Is Failure To Act a Sin?

[apriori]

You did not see, for example, any Colonial revolutionary taking a pot shot at King George III. For the most part they were civilly disobedient and it turned into war only after they were attacked.! Some of the greatest persons who have changed the world or their country were non-violent. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Archbishop Tutu, etc.

Did you ever see Martin Luther King march by himself?

 

[rpp]

The end does not justify the means. No amount of evil committed against me justifies even the tiniest sin. NOTHING justifies sin - not even ‘historians’ calling you a hero.

Can you name three of these ‘folk heroes’ who have made the world a better place by committing a horrible act?

Any historian who says, ‘The world would be a worse place today if they had not done this horrible act’ is a bad historian. A historian only knows about the past; he cannot predict the future. And he certainly cannot say ‘what the world would have been like’ had this or that event not happened.

The only one who knows the entire history of humanity - down to every thought and every motive in every human heart - from the beginning through the present moment until the consummation of the universe, is GOD. ONLY GOD can possibly know ‘what would have happened if…’ some person had taken or not taken this or that action. Any human being who tries to say, ‘I’m making the world a better place’ or ‘the future will be better because of what I plan to do’ (whether he plans good or evil) risks playing God. No individual human is responsible for ‘the world’ or ‘the future’ or ‘future generations.’ God did not put that responsibility on man; it’s not a demand he makes of you.

We must inform our consciences very carefully and discern well whether what we propose to do is morally acceptable or not. We know that prayer and forgiveness are morally acceptable; we know that loving the sinner while hating the sin are morally acceptable; we know that agression or violence is morally unacceptable except in the case of a direct threat to life, when NO OTHER recourse is possible (for example, a police officer shooting a terrorist who is holding children hostage and strangling them one after another, and who cannot be stopped in any other way). Most of the time there are other ways to deal with evil than to meet evil with evil. That’s why we are taught not to return evil for evil.

Don’t forget that God can bring - and does bring - good out of evil. WE may not be able to see the good or make sense of it; the good may not appear in our lives (if an evil happened to us personally) for many years; it may not appear in human history for many centuries. But we can be SURE, that ‘after great sin comes great grace.’ When we are too zealous to nip OTHER PEOPLE’S sins in the bud (instead of concentrating on our own), we forget that GOD is in charge, and He stands ready and WILL bring grace to every situation that is truly evil.

Each individual has enough to do just trying to be good, to avoid sin today, this hour, this minute, with these people who are around me right now, without imagining that we have responsibility for making some pie-in-the-sky utopia for future generations.

To go back to my original question: name a few of those people who are heroes today, who committed horrible acts - I mean morally indefensible acts. And when you’ve done that, look around at today’s world and tell me precisely how today’s world is ‘a better place’ than it was before they committed those ‘horrible’ acts.

This post does not seem to be consistent with Holy Scripture or the constant teachings of the Catholic Church.

17 4 Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me.

18 If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death.

19 If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life.

20 If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him.

21 When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life.

Ezekiel 3:17-21 NAB

We do have an obligation to our neighbor, be them known or unknown to us personally. And we have an obligation to those generations after us. This idea that we and our actions, are somehow isolated is not an authentically Christian idea. Much else that you posted is quite questionable, but it would take this thread off-topic to address the many problems, unfounded assertions and general illogic of your positions Suffice it to say that most what you have posted, including your central theme, is not consistent with Catholic moral teachings.

 

[Pioro]

This post does not seem to be consistent with Holy Scripture or the constant teachings of the Catholic Church.

We do have an obligation to our neighbor, be them known or unknown to us personally. And we have an obligation to those generations after us. This idea that we and our actions, are somehow isolated is not an authentically Christian idea. Much else that you posted is quite questionable, but it would take this thread off-topic to address the many problems, unfounded assertions and general illogic of your positions Suffice it to say that most what you have posted, including your central theme, is not consistent with Catholic moral teachings.

We are not talking about the issue of charity to one’s neighbor - at least you are not. You are talking about doing a ‘horrible’ act for some imagined - purely imaginary - future good that you think might come of it. You are off-topic by introducing taking care of one’s neighbor. In fact, another poster gave you a list of precisely what you CAN do for your neighbor, and you flippantly replied that it would ‘take all day.’

As for your long Bible quote, that too, has nothing to do with the issue you raised - nothing at all.

You asked if we are supposed to be willing to do an objectively evil act (something horrible) if later, history would show that it somehow turned out good. Now you are going off-topic.

I was responding to the implicit question that you brought up - how far can we go (can we do something wrong, like kill slave-owners, if we are slaves) if we see some moral good coming from it.

Your argument about the Civil War is well, wrong. The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but secession. Lincoln didn’t care much about freeing the slaves; his aim was preserving the Union. The South had economic reasons CONNECTED WITH slavery for wanting to secede, but they didn’t fight the Civil War out of fear that their slaves would revolt. (Why leave your homes and families and go to fight other white men, when all the men left with your wives and children were slaves, if you were so afraid they’d rise up and kill the whites?).

I have no idea what Martin Luther King has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that his murderer did a ‘horrible act’ that somehow turned out good? What him not marching alone has to do with the question of the willingness to do something horrible to achieve an imagined future good escapes me.

Your original post talked about ‘how far we are willing to go’ to stop current evils. It wasn’t about how charitably we should act toward our neighbor, so your accusation that I’m not consistent with Church teaching because I talked only about sin is irrelevant, trying to change the subject instead of defend your original post (as you seem to have done in other places here). You might as well accuse me of not believing in the Real Presence or something - it would be just as irrelevant to the topic that YOU started.

I’m afraid I simply can’t take you seriously. Your ‘arguments’ are scatter-shot, not relevant, flippant or just incomprehensible. I’m resigning from this thread. Perhaps others will have more patience. I’ve got a life to lead.

I should have been as wise as the reader who hinted that s/he ‘knew where this thread was meant to lead.’ I understand now, and I don’t think it’s worth my time to go there.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I have a feeling I know where this thread is intended to go…

Yeah, so do I. At least there is some sense of civility now. He’s learned. That’s a positive I suppose.

MW

 

[apriori]

We are not talking about the issue of charity to one’s neighbor - at least you are not. You are talking about doing a ‘horrible’ act for some imagined - purely imaginary - future good that you think might come of it. You are off-topic by introducing taking care of one’s neighbor. In fact, another poster gave you a list of precisely what you CAN do for your neighbor, and you flippantly replied that it would ‘take all day.’

As for your long Bible quote, that too, has nothing to do with the issue you raised - nothing at all.

You asked if we are supposed to be willing to do an objectively evil act (something horrible) if later, history would show that it somehow turned out good. Now you are going off-topic.

I was responding to the implicit question that you brought up - how far can we go (can we do something wrong, like kill slave-owners, if we are slaves) if we see some moral good coming from it.

Your argument about the Civil War is well, wrong. The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but secession. Lincoln didn’t care much about freeing the slaves; his aim was preserving the Union. The South had economic reasons CONNECTED WITH slavery for wanting to secede, but they didn’t fight the Civil War out of fear that their slaves would revolt. (Why leave your homes and families and go to fight other white men, when all the men left with your wives and children were slaves, if you were so afraid they’d rise up and kill the whites?).

I have no idea what Martin Luther King has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that his murderer did a ‘horrible act’ that somehow turned out good? What him not marching alone has to do with the question of the willingness to do something horrible to achieve an imagined future good escapes me.

Your original post talked about ‘how far we are willing to go’ to stop current evils. It wasn’t about how charitably we should act toward our neighbor, so your accusation that I’m not consistent with Church teaching because I talked only about sin is irrelevant, trying to change the subject instead of defend your original post (as you seem to have done in other places here). You might as well accuse me of not believing in the Real Presence or something - it would be just as irrelevant to the topic that YOU started.

I’m afraid I simply can’t take you seriously. Your ‘arguments’ are scatter-shot, not relevant, flippant or just incomprehensible. I’m resigning from this thread. Perhaps others will have more patience. I’ve got a life to lead.

I should have been as wise as the reader who hinted that s/he ‘knew where this thread was meant to lead.’ I understand now, and I don’t think it’s worth my time to go there.

You sure took a long winded way of saying that you don’t have the answers.

 

[rpp]

We are not talking about the issue of charity to one’s neighbor - at least you are not. You are talking about doing a ‘horrible’ act for some imagined - purely imaginary - future good that you think might come of it. You are off-topic by introducing taking care of one’s neighbor. In fact, another poster gave you a list of precisely what you CAN do for your neighbor, and you flippantly replied that it would ‘take all day.’

As for your long Bible quote, that too, has nothing to do with the issue you raised - nothing at all.

You asked if we are supposed to be willing to do an objectively evil act (something horrible) if later, history would show that it somehow turned out good. Now you are going off-topic.

I was responding to the implicit question that you brought up - how far can we go (can we do something wrong, like kill slave-owners, if we are slaves) if we see some moral good coming from it.

Your argument about the Civil War is well, wrong. The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but secession. Lincoln didn’t care much about freeing the slaves; his aim was preserving the Union. The South had economic reasons CONNECTED WITH slavery for wanting to secede, but they didn’t fight the Civil War out of fear that their slaves would revolt. (Why leave your homes and families and go to fight other white men, when all the men left with your wives and children were slaves, if you were so afraid they’d rise up and kill the whites?).

I have no idea what Martin Luther King has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that his murderer did a ‘horrible act’ that somehow turned out good? What him not marching alone has to do with the question of the willingness to do something horrible to achieve an imagined future good escapes me.

Your original post talked about ‘how far we are willing to go’ to stop current evils. It wasn’t about how charitably we should act toward our neighbor, so your accusation that I’m not consistent with Church teaching because I talked only about sin is irrelevant, trying to change the subject instead of defend your original post (as you seem to have done in other places here). You might as well accuse me of not believing in the Real Presence or something - it would be just as irrelevant to the topic that YOU started.

I’m afraid I simply can’t take you seriously. Your ‘arguments’ are scatter-shot, not relevant, flippant or just incomprehensible. I’m resigning from this thread. Perhaps others will have more patience. I’ve got a life to lead.

I should have been as wise as the reader who hinted that s/he ‘knew where this thread was meant to lead.’ I understand now, and I don’t think it’s worth my time to go there.

Dude, who are you responding to? I never said a word about the Civil War. Next I was never asked the questions you claim I was. Get a grip.

By the way, the Civil War was indeed a just war.

As for my posts, they certainly were on topic. And, unlike yours, consistent with the teachings of th Catholic Church.

Please remain charitable. And finally, I would add that if you actually want people to read your posts, do three things. Stop yelling at people, back up your assertions with citations and/or links and, most importantly, shorten your posts.

 

[Pioro]

Rpp, your long quote from Ezekiel is about fraternal correction, not what the original post was about. S/he gave the example of an ‘abolutionist’ {sic} who murdered white people in the name of abolishing slavery. In short, committing an objectively evil act for the sake of a clear and present assumed ‘good’ (such as scaring white people into freeing the slaves, I guess). The original poster was speaking of doing an objectively evil act (at least that’s the best I can come up with to understand ‘something horrible’) to achieve a presumed ‘good’ for future generations - which good is not specified and cannot, of course, be known by any man. It had nothing to do with fraternal correction; the topic is not about charity to one’s neighbor.

I have lived a long (Catholic) life, and I know from personal experience with God, that he DOES bring good out of evil. I also know it from Scripture: All things work to good for those who TRUST IN GOD (not for those who trust in themselves, as the original poster seems to think we should do, taking matters into our own hands).I was quoting or paraphrasing the New Testament in much of what I said - such as ‘after great sin comes great grace.’ What you find inconsistent with Catholic teaching in that is beyond me.

I am responsible for the good or the sin that I commit - I will be judged on that. The good I do might be fraternal correction, but don’t forget that Jesus taught us not to take the speck out of someone else’s eye while missing the plank in our own. This is what I mean about not assuming that one has a responsibility to punish or seek vengeance on some evil-doer. We are warned in the New Testament to warn our brother privately if we find him in sin; then to take along a witness and to refer him to the Church, and then - if he won’t listen to the Church - to treat him like an unbeliever. It’s impossible to know who the original poster had in mind when he spoke of where ‘we’ are heading, but it’s quite possible that the people he means to ‘correct’ with some ‘horrible’ act are beyond the reach of the Church already, and fraternal correction would be lost on them. The original poster seemed to ask how far we would go - and seemed to be implying we should be willing to go as far as taking up arms and killing people, which is not fraternal correction.

I can avoid some evil now, and it may have a good result later on - one hopes it will. But that doesn’t mean that I am therefore *responsible for * the future. I have impacted it. We all impact the future for good or evil without knowing it all the time. How do I do that? By individual sins or good acts. My motive for doing a good act is because God requires it of me. My left hand should not know what my right hand is doing - and if I imagine that I am an avenger who is making the world safe for the future, my left hand knows precisely what my right hand is about. It’s more humble to do the good to please God, and leave the results to God.

My point was that I alone am responsible for my actions. I am not responsible for someone else’s sins if I do not encourage, support or give a person the means to sin and I certainly do not have any right to go so far as to commit a ‘horrible’ act to prevent some sinner from sinning. I don’t think it’s so hard to grasp.

People often get so wrapped up in what they read in the papers that they become anxious about this life and this world and how terrible it is, and they feel a desperation or frustration with the world being a vale of tears, a place where there is much evil. And they start talking about ‘saving the world’ and taking desperate measures out of fear and anxiety. Yet Christ told us not to have any fear or anxiety, not to worry about what can harm our bodies - only what can harm our souls. What can harm our souls? Nothing but our own sin. This doesn’t mean I’m not concerned with my fellowman’s good. It means I need to stop the evil in my own heart, because that sin cuts me off from grace and makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to do good to my fellowman. We need to take the speck out of OUR OWN eyes, before we dare to correct another person.

I specifically noted that there are cases when it is necessary for someone to protect the life of another. My example of a police officer shooting a terrorist is exactly in conformity with Church teaching - read the Catechism on capital punishment and a just war. The just defence of another life with force is possible to Christians and completely in line with Church teaching but it is scarcely ever necessary. It was NOT in conformity with Church teaching for a slave to take up arms against his owner (St. Paul said that a slave should accept his state and serve his master well).

Fraternal correction is something entirely different - and nothing to do with the original thread. I never meant to imply that we have no obligation to our brothers, but since neither fraternal correction nor charity were the original issue, your remarks that I don’t make sense are somewhat baffling.

But as I posted before (mistakenly hitting your post instead of the original poster’s post), someone else noted ‘where this thread was going,’ and if I had known it was only started to cause arguments, and not as a genuine question seeking a real response, I would not have wasted time on it.

 

[rpp]

Rpp, your long quote from Ezekiel is about fraternal correction, not what the original post was about. S/he gave the example of an ‘abolutionist’ {sic} who murdered white people in the name of abolishing slavery. In short, committing an objectively evil act for the sake of a clear and present assumed ‘good’ (such as scaring white people into freeing the slaves, I guess). The original poster was speaking of doing an objectively evil act (at least that’s the best I can come up with to understand ‘something horrible’) to achieve a presumed ‘good’ for future generations - which good is not specified and cannot, of course, be known by any man. It had nothing to do with fraternal correction; the topic is not about charity to one’s neighbor.

I have lived a long (Catholic) life, and I know from personal experience with God, that he DOES bring good out of evil. I also know it from Scripture: All things work to good for those who TRUST IN GOD (not for those who trust in themselves, as the original poster seems to think we should do, taking matters into our own hands).I was quoting or paraphrasing the New Testament in much of what I said - such as ‘after great sin comes great grace.’ What you find inconsistent with Catholic teaching in that is beyond me.

I am responsible for the good or the sin that I commit - I will be judged on that. The good I do might be fraternal correction, but don’t forget that Jesus taught us not to take the speck out of someone else’s eye while missing the plank in our own. This is what I mean about not assuming that one has a responsibility to punish or seek vengeance on some evil-doer. We are warned in the New Testament to warn our brother privately if we find him in sin; then to take along a witness and to refer him to the Church, and then - if he won’t listen to the Church - to treat him like an unbeliever. It’s impossible to know who the original poster had in mind when he spoke of where ‘we’ are heading, but it’s quite possible that the people he means to ‘correct’ with some ‘horrible’ act are beyond the reach of the Church already, and fraternal correction would be lost on them. The original poster seemed to ask how far we would go - and seemed to be implying we should be willing to go as far as taking up arms and killing people, which is not fraternal correction.

I can avoid some evil now, and it may have a good result later on - one hopes it will. But that doesn’t mean that I am therefore *responsible for * the future. I have impacted it. We all impact the future for good or evil without knowing it all the time. How do I do that? By individual sins or good acts. My motive for doing a good act is because God requires it of me. My left hand should not know what my right hand is doing - and if I imagine that I am an avenger who is making the world safe for the future, my left hand knows precisely what my right hand is about. It’s more humble to do the good to please God, and leave the results to God.

My point was that I alone am responsible for my actions. I am not responsible for someone else’s sins if I do not encourage, support or give a person the means to sin and I certainly do not have any right to go so far as to commit a ‘horrible’ act to prevent some sinner from sinning. I don’t think it’s so hard to grasp.

People often get so wrapped up in what they read in the papers that they become anxious about this life and this world and how terrible it is, and they feel a desperation or frustration with the world being a vale of tears, a place where there is much evil. And they start talking about ‘saving the world’ and taking desperate measures out of fear and anxiety. Yet Christ told us not to have any fear or anxiety, not to worry about what can harm our bodies - only what can harm our souls. What can harm our souls? Nothing but our own sin. This doesn’t mean I’m not concerned with my fellowman’s good. It means I need to stop the evil in my own heart, because that sin cuts me off from grace and makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to do good to my fellowman. We need to take the speck out of OUR OWN eyes, before we dare to correct another person.

I specifically noted that there are cases when it is necessary for someone to protect the life of another. My example of a police officer shooting a terrorist is exactly in conformity with Church teaching - read the Catechism on capital punishment and a just war. The just defence of another life with force is possible to Christians and completely in line with Church teaching but it is scarcely ever necessary. It was NOT in conformity with Church teaching for a slave to take up arms against his owner (St. Paul said that a slave should accept his state and serve his master well).

Fraternal correction is something entirely different - and nothing to do with the original thread. I never meant to imply that we have no obligation to our brothers, but since neither fraternal correction nor charity were the original issue, your remarks that I don’t make sense are somewhat baffling.

But as I posted before (mistakenly hitting your post instead of the original poster’s post), someone else noted ‘where this thread was going,’ and if I had known it was only started to cause arguments, and not as a genuine question seeking a real response, I would not have wasted time on it.

Well, he does not even take his own good advice…

{snip}

I’m resigning from this thread. Perhaps others will have more patience. I’ve got a life to lead.

{snip}

… I suppose it is too much to expect that he would take other well meaning advice.

… finally, I would add that if you actually want people to read your posts, do three things. Stop yelling at people, back up your assertions with citations and/or links and, most importantly, shorten your posts.

No, I did not read your rambling post.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It is not morally licit to make an evil act even if the intent is a get a good outcome. For example, one is not morally justified to bomb an abortion clinic.

True. But it’s perfectly moral, and maybe even necessary, to plant green scapulars, miraculous medals, and maybe even build chapels of Perpetual Adoration nearby.

 

[apriori]

In Defense of One’s Country

Is failure to defend one’s country against a perceived evil a sin?

Is ignoring the damage being done by the perceived evil a sin in itself?

Can a person take it upon himself to defend his country by violent act in order to restore the status quo which history has shown would make a better and safer world?

How much authority does God give each of us to rebel or defend in order to make a better world?

Does leaving every decision to higher authorities actually excuse the individual from responsibility of action?

It takes far more courage to act when the choices for action are repugnant, than to take no action and deny all responsibility for what happens. To make no decision at all is not to avoid responsibility; it is to endorse whatever decision is reached by others. It is meaningless to oppose a plan, however onerous the plan may be, if you offer no substitute course of action. Sticking your head in the sand does not absolve you from responsibility for what happens around you. Doing nothing is no solution to a moral dilemma but merely avoidance of a solution.

Christians are, therefore, faced with a dilemma: when assaulted by evil, they must oppose it through direct action. They have no other option. Any failure to act is simply to condone evil.

• *Ethics... Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

[Agabriel]

‘We’ don’t have a ‘duty to the world in general.’ **I ** have a duty to be Christ to each person I meet; I don’t meet ‘the world in general.’ Vengeance belongs to God, not to me.

Whose course is ‘our present course’? Who is this ‘we’ implied by ‘our’? You are not a corporate being. You seem to be muddled, to think that ‘we’ are supposed to do something for some corporate being not yet in existence - ‘future generations.’ That sounds a lot like what the communists believe, that ‘the people’ should be willing to sacrifice themselves now for some workers’ utopia that will appear for future generations. It’s a misguided view of reality; it denies the absolute and infinite value of each human person and places some dubious corporate identity - ‘we,’ ‘our’ course - in the place of the individual soul. It denies the infinite value in the eyes of God of even the worst sinner, on the grounds that some future generation (which might be even more sinful than our own) has more right to… well, you don’t say a right to what - than the individual sinner now has. But every individual sinner - no matter how great the sin - has the right to life, the right to as many years as God gives him to experience grace and convert his life.

God is personal. He deals with each person on a one-to-one basis; he does not deal with ‘the world in general.’ Jesus taught us to pray, ‘Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.’ Those ‘trespassers’ may be the neighbor who backs into our garbage cans or the ‘doctor’ who kills many in a local abortion clinic, or the dictator who is bringing misery on millions. That ‘trespasser’ could have been St. Augustine stealing the pears from his neighbor’s tree. Had his neighbor decided that ‘future generations’ would be better off without delinquents like Augustine, we would be lacking one of our greatest converts and most illustrious saints.

We are only responsible for our own souls and our own sins. It is not our responsibility to exact what we imagine God’s vengeance should be on someone else; it is for us to avoid all sin ourselves, to pray for those who persecute us, to be merciful exactly to the degree that we hope God will be merciful to us.

Jesus told his Apostles to go and preach the Good News to the whole world - not to go and straighten out the whole world by the power of the sword.

Perhaps you need to re-read the Gospels.

I work for others, I work for the future generations along with our current generation. I work to make sure that Islam is not spread. And it is hard to do when facing not only that, but also the left in our society helping it along!

Anyway, there are ways to do things before the ‘sword’ ever has to be taken up - even though they have declared war on us. We can do it through our own laws and make sure they are not given any consideration to instill sharia laws onto us. And to ensure that they obey the laws just like everyone else. We are not listening to what they say and therefore are chosing to be ignorant of not only what their Quran says, but also what their history is.

To sit by either out of fear, or just because someone has said that ‘it is a sin’, or ‘I am not Catholic/Christian because I let others know what Islam is and what its intent upon us is’, is just not an option. Doing nothing is what has caused many nations to condemn their future generations to Islam (many nations in Southeast Asia, India/Pakistan/Kashmir, Bosnia, and it seems Europe and the UK too, etc).

No, it is not a sin to do something. And since we are in a unique time with the internet to be able to get this news out without having our heads rolling, we should be using this time constructively. (In the past, if anyone spoke against Islam or any aspect of it, they would be condemned to death. Now they try to censor people via lawsuits, threats, the UN, and even money payoffs to shut people up.) That is how they are getting our Universities, government leaders, media, etc.

 

[Agabriel]

I need to add that too many people did nothing when the Marxists/communists obviously was taking over our schools. (Both know that getting to the children is the way to start the brainwashing) And look at what we got now - way too many who think that abortion is ok. And other things that were just unheard of 4-5 decades ago. The sex on TV - even commercials are not afraid of almost having sex acts in them. and there are more disgusting things.

If we let the Muslims keep changing our history books, allow segregation (elevating one group over another under the excuse of modesty just because we don’t know what their Quran says - they think non-muslims are lower than dirt and their own women not too much higher than that), or allow the praying like a muslim stuff, or other things - we will be facing worse than just our current Congress and President allowing embroyonic stem cell research and other disgusting things - we will be a subjugated people and facing a life of hell. We see that in the Middle East - Christians being persecuted, many convert out of desperation, etc. That has been happening to some degree for 1400 years.

Doing nothing is never an option if there is evil in the world. I give this fight that I do as an example, but we have faced communism/Marxism and we failed as a group. And sorry if someone doesn’t like that, but they have the power in the media, our schools, and in one of our political parties - the Democrats. You can disagree with me, and I won’t write anymore on the subject - this is the way that I see it and if anyone wants to counter this - fine. I am not changing my mind on this subject.

 

[Lujack]

I need to add that too many people did nothing when the Marxists/communists obviously was taking over our schools. (Both know that getting to the children is the way to start the brainwashing) And look at what we got now - way too many who think that abortion is ok. And other things that were just unheard of 4-5 decades ago. The sex on TV - even commercials are not afraid of almost having sex acts in them. and there are more disgusting things.

Please show evidence that Communists took over the schools.

If we let the Muslims keep changing our history books, allow segregation (elevating one group over another under the excuse of modesty just because we don’t know what their Quran says - they think non-muslims are lower than dirt and their own women not too much higher than that), or allow the praying like a muslim stuff, or other things - we will be facing worse than just our current Congress and President allowing embroyonic stem cell research and other disgusting things - we will be a subjugated people and facing a life of hell. We see that in the Middle East - Christians being persecuted, many convert out of desperation, etc. That has been happening to some degree for 1400 years.

Please show evidence that Muslims are rewriting the history books.

Doing nothing is never an option if there is evil in the world. I give this fight that I do as an example, but we have faced communism/Marxism and we failed as a group. And sorry if someone doesn’t like that, but they have the power in the media, our schools, and in one of our political parties - the Democrats. You can disagree with me, and I won’t write anymore on the subject - this is the way that I see it and if anyone wants to counter this - fine. I am not changing my mind on this subject.

Please show evidence that the Democrats are communist/marxist/Muslim.

 

[Agabriel]

Please show evidence that Communists took over the schools.

Please show evidence that Muslims are rewriting the history books.

Please show evidence that the Democrats are communist/marxist/Muslim.

You would have to do some reading.

For the communists infiltrated our schools:
Blacklisted by History

During the years that FDR was President Stalin was referred to as ‘Uncle Joe’. Well, ‘uncle Joe’ was at work infiltrating the FDR administration and FDR was even told about this. FDR laughed at it. Instead of doing any kind of an investigation - nothing was done. When McCarthy started laying out the accusations that someone was a commie - many got to teach at Harvard. It was sort of a status symbol (sarcasm).

Anyway, one notable communist, Algiers Hiss, was appointed to positions of power during the FDR and Truman years. And Nixon brought this all out. Harvard ‘intellectuals’ (I use that term loosely when refering to the liberals and left wingers) spoke out on Hiss’ behalf too! Well, what the press did to Nixon was a reverse ‘McCarthyism’ the way they treated him. I don’t know if it was as bad as they treated Bush, but the mainstream news/press is nothing but the liberal left’s tool.

Well, to make a long story short since it can get convoluted -

on July 11, 1995 the government released a cache of Soviet cables that had been decoded during the Cold War in a top-secret undertaking known as the Verona Project. The cables provided overwhelming truth of the McCarthy charges.

(source: Treason, page11)

The schools, press, or anyone has yet to change the history books to show that McCarthy was correct. Instead they continue to blacklist him.

For the 'muslims are rewriting the history books:
go to historytextbooks.org/islamreport.pdf , you can read a report called “Islam in the Classroom” by the American Textbook Council.

As for the muslims in our schools, here is a long list of videos, weblinks and there is also a few books.

‘Infiltration’
‘A Never Ending War’,
‘Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs’ and
‘They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It’
The Third Jihad - 30 minute version
Brigette Gabriel’s talk at the Thomas More Law Center

Here is an article by Act For America about islam in the classrooms. actforamerica.com/index.php/home/5-home/860-islam-in-americas-classrooms-history-or-propaganda

Here are several articles relating to the aiding and abetting of the infiltration of islam in our public schools. It also goes into the MSA in our Universities. actforamerica92691.org/2.html

Here is a link to where the document is that outlines this egregious behavior by our public schools and teaching islam in our public schools. actforamerica92691.org

And our Universities are also catering to the whims of muslims while anti-semitism is being allowed from them. We have an MSA that is directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. We have found documents stating their ties and stating their goals by infiltrating our Universities. There has been attacks against Jewish students in our own Universities by muslims and our Universities sluff it off like they used to sluff off rape!

In our own lands documents were uncovered the backed up documents found in Europe about the goals of a stealth jihad in our Western lands. nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaikhwan1007.pdf (Government Exhibit 300-0085). This document tells us of the goals and the organization, the MSA (Muslim Student Association) to be used as a recruitment tool, see page 4, but I would suggest reading the whole document.

This article will explain the link between the muslim brotherhood and the MSA:
studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2598/the-muslim-students-association-and-the-jihad-network

I am just going to include the document they found in Europe which also covers the mission of muslims in the West.
frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=61829F93-7A81-4654-A2E8-F0A5E6DD3DC4

Here are the behaviors of muslims, and their apologists, on our own campuses here in California. First here is UCIrvine, just one example of their poor behavior which should have been cause to give them notice that if it happens again they will get the boot off of campus!
pajamasmedia.com/blog/uc-irvine-still-enforcing-sharia-law/

Here is a youtube video to show you the hatred spouted by this group!
youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1lk3xz_UE

Here we see it happening on the UCBerkeley campus.
islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/11/berkeleyarabs-attack-jewish-students.html

 

[Agabriel]

As for the Democrats being communists/marxists/muslim - well, our current situation should be obvious, but I don’t know you well enough to know if you lean left and are oblivious to it.

What do commies do? they start the dividing/hatred between the different classes, censorship, Christian bashing, secularism, everyone is equal, etc.

Censorship is coming around with our current situation with Congress and the President. Notice that this doesn’t apply to the left wing media that thinks ‘balanced’ means 5-6 Democrats in a group with one Conservative and/or Republican. Or the continual bashing of Bush while people such as Kerry got away with being a traitor, Obama got away with questionable associates, a questionable birth certificate, questionable beliefs, a voting record in the Senate (both State and Federal) that was just abyssmal along with his record of showing up for work either not at all or late. We never hear about the monies going into the pockets of the Clintons, or who gave money to Obama (the Saudi Billionaire, Soros, and so many out of country monies to list), or Kerry (radical muslims from Bosnia - source: The Revenge of the Prophet).

We are not hearing that our financial institutions are catering to a religious group - muslims: AIG, a Minnesota State Agency Offers Islamic Mortgages (New Markets Mortgage Program). It seems the ACLU is being paid off my the Saudis. Not a peep out of them. not a peep out of them when our kids in public schools ‘pray/dress like a muslim’, or when segregation happens. Segregation was against the law until the muslims brought it back. Can you imagine if the white people brought it back? Or if we had muslims ‘praying like a Christian’? The outrage would be so loud that we would be deaf by now.

We are told the Fairness Doctrine is dead. What the news hasn’t told us is that they renamed it to the ‘Durbin Amendment’, or “Durbin Censorship Doctrine”.

The Democrats are going ahead with failed socialist programs - either they failed elsewhere on this globe, or here at home. The overtaxing of the ‘rich’ to spread the wealth around. All welfare reform was ended when Obama signed the latest bill. They are going directly against our own Constitution and that is not what Congress is supposed to do.

They are the ones going and hugging thugs - I guess they have a long legacy starting with FDR and Stalin. Clinton/Albright and Kim Jong Il (letting them just work away on their nukes while we fed them), giving China our latest nuclear secrets which enables them to aim them at us from space. well Kerry - he has a long history of being a traitor with the Vietcong in Paris. The left wingers going to try to help Saddam before the Gulf War until they realized he wanted them to position themselves inbetween him and our troops and when they found that out - they ran with their tails between their legs. Cindy Sheehan going and hugging Chavez, or the likes of Penn and others hugging him too and also some hugging Castro.

Now we have a President wanting to treat Hamas, the Taliban and probably some other terrorists as legitimate and go ‘talk to them’, give the gitmo freaks our citizen’s rights and give them civil trials instead of military tribunals.

 

[rpp]

Agabriel

 

[apriori]

As for the Democrats being communists/marxists/muslim - well, our current situation should be obvious, but I don’t know you well enough to know if you lean left and are oblivious to it.

What do commies do? they start the dividing/hatred between the different classes, censorship, Christian bashing, secularism, everyone is equal, etc.

Censorship is coming around with our current situation with Congress and the President. Notice that this doesn’t apply to the left wing media that thinks ‘balanced’ means 5-6 Democrats in a group with one Conservative and/or Republican. Or the continual bashing of Bush while people such as Kerry got away with being a traitor, Obama got away with questionable associates, a questionable birth certificate, questionable beliefs, a voting record in the Senate (both State and Federal) that was just abyssmal along with his record of showing up for work either not at all or late. We never hear about the monies going into the pockets of the Clintons, or who gave money to Obama (the Saudi Billionaire, Soros, and so many out of country monies to list), or Kerry (radical muslims from Bosnia - source: The Revenge of the Prophet).

We are not hearing that our financial institutions are catering to a religious group - muslims: AIG, a Minnesota State Agency Offers Islamic Mortgages (New Markets Mortgage Program). It seems the ACLU is being paid off my the Saudis. Not a peep out of them. not a peep out of them when our kids in public schools ‘pray/dress like a muslim’, or when segregation happens. Segregation was against the law until the muslims brought it back. Can you imagine if the white people brought it back? Or if we had muslims ‘praying like a Christian’? The outrage would be so loud that we would be deaf by now.

We are told the Fairness Doctrine is dead. What the news hasn’t told us is that they renamed it to the ‘Durbin Amendment’, or “Durbin Censorship Doctrine”.

The Democrats are going ahead with failed socialist programs - either they failed elsewhere on this globe, or here at home. The overtaxing of the ‘rich’ to spread the wealth around. All welfare reform was ended when Obama signed the latest bill. They are going directly against our own Constitution and that is not what Congress is supposed to do.

They are the ones going and hugging thugs - I guess they have a long legacy starting with FDR and Stalin. Clinton/Albright and Kim Jong Il (letting them just work away on their nukes while we fed them), giving China our latest nuclear secrets which enables them to aim them at us from space. well Kerry - he has a long history of being a traitor with the Vietcong in Paris. The left wingers going to try to help Saddam before the Gulf War until they realized he wanted them to position themselves inbetween him and our troops and when they found that out - they ran with their tails between their legs. Cindy Sheehan going and hugging Chavez, or the likes of Penn and others hugging him too and also some hugging Castro.

Now we have a President wanting to treat Hamas, the Taliban and probably some other terrorists as legitimate and go ‘talk to them’, give the gitmo freaks our citizen’s rights and give them civil trials instead of military tribunals.

Your information on the Muslin threat to American society is fascinating but I don’t see them as much of a threat to the individual American or to American society. I don’t know of any Muslim gangs taking over neighborhoods. I don’t see them forcing local governments to conform to their will. I don’t see them holding rallies (in America) with thousand of Muslims marching to oppose all American law and culture. I don’t see them taking the seats reserved for Americans at schools, jobs, welfare offices, hospitals, etc. I don’t see them stealing the future of generations of Americans.

However, please feel free to post as I learn a great deal from different points of view.

 

[R_not]

Your information on the Muslin threat to American society is fascinating but I don’t see them as much of a threat to the individual American or to American society. I don’t know of any Muslim gangs taking over neighborhoods. I don’t see them forcing local governments to conform to their will. I don’t see them holding rallies (in America) with thousand of Muslims marching to oppose all American law and culture. I don’t see them taking the seats reserved for Americans at schools, jobs, welfare offices, hospitals, etc. I don’t see them stealing the future of generations of Americans.

However, please feel free to post as I learn a great deal from different points of view.

Then you are not looking. They have lobbies in our government, they have the MSA in our schools. And you are also not reading what I provided to you.

 

[R_not]

Your information on the Muslin threat to American society is fascinating but I don’t see them as much of a threat to the individual American or to American society. I don’t know of any Muslim gangs taking over neighborhoods. I don’t see them forcing local governments to conform to their will. I don’t see them holding rallies (in America) with thousand of Muslims marching to oppose all American law and culture. I don’t see them taking the seats reserved for Americans at schools, jobs, welfare offices, hospitals, etc. I don’t see them stealing the future of generations of Americans.

However, please feel free to post as I learn a great deal from different points of view.

hhhmmm, ironic that the only ones I know trying to fight illegal aliens are coming from the conservative right, not necessarily Republicans. But, the ones who name call those people are the liberal left. And there, once again, is a problem with the liberal left which has invaded the Democrat party.

I live in California and I see our Democrat choked state just cater to the needs of illegal aliens which has cost us about $5billion dollars - half of our debt.

 

[rpp]

Your information on the Muslin threat to American society is fascinating but I don’t see them as much of a threat to the individual American or to American society. I don’t know of any Muslim gangs taking over neighborhoods. I don’t see them forcing local governments to conform to their will. I don’t see them holding rallies (in America) with thousand of Muslims marching to oppose all American law and culture. I don’t see them taking the seats reserved for Americans at schools, jobs, welfare offices, hospitals, etc. I don’t see them stealing the future of generations of Americans.

However, please feel free to post as I learn a great deal from different points of view.

I think there are some people in New York and the suburbs of Washington DC who might disagree with you about radical Muslims not being a threat to individual Americans.

As for the rest of your post, it seems very clear that you do not live in Michigan. Muslims have taken over a town there and, via the courts, managed to force Churches to stop ringing their bells while at the same got the courts to allow them to broadcast their call to prayer five times a day via loudspeakers.

Muslims, and radical Muslims, are certainly becoming more and more influential in the USA.