S
SamH
Guest
Except for the ones that are not there.
- Status
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Queen Elizabeth was a usurper who ordered the killing of many Catholics, never had true right to the throne (because of her illegitimacy), and killed the rightful heir to the throne of England (Mary Queen of Scots). Assassination is dirty business, but a woman like Elizabeth, with every action she continued to take, was justifying her death warrant. As long as Elizabeth was alive, Catholics could not be free. Doctrine of Tyrannicide
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
The only person who ever sold the Papacy was Benedict IX.
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
theocracy is a loaded term, just like anti-semetism, and homophobia.
Theocracy means rule by God, which is either something completely obvious (of course the world is ruled by its creator, God is supreme sovereign), or a belief that the ruler is a god, and you’d be hard pressed to find a Catholic who believes that the pope is a God.
Same with anti-semitism (hatred of the semetic people), when it is applied to Arabs who do not agree with Israel (basically suggesting that Arabs hate themselves because they are also semetic).
Or homophobia (which actually means fear of the same) when people that believe that homosexuality is a sin, or even hate homosexuals, are not actually afraid of them (we wouldn’t describe even the KKK as Negrophobic), nor do they fear the same.
These three terms are loaded terms, and when they are used in an argument, it should be like Godwin’s law, an automatic loss. They are basically ad hominems that don’t even make sense once one understands the term.
A
austenbosten
Guest
Eh antisemitism is in regards towards specifically the Jews and not people of Semitic origin. The term anti-Semitic arose to combat anti-Jewish eugenicist views that viewed all Semites as Jews and all Jews as Semites and all European whites as Ayran. So No, an Arab can be anti-Semite even though by definition he is a Semite, because the etymology of antisemitism does not mean the modern sense of the word, but the 19th century term.
As for Godwin’s law, I agree with that…but if someone comes on saying Black people are evil and are inferior…I’m sorry sometimes a spade has to be called a spade and the person saying those things has to be called a racist.
A
austenbosten
Guest
Ahh I love a case of dish-it-cant-take-it
S
sedonaman
Guest
Just exactly where does it say “Arab”? It doesn’t. It says to “defeat jihad”, and since “jihad” means holy war, it can’t refer to Islam because we all know Islam is a “religion of peace”. I think you are reading more into the ad than is there.
S
soylatte3
Guest
I understand justified anger and as Catholics we are walking targets of attack for our beliefs and anger is a natural response . I don’t support however, violence carried out to other on other human beings.
That film and its director and Islam are all but escape goats.They are mere excuses to “justify” the attack on the US Missions abroad and sadly a US Ambassador and his staff was killed in one of these attacks. Last time I checked - there are Muslim Americans too- their country, our country is under attack. The up side to this is , it brought the terrorist out of the wood work, who were just biding their time waiting for this excuse to carry out their violence - let’s snuff them out like their leader Bin Laden. Islam is indeed not the enemy but rather, terrorists and their anti-American supporters like these people.
The moment someone abuses their religion and does so by using it as a weapon of violence to inflict harm on others that person made the decision to opt out - they cease to be a Christian , Muslim, Hindu etc. They are simply terrible human beings and they are a threat. Governments has the duty to protect their citizens by eliminating the threat or rehabilitating them or dare I say, as world citizens - converting them.
This is not a holy war - no way. Those “protesters” has opted out when the carried out their violence.
S
sedonaman
Guest
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
As are you, yes, but I believe that following the way of Rand and Gellar is incompatible with the beliefs of Catholics. Their beliefs are venomous, those of Catholicism are not.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
George Bush was the one who called Islam a religion of peace. Catholicism is also called by some a religion of peace, but history has shown us that there are some Muslims and some Catholics who put a lie to the notion. One can find plenty of examples where both religions fail with regard to peace.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Since then, it has been repeated by many in the government, øbama included; and I’m sure he wouldn’t lie. So it must be true. Therefore, these ads couldn’t be talking about Islam.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I’m quite surprised that you take what politicians of any party say at face value.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I’m quite surprised that you take what politicians of any party say at face value.
C
Caldera
Guest
Not sure what you mean by ‘following the way of’ Rand and Geller. I personally don’t follow Ayn Rand. Pam Geller is a popular conservative blogger who I read daily along with numerous other blogs on the web. She is known for calling a spade a spade, (which is quite refreshing compared to Obama’s PC obsessed climate today) and is unafraid to expose the ongoing issues surrounding Islamism and its clash with Western civilization. I also find her particularly admirable for the way she stands up for American freedoms… (unlike some of the cowards/dhimmi’s working in the MSM, and our government today)As are you, yes, but I believe that following the way of Rand and Gellar is incompatible with the beliefs of Catholics. Their beliefs are venomous, those of Catholicism are not.
The most recent example:
Pamela Geller: President Obama Sanctions Blasphemy Laws
youtube.com/watch?v=lVC-cpoR4Mg
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” - George Washington
K
Kouyate42
Guest
Jihad in the strictest linguistic sense means ‘struggle’ or ‘striving’. Yes, this can refer to battles with physical enemies, but Muhammad (saw) himself placed less emphasis on this but rather the struggles of the believers to do the will of Allah (which the hadith quite clearly say is the GREATER jihad and the most important). It’s a plank and speck type situation- we must correct our own faith and sins before challenging those who do not follow faith or who are committing other sins. We cannot assume that our sins are less in the eyes of Allah than theirs.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I’m sorry you are sugarcoating her over-the-top unnuanced anti-Islam invective. Alas, you even use the same ad hominems she does (coward, dhimmi) and ascribe, without evidence, malevolence to our press and our government. I presume that you read World Net Daily.
S
sedonaman
Guest
This only re-enforces my point that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the sign can’t be referring to it, Muslims, or Arabs. Everyone is reading more into the sign than what it plainly says.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
If that is truly your belief, it seems you are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to what the sign refers to. You may so believe, but I say, and thousands would say, that you are wrong.
S
sedonaman
Guest
If you asked thousands what the sign refers to, you would get different answers. How would you know which ones were “correct”? When they agreed with your interpretation? Assuming I’m wrong and the “thousands” are right, would they think the sign refers to Islam and Muslims? If so, why, in view of the fact we’ve been assured many times that Islam is a “religion of peace”? If they believe that Islam is truly a “religion of peace”, why would they read something into the sign that is not there?If that is truly your belief, it seems you are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to what the sign refers to. You may so believe, but I say, and thousands would say, that you are wrong.
- Status