BS: Christian Persecution

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 10:42 AM

The quotes Keith, the quotes?
I meant to comment o the gutter ethics of your attempting to involve another Forum member in a statement made by you which is self-explanatory and not open to interpretation.
If it isn't a breach of Muscat rules, it bloody well should be.
Now - those quotes please?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 11:14 AM

The quotes are already in this thread (among many others) in a string of posts starting 24th October 2013 4.44AM .

Why should I not remind you what Kevin said about all this nonsense last time you dredged it up?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 11:29 AM

Never noticed that Greek philosophers came from Brazil. You live and learn..

Tell you what Michael, setting out to be a weird bugger and managing it without the use of props are two different things. See Keith for details.

Don't get confused by anything I say. I'm just a liar according to Keith A Hole of Hertford. It's a nice place to be, because I can call him a trumped up staunch bigot of an apologist for the more odious fringe of Christianity, and he can't complain. After all, he reckons it isn't true by default, hence nothing to be insulted by.

Ya boo! Smelly Keith The God Botherer naa naa na naa na!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 12:25 PM

an apologist for the more odious fringe of Christianity,

Yes. The CofE!

Musket, if you were not lying about those chopped up school kids or that non-existent website, produce a reference for us.

You can not do that because it is all lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 12:53 PM

"The quotes are already in this thread (among many others)"
No, they are not and you are openly lying
YOU HAVE NEVER AT ANY TIME PRODUCED A STATEMENT THAT "ALL MALE PAKISTANIS ARE CULTURALLY IMPLANTED....." NO PUBLIC FIGURE ANYWHERE HAS EVER SAID IT OR WOULD DARE TO SAY IT PUBLICLY _ SUCH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
IT IS PURELY OF YOUR OWN INVENTION AND IT BELONGS ON SITES LIKE MUSLIM WATCH - CERTAINLY NOT ON MUDCAT
HAD IT EVER BEEN SAID BY ANYBODY YOU HAVE NAMED YOU WOULD HAVE PRODUCED IT HERE IN ORDER TO PUT AN END TO THIS 'MOUSETRAP-LENGTH' FARCE _ AND THEY WOULD HAVE FACED PROSECUTION AND PUBLIC DISGRACE FOR MAKING SUCH AN INFLAMMATORY STATEMENT.
YOU WILL CONTINUE ONLY TO CLAIM THIS, YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF PRODUCING IT.
"SUCH STUFF ARE HOLOCAUSTS MADE OF"
(Sorry to offend your aesthetic senses Mike.)
"Why should I not remind you what Kevin said about all this nonsense last time you dredged it up?"
If you wish to involve yet another Mudcat member in your disgusting behavior - please feel free to put up whatever you please, but I'd much rather you put up the actual quotes to back up your case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 01:43 PM

The actual quotes are posted on this thread in a string of posts starting 24th October 2013 4.44AM not 3 months ago.

They all say that the culture is to blame.
Deny that?
Culture effects all, however slightly.
Deny that?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 02:14 PM

I'm a liar unless I do as you say?

You really do have a high opinion of yourself.
















Pity no bugger shares it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 02:36 PM

As you have just made clear - your statement - still your opinion
Checkmate
See you next time the subject comes up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 02:46 PM

Sócrates was a distinguished Brazilian footballer who played for Fiorentina in the 1980s, Ian. If you didn't know that, you would have done well to google to see if there were any such footballer rather than publishing your ignorance for all to see, wouldn't you! Hmm? Hmm hmm hmm? I mean, I say, whatwhatwhat!

Sócrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sócrates
This article is about the Brazilian footballer. For the Ancient Greek philosopher, see Socrates.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 03:08 PM

After 1500 plus posts the thread summarized

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 03:19 PM

Duh ~~~ What's up, Bobad.

That's All, Folks...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 05:27 PM

I'm a liar unless I do as you say?

No Musket.
You are a liar because you can not produce anything.
It was all lies.
You are a liar.

No Jim.
Not my opinion.
I have no knowledge to form such an opinion.
I just believed what all those people said, because of who they were.
Why would you not believe them?
Because of their race?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 04:14 AM

"Because of their race?"
You abominable little shit.
How dare you, one of the vilest racists and bigots I have ever come across, accuse me or anybody, of racism.
You have lied here; once again you have proved yourself a liar by your total failure to produce one single shred of evidence of support for your potentially genocidal claims, and you still preach your hate-filled messages.
You are one of the most fanatical and persistent racist and sectarian bigots I have ever come across - you want a close up view of potentially terrorist preaching - go and look in the mirror.
You have preached persecution against an entire generally law abiding, hard-working and generally harmless community/religion.
You have excused and supported rape, and persecution of whole nations by the teachings of Christianity and the actual behaviour of their appointed representative by denying their influence and ignoring their behaviour telling us "if we don't like it we can go and live elsewhere"   
Whenever the subject of Israel comes up, you are the first on your feet defending terrorism, mass murder and atrocities carried out in the name of Judaism by either openly supporting or denying atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Your bahaviour has become legendary on this forum - if you have any value here it is as a shining example of religious and racial intolerance - it is your sole contribution to Mudcat.
Once again you have exposed yourself as the liar and bigot that you are - this has now becoming a serial event - as inevitable as the Queen's speech, but more regular.
Keep it up Keith - it helps lighten the load of a somewhat wet, cold and miserable winter - you have become a sort of grim and gruesome entertainment to while away the dark hours - like the next episode of Silent Witness or Wire in the Blood.
If anybody ever took you seriously outside the tiny groups of fanatics who share and espouse your views, you would be dangerous.
As it is, you are regarded little more than a modern version of Chaplin's 'Great Dictator' - a rather ridiculous clown, good for the occasional giggle, but nothing more.
Never dare to call me, or anybody else a racist again - not while you are pouring out the racist and bigoted filth that has become your stock-in-trade.
Jim Carroll
How do you like them apples Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 04:43 AM

So, why did you refuse to believe them Jim?

Why was it wrong for me to believe them, as I am sure most people did.

Your list of false accusations against me has not one grain of truth in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 04:49 AM

I have a signed shirt on my study wall from a charity 'do promoting school football a few years ago where ex international Brazilians toured schools and councils,questioning flogging off playing fields.

The signatures, together with a photo of me grinning with them are

Socrates
Zico
Jairzinho
Felix
Carlos Alberto

Three of which were my heros as a lad from the 1970 squad.

Try not to ask rhetorical questions eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 06:37 AM

"So, why did you refuse to believe them Jim?"
Because you have made them up, and have been proven beyond any doubt to have done so to have done so, you brain-dead.

A recent issue which has recently hit the fan here in Ireland
It was the cause of many marriage break-ups and the removal of children from mixed-marriage parents and them being declared illegitimate throughout the twentieth century.
It has never been rescinded a remains the law of the Catholic Church
As I have been saying – any religion is capable of persecution to the level they are allowed to get away with – no exceptions
Don't suppose this counts as Christian persecution either
Jim Carroll

NE TEMERE DECREE
A declaration of matrimonial law issued by pope pius X; it went into effect Easter 1908. It was the Tametsi decree of the Council of Trent in a modified form. It took its name from the opening words and decreed that: 1. marriages involving a Catholic are invalid unless performed by a parish priest in his parish or one delegated by him, or by a bishop or appointed delegate in his own diocese; 2. no pastor can validly perform a marriage outside the limits of his own parish without delegation of the proper pastor of the parish in which he is to perform the wedding, or the bishop in whose diocese he is to perform the wedding. A bishop cannot validly perform a wedding outside his own diocese without delegation from the pastor of the parish in which he is to perform the wedding or the delegation of the bishop of that place; 3. it is also decreed that the marriage ought to be celebrated in the parish of the bride; 4. under certain circumstances a marriage may be licit and valid without a priest; 5. all marriages must be registered in the place or places where the contracting parties were baptized. There must be at least two other witnesses for validity beside the pastor or bishop. This decree did not affect persons who had never been Catholic when they married among themselves. It applied to every marriage of a Catholic, even when marrying someone who was not of his or her faith.
It extends to the whole Church the impediment of clandestinity, which previously had been in force only in certain parts; it makes a marriage invalid unless performed by a parish priest in his own parish, or by a bishop in his own diocese, or by a delegate of either, in the presence of at least two witnesses.
No pastor and no bishop can validly perform a marriage outside the limits of his own territory without the permission of the parish priest or bishop of the place.
If a pastor or a bishop, within the limits of his territory, should join a couple, neither of whom resides therein, the marriage is valid but unlawful, being an infringement on the rights of the pastor of the parties.
Under certain circumstances a valid and licit Catholic marriage may take place without a priest. See also, marriage without a priest.
Marriages must be registered in the place or places where the contracting parties were baptized.
Under the present matrimonial laws the blessing of the union by a priest is not, in certain circumstances, essential to the contract and the sacrament. If a Catholic couple wish to marry in a place where for a month there will be no priest qualified to join them in matrimony, they may simply express their mutual consent before two witnesses, and thereby they are validly and lawfully married. In danger of death, this may also be done even when there is no such expected delay in the coming of the priest.

NEW LEGISLATION ON CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE
Through the decree "Ne Temere," issued 2 August, 1907, by the Congregation of the Council, in conjunction with the pontifical commission for the new canonical code, important modifications have been made regarding the form of betrothal and of marriage. This decree was issued to render easier for the universal Church the substantial form of matrimony, to prevent more efficiently the too numerous, hasty, and clandestine marriages, and to make it easier for ecclesiastical courts to decide as to the existence or non-existence of a previous engagement to marry (see ESPOUSALS). With the exception in regard to Germany noted below, this legislation went into effect at Easter (19 April), 1908, and is thenceforth binding on all Catholics throughout the world, any contrary law or custom being totally abolished. According to this decree, marriages of Catholics are henceforth null unless celebrated before a duly qualified priest (or the bishop of the diocese) and at least two witnesses. The same is true of marriages in which either of the parties is or has been a Catholic. The law, however, does not bind those who are not and never have been Catholics. Priests charged with the care of souls in the territory where a marriage is contracted, or any approved priest whom one charged with the care of souls or whom the bishop of the diocese delegates, are qualified to assist at nuptials. Marriages contracted in a parish, district, or diocese, other than the one to which the contracting parties belong, are valid so long as the pastor of the place or his delegate assists at such marriages. However, priests are forbidden to assist at such marriages unless one of two conditions is verified. Either, one of the parties must have resided a month in the territory where the marriage occurs, or else, one of the parties must have obtained the permission of the priest or bishop under whose jurisdiction such a party resides. In cases of serious necessity such permission is not required.
The following conditions are enjoined by the decree "Ne Temere", not for the validity of the marriages of Catholics, but to bring them into complete conformity with the demands of right order. Marriages ought to be celebrated in the parish of the bride. If the contracting parties wish to marry elsewhere, they must ask the pastor of the place, or some priest authorized by him or by the bishop, to assist at the marriage, and one of the parties must have resided there for a month. When parties find this procedure inconvenient, one of them must obtain permission from his or her parish priest or bishop to contract marriage elsewhere. In such cases the parties will be obliged to give the necessary assurance regarding their freedom to marry, and to comply with the usual conditions for receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony. When parties have no fixed abode and are travelling throughout the country, they can enter wedlock only before a priest authorized by the bishop to assist at their marriage.
The Sacred Congregation of the Council declared (11 February, 1908) that the dispensations granted in the Bull "Provida" of 18 January, 1906, for Germany will still remain in force. According to this Bull, while Catholic marriages in Germany were made subject to the decree "Tametsi", mixed marriages and those of Protestants among themselves were exempted

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 07:45 AM

Because you have made them up, and have been proven beyond any doubt to have done so to have done so, you brain-dead.

But they are here in the thread Jim!
I do not make shit up or lie remember.

Alibhai-Brown, Lord Ahmed, and Mohamed Shafiq were the ones I quoted at length (apart from Anne Cryer, Jack Straw and the Pakistani Ch4 journalist).
They all said the offending came from aspects of the culture.


The actual quotes, are in a string of posts on this thread starting 24th October 2013 4.44AM
Just scroll.

We have had many threads about clerical abuse.
This is the only one about religious persecution.
That is all I will be discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 09:18 AM

Jim, you have posted elsewhere, but chosen not to explain your bizarre claim that the quotes do not exist when they clearly do!

Perhaps you mean the people do not exist!

Perhaps you are mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 10:02 AM

"But they are here in the thread Jim!"
Then it should be a simple matter for you to cut-'n-paste anybody having ever mentioned "all male Pakintanis being culturally implanted to rape women and having to resist that implant - your statement, nobody elses.
"I do not make shit up or lie remember.
No claim not to - a lie in itself.
"That is all I will be discussing."
Absolutely wonderful - you are a liability to any discussion you take part in and monopolise - but your open refusal to to discuss Christian persecution when it is Christians doing the persecuting sums up your agenda-driven hypocrisy perfectly
What on earth makes you think your participation is necessary or even desirable on any discussion - feel free to go away and leave the rest of us to it.
We don't need religious extremists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 10:11 AM

I welcome discussion of religious persecution by any group including Christians, but I will not be party to making this just another thread about clerical abuse.

Jim the quotes blame the culture.
My crime is to believe them?
That makes me racist?

I ASK YOU AGAIN WHY YOU DISBELIEVE THEM?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 10:48 AM

"Jim the quotes blame the culture."
Then produce them and let's see how that stand up next to your own - simple really.
You have totally invented support for your horrific claim, your failure to produce one single example of anybody (not counting your BNP et al mates) ever having anything resembling your sick claim is proof that no such support exists, not could exist from those you insist made them, and your repetation of your views makes you the lying racist that you are
Solution simple - show us what they said - nobody has ever claimed that "all male Pakistanis are culturally implanted to make them have sex with underage women", other than you and your sicko friends - not one - your sick invention and yours alone. .
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 12:23 PM

"Apples", Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 12:39 PM

     ?????

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 01:00 PM

""Apples", Jim?"
I was enquiring if you still believed Keith's input to be sensible and articulate in view of his rather obvious attempts to dig himself out of the hole he continues to dig for himself by blatantly lying.
C'mon Mike - there comes point when even the best fairy godmother has to loosen the apron-strings.
Kids, who'd have 'em?
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 02:50 PM

But why ? A ref to Alice In Wonderland {"Sure I'm here, Your Honour' digging for apples, Your Honour"?

Or what?

Still can't quite see what you are accusing Keith of, precisely. Or why your knickers are getting into such a twist about whatever it is. Mrs Thatcher was misunderstood re her remark on society & you lot still go on about it erroneously, missing her meaning. & so you do with K's extrapolation of what he read, for which he has provided you with precise refs. Your tone still strikes me as oddly hysterical in the matter, I fear. But this is a fight between you & him & I'm loth to get really involved in it. He's none of my responsibility, & I none of his, for all your fantasies, which are getting more than somewhat tiresome & tedious, I feel bound to say.

Still don't get the  ref, tho.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 03:30 PM

Jim, the quotes are already on this thread just a few weeks ago.
You have the date and time.
They ALL blame the culture.
It can not be racist to believe them.
I think everyone is effected by their culture, and most people would agree, as Kevin explicitly did.

For that you call me "one of the vilest racists and bigots I have ever come across" and accuse me of being "BNP."

That is the only post of mine you have identified as racist, and it is not in the least racist.
You have no cause to say those things about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 04:49 AM

"Still can't quite see what you are accusing Keith of, precisely."
Then you are as stupid as he is
I am accusing him of lying by inventing statements that he claims to have been made by public figures to defend his claim that every single male Pakistani is a risk to all underage young women by way of their cultural implant.
He claims that to have been said by politicians and social worker - it wasn't
He claims to have put it up, he hasn't.
He has been asked to put it up so that we can asses it - he refuses to do so.
No public figure has ever claimed a "cultural implant"
No public figure has ever attempted to implicate the entire "male Pakistani population" as a potention risk to young woomanhood - that is the filth that the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and such scum used to carry out their crimes.
I'm accusing Keith of being a racist and a liar - it is withing his power to prove me wrong
If you wish to take his side - it lies within your power to prove his case by producing the eveidence
Feel free
Keith - racism and sectarianism goes through you entire postings on the subject of British Muslims, Israel and Ireland goes through your entire output like Blackpool goes through rock.
It dates back to your claim that aids sufferers coming into Britain should not receive treatment - and like Topsy "it just growed"
You are a racist, pure and simple and you have persisted in using this forum to peddle your racism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 05:10 AM

Again, Jim: I am not engaging in this thread particularly, as we have been over & over this ground so often before that I am feeling just a bit punchy. I agree to differ with you about K's attitudes & asseverations; even if that does leave me 'as bad as he is' -- a bit of a question-beg, surely, as ¿¿how bad he is?? is just the point at issue, innit!...

But I would still like to know what you meant about the !? Please.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 05:10 AM

By the way
The non-existent case of Keith ever being able to produce such a statement by any public figure would not make one iota of difference
The statement that "i now believe that all male Pakistanis".... carry an implant that makes them prone to underage sex is a profoundly racist statement whoever makes it - Keith has put it forward as his view - nobody else's - "I now believe" and he has confirmed, on this thread and elsewhere, that it remains his view.
This not only confirms him as a racist - his refusal to reproduce evidence here (he's good at cut-''n-pastes - his sole talent it would appear) brands him as a liar
His plea that he only believes it because others told him that they do also calls into question his mental faculties.
He claims to have been a teacher - god protect our children from such teachers!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 05:20 AM

Told you, Jim. Not playing. Not listening.

☞〠☜

But come on, now, worrabout the ?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 05:21 AM

"I do now believe..... but only because of the testimony of all those people"

Those people DID say it came from the culture.
Culture DOES effect everyone.
Saying that is not racist, or else you are accusing many other good people of that evil.

I have never made a racist post because I am no racist.
That is why you only ever produce that one, 3 year old post, and you have done so every few weeks ever since.

We have been asked over and over to drop it, but still you bring it up every few weeks.
It is a deranged obsession with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 06:14 AM

"Told you, Jim. Not playing. Not listening. "
Very wise.
In your own interests, butt out of this shit - told you to get yourself along spoon a long time ago.
"Those people DID say it came from the culture."
None of them said any such thing, they certainly did not claim "cultural implants" and no-one (apart from Nazi-inspired extremist racist sites) has ever attempted to implicate entire populations in sexual crimes, the way you have n- it is your invention entirely and it remains a deeply racist statement, whoever said it.
As I said, your claiming to have only said it because somebody else did is a sign of mental deficiency in itself, inventing things that somebody didn't say, even more so - repeatedly refusing to defend your argument by producing those "quotes" gives you a mental 'full house'.
Spreading race and cultural hatred the way you consistently do - now that's what I call a "deranged obsession".
Have a good rally at Nuremberg if you ever get the opportunity to attend one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 06:16 AM

I'd be fascinated to know the criteria Mr Hertford would use to recognise deranged obsession?

Judging by his posts on this and certain other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 06:56 AM

Jim the quotes are on this thread (starting 24th October 2013 4.44AM) and they do blame the culture.

Denying that FACT makes you a fool.
Anyone can see for themselves.

Culture effects us all.
No racism in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 06:59 AM

"Told you, Jim. Not playing. Not listening. "
'Very wise.
In your own interests, butt out of this shit - told you to get yourself along spoon a long time ago.'
.,,.
Yay, right. So the parting shot on my part in my intervention in the Keith'n'Carroll Show --

I leave the game becoz it is going nowhere, Fed up with the everlasting "No I didn't"; "Yes you did so nyyyaaahhh".

☞〠☜

Final statement: Still think Keith has about 95% more of the right of it than Jim has. Shall continue to think so, without intervening again to say so.

Live with it, Jim. You don't really care what I think on such matters as these [as distinct from above-line ones]; any more that I care what you do. See you sometime in a folk thread ~~ mebbe...

Ta-ra

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 08:00 AM

Facts to be ignored by Keith:
22% of the world population is Muslim
If having sex with underage women had anything whatever to do with being Muslim, underage would be predominantly a Muslim crime throughout the world - it isn't
There are 1.5 million Muslims in Britain.
If having sex with underage women had anything whatever to do with being Muslim, underage would be predominantly a Muslim crime throughout Britain - it isn't
There are reckoned to be many thousands of internet sites in Britain devoted to underage fetishist pornography
None have been identified as Muslim as far as I know.
If anybody wishes to link sex crimes with any particular race or culture, peodophelic crimes such as sex with and rape of children, incest and underage sex has been overwhelmingly identified and an indigenous crime, therefore it is overwhelmingly Christian.
The only link that has ever been made between paedophilia and any particular religion is that of the cases of clerical abuse by Christian clergymen, which has been strongly argued to be due to the celibacy rule imposed by the Catholic church - if that is the case, these are not cultural crimes, but criminal acts caused by deliberate imposed policy - a Christian crime.
Judges, social workers, police - even home secretaries such as Jack Straw (Keith's star witness) have warned strongly that no link should ever be made between the acts of a handful of young criminals, "testosterone-fizzing young men" (quote; Jack Straw), and the race or religion of those concerned.
Fact; whatever way Keith attempts to manipulate and censor this discussion on "Christian Persecution" - he and he alone, (now his good fairy seems to have done a flit) stands out as the overwhelmingly Christian persecutor of people of other faiths and religions - a true "Christian persecutor" in every sense - 'roll over Torquemada'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 08:09 AM

Jim, you know, because I have told you many times, that not only have I never linked that crime with Islam, but I said at the time specifically that it was not.
I also said that I thought young girls were targeted as "easy meat" not because of paedophilia.

I also said that only a tiny minority had any involvment.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 08:13 AM

"You don't really care what I think on such matters "
I don't Mike - your appear to lack Keith's bottle (or stupidity) and much prefer hit-and-run sniping from the sidelines and refusing to justify your somewhat mindless extremist opinions
Whether my arguments with him are pointless - they appear to have dragged him and you out of your closets.
I take no credit for having exposed him as the racist and the liar that he is - that's entirely due to his own efforts
can't see him ever being regarded as anything other than the mindless bigot he is - well worth persevering as far as I'm concerned.
Byee
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 08:24 AM

Jim the quotes are on this thread (starting 24th October 2013 4.44AM) and they do blame the culture.

Denying that FACT makes you a fool.
Anyone can see for themselves.

Culture effects us all.
No racism in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 09:34 AM

"The violence targeting Christmas, Easter, and Sunday observance is emblematic of a broader pandemic of anti-Christian hatred. According to a Pew survey, Christians face restrictions and hostility in 111 countries, but Islamist extremism remains "the worst persecutor of the worldwide church." Their anti-Christian animus is often clerically promoted and judicially sanctioned. Islamists have attacked hundreds of Christian institutions; tens of thousands of Christians have been murdered, injured or imprisoned; and many others have been subject to torture, rape and even enslavement"

Protecting the world's Christians

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 09:56 AM

Same page (Ottawa Citizen)

" As noted by Rupert Shortt, religion editor of the Times Literary Supplement, Christianity is "close to extinction" in the region of its origin. The communities of biblical Bethlehem and Ramallah, once heavily or almost exclusively Christian, are moribund. Istanbul, home to two million Christians in 1920, now hosts only a few thousand believers. Gaza's community is close to disappearing, while besieged communities in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon are being depleted. Likewise, Egyptian Copts are fleeing the land they have called home for almost two millennia."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST, Musket
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 10:27 AM

Bobad.

Dangerous lying bullshit.

The drive to blame is a two way street. Shame on you for falling for sectarian scare mongering. Swap the titles round and read it again, it is just as valid, and just as scare mongering.

Keith on the other hand, I expect nothing better.

Once our less objective contributors learn the difference between objective evidence and hand picked facts to support a stance, the sooner this thread can bugger off.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 10:53 AM

"No racism in that."
Suggesting that "all male Pakistanis" pose a risk to our young women because of their culture is as racist as it comes.
If you are not blaming Islam you are blaming Pakistanis - which particular brand of racism/cultural bigotry to you prefer to be identified with?
You have been given the statistical facts on underage sex and child paedophila - I take it you believe that to be off topic and not discussable here - would you care to explain why it isn't dominant thoughout the Iaslamic world - no - I thought not?
Would you care to explain why, if underage sex, paedophelia and incest is prominently an indigenous problem in Britain, it is not down to British culture, especially if it a cultural problem among Muslims, as you insist - no - I thought not?
Would you care to explain why, as you set such store on Jack Straw and all the other so-called 'experts', you totally ignore their actual expert advice that no connection should be made between the behaviour of a tiny handful of young criminals and ether he race or culture of the Muslim community as a whole - no - I thought not?
Yo away, you pathetic little ranter
Lie down, your dead again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 11:00 AM

Jim the quotes are on this thread (starting 24th October 2013 4.44AM) AND THEY DO BLAME THE CULTURE.
NOT ME.
THEM.

Denying that FACT makes you a fool.
Anyone can see for themselves.

Culture effects us all.
No racism in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 04:41 PM

"Those people DID say it came from the culture.
Culture DOES effect everyone.
Saying that is not racist, or else you are accusing many other good people of that evil."

They also added the cautionary comment that this should not be taken as meaning that the grooming and abuse was a Pakistani crime, a point which you have first ignored and later denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 04:50 PM

"A man who ate another man's flesh in the Central African Republic has told the BBC he was seeking "revenge" for the murder of family members.

Ouandja Magloire, who calls himself "Mad Dog", was in a Christian mob who attacked a Muslim in the capital.

He said he had been "angry" because Muslims killed his pregnant wife, his sister-in-law and her baby.

Sectarian violence has been on the rise since rebels installed the country's first Muslim leader in March 2013.

No-one intervened'

"Mad Dog" told the BBC's Paul Wood he had seen his victim sitting on a minibus and decided to follow him.

More and more people joined him until he was at the head of a mob of some 20 youths, he said.

They forced the bus driver to stop and dragged the Muslim man out on the street, where he was beaten and stabbed before being set on fire.

Footage of the incident shows "Mad Dog" eating the man's leg, our correspondent says.

According to eyewitnesses, no-one tried to intervene.

Acts of cannibalism are rare in CAR, where sectarianism is a recent development, our correspondent says.

Mr Djotodia's Seleka rebels have been accused of targeting Christian civilians, leading to the creation of self-defence groups known as anti-balaka.

Those groups have in turn been accused of atrocities against members of the Muslim minority.2

From K A of H's favourite source, the BBC

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 04:55 PM

The last post was mine.

K A of H will now explain that this attack was in retaliation, and he will be correct, in that the man's religion was a sideline, but I believe that merely makes the case that religion cannot be assumed to be the reason for attacking minorities.

In this case in particular, Muslims are the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 01:12 AM

The sectarian violence in CAR has been referred to a few times here.
It began with massacres of Christians by Muslim militia.

This man behaved like a beast.
I hope I would behave better if my pregnant wife, sister and her baby were murdered with machetes.

Guest (Jim?)
They also added the cautionary comment that this should not be taken as meaning that the grooming and abuse was a Pakistani crime, a point which you have first ignored and later denied.

Please produce that cautionary comment from the quotes.
It was a very specific kind of abuse and the perpetrators were mainly from a small demographic.
In the quotes, explanations related to culture are offered for that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 02:26 AM

Rather pathetic Keith?

If your argument had any basis, surely you could have done better than that?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 02:29 AM

What argument?