BS: Christian Persecution

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 10:15 AM

They do equate, you fool, in the context given.

Clapton wept....

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 10:23 AM

They do not equate in any context you pig-ignorant twat.

The Christian groups in America bank rolling the Ugandan politicians to make being gay criminal
That is very concerning.
Please give some details as I can not find any reference to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 12:15 PM

Ok, get a shovel in your brain, clear a little pigshit and learn.

Islamism is a term used generally to denote and acknowledge that Islam is a far more general guide to life than just the faith and moral structures. It is a term to recognise that for many followers, nothing makes sense unless Islamic values underpin politics and all functions of society.

In some countries this is almost fully realised whilst in others, such as here , Islamism denotes a more personal and family interpretation of Islam.

If you google , I am sure you might find it describing orthodoxy or militant tendency. I wouldn't know as I happen to have enough intelligence to know a smattering of things without having to look things up.

You must be a slow companion on the pub. " What do you reckon Keith ?" " Hang on, I don't know till I read an opinion for me and see if anyone on the interwebby thing concurs !"

As I said. In the context given, the terms were interchangeable.

Gormless cunt

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 12:23 PM

"They are either too thick to get it or it's one and the same to them, which would explain much."

One look at your comments re the Gaza strip wil show jst WHO doesn't know the difference. Likewise K A of H.

They're all Islamists to you two.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 01:31 PM

There you have it, QED.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 02:54 PM

I wouldn't know as I happen to have enough intelligence to know a smattering of things without having to look things up.

Er, no you don't.
You only think you do.
Because you never check your facts, you live in a fool's paradise, thinking you know everything while everyone laughs at your stupid bloopers.
Look it up and see why we are laughing at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 03:03 AM

Guardian today.
Persecution of Christians in the Middle East is a crime against humanity
Prince Charles's warning was not scaremongering. Calamity, accelerated by the Iraq war, has been brewing a long time
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/dec/22/persecution-christians-middle-east-prince-charles

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 04:27 AM

Who are "we"?

Would "we" be those like yourself who come over as what Americans call neocons?

In which case, I'd be disturbed if you did agree with me.

I realise the UKIP handbook uses the awful false bit of tautology called Islamism in the way you suggest, but try taking your lead from The Council of Mosques who are a bit pissed off to be honest about their faith being bastardised for hate reasons.

A bit like how decent Christians bristle when I point out that clerical abuse and arranging the altar flowers is a matter of degree by the same logic.

You are using the word Christian in order to demonise other religions. So are the less savoury elements of western media and politics. Forgive me for not wanting to play such a dangerous vindictive game.

I hope you can live with yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 04:35 AM


I realise the UKIP handbook uses the awful false bit of tautology called Islamism in the way you suggest,

Er, no.
Everyone does (including Troubadour in last post).
It is the correct usage.

"We" is everyone else who knows the correct meaning and usage, and enjoys watching you make an arse of yourself in your total ignorance of it.
Really, do yourself a favour.
Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 04:56 AM

You could start by reading this Muslim's comparison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamists_b_3984841.html

"The religion of Islam, the Faith of Abraham as proclaimed by Muhammad -- peace be upon them both -- is all about relationships: our relationship with our Creator who made everything informing the way we relate to everything. Muslims are God's servants, tasked to live our lives for the sake of you all.

So how does the so-called Islamist world-view, one that puts promoting Islam (and generally, one specific sort of Islamic ideology alone) ahead of egalitarian justice, or freedom, or sometimes human life itself -- one that's shared by those misguided criminals behind the killing of innocent Christians in Pakistan, innocent Muslims in the Middle East, innocent believers of every faith anywhere, innocent shoppers in Kenya, for God's sake! -- make any sense, from an Islamic perspective?

It doesn't.

I've read a vast array of definitions for what "Islamist" really means, just as I've read a vast array of ideological descriptions for every group of Muslims currently killing each other (and others too, compounding the tragedy) over who should be in charge of our beliefs and real estate. And while each group believes they're fundamentally different, I think they're really the same, and fundamentally opposed to the Islam proclaimed by Muhammad.

Islamists -- no matter whether they belong to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran's Ulema and Republican Guard, Egypt's Army, or the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Muslim group with aggressive political aspirations -- want to be in charge, and they think that when they are then their own version of Islam must be imposed. Muhammad -- on the other hand -- didn't think he was in charge (because he knew God was) and he lived his life as a leader of equals."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 10:15 AM

Er, no. Everyone does .

Like "All Historians" do, eh? Bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 10:48 AM

As ever, it accords with the description I gave. It also accepts the bastardisation of the term.

What's your point prat?

I know you have issues with people who debate without needing to google every last fucking word they use, but to be frank I'm bored with coming down to your level. If you have a brain, apply it rather than spending your life researching odd bits out of context to make you look clever. Intelligent people use terms due to knowing and understanding them. You read a version of what is a tautological misnomer and wave it like a spoilt child.

Is murdering doctors who carry out abortions Christianism then?

Twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 10:54 AM

Merry Christmas everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 11:12 AM

"Is murdering doctors who carry out abortions Christianism then?" asks Musket disingenuously.

Well, actually on the perfectly reasonable analogy of

Oxford Dictionary --
Definition of Islamism in English
Islamism
Pronunciation: /ˈɪzləmɪz(ə)m, ˈɪs-/
(also Islamicism)
noun
[mass noun]
    Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.

it would appear to be a most useful coinage, if not already so used - which it would not do to be too sure of.

Good thinking, Ian. You shall have a housepoint!

Merry Xmas to you both ~~ & indeed to all,

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 11:23 AM

Note also that, unlike, admittedly, some of the other dictionaries, the Oxford gives only that sole definition, & does not define it as synonymous also with simple 'Islam": to which extent accusations of tautologousness are mal-apropos.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 03:17 PM

Horse walks into a bar, orders a beer. Bartender says "Why the long face?"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 01:28 AM

So Muppet, why did you equate Islam and Islamism?
In what "context" are they the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 01:51 AM

Guardian today.
"Persecution of Christians: no room at the inn

That the message of peace and goodwill is not a political reality for a significant minority of the world's Christians should concern religious and non-religious alike
Last week, the Prince of Wales was joined by Prince Ghazi of Jordan on a visit to the Egyptian Coptic church in Stevenage and the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral in west London, where he heard from a number of Christian families who have had first-hand experience of the rising tide of persecution. "We cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately attacked by fundamentalist Islamist militants," he said. "The Arab spring [is] rapidly turning into a Christian winter" was how the author William Dalrymple put it on the BBC last week."

" In Egypt alone, Amnesty International has reported that during this past year 207 churches have been attacked and 43 Orthodox churches totally destroyed. And the situation of Christians in Syria is deteriorating rapidly as the Free Syrian Army has become increasingly influenced by foreign jihadist militants. Many thousands of Syrian Christians are now fleeing over the border to Turkey. One man who made the journey from Syria claimed: "Where we live, 10 churches have been burned down. They started to threaten Christians in the town we live. When the local priest was executed, we decided to leave."

All this is a part of a wider picture in which Christians are being increasingly forced out of the biblical homelands. Indeed, across a vast swath of the world between Morocco and Pakistan, the persecution of Christians continues to gather pace, frequently with barely a eyebrow raised in the secular west."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/23/persecution-christians-religion-editorial

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 02:37 AM

A long way up the thread, I said that one is, the other is of. I also said that in common usage, it has been bastardised as a negative term. OED does only refer to the negative usage, which is unfortunate. However , clinging to it doesn't change anything. Only Michael and the arts editor for BBC Radio 4 use it as their sole style guide. You may find a few million Muslims for instance who not only speak English but would see the term as meaning of Islamic values / origin / faith / culture etc.

As for Keith A Hole of Hertford, who gets what used to be a stiffy when his gormless comments are tenuously supported, I don't expect any better to be frank.

You should get out more. Islamism in the negative sense is a rather insulting term. Hence Christianism is an equally insulting term to describe lowlife scum who hide under a cloak of clerical respect to carry out their evil deeds.



Oh hang on. I can hear squeals and oinks. Might as well shut up and smile.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 07:44 AM

Failing to distinguish between Islam and Islamism is what Islamophobes do.
Bobad and I were clear about the distinction.
The Muppet regarded them as interchangeable, but probably out of ignorance rather than Islamophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 07:49 AM

From: GUEST,Musket - PM
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 12:15 PM

Getting a bit desperate aren't we? "Err.. I didn't say Islam, I said Islamism, which is sooo fucking different, I'm going to point and laugh at you for being thick!"

Go on then, either you or your best mate bobad. Tell us what you think is the difference and why the difference is important in Keith's smear of a good few million people.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 07:54 AM

OED is not my 'sole style guide', as it happens, Musk: indeed, I greatly prefer Chambers for day-to-day use & crossword solving. But it would be idle to deny that the Oxford is widely recognised as an arbiter as to usage.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 25 Dec 13 - 12:01 PM

"Militants in Iraq targeted Christians in two separate bomb attacks in Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 37 people, officials said.

In one attack, a car bomb went off near a church during Christmas Mass in the capital's southern Dora neighbourhood, killing at least 26 people and wounding 38, a police officer said.

Earlier in the day, a bomb ripped through an outdoor market in the nearby Christian section of Athorien, killing 11 people and wounding 21, the officer added.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks, but Iraq's dwindling Christian community, which is estimated to number about 400,000 to 600,000 people, has often been targeted by al-Qaeda and other insurgents."

CBC

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Dec 13 - 12:46 PM

I seem to have got what I asked Santa for.

Keith A Hole of Hertford has come to his senses and even started reprinting my posts to reiterate my point.

Hey hey !

Merry Chrimbo to all our readers and those who have it read out to them and those few who need it explaining through the medium of dance.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Dec 13 - 01:03 PM

Yes Musket.
You ridiculed me for saying there is a vast difference between Islam and Islamism, and you asked me to explain it to you.

You showed your lack of basic knowledge about this issue.
Conflating those two descriptions is the mark of an Islamophobe, or an ignoramus.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Dec 13 - 02:23 PM

Ooh I don't know ?

Saying Islamism is of Islam sounds more like a literalist to me.

There again, I'm just an Islamophobe so what do I know?

Nice to see The Archbishop agreeing with the view I prefer over reasons for Chridtians being the most persecuted in some areas. Pity about the awful persecution mind...

Merry Chrimbo each and every one of us. So glad Charles Dickens invented this celebration. He doesn't get enough credit you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Dec 13 - 03:15 PM

Again, you show your profound ignorance.
Here a Council of Europe resolution speaks of the need to "combat" and "stamp out" Islamism.
You vilified me for being critical of it.
How stupidly ignorant of you!
http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta10/ERES1743.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Dec 13 - 03:02 AM

Context can be so unfortunate.

So can pig ignorance when purposely applied by Keith A Hole of Hertford.

Get back to your Brussel sprouts. Oh, on the way, fire up your Amstrad and look up usage of the phrase "which has become to mean."

The Council of Europe took evidence from The Council of Mosques who deplore the association that the modern use of "Islamism" gives to their religion.

Anyone would think it was persecution........

zzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 13 - 04:12 AM

The Council of Mosques who deplore the association that the modern use of "Islamism" gives to their religion.

Yes.
They deplore twats like you who do not understand the difference, and use the terms Islam and Islamism interchangeably.

Your towering ego is matched only by your ignorant stupidity.
You really think you know more about meaning and usage than OED!
You really think you are better informed than the Council of Europe!
You think you know more about History than historians!
You make up Christian atrocities and think no-one will notice.
You make up an anti Christian propaganda about Uganda and hope no-one will notice.
You are just an ignorant fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 13 - 04:19 AM

Troubadour, you said of Bobad and me "They(Muslims) are all Islamists to you two."

The opposite is the truth.
We made a clear distinction between Islam and Islamism.
It is just moronic Musket who lumps them together.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Dec 13 - 06:50 AM

I wouldst something at this point but Major Misunderstanding VD&bar inadvertently says it all for me.

Thick cunt

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 01:25 AM

There is nothing "inadvertant" there you silly old muppet, but if you are so uncomprehendingly thick as to think any of it makes you look good, I am more than happy to reiterate.

Troubadour, you said of Bobad and me "They(Muslims) are all Islamists to you two."

The opposite is the truth.
We made a clear distinction between Islam and Islamism.
It is only moronic Musket who lumps them together.

Musket.
The Council of Mosques who deplore the association that the modern use of "Islamism" gives to their religion.

Yes.
They deplore twats like you who do not comprehend the difference, and use the terms Islam and Islamism interchangeably.

Your towering ego is matched only by your ignorant stupidity.
You really think you know more about meaning and usage than OED!
You really think you are better informed than the Council of Europe!
You think you know more about History than historians!
You make up Christian atrocities and think no-one will notice.
You make up anti Christian propaganda about Uganda and hope no-one will notice.
You are just an ignorant fool.

Do not thank me.
You are SO welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 02:14 AM

Musket appears most obligingly to have summarised himself

~~~~~ "...inadvertently says it all for me.

Thick cunt" ~~~~~

doesn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 03:08 AM

"You keep out of it unless you want a good hiding too."

Ooohhh, you kinky old sod, you! If I wasn't wearing sheepskin moccasins I should be trembling in my boots!!!!
.,,.,.

"Sorry Michael. I can't think of anything nicer than thick cunt."

And I don't recall having enquired as to your amatory predilections ~~ why are you informing me/us of them with such reckless abandon?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 04:38 AM

Musket, Google can not find your "quote."
Which of the many regional "Council of Mosques" is supposed to have said it?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 04:58 AM

Looks like you are going to have to get to the back of the queue Michael. I'm compiling a list as I type.

That's the problem with providing quotes Keith. Your silly yet fully anticipated reaction demonstrates the difference between debate and recording a series of BBC's "Would I lie to you."

Here's a tip. Your lack of expertise in the field of research does not equate to failure of facts. More a failure of Keith A Hole of Hertford. You can only call people liars for so long Keith. Eventually you are going to have to either engage in debate or download a better search tool. They exist you know. I have access to an academic research one that is the mutts nuts.

Strangely, I don't see the need when debating. And if Mudcat were a research website, your character would provide novel study for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 05:06 AM

I just reported that Google does not find that quote, and that there is no single "Council of Mosques."
That is factual.
Is there an explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 06:46 AM

What 'queue', Ian? For a walloping from you? Dream on, Saucebox! Why, bigger ladies than you...

& in the field of what 'research' do I 'lack expertise' or have fallen short? I am unaware of having undertaken any 'research', be it on your sexual activities, especially as regards your perception of the relative firmness of ladies' vaginal areas, or on any other topic to which you seem of late to have been giving earnest & doubtless fascinating* attention. 

~M~


*but SFAICS of more than somewhat questionable relevance

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 07:58 AM

For those still unclear on the concept:Islam vs. Islamists

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 09:36 AM

And then of course there are the Christianists working to impose Biblical Law, outlaw abortion, criminalize same-sex relationships, promote "Creationism" &c. &c., and taking over governing bodies across the globe, & of particular note in the Southern U.S. of A.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 10:14 AM

Well Musket, Google can only find that quote in your post, not "from The Council of Mosques website. " or any other.
Anyway, there are many councils of mosques, no "The" Council of Mosques.

If you have not made the whole thing up, use your wonderful "academic research" search engine to find it and give us a link.

Will you come up with an excuse not to?
Good luck with that.
Fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 10:29 AM

And then of course there are the Christianists working to impose Biblical Law, outlaw abortion, criminalize same-sex relationships, promote "Creationism" &c. &c., and taking over governing bodies across the globe, & of particular note in the Southern U.S. of A.
.,,.

How many 'governing bodies' have they 'taken over across the globe', then Greg? How many soldiers' heads have they hacked off with machetes in the streets of Little Rock or Nashville because that's what Jesus told them to do?

Just asking...

~M~

"Whataboutery", I always call that sort of argument: infallible identifier of a fool who wouldn't know a real argument if it kicked him in the goolies with hobnailed boots...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 10:39 AM

Much bigger ladies Michael.

I live near Doncaster.

Mind you, not all of them could be described as ladies. Nor indeed I a gent.

As to firmness, I'd say firm beforehand, softening when in the company of an Adonis such as what I is.

All that research bollocks was for Keith A Hole of Hertford, not you. Generally, you have confidence of your own intellect when debating, rather than playing google top trumps.

In fact, I don't think I've enjoyed a debate with you lately. You seem to have found egging on pillocks a more satisfactory game. Can't blame you, I chuckle at his attempts to make me look a bigger arse than I am, which takes some doing. Nothing soft there though, tight as a duck's. *

Your cheerleading is somewhat a distraction I suppose. If you can think of any subject you wish me to weave in, please do ask. I enjoy pompous sanctimony to be fair, and Keith is one of those part time Christians who manage to excel in the art. If we ran a Noël Coward tangent I suppose, but avoid Princess Di? Plenty there for normal people to discuss and oddballs to google.



*(Apart from those ducks with holes through their middle. What are they cal...? Oh yes, that's it. Henry Moorhens.)

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 11:45 AM

I do not play "google top trumps" but it is usual to provide a link to a quote, so it can be seen in context.

It is not usual to make up quotes from non-existent websites as you have just done!

But then Musket, it is not usual for a normal person to think they know more about meaning and usage than OED!
Or think they are better informed than the Council of Europe!
Or think they know more about History than historians!
Or make up Christian atrocities and think no-one will notice.
Or make up anti Christian propaganda about Uganda and hope no-one will notice.

What an ignorant, stupid fool you are Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 12:16 PM

Buggered and flawed from the first sentence. You do play google top trumps which is why I stopped debating seriously with you a long time ago.

The rest of your post gave me a giggle though, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 12:25 PM

Do you think it reasonable and acceptable to lie and make shit up just for some advantage in debate?
Is that the only way to make your views stand up?
Your views must be shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 12:30 PM

Well ~M~, first of all, read up on your recent U.S. history & the governors and legislatures of an increasing number of U.S. States. Then check the Congressional record, for the speaches of the TeaPublican "Christian"[sic] Senators and Representaives.

By the way, how many women have died of botched abortions because safe, legal ones weren't available?

How many black folks have been lynched, burned at the stake, castrated or simply shot or beaten to death by the proudly white "Christian"[sic] Ku Klux Klan and other "Christian"[sic] white supremecist groups? (Hint: best re-think your "Little Rock or Nashville comment")

How many Lesbian/Gay/TransGender teens have committed suicide due to persecution by ""Christians"[sic]?

Hardly "whataboutery" - simply some unpleasant truths.

How many impressionable children are being taught Creationist garbage in the guise of fact and never realize that there are serious consequences to believing nonsense?

Christianists don't really need machetes to impose Biblical Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 03:08 PM

Greg ~~ I do genuinely take your points, re KKK & Southern persecutions in supposed name of Xtn values. Of course it is deplorable. But it is, surely, simply whataboutery, in the sense that it is no answer to any obnoxious abuse to cite another just as bad* as if it made the first one somehow OK. It what way do you perceive it as doing so? In what way does the fact that Southern trees bore strange fruit make it any the less iniquitous for adultresses to have melon-size stones crashed down at point-blank range on their buried-up-to-the-neck heads in the streets of Riyadh, or for teenage girls to be publicly thrashed 100+ strokes with canes on the bare buttocks for the terrible crime of having been raped & so become impure? And if it doesn't make it any less so, then why mention it? Hitler [Oh shut up, Mr Godwin!] smells no retrospectively sweeter just because Stalin killed more people, does he?

~M~

*...though numerically smaller (which does matter: think of the Hegelian concept of the critical point at which a quantative becomes a qualitative difference), less legally approved or tolerated, and far less liable to occur right now, unlike those incidents in Syria & Yemen & N Nigeria which are perfectly possibly being enacted at this very moment as you read this...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 03:12 PM

"Christianists don't really need machetes to impose Biblical Law."

>< ><

Quite; but Islamists appear to, don't they?

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Dec 13 - 05:26 PM

in the sense that it is no answer to any obnoxious abuse to cite another just as bad

And vice versa, re: Christian v. Muslim, eh?