Protest forming against ground zero mosque

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

Telling the truth about Islam is offensive to muslims.Its the new holocaust.

 

[CurveLight]

"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

I believe that Guardian link states the document has already been authenticated but no worries, here is the CBS link again:

Http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6349927&index=1

If the link doesn't work just google the article title:

Vatican Fights to Keep the Pope Out of Court.

The Vatican is trying to argue the document does not forbid clergy from going to the police but it's smoke and mirrors as it gives specific instructions on the secrecy. We even have current evidence this is exactly what happened as victims were forced to silence in an irish church. We also have another order of silence that was put out in 2001:

"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

So we have two different documents ordering secrecy and proof of Catholic clergy following those orders.

Who the hell can deny these facts with a straight face?

 

[Si modo]

"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

I believe that Guardian link states the document has already been authenticated but no worries, here is the CBS link again:

Http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6349927&index=1

If the link doesn't work just google the article title:

Vatican Fights to Keep the Pope Out of Court.

The Vatican is trying to argue the document does not forbid clergy from going to the police but it's smoke and mirrors as it gives specific instructions on the secrecy. We even have current evidence this is exactly what happened as victims were forced to silence in an irish church. We also have another order of silence that was put out in 2001:

"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

So we have two different documents ordering secrecy and proof of Catholic clergy following those orders.

Who the hell can deny these facts with a straight face?

Yet, it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11/2001, killing 3000 innocents and destroying the WTC. And, it is Muslims who want to build a mosque there. And, there is a protest about that on June 6, 2010 in NYC.

I feel the need to road trip. I can visit my NYFD pal and likely convince him to head into lower Manhattan with me that day.

 

[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

I believe that Guardian link states the document has already been authenticated but no worries, here is the CBS link again:

Http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6349927&index=1

If the link doesn't work just google the article title:

Vatican Fights to Keep the Pope Out of Court.

The Vatican is trying to argue the document does not forbid clergy from going to the police but it's smoke and mirrors as it gives specific instructions on the secrecy. We even have current evidence this is exactly what happened as victims were forced to silence in an irish church. We also have another order of silence that was put out in 2001:

"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

So we have two different documents ordering secrecy and proof of Catholic clergy following those orders.

Who the hell can deny these facts with a straight face?

I saw your other two links after I made my post. I did not comment on them because I had already made my comments and didn't feel that the other links shined any more light on the situation.

I still do not believe that the whole story is being told here. As they say, there are two sides to every story. That is not to say you are wrong on your side, but I have read a little of the Church's side of the story as well. I would have to know more about what the documents say as opposed to what we are being told they say before I trust the media. Since I don't read Latin, I would think a translation would suffice, don't you? Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Someone earlier posted that the 1962 letter was an obscure letter that most priests didn't even know about. Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that it says whatever it says. If it says what we are told (by the media) then, for lack of a better word, that sucks! But again, what did it really say?

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

"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

I believe that Guardian link states the document has already been authenticated but no worries, here is the CBS link again:

Http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6349927&index=1

If the link doesn't work just google the article title:

Vatican Fights to Keep the Pope Out of Court.

The Vatican is trying to argue the document does not forbid clergy from going to the police but it's smoke and mirrors as it gives specific instructions on the secrecy. We even have current evidence this is exactly what happened as victims were forced to silence in an irish church. We also have another order of silence that was put out in 2001:

"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

So we have two different documents ordering secrecy and proof of Catholic clergy following those orders.

Who the hell can deny these facts with a straight face?

The guardian alternative newspaper states.. yeah, that's all the proof needed lock the fucker up shut down the church

Notice also you leave off certain parts like But he didn't rebuke them for having failed to report cases of abuse to police, saying only that serious mistakes were made and that now they must prevent future abuse and "continue to cooperate with civil authorities."

And the 'conclusion' you point to has NOT be validated whatsoever... it is the allegation... and lord knows not everything alleged by someone bringing a lawsuit is found to be truthful....

You have validation of suits... you have validation that there have been vile priests committing heinous acts... you have no validation of some huge Vatican cover-up and keeping things from authorities... you have a conspiracy theory that is completely unproven, and most any credible source recognizes that... of course some whatjob 'source' like the Guardian or the Houston Press does not recognize that, it does better for them to draw far fetched conclusions to give their whackjob readers more to salivate over and to keep coming back


REGARDLESS... if proven that there is/was cover up... the Catholic Church, which I already don't like for many reasons, would and should be condemned for these heinous actions... those responsible punished by the law.... but, as stated, that is alleged and not proven whatsoever

 

[CurveLight]

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

You're a pure idiot. Do you truly believe all msm hops on what some of us would believe to be "big stories?" Are you that brainwashed? I've further proven the order on secrecy and don't give a fuck if you are honest about it or not. What I will point out is how the msm largely ignored the fact that Fox won a legal battle for the right to lie while claiming to report the "news." People like you accused me of all sorts of things because you couldn't find any coverage on the msm so based off those idiotic assumptions they accused me of lying until i tracked down the actual court dockets so they could see them.

Wake the fuck up. The msm is not your information friend.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

You're a pure idiot. Do you truly believe all msm hops on what some of us would believe to be "big stories?" Are you that brainwashed? I've further proven the order on secrecy and don't give a fuck if you are honest about it or not. What I will point out is how the msm largely ignored the fact that Fox won a legal battle for the right to lie while claiming to report the "news." People like you accused me of all sorts of things because you couldn't find any coverage on the msm so based off those idiotic assumptions they accused me of lying until i tracked down the actual court dockets so they could see them.

Wake the fuck up. The msm is not your information friend.

Wake the fuck up.. posting a link to a lawsuit and an unvalidated conclusion about documents and an alleged cover up is not proof...

You have proven there are lawsuits... you have not proven your cover-up claim... nor have the plaintiffs in the court cases

 

[momonkey]

Show us a false claim of bigotry.

You're the one making the accusation.

The burden of proof is on you Einstein.

I just quoted one of your posts that is nothing but dumbass hate filled bullshit designed to TRY and justify your bigotry. If muslims are as bad as you claim why do you have to lie to support your claim?

You call one poster a bigot without proof and now you call me a liar, again without proof.

 

[Dr Gregg]

what a bunch of anti american assholes. THis country is a melting pot with all cultures, its what makes america what it is. Idiots

 

[momonkey]

In response to the post above, I received this gem from JenyEliza:

Hi, you have received -14 reputation points from JenyEliza.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Hater....killer....terrorist lover.

Regards,
JenyEliza​

Clearly, citing an incident in which a crazed Jew gunned down scores of Muslim worshipers makes me a "killer."

Don't get your Huggies in a bunch when I point out atrocities committed by other religions, dumbshit.

You have correctly pointed out that wars are taking place around the world that involve religiously identifiable groups. Religious groups are even at war with other religious groups and atrocities take place on both sides, but that is not the same as targeting civilian groups because they refuse to convert to your religion. Islam is unique in its use of terrorism as a tool of evangelism.


Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"


Bukhari (2:24) - "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."



Ibn Ishaq 959 - Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited.


While Judaism and Christianity and practically every other religion tolerates religious diversity, Islam requires forced conversion.


Islam is incompatible with the First Amendment and American values. Since what is recorded in the Quaran cannot be changed, Islam is incapable of changing, and it has no place in the United States.

You're pure genius! Not a day goes by where we don't hear about American Muslims killing their neighbors for not converting to islam. Gosh. You're so awesome.

Who said you could change my argument?


Apostasy is a capital offense in Iran. In the last 16 years 3 Iranian church leaders have been charged was apostasy and found guilty. All three were sentenced to death. Pastor Hussein Soodman was hanged in 1989. Deacon Maher already had a noose around his neck when he signalled his willingness to recant and was released after signing a paper to that effect in 1992. Pastor Mehdi Dibaj was condemned to death in December 1993. He was released three weeks later after a strong international outcry; only to be found murdered 6 months later.

iran Iran, a Christian convert to face death penalty for apostasy - Asia News


A Christian school in Mosul, Iraq, has was the target of a bombing attempt and the children there have been threatened with death. Their crime? Simply being Christian.

Convert to Islam or Die!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oax6ye7Yi1c]YouTube - two Christian girls kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam in Pakistan[/ame]

 

[DiamondDave]

what a bunch of anti american assholes. THis country is a melting pot with all cultures, its what makes america what it is. Idiots

Would you say it were anti-american if people complained about an explosives plant being built next to the 16th Street Church in Birmingham? A porn shop next to a rape shelter?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

what a bunch of anti american assholes. THis country is a melting pot with all cultures, its what makes america what it is. Idiots

Not all ideologies are equal or compatible.
Throwing away the promise of America to indulge in tolerance of an ideology who Constitution calls for your death is idiocy.
I do not expect the west to be defended .

 

[Polaris]

This is like having the American Nazi party move their headquarters to the building directly across the street from the holocaust memorial... while anybody has the freedom to build/buy/purchase residence wherever they want.. some things just should not be done

I sure as hell am no fricking conservative, but this point is spot on. Who the hell sold that land to Mulims?!?

 

[CurveLight]

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

I believe that Guardian link states the document has already been authenticated but no worries, here is the CBS link again:

Http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6349927&index=1

If the link doesn't work just google the article title:

Vatican Fights to Keep the Pope Out of Court.

The Vatican is trying to argue the document does not forbid clergy from going to the police but it's smoke and mirrors as it gives specific instructions on the secrecy. We even have current evidence this is exactly what happened as victims were forced to silence in an irish church. We also have another order of silence that was put out in 2001:

"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

So we have two different documents ordering secrecy and proof of Catholic clergy following those orders.

Who the hell can deny these facts with a straight face?

I saw your other two links after I made my post. I did not comment on them because I had already made my comments and didn't feel that the other links shined any more light on the situation.

I still do not believe that the whole story is being told here. As they say, there are two sides to every story. That is not to say you are wrong on your side, but I have read a little of the Church's side of the story as well. I would have to know more about what the documents say as opposed to what we are being told they say before I trust the media. Since I don't read Latin, I would think a translation would suffice, don't you? Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Someone earlier posted that the 1962 letter was an obscure letter that most priests didn't even know about. Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that it says whatever it says. If it says what we are told (by the media) then, for lack of a better word, that sucks! But again, what did it really say?

Immie

That still isn't addressing the fact we have proven cases of sex abuse being kept secret and victims who were forced to sign a vow of silence.

Nor does it address the fact we already have Catholic Bishops saying they understood the order of silence was by threat of excommunication.

 

[CurveLight]

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

I believe that Guardian link states the document has already been authenticated but no worries, here is the CBS link again:

Http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6349927&index=1

If the link doesn't work just google the article title:

Vatican Fights to Keep the Pope Out of Court.

The Vatican is trying to argue the document does not forbid clergy from going to the police but it's smoke and mirrors as it gives specific instructions on the secrecy. We even have current evidence this is exactly what happened as victims were forced to silence in an irish church. We also have another order of silence that was put out in 2001:

"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

So we have two different documents ordering secrecy and proof of Catholic clergy following those orders.

Who the hell can deny these facts with a straight face?

The guardian alternative newspaper states.. yeah, that's all the proof needed lock the fucker up shut down the church

Notice also you leave off certain parts like But he didn't rebuke them for having failed to report cases of abuse to police, saying only that serious mistakes were made and that now they must prevent future abuse and "continue to cooperate with civil authorities."

And the 'conclusion' you point to has NOT be validated whatsoever... it is the allegation... and lord knows not everything alleged by someone bringing a lawsuit is found to be truthful....

You have validation of suits... you have validation that there have been vile priests committing heinous acts... you have no validation of some huge Vatican cover-up and keeping things from authorities... you have a conspiracy theory that is completely unproven, and most any credible source recognizes that... of course some whatjob 'source' like the Guardian or the Houston Press does not recognize that, it does better for them to draw far fetched conclusions to give their whackjob readers more to salivate over and to keep coming back


REGARDLESS... if proven that there is/was cover up... the Catholic Church, which I already don't like for many reasons, would and should be condemned for these heinous actions... those responsible punished by the law.... but, as stated, that is alleged and not proven whatsoever

You're a fucking joke.


"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

 

[momonkey]

In response to the post above, I received this gem from JenyEliza:

Hi, you have received -14 reputation points from JenyEliza.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Hater....killer....terrorist lover.

Regards,
JenyEliza​

Clearly, citing an incident in which a crazed Jew gunned down scores of Muslim worshipers makes me a "killer."

Don't get your Huggies in a bunch when I point out atrocities committed by other religions, dumbshit.

You have correctly pointed out that wars are taking place around the world that involve religiously identifiable groups. Religious groups are even at war with other religious groups and atrocities take place on both sides, but that is not the same as targeting civilian groups because they refuse to convert to your religion. Islam is unique in its use of terrorism as a tool of evangelism.


Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"


Bukhari (2:24) - "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."



Ibn Ishaq 959 - Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited.


While Judaism and Christianity and practically every other religion tolerates religious diversity, Islam requires forced conversion.


Islam is incompatible with the First Amendment and American values. Since what is recorded in the Quaran cannot be changed, Islam is incapable of changing, and it has no place in the United States.

OK, that being said....what do YOU recommend be done to Muslims in America?

If they are already citizens and enjoy all the rights and freedoms they would deny the rest of us, there is very little that can be done without trashing the Constitution (see Patriot Act I and II). I never said I had a solution, but I didn't cause the problem by letting them in in the first place either. Restricting immigration from nations that foster this sort of religious intolerance would help to keep the numbers from growing as fast as they are presently.

 

[CurveLight]

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

You're a pure idiot. Do you truly believe all msm hops on what some of us would believe to be "big stories?" Are you that brainwashed? I've further proven the order on secrecy and don't give a fuck if you are honest about it or not. What I will point out is how the msm largely ignored the fact that Fox won a legal battle for the right to lie while claiming to report the "news." People like you accused me of all sorts of things because you couldn't find any coverage on the msm so based off those idiotic assumptions they accused me of lying until i tracked down the actual court dockets so they could see them.

Wake the fuck up. The msm is not your information friend.

Wake the fuck up.. posting a link to a lawsuit and an unvalidated conclusion about documents and an alleged cover up is not proof...

You have proven there are lawsuits... you have not proven your cover-up claim... nor have the plaintiffs in the court cases

I've further proven the order on secrecy and don't give a fuck if you are honest about it or not

 

[JScott]

Jews:

Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre (Still celebrated by Jewish settlers)

• Settlers remember gunman Goldstein; Hebron riots continue - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
• Hundreds of Jews Gather To Honor Hebron Killer - NYTimes.com

In response to the post above, I received this gem from JenyEliza:

Hi, you have received -14 reputation points from JenyEliza.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Hater....killer....terrorist lover.

Regards,
JenyEliza​

Clearly, citing an incident in which a crazed Jew gunned down scores of Muslim worshipers makes me a "killer."

Don't get your Huggies in a bunch when I point out atrocities committed by other religions, dumbshit.

You have correctly pointed out that wars are taking place around the world that involve religiously identifiable groups. Religious groups are even at war with other religious groups and atrocities take place on both sides, but that is not the same as targeting civilian groups because they refuse to convert to your religion. Islam is unique in its use of terrorism as a tool of evangelism.


Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"


Bukhari (2:24) - "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."



Ibn Ishaq 959 - Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited.


While Judaism and Christianity and practically every other religion tolerates religious diversity, Islam requires forced conversion.


Islam is incompatible with the First Amendment and American values. Since what is recorded in the Quaran cannot be changed, Islam is incapable of changing, and it has no place in the United States.

This is an excuse to be a bigot.

 

[JScott]

Fuck off you Mohammad dick licker....

Are you serious Jeny?

She is. Quite.

Ive been around for a long time and have never seen racism/bigotry quite so out in the open.

Wow, just wow.

 

[CurveLight]

You're the one making the accusation.

The burden of proof is on you Einstein.

I just quoted one of your posts that is nothing but dumbass hate filled bullshit designed to TRY and justify your bigotry. If muslims are as bad as you claim why do you have to lie to support your claim?

You call one poster a bigot without proof and now you call me a liar, again without proof.

Fitnah is a bigot against islam and you're pure fucking fool to even contemplate claiming he is not.

You lied by claiming "islam requires forced conversion." what else ya got shitweed?