Protest forming against ground zero mosque

[Mr.Fitnah]

any have seen the same in judaism and christianity in the past

And in the PRESENT only Muslims are running around trying to kill innocent and unarmed civilians to make a point. Also, Jews and Christians don't kill Muslims because they are not Jews or Christians.

Incorrect. Not even al-Qa'idah is as bad as Christian militias in Africa. Here's some of that good ol' Biblical mass murder:

According to the allegations set out in the warrants of arrest, the LRA is an armed group which “has established a pattern of brutalization of civilians by acts including murder, abduction, sexual enslavement, mutilation, as well as mass burnings of houses and looting of camp settlements; that abducted civilians, including children, are said to have been forcibly recruited as fighters, porters and sex slaves and to take part in attacks against the Ugandan army (UPDF) and civilian communities”. - ICC - Warrant of Arrest unsealed against five LRA Commanders

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs place the number of abducted children still held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates vary substantially....The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They are notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda's Gulu and Kitgum districts have been displaced by the fighting and are living in temporary camps, protected by the army. - Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)​

washingtonpost.com
Sudan: LRA rebels attack several villages | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ip08pjKngI]YouTube - The Lord's Resistance Army Hunts Children in Sudan[/ame]

[/QUOTE]

The movement is run out of animism witchcraft and charisma not gospel.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

People did this terror act.

Not all Muslims liked what these people did.

You have no proof of this.

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

IslamiCity.com - Muslim Americans Condemn Attack

September 11 Terrorist Attack - Muslim Scholars Condemn September 11 Terrorist Attack

Scholars of Islam & the Tragedy of Sept. 11th

Islam Online- News Section

Cairo, EGYPT:
Egypt's great Imam Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque, Islam's oldest and most prominent religious institution, gestures in Cairo during Friday prayers on Sept.14, 2001. "He who kills a person without necessity ... will never go to heaven," Tantawi told worshippers as he denounced the terror attacks in the U.S. on Tuesday.
(AP Photo/Amr Nabil)- Sep 14 6:57 PM ET

Categorial Condemnation of Crimes Against Humanity

muslims condemn attack - Google Search

All the same equvocal BS.
"Islam forbids the killing of innocent people,"
Only problem only muslims are innocent .

 

[CurveLight]

And in the PRESENT only Muslims are running around trying to kill innocent and unarmed civilians to make a point. Also, Jews and Christians don't kill Muslims because they are not Jews or Christians.

Incorrect. Not even al-Qa'idah is as bad as Christian militias in Africa. Here's some of that good ol' Biblical mass murder:

According to the allegations set out in the warrants of arrest, the LRA is an armed group which “has established a pattern of brutalization of civilians by acts including murder, abduction, sexual enslavement, mutilation, as well as mass burnings of houses and looting of camp settlements; that abducted civilians, including children, are said to have been forcibly recruited as fighters, porters and sex slaves and to take part in attacks against the Ugandan army (UPDF) and civilian communities”. - ICC - Warrant of Arrest unsealed against five LRA Commanders

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs place the number of abducted children still held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates vary substantially....The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They are notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda's Gulu and Kitgum districts have been displaced by the fighting and are living in temporary camps, protected by the army. - Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)​

washingtonpost.com
Sudan: LRA rebels attack several villages | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ip08pjKngI]YouTube - The Lord's Resistance Army Hunts Children in Sudan[/ame]

The movement is run out of animism witchcraft and charisma not gospel.[/QUOTE]


What fuck do you know about Gospel gossip queen?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Incorrect. Not even al-Qa'idah is as bad as Christian militias in Africa. Here's some of that good ol' Biblical mass murder:

According to the allegations set out in the warrants of arrest, the LRA is an armed group which “has established a pattern of brutalization of civilians by acts including murder, abduction, sexual enslavement, mutilation, as well as mass burnings of houses and looting of camp settlements; that abducted civilians, including children, are said to have been forcibly recruited as fighters, porters and sex slaves and to take part in attacks against the Ugandan army (UPDF) and civilian communities”. - ICC - Warrant of Arrest unsealed against five LRA Commanders

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs place the number of abducted children still held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates vary substantially....The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They are notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda's Gulu and Kitgum districts have been displaced by the fighting and are living in temporary camps, protected by the army. - Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)​

washingtonpost.com
Sudan: LRA rebels attack several villages | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

YouTube - The Lord's Resistance Army Hunts Children in Sudan

The movement is run out of animism witchcraft and charisma not gospel.

What fuck do you know about Gospel gossip queen?

I know it doesn't call for what they are doing.

 

[DiamondDave]

How are these Americans putting up a mosque related to 9E? You say you're comparing the "action" so how is building the mosque an action comparable to a terrorist attack? You say you're comparing the "situation" so how does Americans building a mosque become comparable to the situation of a terrorist attack? You obviously don't know how to use analogies.

Jesus Christ you are dense

Just as the people in a PLO office that could be built in Lockerbie would not have anything inherently to do with the flight 103 bombing, those who want to build this mosque do not inherently have anything to do with the events of 9/11

The building of the mosque was not compared to the terrorist attack... but nice try

The action of placing a building that is representative of a group that could offend by association, next to a site where the bad event happened is what is being compared... Having something that is representative or offense or can be compared to a situation next to a specific site.... Just as noted when I also said placing a meat packing plant next to a PETA office, while legal, is not really a good or right thing to do... Just like purposely building a liquor store next to Alcoholics Anonymous official office would not be very good, even though that liquor store owner and the liquor within his store did not cause the actions of alcoholics in the past... an oven factory next to Auschwitz would be in bad taste..

You are a fucking buffoon

You just admitted your own analogy is not valid and you're too fuxxing stoopid to realize why.

No shithead.. that analogy and the other analogies worked fine.. you just want to be offended because of the choice of subject B...

"a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based"

Not a similarity of the things that have like features...

The feature that is the same is the building of the building itself, it's proximity to a site where something happened that reminds of something bad, and a connection of some sort to the ones building the building and what happened at the site (notice not that the ones doing the building specifically are the ones who did the bad event)... that is the action that is drawing controversy in this story....

Group A had a horrific event. Group B had a part of their group have something to do with the horrific event in the past. Group B is now wanting to build a visible presence next to Group A's location.

Using a hypothetical situation... Group Z had a horrific event. Group Y had a part of their group have something to do with the horrific event in the past. Group Y is now wanting to build a visible presence next to Group Z's location.

That comparison does not mean that Group Z did specifically what Group B did in the past. It does not mean that Groups B and Z are doing something horrific now nor that they will. It means that both Groups B and Z, though not inherently responsible for the actions of their respective counterparts in the past, are still linked t those respective counterparts through association and memory. The symbolism of that because of the building action is visible and not something that is particularly right and can be an indirect 'slap in the face'.

You can substitute many groups and situations, AS SHOWN TO YOU YOU IGNORANT FUCK... The use of the Nazi/Jew offensiveness in example is usually done because it is immediately known as offensive by pretty much anyone in the world. It is immediate and unquestioned. It is also known that the moden day shock value Nazis are not out exterminating Jews, even though the parts of the group in the past did (an no, not all in the German Nazi party exterminated Jews).....
It is also pretty much known that radical islamic extremists are held as offensive to victims of their terrorism. It is known that most in the muslim religion are not out condoning or committing acts of terrorism.
It is also pretty much known that slaughter houses are offensive to PETA. And the building of a slaughter house next to PETA would be seen as offensive.

All 3 of the groups being offended by the CONSTRUCTION have that in common. That does not mean that each of the ones offending a specific group are the same in action or approach or attitude or past events. The muslims in the mosque did not have anything to do with the terrorist attacks. The hypothetical modern nazis did not have anything to do with the holocaust. The hypothetical PLO party (an actual political party now) members did not commit the flight 103 attacks. And comparing that other groups are offended by the presence does not mean that each of the groups share the actions of what they individually did in the past.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

And here we go.. an almost 50 year old unsubstantiated document that no credible news organization or investigation has deemed as legitimate

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'

Hmmm... funny, even 'The guardian', known for it's extremist left-wing writings, knows there is no concrete proof of the allegation

In addition.. no other news or investigative organization has corroborated this story... the only other references to the 'document' are mirrors of the story on winger sites and blogs

What next, a link to a Weekly World News story? I know... some "Dan Brown" proof... LOL

Look.. I am no fan of the Catholic church and there have been many instances through the ages of wrongdoings and a lust for power.... but you have an unsubstantiated claim that you have bought.. hook, line, and sinker because you WANT it to be true

That is why I didn't rush to post the link because I knew you would try to find some way to ignore it because you are pure bitch.

Here is another news source.
Http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-04-22/news/the-man-who-sued-the-pope/

Here is another source:
Http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

Three valid sources but all it takes is one pathetic bitch like you to pretend they don't exist.

Also, on August 6, 2003 CBS did a segment on the discovery. But I guess since the world didn't halt to make sure you knew it must mean it didn't happen.

And looky look:

(title of article)

Vatican Fights to Keep Pope out of Court

"Also crucial to the Kentucky lawsuit is the 1962 document "Crimen Sollicitationis" - Latin for "crimes of solicitation." It describes how church authorities should deal procedurally with cases of abuse of children by priests, cases where sex is solicited in the confessional - a particularly heinous crime under canon law - and cases of homosexuality and bestiality."
wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&catId=TOP&storyId=6349927&viewFull=yes


What else ya got you whiny bitch?

Don't or cant read your links

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

Crimen Sollicitationis: 1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases

 

[Immanuel]

This is a HUGE "Fuck You" to the 9/11 victims, their families....and to ALL Americans in general.

This is EXACTLY what the Moslems intend it to be, radical or "moderate", their intents are quite clear to me.

They're saying "FUCK YOU AMERICA".

You're a fuxxing idiot. I already posted a link showing some first responders and 9E Families fully support the mosque being built.

You bigots are the ones saying fuck you america and you're so damn stoopid you don't realize why.

what the hell are you using for brains? That doesn't make any sense.

You're throwing a 24 carat tantrum because we think it's incredibly stupid to honor terrorists and evil shits by building a shrine to their religion on the very site where they incinerated over 2000 INNOCENT civilians?

Bigots? You have no idea what the term means, and make yourself look twice the ingrate. Are you even a citizen? Lemme guess, you were one of the many we saw on TV dancing in the street when the towers fell.

Jackhole.

Not quite true, Fitz, but the title of the article/thread is misleading and the article itself does not make the truth clear. The truth is they are not going to build on ground zero. They want to build two blocks away and quite frankly, I didn't see anything that said anything at all about this being a memorial in any way, shape or form to either terrorists or victims although I will admit I have not researched that part.

They simply want to build a community center in Manhattan and they actually own the land. The fact that the land is two blocks away from ground zero is not their fault.

As I stated when I got into the terribly long (and now nearly pointless) thread if they wanted to build on ground zero, I'd be having a shit fit. That would be a slap in the face to all Americans as far as I am concerned. But, this is not on ground zero. This is not even about 9/11. It is about the rights of Muslims to build a place of worship in Manhattan. How far do you think they should have to be from ground zero? One mile? ten? Twenty? One Hundred?

Do we tell them that because of what some terrorist bastards did nine years ago that their religious freedoms are now null and void? Believe me, I think there are some people who believe we should, but that too is a slap in the face to all Americans. It is similar, in my opinion, to the right of free speech. If I believe in the right of other Americans to say pretty much whatever they want, I have to be willing to hear things that I don't want to hear. I have to be willing to let racists speak their mind. I don't have to like what they are saying and I don't have to listen, but I have to let them say it. Same thing applies in the case of freedom of or from religion. If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

You're a fuxxing idiot. I already posted a link showing some first responders and 9E Families fully support the mosque being built.

You bigots are the ones saying fuck you america and you're so damn stoopid you don't realize why.

what the hell are you using for brains? That doesn't make any sense.

You're throwing a 24 carat tantrum because we think it's incredibly stupid to honor terrorists and evil shits by building a shrine to their religion on the very site where they incinerated over 2000 INNOCENT civilians?

Bigots? You have no idea what the term means, and make yourself look twice the ingrate. Are you even a citizen? Lemme guess, you were one of the many we saw on TV dancing in the street when the towers fell.

Jackhole.

Not quite true, Fitz, but the title of the article/thread is misleading and the article itself does not make the truth clear. The truth is they are not going to build on ground zero. They want to build two blocks away and quite frankly, I didn't see anything that said anything at all about this being a memorial in any way, shape or form to either terrorists or victims although I will admit I have not researched that part.

They simply want to build a community center in Manhattan and they actually own the land. The fact that the land is two blocks away from ground zero is not their fault.

As I stated when I got into the terribly long (and now nearly pointless) thread if they wanted to build on ground zero, I'd be having a shit fit. That would be a slap in the face to all Americans as far as I am concerned. But, this is not on ground zero. This is not even about 9/11. It is about the rights of Muslims to build a place of worship in Manhattan. How far do you think they should have to be from ground zero? One mile? ten? Twenty? One Hundred?

Do we tell them that because of what some terrorist bastards did nine years ago that their religious freedoms are now null and void? Believe me, I think there are some people who believe we should, but that too is a slap in the face to all Americans. It is similar, in my opinion, to the right of free speech. If I believe in the right of other Americans to say pretty much whatever they want, I have to be willing to hear things that I don't want to hear. I have to be willing to let racists speak their mind. I don't have to like what they are saying and I don't have to listen, but I have to let them say it. Same thing applies in the case of freedom of or from religion. If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

Let me start by saying this is one of the most well said and honest posts on this thread.

Let me finish by saying your logic will be punished.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

Islam is not a religion it is a crime syndicate it has it own laws rules and culture all of which are infringed on by the Constitution.
To fully accommodate Islam the constitution will have to be destroyed .

Dont worry it will be, but it will take a few generations to complete the job.

 

[bodecea]

If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

Islam is not a religion it is a crime syndicate it has it own laws rules and culture all of which are infringed on by the Constitution.
To fully accommodate Islam the constitution will have to be destroyed .

Dont worry it will be, but it will take a few generations to complete the job.

I'll ask again....what do you want our Country to do about this? Please be specific.

(if you have already answered, just tell me which post)

 

[DiamondDave]

And here we go.. an almost 50 year old unsubstantiated document that no credible news organization or investigation has deemed as legitimate

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'

Hmmm... funny, even 'The guardian', known for it's extremist left-wing writings, knows there is no concrete proof of the allegation

In addition.. no other news or investigative organization has corroborated this story... the only other references to the 'document' are mirrors of the story on winger sites and blogs

What next, a link to a Weekly World News story? I know... some "Dan Brown" proof... LOL

Look.. I am no fan of the Catholic church and there have been many instances through the ages of wrongdoings and a lust for power.... but you have an unsubstantiated claim that you have bought.. hook, line, and sinker because you WANT it to be true

That is why I didn't rush to post the link because I knew you would try to find some way to ignore it because you are pure bitch.

Here is another news source.
Http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-04-22/news/the-man-who-sued-the-pope/

Here is another source:
Http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

Three valid sources but all it takes is one pathetic bitch like you to pretend they don't exist.

Also, on August 6, 2003 CBS did a segment on the discovery. But I guess since the world didn't halt to make sure you knew it must mean it didn't happen.

And looky look:

(title of article)

Vatican Fights to Keep Pope out of Court

"Also crucial to the Kentucky lawsuit is the 1962 document "Crimen Sollicitationis" - Latin for "crimes of solicitation." It describes how church authorities should deal procedurally with cases of abuse of children by priests, cases where sex is solicited in the confessional - a particularly heinous crime under canon law - and cases of homosexuality and bestiality."
wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&catId=TOP&storyId=6349927&viewFull=yes


What else ya got you whiny bitch?

Don't or cant read your links

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

Crimen Sollicitationis: 1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases

Of course he won't.. because he has a preconceived judgment in his mind already

Not to mention that this is about a case being pursued by a rogue person...

Not to mention other news outlets have not jumped all over this... Why?? It would bring big ratings, why would this not be followed up on?? Because the information put forth is SKETCHY at best.... And not to mention that the 'Houston Press' is an 'alternative' newspaper...

Now look at more right from his links
Crimen did not mention anything about turning priests over to the law, nor did it mention any method of care for the victims of these cases.
"[Crimen] and its predecessor from 1922 are not proof of an explicit world-wide conspiracy to cover up clergy sex crimes," he wrote. "It seems more accurate to assess both statements as indications of an official policy of secrecy rather than a conspiracy of cover-up."
Ask Dan Shea to answer a simple direct question and prepare to end up getting a discourse on everything from, just for example, Pope Leo XIII, the French Revolution and the Council of Trent. (A gifted mimic, Shea delivers these screeds in accents ranging from Polish to French to Italian wiseguy to exaggerations of his own fading Family Guy-like Rhode Island bray.)

You have not given a single valid source... and you are riding the coat tails of the anti-religious version of an ambulance chaser combined with Dan Brown

 

[Immanuel]

"The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

I hate to say it, but I do not see any "proof" in this article. I see a lot of damning allegations that if proven true would be disgusting, but I don't see any proof.

A lawyer dug up some "damning evidence" against his opponent? Not exactly something I am going to trust at this point.

And another thing, context would be appropriate here. Husbands and wives are told all the time they do not have to testify against each other. What was the recourse (if any) the church stated for priests who get this information to take? Were they told to bring it to the attention of their superiors? Sweep it under the rug? or what?

I can certainly understand the church not wanting to air their dirty laundry in public. What exactly did the church do to the perpetrators, er alleged perpetrators, of these crimes. I doubt any of us know the answer to that although most of us simply assume they tried to sweep it under the rug.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Jesus Christ you are dense

Just as the people in a PLO office that could be built in Lockerbie would not have anything inherently to do with the flight 103 bombing, those who want to build this mosque do not inherently have anything to do with the events of 9/11

The building of the mosque was not compared to the terrorist attack... but nice try

The action of placing a building that is representative of a group that could offend by association, next to a site where the bad event happened is what is being compared... Having something that is representative or offense or can be compared to a situation next to a specific site.... Just as noted when I also said placing a meat packing plant next to a PETA office, while legal, is not really a good or right thing to do... Just like purposely building a liquor store next to Alcoholics Anonymous official office would not be very good, even though that liquor store owner and the liquor within his store did not cause the actions of alcoholics in the past... an oven factory next to Auschwitz would be in bad taste..

You are a fucking buffoon

You just admitted your own analogy is not valid and you're too fuxxing stoopid to realize why.

They work fine sorry.

Coming from someone who lauds anything that derides islam.

 

[Immanuel]

If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

Islam is not a religion it is a crime syndicate it has it own laws rules and culture all of which are infringed on by the Constitution.
To fully accommodate Islam the constitution will have to be destroyed .

Dont worry it will be, but it will take a few generations to complete the job.

Just curious, but do you think we Americans are going to wait a couple of generations before we rip the Constitution to shreds? I mean honestly both Bush and Obama did or are trying to rip it up. Do you think that the Constitution will survive until Islam figures out what we already know?

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

And here we go.. an almost 50 year old unsubstantiated document that no credible news organization or investigation has deemed as legitimate

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'

Hmmm... funny, even 'The guardian', known for it's extremist left-wing writings, knows there is no concrete proof of the allegation

In addition.. no other news or investigative organization has corroborated this story... the only other references to the 'document' are mirrors of the story on winger sites and blogs

What next, a link to a Weekly World News story? I know... some "Dan Brown" proof... LOL

Look.. I am no fan of the Catholic church and there have been many instances through the ages of wrongdoings and a lust for power.... but you have an unsubstantiated claim that you have bought.. hook, line, and sinker because you WANT it to be true

That is why I didn't rush to post the link because I knew you would try to find some way to ignore it because you are pure bitch.

Here is another news source.
Http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-04-22/news/the-man-who-sued-the-pope/

Here is another source:
Http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

Three valid sources but all it takes is one pathetic bitch like you to pretend they don't exist.

Also, on August 6, 2003 CBS did a segment on the discovery. But I guess since the world didn't halt to make sure you knew it must mean it didn't happen.

And looky look:

(title of article)

Vatican Fights to Keep Pope out of Court

"Also crucial to the Kentucky lawsuit is the 1962 document "Crimen Sollicitationis" - Latin for "crimes of solicitation." It describes how church authorities should deal procedurally with cases of abuse of children by priests, cases where sex is solicited in the confessional - a particularly heinous crime under canon law - and cases of homosexuality and bestiality."
wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&catId=TOP&storyId=6349927&viewFull=yes


What else ya got you whiny bitch?

Don't or cant read your links

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

Crimen Sollicitationis: 1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases

Rotfl! You cite the Vatican as proof the Vatican did not order secrecy on sex abuse........you're such a fucking parasite.

 

[CurveLight]

That is why I didn't rush to post the link because I knew you would try to find some way to ignore it because you are pure bitch.

Here is another news source.
Http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-04-22/news/the-man-who-sued-the-pope/

Here is another source:
Http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

Three valid sources but all it takes is one pathetic bitch like you to pretend they don't exist.

Also, on August 6, 2003 CBS did a segment on the discovery. But I guess since the world didn't halt to make sure you knew it must mean it didn't happen.

And looky look:

(title of article)

Vatican Fights to Keep Pope out of Court

"Also crucial to the Kentucky lawsuit is the 1962 document "Crimen Sollicitationis" - Latin for "crimes of solicitation." It describes how church authorities should deal procedurally with cases of abuse of children by priests, cases where sex is solicited in the confessional - a particularly heinous crime under canon law - and cases of homosexuality and bestiality."
http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid...detail&catId=TOP&storyId=6349927&viewFull=yes


What else ya got you whiny bitch?

Don't or cant read your links

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

Crimen Sollicitationis: 1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases

Of course he won't.. because he has a preconceived judgment in his mind already

Not to mention that this is about a case being pursued by a rogue person...

Not to mention other news outlets have not jumped all over this... Why?? It would bring big ratings, why would this not be followed up on?? Because the information put forth is SKETCHY at best.... And not to mention that the 'Houston Press' is an 'alternative' newspaper...

Now look at more right from his links
Crimen did not mention anything about turning priests over to the law, nor did it mention any method of care for the victims of these cases.
"[Crimen] and its predecessor from 1922 are not proof of an explicit world-wide conspiracy to cover up clergy sex crimes," he wrote. "It seems more accurate to assess both statements as indications of an official policy of secrecy rather than a conspiracy of cover-up."
Ask Dan Shea to answer a simple direct question and prepare to end up getting a discourse on everything from, just for example, Pope Leo XIII, the French Revolution and the Council of Trent. (A gifted mimic, Shea delivers these screeds in accents ranging from Polish to French to Italian wiseguy to exaggerations of his own fading Family Guy-like Rhode Island bray.)

You have not given a single valid source... and you are riding the coat tails of the anti-religious version of an ambulance chaser combined with Dan Brown

You're such an idiot sheep. CBS has and is still reporting on it. There is a current court case involving it in Kentucky you jackass. But keep claiming no valid sources have been provided......

 

[DiamondDave]

That is why I didn't rush to post the link because I knew you would try to find some way to ignore it because you are pure bitch.

Here is another news source.
Http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-04-22/news/the-man-who-sued-the-pope/

Here is another source:
Http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

Three valid sources but all it takes is one pathetic bitch like you to pretend they don't exist.

Also, on August 6, 2003 CBS did a segment on the discovery. But I guess since the world didn't halt to make sure you knew it must mean it didn't happen.

And looky look:

(title of article)

Vatican Fights to Keep Pope out of Court

"Also crucial to the Kentucky lawsuit is the 1962 document "Crimen Sollicitationis" - Latin for "crimes of solicitation." It describes how church authorities should deal procedurally with cases of abuse of children by priests, cases where sex is solicited in the confessional - a particularly heinous crime under canon law - and cases of homosexuality and bestiality."
wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&catId=TOP&storyId=6349927&viewFull=yes


What else ya got you whiny bitch?

Don't or cant read your links

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

Crimen Sollicitationis: 1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases

Rotfl! You cite the Vatican as proof the Vatican did not order secrecy on sex abuse........you're such a fucking parasite.

Yet no investigative agency has verified a damn thing... there have been many lawsuits brought up, and thrown out, when trying to implicate the pope for the cover up of some secrecy scandal around this. What it comes down to is unproven allegations and a bunch of huffing and puffing by a lawyer with a openly admitted agenda.

Now... at least 2 major news organizations reported about the lawsuit by Shea being filed in September of 2005. But nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, has been validated into Shea's claims... zero, zilch, nada... he is on a level of conspiracy theory that is purely laughable

What it comes down to.. is there is indeed a case (number of cases) with sexual abuse and the persons responsible should be tried.... but Shea is about as much of a conspiracy theorist as the truffers, grandstanding and barking in any direction to try and draw attention...

When some credible media does report on the validity of the 'letter' keeping information from legal authorities, and we have validation in court of such things... you may have something... right now you have something about as credible as those reporting about aliens in Area 51

 

[Si modo]

I can't help but think that the reaction to this incident would be different if members of some other religion were involved. ....

That's because you relish in being a victim. Most Muslims do.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

Islam is not a religion it is a crime syndicate it has it own laws rules and culture all of which are infringed on by the Constitution.
To fully accommodate Islam the constitution will have to be destroyed .

Dont worry it will be, but it will take a few generations to complete the job.

I'll ask again....what do you want our Country to do about this? Please be specific.

(if you have already answered, just tell me which post)

What is strange is what Im saying about Islam was common knowledge 100 years ago.
After the defeat of the ottoman empire we took our eye off the ball discovered oil and decided to let bygones be bygones ,


Well what was true about Islam 100 years ago is still true and now we are importing (immigrating) seeds of jihad generations to come.

Education is the answer, Can we in the west reach an informed concusses as to the hegemonic genocidal goal of Islam by studying Islamic scripture ,Yes we can

If the facts reveal Islam to be incompatible with the constitution declaration.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is

Islam Question and Answer - Judging by that which Allaah has revealed
Islam Question and Answer - Should he turn to the human rights organizations to get his rights?
Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed

Or should we stand idly by while a hateful political force grows in our presents that only promise our own destruction because the invasion waves are slow small and seemingly tolerant by duplicitous design?

Is their some reason worthy of consideration that should cause one to over look the inevitable genocide Islam promises to bring to westerners who choose to believe in Jesus or just reject the idea of a deity at all?

Though that second group would quickly see the wisdom of Islam when faced with the sword, they have no beliefs worth living or dying for and they know it.

Are meaningless apologetics that ignore 1400 years of History and what scripture says about invasion and destruction of “non Islamic lands” a good enough reason to throw away the promise of America?

So if we decide we are going to defend western culture , we must choose to discriminate .

Oh what a bad word.( I discriminate in what I eat too)
Secure the borders.
We must end anchor baby programs.
We must stop doing business in muslim countries.
We must end immigration of muslims.
End foreign aid and military exercises with “muslim” states
Find a replacement fuel for Saudi oil to cut off perto dollars that pay for jihad.

The front line in the war is in the minds of Americans to preserve free speech and liberty against a known documented threat .
Bush ,Clinton Regan all had the chance to make the argument they chose to play ball instead.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

Islam is not a religion it is a crime syndicate it has it own laws rules and culture all of which are infringed on by the Constitution.
To fully accommodate Islam the constitution will have to be destroyed .

Dont worry it will be, but it will take a few generations to complete the job.

Just curious, but do you think we Americans are going to wait a couple of generations before we rip the Constitution to shreds? I mean honestly both Bush and Obama did or are trying to rip it up. Do you think that the Constitution will survive until Islam figures out what we already know?

Immie

Yeah there is always that.

the way things are going most will be lining up for government cheese in a couple of years.
We wont recognize the USA in 2 years.