of course it
is better off materially, if that is what you are getting at.
>
> And while there is much that I respect in the Arab societies, even
> urge our people to imitate--- I think that we have more freedoms than
> anywhere else. There are many mosques in America, but no synagogues
> or churches in Arabia.
Yes, I agree. Although I don't necessarily buy the argument that
freer (in the political sense) is automatically better. After all,
complete freedom is basically equivalent to anarchy, which is a bad
thing.
>
> As for the "quagmire" in Iraq--- none of our options were, or are,
> pleasant. To do nothing is the worst mistake. If our goal is to put
> the rule of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people, then the long-term
> advantage will outweigh the short-term sacrifices.
>
> As for WMD, not even the UN denies Saddam had them. He proved his
> willingness to use them! The only question is, where are they? To
> say that Saddam destroyed them, but refused to produce the evidence,
> is to say that he voluntarily disarmed himself but deliberately
> forfeited any advantage from having done so. If that is the case,
> then he was truly an unpredictable madman.
Let me just start by saying that I think Bush is an honest, sincere,
strong, visionary leader.
But the fact is that weapons of mass destruction really aren't that
much worse than conventional weapons. Why do you need chemical
weapons when you can torture someome in an iron maiden, blow off their
arms with a conventional bomb, or decimate their cities with
conventional machine guns?
I think Saddam realized that the difference between conventional
weapons and weapons of mass destruction was pretty arbitrary.
Best Regards,
Matt
Eric Stetson
> through the submission to Christian faith and the apostolic means of
> grace that human dignity is obtained, not by intrinsic merit by by
> justification through the Blood of Jesus Christ:
QisQos, what type of Christianity do you endorse? Sound like you must
be either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox from your focus on
apostolic authority.
Let me ask you a question as a Christian myself. How can there still
be "the Church" in this world when the original apostolic Church split
up between Rome and the Eastern Patriarchates many centuries ago and
the leaders all excommunicated each other? Seems to me like we are
living in a post-Church age, a time when the true Church is made up of
people from many different denominations and is known only to Jesus
Christ and will be revealed at His second coming. What do you think?
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
Ex-Baha'i Christian Testimony
http://www.bahai-faith.com
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> > > Greetings to all;
>
> In posing my question, I notice that no one really answered. Mahdi
> came closest.
You are off topic. Do you know what that means? I'll tell you. It means,
'don't bother grading how well responses met your expectations'. If you want
to post your Muslim bashing rants, post to alt.religion.islam, where you are
on topic.
If you want to post _here_ then you need to bash the Baha'i Faith, not Islam.
Is this clear?
Robert Arvay
Well, on a technicality, I did say, "IF our goal is to put
the rule of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people...."
I'm neither as naive as you think, nor as cynical as you seem.
There is a reasonable median, which is this:
In Realpolitik, one can aim for idealistic results, while at the same
time, limiting oneself to the achievable. This is why in some
instances we act aggressively, and in others, we remain at a distance.
In Realpolitik, you have to place the interests of your own country
first.
To do otherwise is to invite defeat, disaster, and the loss of your
own country.
But one's self interest--- if enlightened--- is also the legitimate
self-interest of others as well.
The US certainly does not wish to see Iraq become an
Iran-Taliban-style dictatorship. The maxim is that democracy requires
more than one free election. The true test of a democratic republic
occurs when the government in power is voted OUT of power. If that
cannot happen, then it does not matter that the government in
permanent power was originally elected.
You also reveal a tone of elitism when you assume that your opponents
are ignorant--- the "eye-rak" thang, y'all.
God bless you!
=================
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote in message news:<20030721124956...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
Freethought110
> > Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Greetings to all;
> > >
> > > While some of the framers of the US Constitution were Deists, there is
> > > no doubt that even among them, Christian principles were paramount in
> > > constructing a form of government based upon human rights, human
> > > dignity, and human worth.
> >
> > Nonsense. The Founding Father's ENLIGHTENMENT principles were
> > responsible for that not Churchianity.
> >
>
> You mean by "Enlightenment" of course the freemasonic principles and
> the *Illuminati* behind such.
Yep, that; the one which puts the fear of almighty Yahweh in the Vatican.
>Truly anti-Christian in origin,
Hurrah to that!
>- hence the apparent
> pedigree of ideology which leads to the salons of Paris and Voltaire,
> Rousseau, the Jacobins and the eventual guillotine.
Viva la Revolucion!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Freethought110" <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83b59396.03072...@posting.google.com...
> >- hence the apparent
> > pedigree of ideology which leads to the salons of Paris and Voltaire,
> > Rousseau, the Jacobins and the eventual guillotine.
>
> Viva la Revolucion!
The guillotine?
Isn't that the penalty prescribed for adulterers in the New World Theocratic
Order Inc. - Head Office -Haifa; branches throughout the world?
QisQos
> living in a post-Church age, a time when the true Church is made up of
> people from many different denominations and is known only to Jesus
> Christ and will be revealed at His second coming. What do you think?
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
> Eric Stetson
> Ex-Baha'i Christian Testimony
> http://www.bahai-faith.com
I think we are living in an age of apostasy.
2Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that
day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Now whether this is the greater apostasy foretold in 2 Thessalonians I
would not presume to say, however, it is clear that within Christendom
a great apostasy has taken place.
Now, there is and has always been the Church of Jesus Christ on the
Earth. However, as in the times of Athanasius, in these times the
doctrines have become corrupted with innovations and heresy, making
many easy prey for false teachers like those of the Bahais, the Dalai
Lama, Maharishi Yogi, the New Age bunch, and even social crusaders
like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
What is to come of this is God's will, however, I do know this with
certainty, that the Bahai religion is NOT the restoration of Christ's
Kingdom on Earth, but is rather a deception as spoken of in Matthew:
24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man
deceive you.
24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall
deceive many.
that we live in an age of apostasy is evident to all with eyes to see.
However, to preoccupy with end times speculation is to set one's self
up to be deceived just as the early Bahais in the US were deceived by
believing that Baha Allah was the second coming of Christ. That much
is evidently untrue, and only the specious biblical interpretations of
Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi, Esselmont, Sears and others make a
plausible case only if one dismiss outright that Jesus really and
truly rose from the dead in his body.
However, if we deny the central fact of the New Testament, that Jesus
was crucified, died, and rose to life on the third day as witnessed
and testified to by the Gospels and Epistles, then we cease to be
Christians.
To simply say that Jesus brought a new set of social teachings to
humanity is to deny the central reality of the overcoming of death by
Jesus Christ.
This much makes lukewarm believers of the humanistic sort easy prey
for social action causes like the BF which seek to create a man-made
heaven on earth using humanistic principles tinged with some
lipservice to God, albeit cloaked in some gaudy mystical language.
Jesus was more than just a super nice guy who said "Love thy neighbor
as thyself", but was and is the Son of God who is from all eternity
the Lord of mankind. This leaves no room for other claimants like Bab,
BahaAllah or Krishna, or even your own former claim to messiahood.
Many who enter the bahais, or so it would seem from reading the
archives of this list, enter in a moment of emotionality - either
because they are overjoyed with the illusory promise that Christ has
returned, or that they have found a religion which on surface appears
to satisfy their longing for social action and civil rights. Then like
many who write on this list they become disgruntled because their
perceived rights have been violated: like the arch-victims whose names
and honor we see posted in the endless posts from Glaysher, or
ex-Bahais like yourself who find they have been deceived by the
millenarian claims made for baha Allah being the return of Christ.
Either way, it is quite evident that on both counts the bahai religion
fails to live up to expectation: it cannot produce the kingdom of
Heaven anticipated by the millenarist Christian looking for Jesus'
return, nor can it satisfy the hunger for justice that the civil
rights advocate and social reformer would seek.
But that is the way it goes, the lukewarm seeks lukewarm solutions to
salvation: for him Jesus returned but not in the frightening way of
the Apocalypse but in the sort of lukewarm and obscure way of Baha
Allah, no real judgement, hell, sins, or anything, just an indefinite
sense of "nearness" to God, an unknowable and impersonal essence
revealed only through *manifestations*. Quite a contrast to the flesh
and blood Jesus, crucified died, buried who rose on the third day.
I suppose that is quite enough from me for now.
Qisqos
QisQos
>
> The intrinsic worth (but NOT worthiness) of man is amply illustrated
> in the trilogy of parables: the lost sheep, the lost coin, the
> prodigal son.
> (1) The individual, not the group, is paramount.
> (2) Although tarnished, God still regards man as gold--- much in need
> of refinement, but valuable to God.
> (3) Man is not a stepchild of God, but rather, we are His very
> children. And even when we transgress horribly, God still yearns to
> reunite with us.
>
> Both Peter and Paul tell us that God has set us free--- but that we
> are NOT to use our freedom for selfish or evil ends.
>
> God tells us that if we place ourselves first, He will place us last.
> But if we humble ourselves, He will exalt us.
yes and we are also tole the follwing:
Revelation 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot:
I wish that you were either cold or hot.
3:16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
will spew you out of my mouth.
3:17 For you say, I am rich, and have grown wealthy, and have need of
nothing; but you do not know that you are wretched, and miserable, and
poor, and blind, and naked.
Just some food for thought.
However, I do agree that God so loved the world that he sacrificed His
only Son for the salvation of many, (John 3:16)
QisQos
QisQos
Well it isn't the guillotine but this nice punishment by Baha Allah
seems apropos of discussion:
From Ketab e Akdas:
62
Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye
burn; should anyone deliberately take another's life, him also shall
ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your
strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye
condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would
be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. He, verily,
hath power to ordain whatsoever He pleaseth.
Robert Arvay
As a Protestant, former Catholic (AND former Baha'i), I obviously
disagree with some of what you said.
I remember growing up as the only Catholic in my elementary school in
the deep South, hearing the rabid anti-papists rant and rave.
But you're the first Catholic I've heard with the correpsonding
anti-Protestant fervor. (Are you Irish?)
Protestantism arose largely because people WITHIN the Roman Catholic
Church could not reconcile the Bible with the church. The church had
become a complex and corrupt institution. Jesus Himself said that
true religion consists of loving one's enemies and caring for the
poor. Complex versus simple. Martin Luther was no milquetoast
Christian.
Eventually, the Protestant Reformation improved the Catholic church.
Protestantism helped give rise to more democratic forms of government,
undermining the royal-aristocratic feudalism that preceded it. This
in turn moderated Catholic theology, and helped make it more the
religion of Mother Teresa than of the Inquisitors of Spain.
I have not apologized for anything, except my own sins. But neither
do I excuse the deplorable actions of the past, whether they are the
atrocities of Islam, Christianity, or Stalinism (etc).
The natural state of the human creature is described in the Bible:
Man's every inclination is toward sin and depravity. This is as true
of Christians as of anyone else. It is why we so desperately need the
saving grace of our Savior, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you, without apologizing for it, that many mainline
Protestant churches have indeed become milquetoast, feel-good
denominations.
But the much-maligned fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the
word of God, and that therefore it is to be taken seriously--- with
earnest study and careful adherence to the actual words, not some
facetious interpretation, as the Baha'is and others resort to.
Salvation by grace is not some Protestant invention. It comes
directly and explicitly from the Bible. It does not say that we are
unaccountable for our deeds. But it does say that even our best deeds
will never be enough to pay for our sins--- those sins are so horrible
that the price for them was the shed blood of Jesus.
Qis, I have great respect for the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I
have the greatest hope that someday soon, all those who worship Jesus
will do so, in the words of our Lord, "in spirit and truth," and as
one united body of Christ. I hope that soon the Jews will "recognize
Him whom they have pierced, and weep for Him as one weeps for an only
child." And I hope that ALL the peoples of "every nation and kindred
and tongue," including Baha'is, will cast aside their false and
dangerous religions, and recognize that "No man comes to the Father
but by [Jesus Himself]."
May the peace of Jesus Christ be upon you!
=========
Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03072...@posting.google.com>...
Robert Arvay
Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> yes and we are also tole the follwing:
>
> Revelation 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot:
> I wish that you were either cold or hot.
> 3:16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
> will spew you out of my mouth.
> 3:17 For you say, I am rich, and have grown wealthy, and have need of
> nothing; but you do not know that you are wretched, and miserable, and
> poor, and blind, and naked.
>
> Just some food for thought.
Indeed it is. These words are addressed to one of the seven churches,
and they are an admonition to be fervent for the faith (see the
parable of the sower and the seed). In a bit of a surprise, Jesus
says that He would rather we be cold than lukewarm. But upon
reflection, I think it makes sense. Look at the example of Saul of
Tarsus. He was very cold. But God can work with such people, and
Saul became St Paul, martyr for Jesus. The lukewarm think that they
are already "good enough," and will not take a firm stand.
>
> However, I do agree that God so loved the world that he sacrificed His
> only Son for the salvation of many, (John 3:16)
Then you have all the wisdom any man needs!
God bless you!
Eric Stetson
> > living in a post-Church age, a time when the true Church is made up of
> > people from many different denominations and is known only to Jesus
> > Christ and will be revealed at His second coming. What do you think?
> >
> > Best,
> > Eric
> >
> > Eric Stetson
> > Ex-Baha'i Christian Testimony
> > http://www.bahai-faith.com
>
> I think we are living in an age of apostasy.
>
> 2Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that
> day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that
> man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
>
> Now whether this is the greater apostasy foretold in 2 Thessalonians I
> would not presume to say, however, it is clear that within Christendom
> a great apostasy has taken place.
>
> Now, there is and has always been the Church of Jesus Christ on the
> Earth. However, as in the times of Athanasius, in these times the
> doctrines have become corrupted with innovations and heresy, making
> many easy prey for false teachers like those of the Bahais, the Dalai
> Lama, Maharishi Yogi, the New Age bunch, and even social crusaders
> like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
QisQos, thanks for your response. I agree with you that we are living
in an age of apostasy, perhaps even the greater apostasy prior to the
second coming.
I am still wondering which church (if any) you believe is the true
Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
And how was Martin Luther King a false teacher?
Best,
Eric
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
news:<bflrtj$qvo$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > "Freethought110" <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:83b59396.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > >- hence the apparent
> > > > pedigree of ideology which leads to the salons of Paris and
Voltaire,
> > > > Rousseau, the Jacobins and the eventual guillotine.
> > >
> > > Viva la Revolucion!
> >
> > The guillotine?
> >
> > Isn't that the penalty prescribed for adulterers in the New World
Theocratic
> > Order Inc. - Head Office -Haifa; branches throughout the world?
>
> Well it isn't the guillotine but this nice punishment by Baha Allah
> seems apropos of discussion:
Actually I was thinking of a very small guillotine specifically designed for
the purpose of deterring adulterers by the rather direct means of .... em!
.... er! .... making it physically impossible! One does try to be delicate
about these types of things!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Eric Stetson" <erics...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f581312e.03072...@posting.google.com...
> QisQos, thanks for your response. I agree with you that we are living
> in an age of apostasy, perhaps even the greater apostasy prior to the
> second coming.
>
> I am still wondering which church (if any) you believe is the true
> Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
He's a Fenian bigot!
> And how was Martin Luther King a false teacher?
He wasn't a Catholic of the truly Roman kind in the QisQos mode of
"everybody's damned apart from his model of Fenian bigot!"
QisQos
Martin Luther King was a false teacher because his "christianity" was
not God centered but centered on social justice: put simply, the
business of Christians is the salvation of souls, social justice is a
secondary, and even possibly tertiary objective of Christianity.
In other words, MLK made a golden calf of civil rights and got the
people seeking a man made paradise instead of the eternal Truth of
Jesus Christ. Jesus was a secondary to MLK, a vehicle in which to
convey his civil rights agenda - like Gandhi, another hero of MLK.
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these
things will be added to you..." Matthew 6:33 The Christian knows that
living the Christian life is hard and sometimes involves strife with
the unrepentant and sinful world. MLKs pacifism is a wholly
unchristian approach to life - "For we wrestle not against flesh and
blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers
of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places," Ephesians 6:12.
MLK was not the only false teacher of social activist Christianity:
bad Catholics among whom those who promoted "liberation theology" are
among the prodigal, as well as notorious persons like Jacques
Maritain, Teilhard de Chardin and any number of soft liberal Catholics
out there making nice with the powers and principalities whereof Paul
has spoken.
And that is really where MLK went bad too, he sought to work the
system, the City of Satan as St. Augustine would have it and as such
became corrupted and eventually assassinated by the very powers and
rulers of darkness he sought to use to his benefit.
Now, the UHJ, being of course masonic in spirit if not in fact; is
nothing other than a tool, or at the very least a club of "useful
idiots" working to establish the secular peace so earnestly dreamed of
by such as MLK and Gandhi.
It will never work - as they say Dermod, "extra ecclesiam nulla
salus", and that is just the way it is, whether you like it or not is
an irrelevance.
In Christ
Qis qos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> (snip)
> "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these
> things will be added to you..." Matthew 6:33 The Christian knows that
> living the Christian life is hard and sometimes involves strife with
> the unrepentant and sinful world. MLKs pacifism is a wholly
> unchristian approach to life - "For we wrestle not against flesh and
> blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers
> of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
> places," Ephesians 6:12.
>
I'd understand it the other way. It would seem to me that the Christian ought to confront the natural world,
rather than conforming himself to sin. Dr. King's pacificism was an activitist pacifism, rather than a passive
pacificism. He did not go along with the evils of the day, and, he challenged his brothers and sisters in Christ
to join him in wrestling with principalities, pwers, rulers and the darkness of this world, to include its
spiritual wickedness in public places.
God does not call us solely to an unseen faith. God calls us to a faith which we can practice, and through
practice, we have a faith which grows like a mustard seed.
>
> MLK was not the only false teacher of social activist Christianity:
> bad Catholics among whom those who promoted "liberation theology" are
> among the prodigal, as well as notorious persons like Jacques
> Maritain, Teilhard de Chardin and any number of soft liberal Catholics
> out there making nice with the powers and principalities whereof Paul
> has spoken.
>
> And that is really where MLK went bad too, he sought to work the
> system, the City of Satan as St. Augustine would have it and as such
> became corrupted and eventually assassinated by the very powers and
> rulers of darkness he sought to use to his benefit.
>
I really think you see the Southern Christian Leadership Council, in some sort of bizarro perspective.
>
> Now, the UHJ, being of course masonic in spirit if not in fact; is
> nothing other than a tool, or at the very least a club of "useful
> idiots" working to establish the secular peace so earnestly dreamed of
> by such as MLK and Gandhi.
>
> It will never work - as they say Dermod, "extra ecclesiam nulla
> salus", and that is just the way it is, whether you like it or not is
> an irrelevance.
Quaecumque sunt vera ...
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> salus", and that is just the way it is, whether you like it or not is
> an irrelevance.
Like I said - a "Fenian bigot," indistinguishable in form, content or output
from all of those other self-justified and "saved" sects. If Fenians stand
to be saved, heaven will sure be a sparsely populated outpost while Hell
will be bursting at the seams for Fenians are but a minority of all the
peoples here now or who have ever lived. It seems such a shame that God
pre-destined the majority who have never heard of Catholicism, through no
fault of theirs, to eternal damnation. But if that's the way you want it,
dearie, you have it that way and, for sure, the Old Reaper won't miss your
company where he's going.
The only regret I'll have is that I won't see the donnybrook at the Gates of
Heaven as you and the rest of the salvationist squads fight it out over just
who exactly had been given the keys to the kingdom. Of course I'll have my
own explaining to do - a certain being is bound to be asking just who
exactly gave me the right to claim the old "Grim Reaper" title.
> In Christ
I doubt that - he didn't speak Latin ... or Greek, for that matter!
> Qis qos
Randy Burns
R
--
Dermod Ryder <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfva51$jor$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> The only regret I'll have is that I won't see the donnybrook at the Gates
of
> Heaven as you and the rest of the salvationist squads fight it out over
just
> who exactly had been given the keys to the kingdom. .
>
Freethought110
general scheme of things?
Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03072...@posting.google.com>...
QisQos
> QisQos wrote:
>
> > (snip)
> > "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these
> > things will be added to you..." Matthew 6:33 The Christian knows that
> > living the Christian life is hard and sometimes involves strife with
> > the unrepentant and sinful world. MLKs pacifism is a wholly
> > unchristian approach to life - "For we wrestle not against flesh and
> > blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers
> > of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
> > places," Ephesians 6:12.
> >
> God does not call us solely to an unseen faith. God calls us to a faith which we can practice, and through
> practice, we have a faith which grows like a mustard seed.
>
From MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":
"To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a
human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law
that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human
personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because
segregation distort the soul and damages the personality."
This teaching of MLK is incorrect. First while paraphrasing the legal
theory of St. Thomas Aquinas he misrepresents it.
the actual case presented by St, thomas Aquinas in the Summa I.96.4
states that human laws are unjust because they
a. because they are contrary to the human good
b. because they are contrary to the Divine good.
the human good does not rest in the "human personality" as MLK has
asserted. the "human personality" is that fallen nature corrupted by
original sin and is prone to the vagaries of its weakness of will and
reason.
Aquinas actually derives his first definition from the just law being:
" they are ordained to the common good - and from their author, that
is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the
lawgiver - and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the
subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to
the common good."
The COMMON good, not the good of the individual "personality" as MLK
would have it.
Now, while it may be unjust to discriminate or oppress based upon the
premise of racialism - MLK uses the wrong rationale and the wrong
motives for his justification to civil disobedience.
Now, the discriminatory laws of Alabama were unjust, but not for the
reasons that MLK cited. Furthermore his citation of Buber and Tillich
are examples of religious indifferentism - especially in the face of
his misappropriation of Aquinas.
Much like the theories of just and unjust war debated in the recent
Iraq episode, non-Catholic sources have created a hotch potch of
excuses for waging or opposing based upon syncretic scholarship. In
fact the Pope presented the most cogent arguments against the Iraq
expedition which of course were rejected by Caius Georgius Bushius II.
Similarly, the arguments of MLK are based on a number of fallacies -
in other words, he was right, but his reasons were incorrect. And the
end does not justify the means in this regard because intent, reason
and knowledge are as important as the act in itself - in Catholic
theory anyway.
For this reason MLK's "Christianity" is criticised and its methodology
called into question. He confuses Luther with Aquinas in the same
letter, citing only those poits which appear to support his secular
agenda.
But that is all from me on this topic, for those interested in the
details of how MLK's liberation theology is faulty and not Christ
centered, I leave it to you to do your own research, the materials are
on the web, after all.
Qis Qos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
Right, the unjust law is both contrary to the divine law, and contrary to the common good.
>
> Now, while it may be unjust to discriminate or oppress based upon the
> premise of racialism - MLK uses the wrong rationale and the wrong
> motives for his justification to civil disobedience.
>
Well, you and I may disagree, but I am not the only person who sees that instutitionalized distortion of the soul
and damage to the human personality is contrary to the common good. Provision of separate public plumbing
facilities, for example, tells people that they are somehow different, due to ethnic origin, and different to
such an extent that they might have seperate thirst, or, even distinctly different modes of relieving themselves
- something a young person would not know was wrong, unless they were willing to break the law. No, all this
nonsense was a lie, and was _bad_ for the common good.
>
> Now, the discriminatory laws of Alabama were unjust, but not for the
> reasons that MLK cited.
Well, if segregation was not perpetrating a lie, which was bad for the common good, you tell me?
> Furthermore his citation of Buber and Tillich
> are examples of religious indifferentism - especially in the face of
> his misappropriation of Aquinas.
>
I missed the citation of Buber and Tillich.
>
> Much like the theories of just and unjust war debated in the recent
> Iraq episode, non-Catholic sources have created a hotch potch of
> excuses for waging or opposing based upon syncretic scholarship. In
> fact the Pope presented the most cogent arguments against the Iraq
> expedition which of course were rejected by Caius Georgius Bushius II.
>
> Similarly, the arguments of MLK are based on a number of fallacies -
> in other words, he was right, but his reasons were incorrect. And the
> end does not justify the means in this regard because intent, reason
> and knowledge are as important as the act in itself - in Catholic
> theory anyway.
>
> For this reason MLK's "Christianity" is criticised and its methodology
> called into question. He confuses Luther with Aquinas in the same
> letter, citing only those poits which appear to support his secular
> agenda.
>
But he did it with a good intent, and, I am told by a current Catholic that intent is as important as the act
itself. If I understand your criticism correctly, you have faulted the reverend for not checking his references,
from his Bumminham city jail cell? Really? Weren't you the person who wanted to say the RCAC had opposed the
slavery of Africans, for centuries? It would seem to me that you, w/ access to the internet, would have much
better ability to check your references, than a guy in jail. You want to criticize Rev. King from "Catholic
theory"? Baahooey!
>
> But that is all from me on this topic, for those interested in the
> details of how MLK's liberation theology is faulty and not Christ
> centered, I leave it to you to do your own research, the materials are
> on the web, after all.
A yes, and the student will find other factual errors in King's mission as well. To me, it matters not; he is
not appreciated as an academic.
Best wishes!
QisQos
> > details of how MLK's liberation theology is faulty and not Christ
> > centered, I leave it to you to do your own research, the materials are
> > on the web, after all.
>
> A yes, and the student will find other factual errors in King's mission as well. To me, it matters not; he is
> not appreciated as an academic.
>
> Best wishes!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
Unfortunately patrick, your knowledge of Christian scripture and
tradition is just to limited to have any serious dialog.
But here is a critique of MLK you may wish to read:
"There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther
King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he
isn't deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations
of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not
only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and
libertarian..."
The rest of the article may be found at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html
In fact the Lew Rockwell site has some great perspectives that might
endanger the liberal shibboleths you and other Bahaists seem to
cherish, especially with regard towards pacifism, Christianity, New
World Order, and racial parity. Read a few of the articles. You will
find the materials on Abraham Lincoln especially enlightening I am
sure.
There are no small number of cherished myths hat liberalists such as
yourself seem to hold as self-evident truths, which if adequately
combatted would succeed in opening your eyes to the Truth of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As Rome goes, so goes the world.
Qisqos
Eric Stetson
> As Rome goes, so goes the world.
If so, then I guess the world will be following a version of
Christianity that contains increasingly questionable doctrines. Rome
seems to be adding a lot of stuff to Christianity that wasn't taught
in the original Apostolic Church. For example, Pope John Paul II has
said he believes that Mary is Co-Redemptrix with Jesus Christ. Where
is the basis in the Bible or early Church teachings for such a
doctrine? I'm not trying to be offensive to Catholics, so please
don't take it wrong, but I just honestly don't understand how some
people can believe that such ideas are part of the true religion of
Jesus Christ.
Best,
Eric
QisQos
> >Now, the UHJ, being of course masonic in spirit if not in fact; is
> >nothing other than a tool, or at the very least a club of "useful
> >idiots" working to establish the secular peace so earnestly dreamed of
> >by such as MLK and Gandhi.
> >
>
> by Mike Bellinger
>
> http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue80/masonic.html
>
> All roads lead to Rome ... as an ex-Catholic I can say that really is the
> case. If anyone can shed some light on the hidden parts of the power structure,
> then by all means do so. Tell us who in the modern world pulls the strings of
> the Jesuit General because he is clearly in charge of the Vatican, whereas the
> Pope is a publicity man. Its good cop, bad cop ... The Vatican, regardless of
> who is over them, is the power center of this planet.
Well this is interesting conspiracy theory, however, it would be wise
to take a serious look at history and one would see that the Vatican
has been on the receiving end of Masonic attack and infiltration
rather than directing it. I would refer you to the 19th century and
the masonic power struggle which attacked the papacy and took the
papal states, as well as the onslaught of masonic power that overthrew
the Hapsburg and Spanish monarchies in the 20th century. hardly an
indication of papal supremacy as your theorists would suggest.
There are a number of assertions that your material makes which are
not supported by historical analysis, and it would seem that the
"reformation" and subsequent upheavals are more in line with the
masonic agenda than the Vatican which is the stated opponent and
antagonist of Freemasonry. Your mistake is to confuse these two very
separate agendas and to suggest that they are operating in concert
which they are not.
Your theorists ignore the central fact of the French Revolution and
its masonic basis which was orientated towards achieving the ends of
complete destruction of monarchy as well as the Church. A house
divided against itself cannot stand, and what you are arguing would
imply t that the French revolution was an elaborately staged hoax by
the Vatican to fight against itself - this is not borne out by any
serious study of the period and its consequences leading up to the
present. A more cogent theory would have it that the Vatican has been
locked in mortal combat with the satanic forces which constitute
Freemasonry and its secular social agendas.
The deism of Freemasonry is the antithesis of the faith in the
incarnate Word which is the center of the Catholic Church. As for the
Jesuit conspiracy you speak of, it is all very interesting, but hardly
in keeping with the actual history of the Jesuits, whatever their
failings may have been in accepting the liberal agenda of the post-war
(WWII) period.
But if you wanted to pit two competing ideas against each other, one
is the liberalism promoted overtly or covertly by fremasonry, and the
Christian traditionalist agenda which has been the mainstay of the
Catholic Church.
QisQos
Freethought110
> "Freethought110" <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:83b59396.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > >- hence the apparent
> > > pedigree of ideology which leads to the salons of Paris and Voltaire,
> > > Rousseau, the Jacobins and the eventual guillotine.
> >
> > Viva la Revolucion!
>
> The guillotine?
No, the French Revolution: The Vatican's worst nightmare in the 18th century.
Freethought110
> the *Illuminati* behind such.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, no such hyper-powerful
organization which controls everything and known as the Illuminati
exists. And the Freemasons are nothing but a bunch of old guys with
dinner suits, secret handshakes and lame/out-dated table rituals who
get together merely to get out of the house and away from their wives.
QisQos
> Catherine De Medici instigated the butchering of 75,000 French Protestant
> Huguenots on August 24, 1572. In 1598 Henry IV issued the Edict of Nates to
> protect them. By manipulating the rescinding of the protective Edict of
> Nantes in 1685 by the Jesuit confessor to King Louis XIV (using religious
> blackmail), another HALF MILLION FRENCH HUGUENOTS were butchered by the
> vile French Catholic Dragonades. In 1655 again, British Protestant hero
> Oliver Cromwell threatened to invade France and crush the French Crown for
> a new massacre being waged upon the French Vadois Protestants of valley of
> Piedmont by six Catholic Regiments by the Duke of Savoy.
Hmm, and how many Catholics were killed in England starting with the
time of Henry VIII up to and including the rule of Cromwell?
What this fellow fails to do is understand the separate action of the
Crown and the Church. The Church itself did not order the St.
Bartholemew's day Massacre. The French Crown did, and for what appear
to be due to a combination of internal dissention within the Court
itself as well as widespeard militancy and insurection by the Hugenots
themselves.
It is not as if the Hugenots were peaceably tilling the soil and whose
only crime was to reject papal authority. Quite the contrary, they
actively looted the properties of the Crown, the Church and the
Catholic French, created civil disorder and spread abroad a militant
form of religious zeal dedicated to the ovethrow of the Church and the
Crown. And this was the tactic of Geneva, to send forth militant
preachers to act covertly at first and then overtly aim towards the
violent overthow of the State and the Church.
However, to greatly inflate the numbers of casualties, and then to
present the Hugenots in such a manner as to disguise their sedition
afainst the Crown for which they received their due is disingenuous.
One cannot judge the past using the measures of today, those were days
of monarchy in which the idea of religious liberty did not exist. For
example, catholic lives were not safe in calvinist (Hugenot) territory
either - so let us not play the card of religious liberty here.
"At Geneva and in Holland Catholic worship was absolutely forbidden;
in Germany, after the Peace of Augsburg, all subjects were bound to
take the religion of their prince, in accordance with the adage: Cujus
regio ejus religio. England, which even forced those who dissented
from the Established Church to seek religious liberty in America,
treated Catholics more harshly than did Turkey; all priests were
banished from the country; should one of them return and be caught in
the exercise of his functions, he was condemned to death; a heavy
tribute was imposed upon Papists, as though they were slaves. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07527b.htm
But that is enough from me for now and this is after all a Bahai forum
and this is most likely off topic.
QQ
Paul Hammond
>
> > Catherine De Medici instigated the butchering of 75,000 French Protestant
> > Huguenots on August 24, 1572. In 1598 Henry IV issued the Edict of Nates to
> > protect them. By manipulating the rescinding of the protective Edict of
> > Nantes in 1685 by the Jesuit confessor to King Louis XIV (using religious
> > blackmail), another HALF MILLION FRENCH HUGUENOTS were butchered by the
> > vile French Catholic Dragonades. In 1655 again, British Protestant hero
> > Oliver Cromwell threatened to invade France and crush the French Crown for
> > a new massacre being waged upon the French Vadois Protestants of valley of
> > Piedmont by six Catholic Regiments by the Duke of Savoy.
>
> Hmm, and how many Catholics were killed in England starting with the
> time of Henry VIII up to and including the rule of Cromwell?
>
And, of course, two wrongs don't make a right. Shroud waving
is possibly one of the least attractive forms of argument.
Protestants have killed catholics (Drogheda massacre, for
example), and the other way round. In France, it's mostly
been the other way around, since France has always been
a catholic state.
Paul
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> (snip)
>
> But that is enough from me for now and this is after all a Bahai forum
> and this is most likely off topic.
Thanks! Given the way the thread started, it would have been difficult to get on topic.
QisQos
Well I do TRY to get something about the Bahai into what I writre,
albeit that last one was difficult, but hey, I did not start that
thread.
Besides, the internal dissension of Bahaism is interesting all on its
own, all these liberal cry babies whining about how their "rights" and
"free speech" have been violated, it is just too humourous to see how
these feminists and civil rights activists and self-styled "patriots"
are just sooo disappointed because the BF is not created in their own
image.
Now why do you doubt the UHJ would declare Karen Backet a CB? It
certainly seems like she is gunning for the job. Her material sounds
like it was written by the typical feminazi who can't stand having any
male in a position of authority over her, which seems to be 99 % of
the problem with most women dissenters from what I can see.
Qisqos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F270E24...@ameritel.net>...
> > QisQos wrote:
> >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > But that is enough from me for now and this is after all a Bahai forum
> > > and this is most likely off topic.
> >
> > Thanks! Given the way the thread started, it would have been difficult to get on topic.
> >
> > Best wishes!
> > - Pat
> > kohli at ameritel.net
>
> Well I do TRY to get something about the Bahai into what I writre,
> albeit that last one was difficult, but hey, I did not start that
> thread.
>
> Besides, the internal dissension of Bahaism is interesting all on its
> own, all these liberal cry babies whining about how their "rights" and
Semantics aside, it is not just liberals who complain. 11 months ago, one guy came onto TRB, seeming to
be a flaiming AO loyalist (to hell w/ the rest), and, in time he complained about how the AO has
violated his rights in telling him to stop his netabuse. Fred Glaysher has complaints, and to read his
comments about other things, I don't think he is a liberal in most sense of the term, he certainly seems
to advocate US militarism, yet he has complaints and regularly airs them.
>
> "free speech" have been violated, it is just too humourous to see how
> these feminists and civil rights activists and self-styled "patriots"
> are just sooo disappointed because the BF is not created in their own
> image.
>
That is the likely the root of the disappointment, when the friends find out it is not exactly their
way, all the way, all the time. We join with the realization that God has visited us once again, and
our Garden of Eden is not as we pictured it.
>
> Now why do you doubt the UHJ would declare Karen Backet a CB?
Pink elephants on my lawn? I point that out, I doubt that Pink Elephants will dance on my lawn, not
because I have special elephant traps that will be activated by large pink objects, but I doubt that
Pink Elephants will dance on my lawn because I have no reason to suppose they will.
Yes, Karen claims to believe in Baha'u'llah, and Karen has publically made remarks critical of the
community and/or the AO. When C. Mason Remey was doing his thing, he was doing so to undermine the
authority of the AO, _with_ the goal of gaining the authority of the AO, either for himself, or for his
marionette. I don't see that Karen is running for anything. I think she has made some remarks which are
based on her direct observations, which, are to me, unchallengeable. Shaped by her experiences, she has
interpreted other unpleasant matters as typical of narrow-mindedness among Baha'i (I refer to Fred B.
calling her a vampire on Beliefnet). I saw the same thing, and shaped by my own experiences, drew
different conclusions (Baha'is who make public asses of themselves do get confronted about it, one way
or the other). She has also drawn conclusions which I consider to be inconsistent with the evidence on
the matter of 'Abdu'l Baha's statements on women on the UHJ. I suspect that her conclusions were simply
steered a bit, and I think in time, as she studies the evidence, she might revisit the conclusions, just
as one can see something, not previously seen, in a watching a movie a second time.
No Pink Elephants on my lawn, just someone with their own experiences, and their own reasoning.
> It
> certainly seems like she is gunning for the job. Her material sounds
> like it was written by the typical feminazi who can't stand having any
> male in a position of authority over her, which seems to be 99 % of
> the problem with most women dissenters from what I can see.
Harry, Harry, Harry, one of these days you are going to get into trouble with a member of the
alternative gender. Will you be selling tickets?
People should not 'be in a position of authority' simply due to a full scrotum.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> Besides, the internal dissension of Bahaism is interesting all on its
> own, all these liberal cry babies whining about how their "rights" and
> "free speech" have been violated, it is just too humourous to see how
> these feminists and civil rights activists and self-styled "patriots"
> are just sooo disappointed because the BF is not created in their own
> image.
>
> Now why do you doubt the UHJ would declare Karen Backet a CB? It
> certainly seems like she is gunning for the job. Her material sounds
> like it was written by the typical feminazi who can't stand having any
> male in a position of authority over her, which seems to be 99 % of
> the problem with most women dissenters from what I can see.
So! In my brief absence TRB has been turned into
talk.mysogynistic.masochism! Is nothing sacred?
>
> Qisqos
Karen Bacquet
>>
>>Now why do you doubt the UHJ would declare Karen Backet a CB? It
>>certainly seems like she is gunning for the job. Her material sounds
>>like it was written by the typical feminazi who can't stand having any
>>male in a position of authority over her, which seems to be 99 % of
>>the problem with most women dissenters from what I can see.
>
>
> So! In my brief absence TRB has been turned into
> talk.mysogynistic.masochism! Is nothing sacred?
And I've been such a good girl, too! I swear, Dermod, I never mentioned
ducks at all, or even ropes. :-)
My husband, Jim was rolling on the floor, laughing, when he heard this.
Yeah, all the "feminazis" I know take ten years off to be a
stay-at-home mom, and home school their children. Where my family life
is concerned, I'm as traditional as a turkey on Thanksgiving. This
idiot is clearly so afraid of a strong feminine voice that his only
response is defensive pigeonholing, and a lot of silly assumptions.
Pat Kohli
Karen Bacquet wrote:
He's made some mistakes. These recent ones about you are pronounced.
I doubt he is an idiot though; he is certainly not in the same league as
some other guys here. I think it is another stage he is going through, and
it may be a parry to educe a poor counter. Perhaps he is still trying to
cover his gnostic tracks.
Karen Bacquet
>>>So! In my brief absence TRB has been turned into
>>>talk.mysogynistic.masochism! Is nothing sacred?
>>
>>And I've been such a good girl, too! I swear, Dermod, I never mentioned
>>ducks at all, or even ropes. :-)
>>
>>My husband, Jim was rolling on the floor, laughing, when he heard this.
>> Yeah, all the "feminazis" I know take ten years off to be a
>>stay-at-home mom, and home school their children. Where my family life
>>is concerned, I'm as traditional as a turkey on Thanksgiving. This
>>idiot is clearly so afraid of a strong feminine voice that his only
>>response is defensive pigeonholing, and a lot of silly assumptions.
>
>
> He's made some mistakes. These recent ones about you are pronounced.
>
> I doubt he is an idiot though; he is certainly not in the same league as
> some other guys here. I think it is another stage he is going through, and
> it may be a parry to educe a poor counter. Perhaps he is still trying to
> cover his gnostic tracks.
Thanks, Pat, but you know, whatever -- he just decided to attack me out
of the clear blue sky; but whether it's for shit-stirring or other
purposes, I've already given him more than 30 seconds of my thought --
which is more than he's worth. So he's not an idiot; let him not talk
like one.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:3F288C45...@tco.net...
> And I've been such a good girl, too! I swear, Dermod, I never mentioned
> ducks at all, or even ropes. :-)
Well, that's strictly for you-know who!
> My husband, Jim was rolling on the floor, laughing, when he heard this.
Poor Jim just does not understand these things!
> Yeah, all the "feminazis" I know take ten years off to be a
> stay-at-home mom, and home school their children.
Indeed yes! You can spot a "feminazi" brat at 100 paces - no manners
whatsoever, cheeky opinionated little feckers who learn nothing and know
even less. Mom (and Pop) are so busy being true to themselves that their
brats suffer. I see no evidence of that in your little "tortures!"
> Where my family life
> is concerned, I'm as traditional as a turkey on Thanksgiving.
Oh I hope not! The Thanksgiving turkey is dead!
> This
> idiot is clearly so afraid of a strong feminine voice that his only
> response is defensive pigeonholing, and a lot of silly assumptions.
This plonker is afraid of any voice that disturbs his bigotry - male, female
or any other, for that matter. And does he love authority? Just like
Dominatrix Suzie Tortures!
>
> Karen
> http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> Thanks, Pat, but you know, whatever -- he just decided to attack me out
> of the clear blue sky; but whether it's for shit-stirring or other
> purposes, I've already given him more than 30 seconds of my thought --
> which is more than he's worth. So he's not an idiot; let him not talk
> like one.
It's shit-stirring for sure. Trust me on this - I'm an expert on the
subject; it is, after all, a national sport here.
Shit stirrers come in two categories - those who are good at it and ....
plonkers. QQ's a plonker. He's also a Fenian bigot. Being that is not a
prerequisite for being a plonker ... but it's certainly a good start.
Karen Bacquet
>
>
>>My husband, Jim was rolling on the floor, laughing, when he heard this.
>
>
> Poor Jim just does not understand these things!
Jim never calls them "feminazis" anyway; he calls them "the women of the
fevered brow". As you know, I just recently had to do some boning up on
feminist thought; Jim just rolled his eyes. He's a male chauvinist pig,
but he's *my* male chauvinist pig. :-)
Hey, you know, I used to Rush Limbaugh back in the days when he invented
the term "feminazis" -- that was when he broadcast out of Sacramento,
and the rest of the country had never heard of him. It was the only
radio station I could get, when we lived out in the country. Anyway,
I've had my consciousness raised since then. :-) I started moving away
from the hardline conservatism that I largely grew up in (except for
Grandma), and was, and still am, surrounded by, after my kids were born.
Somehow, the "Gimme mine, and screw you" philosophy seemed less adequate
after that. Nothing like having babies to make you aware of the
fragility of life; and one's own vulnerability. I'm more of a moderate,
really -- I'm only a radical in the Baha'i context, where it is
surprisingly easy to be one.
>
>
>> Yeah, all the "feminazis" I know take ten years off to be a
>>stay-at-home mom, and home school their children.
>
>
> Indeed yes! You can spot a "feminazi" brat at 100 paces - no manners
> whatsoever, cheeky opinionated little feckers who learn nothing and know
> even less. Mom (and Pop) are so busy being true to themselves that their
> brats suffer. I see no evidence of that in your little "tortures!"
"Tortures" is right. Like every other mom, I'm counting the days until
school starts again.
>
>
>>Where my family life
>>is concerned, I'm as traditional as a turkey on Thanksgiving.
>
>
> Oh I hope not! The Thanksgiving turkey is dead!
Well, then is the fact that I can make a really good turkey soup after
Thanksgiving proof of my domesticity?
>
>
>>This
>>idiot is clearly so afraid of a strong feminine voice that his only
>>response is defensive pigeonholing, and a lot of silly assumptions.
>
>
> This plonker is afraid of any voice that disturbs his bigotry - male, female
> or any other, for that matter. And does he love authority? Just like
> Dominatrix Suzie Tortures!
Yes -- I really hadn't been paying attention, but I took a quick look
through that thread, and it seems the Reaper is right once again.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
QisQos
Oh Dermod, you are such a sad case, it is just plain hard to take you
seriously or be mean to you. maybe Karen can make you some good ole'
American apple pie, that'll set you straight!
Adieu and fare thee well my favorite leprechaun..
QisQos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> "Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bgalme$lqr$2...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > "Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
> SNIP
>
> Oh Dermod, you are such a sad case, it is just plain hard to take you
> seriously or be mean to you. maybe Karen can make you some good ole'
> American apple pie, that'll set you straight!
Wait 'til he figures out whose shit you were really stirring. I have my guesses.
Freethought110
You're a typical hysterical fenian fucking idiot!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
news:<bgalme$lqr$2...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > "Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
> SNIP
>
> Oh Dermod, you are such a sad case, it is just plain hard to take you
> seriously or be mean to you.
I'm way over your capacity to respond?
> maybe Karen can make you some good ole'
> American apple pie, that'll set you straight!
I doubt that Karen's apple pie would be as good as mine.
> Adieu and fare thee well my favorite leprechaun..
Ah sure, I'm no leprechaun - 6' 4" and built like a brick shithouse, ugly
too - quite horrendous in fact. Me picture is used to scare little children
into submission and a warning to plastic surgeons to be careful!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> Jim never calls them "feminazis" anyway; he calls them "the women of the
> fevered brow". As you know, I just recently had to do some boning up on
> feminist thought; Jim just rolled his eyes. He's a male chauvinist pig,
> but he's *my* male chauvinist pig. :-)
He sounds like a perfectly acceptable male chauvinist pig to me - you're
exceptionally fortunate to have him! I think I could teach him a thing or
two on the subject.
> Hey, you know, I used to Rush Limbaugh back in the days when he invented
> the term "feminazis" -- that was when he broadcast out of Sacramento,
> and the rest of the country had never heard of him. It was the only
> radio station I could get, when we lived out in the country. Anyway,
> I've had my consciousness raised since then. :-) I started moving away
> from the hardline conservatism that I largely grew up in (except for
> Grandma), and was, and still am, surrounded by, after my kids were born.
> Somehow, the "Gimme mine, and screw you" philosophy seemed less adequate
> after that. Nothing like having babies to make you aware of the
> fragility of life; and one's own vulnerability. I'm more of a moderate,
> really -- I'm only a radical in the Baha'i context, where it is
> surprisingly easy to be one.
It's quite amazing really! I thought we were insular and parochial here
until I saw Michael Moore quizzing citizens of the US on their knowledge of
their Canadian neighbour. Sum total of that was zilch whereas the Canadians
knew a heap more. And of course, the views of people like Robert, who seems
to reflect quite a deal of grassroots America, makes even the most diehard
conservative here appear like a flaming socialist.
> > Indeed yes! You can spot a "feminazi" brat at 100 paces - no manners
> > whatsoever, cheeky opinionated little feckers who learn nothing and know
> > even less. Mom (and Pop) are so busy being true to themselves that their
> > brats suffer. I see no evidence of that in your little "tortures!"
>
> "Tortures" is right. Like every other mom, I'm counting the days until
> school starts again.
Ditto - though I'm not a "mom!"
> > Oh I hope not! The Thanksgiving turkey is dead!
>
> Well, then is the fact that I can make a really good turkey soup after
> Thanksgiving proof of my domesticity?
We've only your word for that! And I'll bet that it's not as good as the
soup that I make!
> > This plonker is afraid of any voice that disturbs his bigotry - male,
female
> > or any other, for that matter. And does he love authority? Just like
> > Dominatrix Suzie Tortures!
>
> Yes -- I really hadn't been paying attention, but I took a quick look
> through that thread, and it seems the Reaper is right once again.
Isn't he always? Though sadly the Lady Reaper hath not the wisdom to see
that!
Karen Bacquet
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
> news:3F292771...@tco.net...
>
>>Jim never calls them "feminazis" anyway; he calls them "the women of the
>>fevered brow". As you know, I just recently had to do some boning up on
>>feminist thought; Jim just rolled his eyes. He's a male chauvinist pig,
>>but he's *my* male chauvinist pig. :-)
>
>
> He sounds like a perfectly acceptable male chauvinist pig to me - you're
> exceptionally fortunate to have him! I think I could teach him a thing or
> two on the subject.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. :-)
>
>
> It's quite amazing really! I thought we were insular and parochial here
> until I saw Michael Moore quizzing citizens of the US on their knowledge of
> their Canadian neighbour. Sum total of that was zilch whereas the Canadians
> knew a heap more. And of course, the views of people like Robert, who seems
> to reflect quite a deal of grassroots America, makes even the most diehard
> conservative here appear like a flaming socialist.
Oh, yes, Robert is very typical, and I've heard that kind of stuff all
my life -- he could be my brother talking, and minus the religious
aspect, he could be my dad or grandad. Put a more intellectual spin on
him, and he could be my husband. I've known *far* more conservatives in
my life than liberals. The liberals lost the working class here, back
in the 70s -- you'll still find old ladies who think that Republicans
are "the party of the rich", and the Democrats, "the party of the
working man", but they're a dying breed. The Republicans now own
"American values", and the Democrats are the party of the feminists,
environmentalists, gays and other off the wall people. If you find a
blue-collar liberal under the age of 75, stuff him and preserve him,
because he's a rare specimen. Even among white-collar folks with
blue-collar backgrounds (like my Jim), conservatives outnumber the
liberals, by far.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Pat Kohli
Karen Bacquet wrote:
> (snip)
> Oh, yes, Robert is very typical, and I've heard that kind of stuff all
> my life -- he could be my brother talking, and minus the religious
> aspect, he could be my dad or grandad. Put a more intellectual spin on
> him, and he could be my husband. I've known *far* more conservatives in
> my life than liberals. The liberals lost the working class here, back
> in the 70s -- you'll still find old ladies who think that Republicans
> are "the party of the rich", and the Democrats, "the party of the
> working man", but they're a dying breed. The Republicans now own
> "American values", and the Democrats are the party of the feminists,
> environmentalists, gays and other off the wall people. If you find a
> blue-collar liberal under the age of 75, stuff him and preserve him,
> because he's a rare specimen. Even among white-collar folks with
> blue-collar backgrounds (like my Jim), conservatives outnumber the
> liberals, by far.
The blue collar democrats are alive and well, and they eat lunch with my Dad, at a
restaurant in East Troy WI. One of them looked at me funny, before offering his
political opinions, turned to my Dad, and said, "Joe, din't yer kid go to
college?", followed by, "but you're shour he's all right?". My Dad knew right
away, in which manner the man was asking if I was "all right". It is said,
though, that a man will bust his ass to put his kids to school, as this man likely
had, to see them come out with bone-headed ideas about how the richest 10% pay 90%
of the taxes, or other nonsenses.
When Bob Dole offered America a big tax cut, in 1996, it wasn't just the gays, the
environmentalists, and the feminists who voted against him. People remember.
Paul Hammond
Nah. If you read Robert's "justification" of the little
factlet, it turns out that it is true, if you consider
the "top 50%" to be "the rich".
To me, if you are going to include all those with 1c
over the national average wage as being "rich", you
surely ain't talking about the same rich people
I is thinkin of.
So, it turns out that Robert's little factlet
*really* proves that the bulk of taxes are paid
by the middle classes. No surprises there, then.
Stands to reason, really. The very poor don't
earn enough to pay massive amounts of income tax,
and the very rich employ well paid accountants
and lawyers to advise them on the best way
to avoid as much tax as possible (and, of course,
it helps if you've got George W in the white
house, too)
What I would *expect* is that the graph of
amount of taxes paid is something like a
bell shaped curve - with the very poor and
the very rich both paying very little, and
the vast majority of taxes coming from
those with decently paid, middle of the
road jobs. That is how it is over here,
anyway. Robert's evidence is consonant with
that view.
If you are going to focus on
50% of the population at one time, you
are being too coarse-grained to see any
interesting details.
Paul
QisQos
> Ah sure, I'm no leprechaun - 6' 4" and built like a brick shithouse, ugly
> too - quite horrendous in fact. Me picture is used to scare little children
> into submission and a warning to plastic surgeons to be careful!
To be sure, and so is everyone else in cyberspace too, I'll warrant.
No doubt your friend Nemo could arm wrestle ye for a pint and win,
they say he is pretty large-ish like you.
But stop scaring little children with your mug, I am sure Mrs. Bacquet
would not care much for that.
But Mr. Grim Rapper, time for me to go on holiday, be nice to children
like I said, and keep reading the Charles Atlas books, be seeing you
in September.
Qis Qos