BS: Qu: Regarding Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 09:51 AM

am or pm Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 10:02 AM

Very much pm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:20 AM

Thank Christ for that. I had visions of you illicitly dossing all night in the crypt then indulging in further, er, illicitry before the early morning shift. My mind has ceased to boggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:33 AM

Why is it that some people, seeing a perfectly good thread on religion, can't resist trying to get it closed down by introducing the subject of sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:34 AM

"I had visions of you illicitly dossing all night in the crypt"
How date you? - d'you think I have no respect for consecrated ground?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:52 AM

We're running out of room, cremation only 

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 12:38 PM

I prefer missionary, although you need less room playing doggies.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:21 PM

Dave: "Why is it that some people, seeing a perfectly good thread on religion, can't resist trying to get it closed down by introducing the subject of sex."

Because their corporate backers find certain 'religions' a threat to their agendas. They hide it behind 'politics'.

One thing I find rather hypocritical, is that while the 'so-called liberals' love to scream 'racism' and 'bigot', basing it on the part of the Constitution that guarantees 'equality'....they look the other way, when it comes to 'creed'...as in race, CREED or color. They hopped on the bandwagon and venerate Martin Luther King....but stop up their ears, and close their eyes that REVEREND Martin Luther King began his message, FROM HIS PULPIT, in the Dexter Avenue BAPTIST Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and later helped found the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957, serving as its first president.

A lot of the phony 'so-called liberals' jump aboard...NOT because of any sense of compassion towards blacks, but because they wanted to 'belong' to something, as a way of recognition for something...ANYTHING...and what they became was the moral equivalent of the KKK of the '60's and 70's when anyone posts a post regarding 'religion'. They will denigrate them, try to discredit them, mock them, change the subject, and try in essence to get the thread closed down....and frankly how a person feels to regard 'God', in any of the concepts, within their own minds, is really NONE of their business!!

But it bugs them. They have to stomp it out...and can't even come up with a good reason why!! They coddle the blacks(and a lot of them don't even know very many of them that they call 'friends'...but just because it is a 'cause' that they can pretend to 'feel important', about.

Some folks may have differences with certain denominations...and certain denominations have brought some of that upon themselves..but the way they are treated, BY those who don't have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about, is, as I said before, the moral equivalent of the KKK!!!

They LOVE to spout Vladimir Lenin...except this one:
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the Russian revolutionary who founded Bolshevism which became Soviet Communism, said, "I made a mistake. Without doubt, an oppressed multitude had to be liberated. But our method only provoked further oppression and atrocious massacres. My living nightmare is to find myself lost in an ocean of red with the blood of innumerable victims. It is too late now to alter the past, but what was needed to save Russia were ten Francis of Assisi's" (Letters on Modern Atheism)."

But the history only teaches us that man NEVER learns from history!!!

...and the passage from the Constitution, of which the 'so-called liberals' about 'equality', is based of the Judaeo/Christian concept which the Constitution is based on!!..Thought they will stupidly argue, and beg to differ...but they are WRONG!!

"Wash one's mind of Judaeo Christian connection…it does not exist..it is a trap millions are falling into".

OR you can make the same mistake Lenin chased..until he wised up!!
(See Lenin's quote above).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:47 PM

Sorry guys, I seem to have inadvertently left the door unlocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:00 PM

Sorry??...You got your question answered, didn't you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM

Corporate backers... Good old Goofus. We make allowances for foreigners you know..

Your sincerely

Musket

In association with Fullards Fish & Chips, purveyors of finest Grimsby cod and haddock, and finest King Edwards from The Isle of Axholme. Open Tuesday to Saturday, on street parking available. Please ask on entry for haddock, pies and fish cakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM

Not a clue GfS, whole lot is completely over my head. I know nothing of this Alabama or KKK of which you write. Not my country mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:30 PM

Dave, the KKK is a 'White Supremacist' group, mostly in the South, who hates blacks, and was known for lynching them, among other forms of persecuting them. Just Google 'KKK'...you'll get a disgusting insight.

It's a hate group..you know, like how 'liberals' feel towards Christian 'religions'.....you know, like the Chi-Com feel towards the Tibetan monks...

Musket: "Corporate backers..."

Yeah, the guys who own the media, and the 'party bosses...and about everything you think. They want control of both the money and property, while they remain at the top, and control it all....while pretending it's all 'political'.

BTW, Do you think those guys live like YOU or I do???...or have any plans to do so???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: mg
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM

please follow what is going on regarding australian cardinal and abuse survivors and testimony in rome. absolutely profound implications for catholic church. much will be exposed i think, including absolute incompetence, narcissism, criminal orientation of higherups, in terms of thumbing their noses..their ontologically altered noses..at the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 04:00 PM

Plenty of liberals feel very positively towards Christian religions, and are indeed part of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:24 PM

"It's a hate group..you know, like how 'liberals' feel towards Christian 'religions'.."
Are you really suggesting thAt liberals want to lynch Christians
Do you have nay evidence of this?
Takes all sorts to make a discussion forum - I suppose
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:45 PM

Jim Carroll: "Are you really suggesting thAt liberals want to lynch Christians
Do you have nay evidence of this."

Evidence??...Just look how they are treated in Mudcat!!

...but, you're right: "Takes all sorts to make a discussion forum - I suppose."

First it starts with 'talk'...and gathering from the 'talk' on here, there is a disproportionate amount of animosity towards Christians on here...from there it escalates...and do we really need that??

There was a time in Germany, that the 'hate rhetoric' was aimed at the Jews...I think it escalated, don't you think?

I may not...no I'll change that, I DO not agree with a lot of the tenants of a whole lot of 'religions'...and unless someone WANTS to discus it, I'll hold forth...but not at all like the ATTACKS, accusations, attempts to discredit, and baiting to close the thread that goes on within predominately 'liberal' groups, as in here.

I'm having a hard time believing that you are not aware of that....so your next post(or someone else's) will be a smear tactic...or maybe she'll just close the thread....which SHOULD be your clue!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:22 AM

Anybody who says they have a faith isn't treated in any way differently to anyone else Goofus. I don't recall any post by anyone to that end.

I do however see what happens when reality is scorned by people pushing superstition or claiming in debate the certainty of impossible things. I for one really lace into the concept of religious organisations trying to control communities or demanding respect whilst abusing vulnerable children and adults.

No. You confuse personal need for a comfort blanket with the rotten corruption that convinces feeble minds of its importance in life.

Nothing to do with any ideology or political outlook. It's god botherers who try to introduce their sky pixies to politics, not normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:34 AM

Oh, just look at the responses to 'pete of 7**'...even Joe Offer has had some 'belittling replies'.....not to mention attacks by YOU, Greg F., Steve Shaw just to mention a few....and though I'm not promoting any particular 'religion', I also get flak, if I comment on 'God', in response to somebody's semi-literate diatribe on the subject...and frankly, I can't believe you are pretending to playing being ignorant regarding this!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:54 AM

"Evidence??...Just look how they are treated in Mudcat!!"
You mean disagreed with - tsk-tsk what a shower of inhuman bastards we are!!
Perhaps you might like to provide examples where it has been suggested that anybody has suggested we should lynch or harm in any way, Christians, or ny other religious group - no? - thought not!!
Haven't been to a good lynching for years.
It is rabble-rousers like your good self who bring about lynchings and persecution
Christians, as with all religion, are persecutors and potential persecutors in the name of their various beliefs and superstitions.
I respect Joe for much he has to say - I do not respect his defence of a church that has done the damage it is done, and is continuing to do - not even when he reduces that defence to "what they say isn't important any more - go and count that many thousands of failies and individuals that have been tainted because of widespread - world-wide, it transpires - clerical abuse.
Or the effects the church is still having on over-population, or sexually transmitted diseases, or the lives off homosexuals,or the education of our children..... or all the other ills of the world that the church still has its grubby hands on.
If you believe that discussion and criticism of that is "lynching", you live in a strange, disturbed world.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Atheist Ideologies.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 03:55 AM

Does anyone have any idea how many people have been killed in the name of atheist ideologies, and imposing those ideologies on neighbouring people, and their own.

Some significant names from 20th Century would be Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:14 AM

There's a gulf of difference between killing people in the name of atheism and killing people because they're atheists. In fact, I don't recall any of your hit-list ever saying that they were coming to get you because you're not an atheist like me. Dictators with expansionist notions kill people to gain even more territory and power. Religion is the veneer of respectability they attempt to cover themselves with in order to convince their own side that what they're doing is right. My view is that many people in history have been killed in the name of religion but that very few actually have been killed because of their religion. There has nearly always been another reason. I dislike all organised religions but if I want to find sticks to beat them with I can find plenty without resorting to dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:32 AM

I might be wrong in this but I cannot recall any of the people on the list saying "thou shalt not kill" which is a basic tenet of Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:35 AM

"people in history have been killed in the name of religion but that very few actually have been killed because of their religion. There has nearly always been another reason".
.,,.

This seems to me perhaps an oversimplified dichotomy. Surely both sides of this equation are generally present, but in varying proportions. Certain Islamic polities will nowadays execute people for converting to another religion, for instance. Are not both a religious and a politically ideological element involved in such occasions? The same is surely true of all such goings-on, from Christians-to-the-Lions to the Crusades to the Holocaust, Intifada, 6-Day-War....?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:45 AM

"thou shalt not kill" .. a basic tenet of Christianity".

No it isn't Raggy — or there would never have been the Holy Office [aka Spanish Inquisition], Crusades, Reformation/Counter-Reformation with concomitant burnings & hangings, Salem witch trials ...

usw &c·&c ad ∞∞∞∞∞.....................

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:50 AM

Funny that Michael, I thought it was one of the 10 commandments.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:05 AM

It is usually translated as do no murder Rag.
Jesus had no objection to people being serving soldiers. He healed the daughter of a Centurion.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:27 AM

Ahem ...... No, the 5th (or sometimes 6th) commandment states quite clearly "Thou shalt not kill" Full stop, no proviso's included.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:30 AM

Wiki,

"Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[2] The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."

The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[44] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[45] Jesus himself repeats and expands upon the commandment, "Do not murder."[46] The New Testament depicts Jesus as explaining that murder, as well as other sins, comes from the heart.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

— Matthew 15:19 (NIV)
The New Testament acknowledges the just and proper role of civil government in maintaining justice[47] and punishing evildoers, even to the point of "bearing the sword."[48]

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[53] The profession of soldier is used as a metaphor by Paul exhorting the Ephesians to "put on the full armor of God."[54] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[55] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurion's servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[56] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance. John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:31 AM

PS: I thought it was a centurions servant. Luke 7-9 ESV

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:33 AM

Michael, I will thank you for not misrepresenting what I said. You truncated my remark by starting the quote "people in history" when what I actually typed was "many people in history". Stop pretending you're Keith for a minute, will you.

Keith, ask a hundred Christians what the fifth commandment is. If they don't all say "thou shalt not kill" I'll eat my hat. "Usually translated as do no murder" my arse. As for healing the daughter of a centurion, well she wasn't the centurion, and several other considerations besides. For example, the fact that he didn't do it. Even if he had done, at least he wasn't clinging to the tenet that the sins of the father are visited upon the daughter. Complicated stuff, this biblical morality. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:34 AM

Quite right Rag.
Well spotted.
It was referenced in my last post anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:36 AM

Thats a massive cop-out Keith. Of course he would heal the daughter of a centurion, he would even heal the centurion himself I believe, but that does not mean that he had no objection to him being a centurion. "Love your enemies", didn't he say that? Religion is often invoked as a defence of nationalism, but the consistent Christian position is in my view theQuaker one.

You are right in your earlier post of course that plenty of atheists have been violent murderers too.

Michael, I think that all of your examples are ones in which religion is commandeered as a justification for violence whose real motivation is a thirst for power. ISIS, thats another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:39 AM

As I said earlier there are no provisos in "Thou shalt not kill"

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:34 AM

Rag, it has always been understood as "do no murder" since Moses.
The Israelites were constantly at war.

There is no indication in the New Testament that it is unjust, immoral, or inappropriate for secular civil governments to execute those guilty of shedding innocent blood.[52]

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[53] The profession of soldier is used as a metaphor by Paul exhorting the Ephesians to "put on the full armor of God."[54] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[55] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurion's servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[56] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance.John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:43 AM

You can paint it any colour you wish but the commandment clearly states "Thou shalt not kill" FULL STOP.

No ifs' buts or maybes.

As a commandment I quite like that one, I think it's my favourite.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:53 AM

I don't like that one that says I can't covet my neighbour's wife's ass...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:05 AM

Raggy -- as to 'the commandment clearly states "Thou shalt not kill"'

It was not written in English, you silly fellow Raggy; but in Hebrew - a language I learnt to speak quite fluently many years ago, tho now rather rusty. But I will tell you, because I know better than you in this instance, that it contains two distinct verbs: one of which translates as 'to kill' tout simple'; the other as "to kill unlawfully", ie to murder. And it is the latter, not the former, which occurs in the commandment. (English, you will note, similarly contains two distinct verbs, 'kill' and 'murder', for the same two discrete concepts.)

You are going on, as my late first mother-in-law used scornfully to put it, like those who appear to believe that The Bible was always 'bound in black and written in English'. FYO, it wasn't; so stop telling me what that commandment sez, or at least said in its original language -- because I know better than you do, & you have GOT IT WRONG!

שלום

≈M≈

That says, 'shalom'' = 'peace', the standard Hebrew greeting or valediction.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:15 AM

Actually I had a long discussion with a creationist who hasn't posted to the site for a while. They usually say that the commandment says 'thou shallot murder' which is a huge caveat when compared with 'thou shalt not kill'. In particular who gets to decide whether is is murder or not. Again, the answer is usually the state, which gets us onto the interesting position that God can in effect be overruled ny the state in the event of a disagreement. But also many genocides are state approved, so presumably they don't break the commandment. And this doesn't begin to deal with civil wars when it isn't even clear who the state is

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:15 AM

So all those millions of Christians were regaled with a load of background Hebrew when they were made to chant the commandments, eh? As I said, ask a hundred Christians what Commandment Five is. Ask them what they think it means. I doubt that any one of them will start to delve into semantics with you. In any case, let's remember that the story of those ten strictures is a bloody big fib in any case. Tablets of stone from God fetched down by a murderous bastard. He had no taste, this God chappie.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:17 AM

Those creationists do know their onions though... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM

You may well be correct Michael, however in ALL western Christian translations of the bible that I am aware of the 5th (6th) commandment simply states "Thou shalt not kill"

As I said no if's buts or maybes.

The Koran I believe is slightly different in as much as Chapter 17, Verse 33 states "And do not kill the soul which God has made sacred, except in the course of justice. If someone is killed unjustly, We have given his next of kin certain authority. But he should not be excessive in killing, for he will be supported"

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:20 AM

Yes, I noticed that shallot. Damn damn damn damn damn

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:30 AM

So, Raggy, you prefer a widespread mistranslation to an accurate one, and would rather derive your morality thence.

Can't say which I think less of:- your ethical or your academic standards; both appear severely exiguous to me.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:39 AM

Not me Michael, I managed to shake off religion decades ago.

However I am aware of many, many people of a religious persuasion who claim to follow the commandments but then go on to say that this or that killing is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:54 AM

Whatever the translation, the commandment has always been understood by both Christians and Jews to proscribe only murder.
Neither religion demands pacifism, and pacifists have only ever been a small minority of both faiths.

Jesus never suggested that executions or warfare breached the commandment. He clearly understood and accepted that it was only unlawful killing or murder that was proscribed.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:54 AM

Perhaps they are better versed in, or more conscious of, the obvious distinction between lawful and unlawful killing than you are, Raggy? It is idle, and frankly IMO not·right·bright, on your part, to pretend that such a distinction cannot be made by those purporting to follow any particular ethical code.

Sentence of death in the formulaic words when such applied would end with "May the Lord have mercy upon your soul". I don't believe in Lords or souls any more than you do BTW; but that is scarcely the point, is it?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 08:07 AM

The bible is so much a mass of ambiguities and contradictions as to make it totally useless as a moral or ethical guide - on killing, on women, on homosexuality, on acquisition....
Christians such as those on display here are among the first to make use of these in order to ignore all their supposedly dearly held beliefs and stal remain "Christian"
Killing meaning "murder" is a later rationalisation - there is no evidence to suggest it was confined to 'unlawful murder'
Nowhere in the scriptures is the deliberate taking of human life for gain condoned, yet "Christians" have condones mass slaughter for just that throughout the ages - as late as recent threads on Mudcat.
If push comes to shove, we'd be stoning women for infidelity and ripping eyes out as acts of revenge if we were to take this sometimes very beautiful (prior to the latest dumbing-down) work of fiction seriously.
Try telling a Christian he won't go to heaven if he seeks wealth, and see how far you get.
It's a big a joke as appealing to our resident Christians' humanity
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 08:38 AM

"Neither religion demands pacifism, and pacifists have only ever been a small minority of both faiths."

Good job really. No religion that espouses pacifism has ever done very well. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:05 AM

"Neither religion demands pacifism,"
Maybe I read about "turning the other cheek" in the Beano when I was young.
Jim Carroll