@ Kibbutz Klutz #2

" Who cares if you or your fellow bandwagon riders agree or disagree with me about anti-Semitism?... for centuries we were persecuted and slaughtered by "friends" ..."


I don't hate you because you are Jewish


I don't hate you because you are an idiot.


I don't hate you because you are a Jewish idiot,

or because you are an idiot who just happens to be born Jewish.


In fact, I don't "hate" you at all,I pity you,but I

do hold fast to  the view that you are an idiot.


Unless and until you show evidence to the contrary,that

opinion is unlikely to change.

Re: Aliza.She is a Jewess and you are a Jew.Tell HER about your differences  on this issue,NOT me!

Geert Wilders

Wilders is doing the right thing. Film would be good start but he needs to do more then just films…..his campaign against dual citizenship and banning immigration from Islamofascist countries are excellent ideas but he is not going deep enough. Immigration from non-European countries should be banned…..citizenship should be only for native Dutch…..NO naturalization…….


Now you can label me with any despicable word you want to but that won’t change my view about you……there is clear difference……marcfrancs, sagunto they disagree and probably dislike me but disagreement and dislike never crossed in to “the Jews” and as descent people they show displeasure to only me and not to my faith or my nation. You on the other hand clearly showed your true colours by keep attacking everyone of my faith. …..of course in your fantasy land you are “the smartest person” on this plant…….yep when something missing in your head other persons writing do start to look idiotic…… again you could had made your point about freedom of expression without taking a swipe at “the Jews”…….more then 6 million innocent were slaughtered not because freedom of expression but because HATE SPEECH poison was allowed to spread through out Europe.
Prime example today HATE SPEECH in US is focused on photos of Noose black issues etc….but no one is even paying attention to real HATE SPEECH propaganda by Islamo fascists……. majority American’s are already feeling uncomfortable about WAR against Islamofascism only because of irrational arguments by defenders of freedom of expression that Islamofascist propaganda should be allowed to flow because its freedom of expression. Poison of islamo fascist Hate speech can’t be stop just by counter arguments. In battle enemy propaganda must be stopped not to let it flow. Putting an end to Hate Speech is not suppression but rational reality.

@ Yitzhak

I never took a swipe at "the Jews", because in my opinion "the Anything" don't exist.
I am not taking the time anymore to repeat previous comments of mine because you are a hopelessly frustrated human being whom I can not cure.
End of conversation.


Ok I think I said bit too much I realize you care about your faith just like I care about mine. I am sorry about that. No hard feelings I hope for future…..



No hard feelings.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

..And on topic again, films about islamization/koran

Well, I know it's terrifying, but it had to come out anytime soon... so. Here it is!

The long awaited Wilders-film about the Koran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5q-iqpgZZc


Oh well ok, it's "a" Wilders-film ;-)

In fact it would be a smart move indeed, when the actual film, if it ever comes out, would not concern itself with the koran but with the numerous reactions/preparations to the mere announcement of the film, some of them pretty hysterical and hilarious (Dutch government) and also some pretty threatening (the Syrian agent dressed up as über-mufti, or was it vice versa, intimidating the appeasers at the EU parliament).



Who cares if you or your fellow bandwagon riders agree or disagree with me about anti-Semitism? I don’t need anyone’s certificate for that. Point is bandwagon riders like you can’t stop whining about how big friend you are of Israel. But reality is you are not friend of Israel and I am simply trying to show your true face to “every kibbutz idiot” For centuries we were persecuted and slaughtered by “friends” Islamofascists can only have wishful thinking of matching our “friends” on that. NEVER AGAIN is the motto of “every kibbutz idiot”.


"Who cares if you or your fellow bandwagon riders agree or disagree with me about anti-Semitism?"

Apparently you're the only one. Must be lonely being you.

"But reality is you are not friend of Israel and I am simply trying to show your true face to “every kibbutz idiot”"

Good luck. They probably laugh in your face. Now go back to the asylum where you belong. Better yet, why don't you go to the Daily Kos and spew your ignorant venom there? At least you'll be in the right venue for it.

"For centuries we were persecuted and slaughtered by “friends” Islamofascists can only have wishful thinking of matching our “friends” on that."

*have a kleenex* Now stop shooting yourself in the foot.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


I don’t care if you will get reply from Flemish, German or French but you won’t get free ride from me if you try to bash “the Jews”. B”H I am part of Hashem’s chosen nation. If you think I am allergic to be called member of Jewish faith then you surely needs a doctor who can check if you got any Brain left or you need to be sent to MPC on E 125th.

@ Yitzhak

Are you sure you are not an islamist pretending to be jewish? Your writing is so idiotic that you can't be a jew, they are much more intelligent.


You just can’t wait to show you anti-Semitic bigotry. You could have made your point like the way Sagunto or showed your disapproval against just me but NOOOOO….. Unfortunately it’s important for you to show your bigotry against “the Jews”……


You cry wolf a lot. Every time someone disagrees with you, you scream "anti Semitism!". After a while, no one believes you anymore. And after a longer while, no one will believe that anti Semitism exists anymore because of people like you who abuse the term.

I guess every kibbutz has its idiot.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@ Yitzhak

I don't think there is a cure for your frustrations.
I am regularly writing about the Flemish, the Germans, the French and from time to time about the Jews.
No Flemish, German or French individual has ever complained to me to be called as such, why should they?
You, on the contrary are allergic to be called a member of the jewish faith, rather intresting don't you think?
Further you can say or write whatever you feel like about me, I will even defend your right to do so, but you have absolutely no right to stop any kind of freedom of expression, whatever your reasons. That is the one thing you will never pass by me without being attacked for it.
My comment about "the jews" was in sympathy, I have Dachau-survivors in my own family, by marriage and my sympathy goes to them with full compassion. Further they agree with me 100% that Dachau would have never happened with freedom of speech in Germany in the 1930's.
So be intelligent and do what I asked you to do, you didn't even think 5 minutes, otherwise you wouldn't have insisted on repeating the same BS.


There is no-place for Hate speech in freedom of expression. Besides I remember a while ago Mr. Belien wrote that because of Belgium laws he wants to be very careful about such things and I absolutely agree with him.

Rationality should be put before …..Stupidly cheerleading for “ideology” …….in current circumstances to achieve something positive rational steps are needed. Passionate defence for freedom of expression works only when you are in like minded society and enemy is playing by rules.

In any case Hate Speech shouldn’t be tolerated period. Freedom of expression is not absolute. USA birth place of freedom and liberty don’t have absolute freedom of expression anymore sure US is far better then Europe but still there are limitations. For instance 1st amendment clearly states everything about freedom of speech, freedom of expression etc… but still congress passed HATE CRIME legislation.  

lapsed beyond faith ;-)

Yes atheling, habemus ad dominum..

To a Dutch reader the words 'lapsed Catholic' look kinda funny, somewhat like: "are you a Catholic who's had a little too much to drink?"

But in all honesty, no. I'm still sober and I never was a catholic. Not lapsed, so no 'relapse' either ;-)

I'm just not all that fond of those atheists who display some kind of moral/intellectual superiority vis a vis religion. Oh, and I don't like the kind of intellectual elites who claim to posess some sort of blue-print or medicine for an ideal society (be it 'religious' [Calvin, Mohammed] or non-religious [Lenin, Hitler]). Engineers with big schemes who'd like to remake society as a whole into 'the ultimate system'; one perfect machine. Such system-thinkers always succeed in failing to grasp what needs to precede any 'system' (my own clumsy version of Böckenförde's thesis).*

Revolts of the (self-proclaimed) elites have always been something along 'systemic' lines, and they always have been primarily targeted at people who uphold tradition and cherish their own freedom. An important part of European tradition (imp. both in longevity and accomplishment) is, apart from the religious core, the unique mixture of ancient Roman civilization (folk-culture included) and pagan culture that survived in and through the Roman Catholic church. Without it, Europe can't remain Europe. It becomes nothing but the EU. Even a Frankfurter Schulist like Jürgen Habermas acknowledges this (albeit tacitly), in his famous exchange with Joseph Ratzinger, non papa at the time ;-)


* That's why i.m.o. 'bringing democracy' to societies who are culturally deeply at odds with its values, will never succeed. A short look at the Gaza elections will suffice to rest my case.


Well I'll be. You think like a Catholic, lol. You sure you don't have a Jesuit hiding in your closet somewhere?

Greatly appreciate your clarity of mind and judgment, as well as your knowledge of history. I wish other Westerners (and Christians) had the same.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@atheling.. sursum cordis!

Here's a quote from the one & only H.L. Mencken that might amuse you (well, perhaps not all of it):

"..The Latin Church, which I constantly find myself admiring, despite its frequent astounding imbecilities, has always kept clearly before it the fact that religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. Rome, indeed, has not only preserved the original poetry in Christianity; it has also made capital additions to that poetry -for example, the poetry of the saints, of Mary, and of the liturgy itself.

A solemn high mass must be a thousand times as impressive, to a man with any genuine religious sense in him, as the most powerful sermon ever roared under the big-top by a Presbyterian auctioneer of God. Preaching is not an essential part of the Latin ceremonial. It was very little employed in the early church, and I am convinced that good effects would flow from abandoning it today, or, at all events, reducing it to a few sentences, more or less formal.

In the United States the Latin brethren have been seduced by the example of the Protestants, who commonly transform an act of worship into a puerile intellectual exercise; instead of approaching God in fear and wonder, these Protestants settle back in their pews, cross their legs, and listen to an ignoramus try to prove that he is a better theologian than the Pope. This folly the Romans now slide into.."

H. L. Mencken wrote these lines in 1923, roughly 40 years before Vaticanum II. Not only is it funny and well written, but it also contains a profound lesson. Anyway, I espec. liked the part about the "ignoramus" and the "puerile intellectual exercise". Self-proclaimed 'thinkers' out here have kindly provided some stark illustration of his point ;-)


P.s.: in an earlier post I tried to 'complement' the incomplete picture painted by some thinkers. Afterwards I noticed a glaring omission on my part. Because when allusions to Herr Hitler are constantly invoked by some great thinkers out on the loose here, the one European "icon" that Hitler consistently mentions as his inspiration in executing his Final Solution should not fail from any list. Or do you think that it would be wise to leave Herr Martin Luther* and this whole slightly sub-topic discussion in peace? (* "On the Jews and their lies" & "An Admonition against the Jews"; read both of these sickening pieces in a well researched Phd. dissertation by René Süss [in Dutch] )

The Osamas, Pol Pots and Hitlers ok as long as they are Popes

Regarding your arguments.

They show that you have become so dedicated to the papacy that you are willing to accept any man as long as he has got the papist garb.

None of the Apostles committed murder. The Apostle Paul stopped murdering after he believed in Jesus.

But Im not going to shove your faces into the excrement to let you see for yourselves all that the popes have done....(Im afraid that as long as you are told that it is the popes...you will always say that you like it)

to you they are sacrosant....

Hence, my conclusion is true. Had Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Osama walked in Papal garb...you would be here defending them with all the ardour in your very being...using some scraps from the Bible and all the blinkers and blindfolds needed to believe such a thing.

As regards to the churches that have moved off from Rome...at least when you go into one, you will know whether they are pro homosexual or not...and you can choose based on your ability to think and interpret the Bible on your own...which is not very difficult...if you tried.

But with the Papists, you are bound and forced to accept anything that is up there. Murderes, Pedophiles, womanizers, genociders...etc.

and then on top of that...you go defending them...

think will you....

Nutty Steiner:

"and you can choose based on your ability to think and interpret the Bible on your own...which is not very difficult...if you tried."

Oh yeah, of course! Choose religion like you choose peanut butter! What a crock of s*** you propose!

From the gobbledygook you have posted so far, you have demonstrated that you haven't the mental capacity to "choose" what's right or wrong. You are no Christian, little man. You are merely a liberal masquerading as your own pope. Pathetic.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


You have not made your argument. You have indeed "failed miserably" to substantiate your assertions.

Yet you obdurately cling to them. So, who is the sinner? Who clings to lies?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine



How stupid can one be? Do you think Pope John Paul II is the same as Hitler? Or Pope Benedict XVI?

Answer, please.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"We Lift them up to the Lord..."


Ah, HL Mencken is an astute observer!

Thank you. (Argh, I don't know Dutch!)

PS- Are you a lapsed Catholic???

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


Steiner is mistaken because he is confusing personal sin with dogma.  Whatever sect he may belong to (and I am guessing that it’s one of those enthusiastic evangelical branches), he is poorly educated in his ability to reason properly.



Pope Benedict’s Regensberg address - yes the one that made Muslims go apes**t over his reference to a remark made by a Byzantine emperor about Islam’s irrationality and violence - was really a reprimand to the Christian sects which have supplanted reason with zealotry.  It’s rather ironic and telling that most “heretics” like Steiner completely missed the point.



"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@traveller and Sagunto:

I'm not so sure that Yitzhak is being sincere in his call to have Steiner banned. I suspect that he is making a sideswipe at the editor's faith, implying some kind of bias regarding free speech.

What is really amusing is that the only person that Mr. Belien has banned (to my knowledge), is Amsterdamsky, the resident jew hater, (although Kapitein Andre comes a close second), and who was also reinstated to the BJ as a commenter as a result of the intercession of many here who believe in free speech, no matter how stupid or hateful it may be.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

In regards to mosques and foreign government

Given that:

1.The Saudi Arabian state is a government based on the Wahabi interpretation of the Koran.

2. Its laws are sharia laws.

3. The Saudi state is financing the building of many of the mosques that preach a wahabi version of Islam in our countries.

Can we conclude that Saudi Arabia is setting up its own
mini-governments (embassies) in our state every time
another mosque to be built?

This is illegal?! is it not?

A foreign state should not be allowed to set up mini-governments in our nation.

Oh look! it's trying to think..

Fanatics are actually quite funny when they try to make a point while anger gets in the way. Entertaining to see one thinker's attempt to silence the other forum-swamping forosoph.

Great answer: don't like what you read? Just ask the moderator for a ban. This really is 'thinking' at another level.

A bit low for my taste but hey, go ahead Mr. and don't let a desire for meaningful discussion or even simple decency stand in y'r way. 

I agree with @traveller, silencing someone - whatever you might think of the.. eh peculiar way Herr Steiner is presenting his point - and asking for a ban, is a disgrace that i.m.o. is not to be excused.



I did try to warn you about Yitzhak.The answer to your question is no,but I'm pretty sure he got your last message loud and clear.


"They do not like it up 'em".

about Steiner

Ok looks to me Steiner is Anti-Catholic bigot its time for Mr. Belien to take some action. Preferably by deleting Steiner’s account, deleting his ridiculous rants about Papacy would be much better.


@ Yitzhak

Steiner works on my system from time to time because of his harmless ranting.
You on the contrary make me mad when you want to block freedom of expression, that my friend is exactly why the jews could be exterminated in silence.
Shut up and think for 5 minutes, then apologize to everybody here.

I have said enough.

If you think I have failed miserably in making my point, so be it.

On the other hand, maybe there is something to think about.

If you are offended...dont be. Take my comments lightly...
and work things out on your own as you think about them.

We may not change our minds right away, but as we discuss things through,
we learn a little, add to our knowledge, and as time passes, we may come round closer to the truth...

So if you think that you have not been heard...I disagree.
I appreciate and value every single person here.

@Steiner II

Now, let’s address heresy. I will cut and paste what St. Thomas Aquinas defined and analyzed as “heresy”:

"a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".

Those “corrupt dogmas” can be witnessed today in many Protestant sects by their erroneous teachings on: homosexual marriage, polygamy, abortion, contraception, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, free will, etc…

St. Thomas also articulates:

"The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".

The Catholic Church’s dogmatic purity comes from having a visible leader who can say “The buck stops here”. We can be assured that the Magisterium, through its devotion to the Gospel truth, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Scripture and tradition, affirms and teaches Christ’s Truth over the centuries without fail, as promised by Christ to his first disciples. Through the Pope and the Magisterium, we Catholics don’t have the moral confusion so prevalent in Protestantism today.

If one regards history, one will see the culture which emerged after the gestation period of the Dark Ages, in which the Renaissance – truly a rebirthing of man – produced some of the greatest art the world has seen and remains unparalleled to this day. And what has Protestantism produced? Sects. And more sects. And many, many more sects. Like a Hydra, we see a head die, and then 2 or 3 more take its place, only to die again… there is no consistency or longevity! And with each emerging sect, we see stranger and more startling teachings as promoted by the crackpots mentioned before. Tell me Steiner, how long has your “church” been in existence? Since 1974? 1992? Did it start in someone’s backyard six months ago? Or are you the sole member of your “church”? Where does your moral authority come from? Yourself? Your pastor? What “checks and balances” do you have to prevent the corruption of Christ’s teachings? I would venture to say NONE. I would also say that your “church’ won’t last. Like many of the other sects which have come and gone, yours will go the same way. And guess what? The Church will remain. Long after your sect has passed, long after many nations will pass, the Roman Catholic Church will still stand, as Christ promised.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


"If you think I have failed miserably in making my point, so be it.

On the other hand, maybe there is something to think about."

Here is food for thought for you:

A Pope you forgot to mention: this one followed Jesus since the early days of his ministry. Jesus told him “You are the rock upon which I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against thee”. Later, that Pope betrayed Jesus THREE TIMES, out of pure cowardice. Some leader, huh? Do you think that you should NEVER listen to him or read his letters in the Bible? Another one of Jesus’ disciples betrayed him to his enemies with a kiss. Does that mean that the faith should be repudiated because its followers are weak and sinful? Do you abandon Peter because of Judas?

Steiner, your remarks imply that the personal sinfulness of these popes (and I’m assuming that what you have listed is truthful, though you have not sourced your information and you have not shown good faith in your intentions), means that one should not follow the Church. I put it to you that NO Christian church can then be followed, for you will find sinners in EVERY sect. Indeed, it is a strange phenomenon that a church which is so riddled with sinners can still stand! 2,000 years of good and bad, and the Church remains the largest, oldest, and most visible evidence of Christian faith. In those 2,000 years, she has NEVER had to unsay what she has said regarding faith and morals. NEVER. Even those sinful popes have never uttered a false teaching of the Gospel, their personal sinfulness notwithstanding. Now that’s something to think about. Why is it? Could it be possibly that there is a supernatural reason for the Church’s existence? Does not God always keep his promises “... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against thee...”?

Now, when one looks at the many, many sects which sprang from Protestantism, one sees confusion, contradiction, and UNTRUTH, such as the heresies regarding the sacrament of Holy Eucharist (some say it’s merely a symbol), sin (homosexuality and abortion are okay), whether Jesus was truly a man, greed (as in the televangelists’ creed of wealth), free will, etc... Furthermore, Protestantism has produced many false teachers who have led their flock to their demise: Rev. Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, to name a recent few. Certainly, in committing suicide as these false leaders have done, and with the current defections of many Protestants to the true Church, one can see that those cut off “branches” withered away as Jesus stated in the Gospel of John. The Church is right to cut these heresies and heretics from the true faith via excommunication in order to maintain its doctrinal purity, which remains unchanged since the Church’s beginnings on Pentecost. You accuse the Church of killing heretics (you also fail to mention the many heretics who have killed Catholics over the centuries, or even the Salem witch hunts), but the statute of limitations ran out on that a long time ago. When’s the last time a Catholic burned a heretic at the stake?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


Alright since you are not going to stop acting like dumb teenage cheerleader i gotta make it clear so then may be you grow up and act mature.

“Was Hitler apostate” or not “Was He Christian” or not I don’t care what someone thinks or believe. Fact is Hitler was never excommunicated by Church, Was baptized Catholic. Denial can’t change historical fact. Now many so called “moderate” Islamofascists can’t stop whining same kind of claim about Bin Laden that “He is not Muslim” blah blah…Give me a break……

I invoke reference to Old Testament because that’s part of your beliefs isn’t it? I never seen or hear anyone in my synagogue reading Matthew, Mark, Luke etc I am sure people with brain got my drift.


So what if Hitler was never excommunicated by the Church? I don't think you understand what excommunication is about. By your reasoning, we can blame Communism on the Jews, since Marx was a Jew. And believe me, Communism is no better than Naziism. We can also blame Jews then for the ACLU and its leftwing, communist agenda. Would you like to have your religion blamed for that too? You want to open that can of worms?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


 Sagunto is conveniently spinning and minimizing Jewish persecution by Church throughout history Church’s record is mixed instead of acknowledging that you are simply in denial about negative record your open dismissal makes me think if that’s just simply ol’ bias or “closeted bigotry”?

Rabbi Dahlin’s book is mostly about Hitler’s mufti plus Rabbi Dahlin is not denying anything put by Mr. Cronwell in his book. Anyway Pope Pius XII record at best could be benign neglect the controversy about Pope Pius XII is still open. Pinchas Lapide first grossly exaggerated the number of Jews saved by church. Anyway Sagunto conveniently forgot to mention the number of baptized Jews. For example 3000 Visa’s to Brazil were obtained by Holy See but 2000 were not granted because of in Cardinal Luigi Maglione’s words “improper conduct” Translation reference to the returning of Jews to Judaism once they reached Brazil.In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal secretary of state, Cardinal Maglione, to intervene in Spain to keep Jews there from being sent back to Germany, and he later wrote again about a similar situation in Lithuania. But the Holy See did not intervene.

On September 18, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, noted: "The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms." But when the United States representative to the Vatican, Myron Taylor, forwarded a note to Cardinal Maglione that month, stating that the Jews were being sent to the east to be killed, the secretary of state replied that it was not possible to verify the accuracy of such rumors.


Now I don’t believe any “irredeemable atheist” would minimize and spin Jewish suffering however a closeted bigot that’s whole different story isn’t it “Sagunto”.


steiner writes; "Hitler was definitely not a Christian...".


Question: Will he,like yourself,be "Yitzhaked" (i.e. accused of antisemitism) for daring to suggest such a thing? Watch this space.Likewise,watch this space for steiner's promised list of "BAD" and "UGLY" Popes.Will this list,if or when it comes, save steiner from almost certain"Yitzhakification" or is it already too late for him?Will Yitzhak be too petrified to "Yitzhak" steiner? This is all riveting stuff,wouldn't you agree? So,sit back and let the comedy continue apace...

@ Atlanticist911

I just arrived in Geneva and read the comments.
For a man who is not frustrated he certainly displays the symptoms, do you think he knows that I tried to be nice???

@ steiner

You are really hopeless in your crusade.
I am a catholic, born and raised, went to a catholic school.
And you know what, when I read something about historical figures like popes, kings, emperors, Wlad the impaler, I shake my head and say: that son of a bitch was really bad. The reason for this is that I cannot do a f.....g thing about it.
I know why those popes were bad, because they lost track of the purpose of a christian leader.
Today they are changing which is a good thing, but mind you, I am not praying to a pope, I pray to God and try to follow Christ and I know I am a weak human being.
Attila also thought he was good.

Did somebody say "Think.."? part 2

To keep things short (*cough*), here's a list of some popes who protected the Jews troughout history, beginning with the one who started this catholic tradition:

Pope Gregory I (590-604): a.k.a. 'the Great', praised by Jewish 14th C philosopher Judah Mosconi as "a great philosopher who delved into Hebrew books.. and loved Jews very much and made for them grat deliverances [from harm] in his days." He wrote the historic decree Sicut Judaeis, which introduced all subsequent papal edicts defending the Jews. He affirmed that the Jews "should have no infringement of their rights.. We forbid to vilify the Jews. We allow them to live as Romans and to have full authority over their possessions."

Pope Calixtus II (1119-1124): this pope's promised defense of the Jews (in urgent need of reinforcement after Crusade I) was reissued at least twenty-two times by successive popes between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries (apparently this was needed. If only some people in that period had been more "papist", I say to Herr Steiner with a wink)

Pope Gregory X
Pope Clement VI
Pope Boniface IX
Pope Martin V

Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484): deeply interested in Hebrew literature. One of the most philo-Semitic Renaissance popes.

Pope Alexander VI
Pope Julius II

Pope Leo X (1513-1521): Roth has pointed out that Leo X was so well regarded by the Jews of his day that it was said that the Jews of Rome considered his pontificate "a presage of messianic times."

Pope Clement VII
Pope Paul III

Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758): produced an official report, known as "one of the most remarkable, broad-minded and humane documents in the history of the Catholic Church -a document which will always cause his memory to be cherished in gratitude and affection by the Jewish people." [Roth] It was a scholarly investigation of all reported cases of Jewish ritual murder in history. It established the complete lack of any basis for the accusation.

Pope Clement XIV
Pope Leo XIII
Pope Pius X
Pope Benedict XV
Pope Pius XI

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): this pope and his "papist organization" managed (according to Israeli historian Pinchas Lapide in his meticulously researched 1967 book Three Popes and the Jews) "to save at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." It is now certain that he personally managed to hide many Jews in his papal residence at Castel Gandolfo. Of course some 'thinkers' would rather listen to the accusations and myths spread by non-historians like Mr. Goldhagen or German playwright and friend of Holocaust-denier Irving, Herr Rolf Hochhuth. I'd only say to such people "think again", probably to no avail though.

Pope John XXIII

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): refused to accept award for his rescue work on behalf of Jews during the Holocaust. He declined, saying, "All I did was ny duty, and besides I only acted upon orders from the Holy Father [Pius XII]."

Pope John Paul II
Pope Benedict XVI

Pfew, never thought I'd say some positive things about Roman Catholicism, being an irredeemable atheist. But there it is. Food for 'thinkers' ;-)


The GOOD popes...

Note here that out of a huge list of popes, we are now being subjected to the GOOD popes...

Well, ILL be back with BAD and the UGLY ones...not to say that the GOOD ones have quite a bit to answer for themselves...


Don't forget, you asserted that there were "many Popes" who were on the same level as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al... The onus is on you to substantiate that statement (at least in the real world).

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

his holiness....Pope Gregory 5th

P. Gregory had the French King of the time excommunicated, forced the king to divorce his wife Bertha(I wonder whether Gregory was interested in her.

Had a spat with an antipope called John XVI. John XVI was captured, his feet, hands, tongue and ears were cut off, and was made to walk the streets of Rome while Pope Gregory and company looked on. A miracle...but who takes the credit...whadda you think atheling? did Gregory make this guy walk, or did he do it on his own? who performed the miracle?!??

Pope John survived all of this and lived his life out in jail...see not so bad...But I know...he is not Pol Pot, or Hitler right... What do you think...Ohhh...back then, his holiness was doing nothing wrong! people were much hardier then, and could easily have walked off without their feet or ears..or tongue..no one would have noticed....actually come to think of it, Gregory let him live! Gregory was merciful!!! ILL be adding as I read more...


his holiness...Pope John XII

We wont hit bottom for awhile, but here is another pope that you might want to imitate instead.

He was accused by his own cardinals of having incest with his mother.
He came up with many and various sins that had not been thought of before...allowing a brothel to operate under his auspices...

He was found having sex with someone elses wife...found by the husband who apparently took care of the good pope.

his holiness....Pope Sergius III

Here is another...

Apparently, someone must have caught up with Pope Formosus in the Tiber and reburied him again when Pope Sergius III appeared on the scene...

What do you think this good pope did?

He had Formosus dragged out of his grave again, and chopped off more of his fingers and Im not sure whether Pope Formosus was saved from the Tiber...Hey, maybe Pope Formosus learned how to swim...
and returned to his grave...do some checking on this fellow. He is amazing...in his own way.

his holiness...Stephen the VI or VII

Among other interesting things, Stephen was the pope that

1. Had pope Formosus tried.

But this was not a fair trial. First of all, Pope Formosus was not allowed to have access to a lawyer and on top of that Pope Formosus had been dragged out of his burial chamber, set on a chair, charged, judged and sentenced by the synod.

His head was chopped off (sound familiar?) and his three pointing fingers severed and then thrown back in the Tiber.

2. Another victim was Constantine the second. His eyes were torn out and his tongue ripped off to stop him from arguing...

Do you wish to imitate this fellow? ehr? could he pass as pol pot or Hitler or a stalin or etc...i know a huge leap.

Hard to be a Christian...but to be a Pope?

Hitler was definitely not a Christian, but I dare ask, was he unlike many of the popes?

Or since we are on the topic of the Islamists…

are they much different than many of the popes?

Essentially, could Hitler or the Mufti of Jerusalem or Osama, or Stalin, or Pol Pot...etc. could they easily pass off like many of the vicars if we dressed them up in the Papist garb and planted them in the Vatican?


and if so...would we want to dearly hold on to such a precious institution?


Pfew, never thought I'd say some positive things about Roman Catholicism, being an irredeemable atheist. But there it is. Food for 'thinkers' ;-)

You're certainly not irredeemable; indeed, you're way ahead of some so-called "Christians" here.... *s*

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Something to Think about

If a civilization from outer space asks us to provide examples of our most wonderful people.

would you send the pope list? or would you want to hide the list at any cost?

what would we do if they wanted to imitate the popes in order to blend in with our society?

When we are told by our politicians not to offend, and when the islamists and even the pope get on the bandwagon and demand that we must respect religion.....is that what you want?

Ought we not to be allowed to think for ourselves and be able to criticise...

are we supposed to remain silent and allow ourselves to be brainwashed...

Is it just fine to be dragged into court because we have offended? Is it not more like we have shed some light on the reality...and are forcing people to think and change...

atheling do you think that it is fine to eliminate religious heretics because they wish to simply deviate? Like the waldesians, bogomils, cathars, hussites...did they deserve to be savagely murdered, literally ripped open of their lives because these papists decided they were heretics?

and by the way...tell me of a group of christians whom the Papacy did not call heretics, and were allowed to be independent of the papacy?

You will find none... because anyone who did not wish to be under the Papacy WAS A HERETIC.

There are lots more, and it only gets worse...I will continue later.

Did somebody say "Think.."? part 1 (repost)

Ah, here we go again ladies and gentlemen. Yitzhak wants to start the usual "pick your Pope"-contest (sure 'Yousef' is not the more truthful nick? ;-).

Perhaps he didn't want to make his posting too elaborate. He might even want to extend his to-think-about list with an even more lengthy one of popes who where decidedly philo-semitic? But then again, I reckon he might not. Nor would Herr 'papist' Steiner I guess.

Well, allow me to add some conveniently overlooked facts, to make the overall picture a little more complete. "Truth" is something one can only aspire to approximate as close as possible. Anger or fanaticism is usually not the best way to accomplish this. So dear Yitzhak und Herr Steiner, cool down, sit down and try some decaf for a change or whatever, and let me entertain you.

Jewish historian Rabbi David G. Dahlin states unequivocally that papal-Jewish relations are far better than most people think. A telling quote from historian Thomas Madden: "of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions." Prof. Madden adds to this: "the only safe place in Europe to be a Jew was in the lands of the pope."

Renowned scholar in Jewish history Cecil Roth, editor in chief of the Encyclopedia Judaica also has some well-researched facts to add to Yitzhak's/Herr Steiner's picture. Roth was the most prolific Jewish historian and 20th C's preeminent Jewish scholar of papal-Jewish relations. And what was his verdict?

Roth: "Of all the dynasties in Europe, the papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews.. but through the ages popes were protectors of the Jews. The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the world, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude."

Note that this highly esteemed Jewish scholar also speaks about 'the truth', but my guess is that he has put reason before anger in his scientific effort the get close to it.

I'll add a shortlist of some philo-Semitic popes troughout history in part II.



It’s not just WWII bit before that lets just say starting from 306 A.D besides I am not angry or frustrated I am simply skeptical … You just can’t hide your Anti-Semitic bigotry…..can’t you…. leftist or rightist a Jew is simply a Jew..............



@ Traveller

Yitzhak is the product of his own peculiar imagination.I'm still awaiting his apology from previous run-ins with him when he accused me of anti-Semitism.Which reminds me,Yitzhak,if you're still out there... 

@ Thinkers,everywhere

I am happy to let fellow thinkers read what Yitzhak presents as 'evidence' in support of the thesis that Hitler was a Christian (in any meaningful sense of the word) and the counter argument to it.

@ Atlanticist911

Yitzhak is a product of a very angry and frustrated people, and rightly angry about what happened to them in WW2, who try to hit at everybody in sight to blame them for their suffering.
You know and I know that Hitler was a diabolical psychopath who, for some reason or another escaped the lunatic asylum.
The catholic church has tried to stay on course of it's beliefs in the middle of this turmoil and they did more for the jews during the war than the US, which sent the ships with jewish refugees back to where they came from.
Attacking the US would not be very wise today for Israël and attacking Russia for what they did to the jews during their history would also be counterproductive, so therefore, and certainly for leftist jews, attacking the catholic church is "gefundenes fressen".
We, as Flemish with the least jews being betrayed percentagewise during WW2, are used to this kind of attacks, we are just again accused of being nazis by leftist jews in Antwerp.
The jews in Europe would better serve their own cause by joining the right against the Middle Eastern mafia. The left has already chosen for the Arabs.
Enough said, blinkered leftists will never learn.

@Taurus689 about the martial arts mufti

Indeed Taurus, this Imam in Irak is quite a sight. I call him the I-MAM. The Martial Arts Mufti on the internet ;-)

One of his predecessors had a direct link with Adolf Hitler. The in-famous Jerusalem übermufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This fine specimen of the "inner spiritual struggle" advised and assisted the Nazis in carrying out Hitler's Final Solution, on the promise it would in due time be applied to the Middle-East.

Oh, how the sword-wielding Iraqi mufti is convinced of the truth from where he stands, swinging his sword that's slightly too big for his moderate posture (of course when he tries to free the sword from its shaft, he'd like it to be a smooth move, one big heroic gesture. But the picture gets a bit clownesque when it turns out that his arms are just a little too short [6:27, part 12]. Poor guy).

There are other jihadists though, who might display less "enthusiasm" (in the literal meaning of en-theos-iasmos: posessed by a god). But they are just as dangerous, if not more, to what's left of our freedom. That is what I would like to see discussed in a sequel-docu with the same speakers: the day to day islamization of the West, by hard-working 'moderate' islamists who use other means besides overt violence. This is partly a silent takeover by non-violent islamists that fill the space opened-up by the small 'avant garde' of terror, but on the other side also partly a high-handed & high-minded give away by our political elites. This step by step sell-out is backed by self-proclaimed "progressives" of all sorts (religous-dialoguers, enlightened 'savoir faire' atheists) and the "chattering classes", i.e. most of the mainstream media.

The example of Tariq Ramadan springs to mind. This exemplary "voice of Saruman", who propagates islamization 'with a human face', this gently-spoken propaganda has the potential of killing us softly, so to speak. The example of Mr. Ramadan shows perfectly how easy it is to use the postmodern deconstructivist discourse of identity-politics to adapt islamist propaganda to the elitist tastes of multiculturalism and political correctness.

The nxt docu featuring Robert Spencer c.s. should center on this link, between 'soft'-jihadi discourse that fosters the creeping islamization of our society, and the self-righteous appeasement-speak of our political and cultural elites.



Something to think about……..

Pope Sylvester(314-335 C.E)

”Every Sabbath on account of burial(of Jesus) is to be regarded in execration(denunciation) of the Jews....In fact it is not proper to observe, because of Jewish customs, the consumption of food and the ceremonies of the Jews.”

Pope Innocent III:

1205 C.E.: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose

Death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..." thus began the slavery of Jewish people to Catholics in the 13th century.

Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (by John Cornwell)

Hitler was not Atheist he was Christian just for starters:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

---Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)




Just when you've wiped that egg off your face, some more gets thrown on it.

You're quoting something Hitler said in 1922. Ever hear of the word apostasy? Methinks his pathology progressed quite a bit from there.

I recall your contradictory comments stating in one thread where you invoked Mosaic Law to "justify" Christian pacifism, then in another, you blandly state that Judaism and Christianity have nothing in common.

Back to the drawing board for you. *hands him a towel*

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Of bigots and boomerangs

Mr. (or is it Ms.?) Steiner,

You pose like someone who respects the truth, but the noise you make doesn't reflect that honourable attitude. Moreover, half the truth is no truth.

Shouldn't you be a little more careful, swinging those boomerangs so eagerly? Before ya now, they'll be landing on your own head.

Just try to remember what the great British philosopher Gordon Sumner warned us about, when he sang: "Truth hits everybody". ;-)

Kind regs,


The Imam in Bhagdad

In one of the segments watching and listening to the rant of that Imam in the Mosque in Bhagdad I noted how Hitlerian it was in its strident tones, intonation, and body language. If he had been speaking in German instead of Arabic he could be the reincarnation.

On sub-topic, anti-catholic bigotry

To paraphrase the familiar Monty Python quote: "What have the Roman Catholics ever done for us, eh?!".

Well, quite a lot I'd say. Some terrible crimes in tough times, to be sure. But for such a large org. the record is not too bad, compared to other (elitist, socialist, atheist, reformist) orgs.

But here's a selection of things from a long list, to make up for it ;-)

- preservation/copying of classical masterpieces (Aristoteles, Cicero, Vergilius) in medieval monasteries (espec. Ireland)

- philosophical foundations for free-market economy (500 yrs before Adam Smith, who side-tracked with his labour-oriented theory of value). Of course the anti-catholic bigot Weber got the spirit of capitalism all wrong (as one of his own pupils immediately showed) with his "Protestant ethic".

- European medieval universities (from monasteries; as extensions of cathedral schools)

- foundations for modern science & scientific research (basilica built as astronomical observatories, seismology was even called "the jesuit science"), partly due to the fact that Aristotle was not simply copied (like muslim scholars did), but also criticized. Aristotle who thought that a body twice as heavy should also fall twice as fast, and never checked it. It also helped that scholastics thought their God to be of the "reasonable kind", i.e. nature's secrets could be unraveled through reason. Allah never was the prime rolemodel for science, because this god was 'unreasonable' to the extreme, and proud of it ;-)

- foundations of international law (improving on their Roman heritage).

- continuous campaigns against slavery (officially sanctioned since Pope Eugenius IV wrote his "Sicut dudum", 1435) and gradual abolition.

- immensely rich culture of music, art & architecture. Alas, partly destroyed by religious fanatics and "purifiers of religion" (like what happened to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan). 

- an enormous and continuing effort on behalf of the sick and the poor (that was admired even by the Romans of the [very] early Middle Ages).

- last, but not least: pushing back the muslim invaders out of France and Spain. And later the crusades (as a long overdue answer to the islamic occupation of Palestina). This, as a side-effect gave Europe some 'breathing-space' until finally the muslim armies were halted in 1683 before the gates of Vienna by troops under the command of the  "papist" King of Poland.


The truth is not bigotry..

Now it is bigotry if we criticise the papists and the wrongs that they have committed against humanity.

I am all for criticising Islamists and Islam, but to then be told that i am a bigot if i mention the truth about the Papacy, makes me wonder if fighting against islamists is worth it, when in the end, the papists are going to get the spoils and carry out the same programs of intimidation and subjugation of people at large, as they did even up to WWII.

-The good of the Papacy-...this is beginning to sound to much like islamists talking about the good that mohammed brought to the world.

great documentary

Wow, I am impressed, this is a great documentary!
Situations are explained very well.

Anyone knows why they disabled Ratings at youtube?

Documentary IWWNK dutch subs: about the ratings

Hi Citizen Z,

I plea guilty ;-)
Saw happening what was to be expected: the Allah-jugend 'en masse' sought to bring down the rating as soon as the docu (by a 'preview-hoax') was somehow linked to the upcoming koran-clip by Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

I was amazed when I was informed about online articles in some newspapers that the movie by Wilders consisted of 12 parts. The link provided, referred to the clips I posted on YouTube. So in a very short period, it got a lot of attention because of a practical joke by someone else. A lot of attention also of the "inner spiritual strugglers" among the muslim community in the Netherlands.

In short:
a substantial number of fanatical islamists soon found out that this docu was becoming quite popular among the Dutch public. From that moment on, the rating went down rapidly from a solid 4/5 star. Meanwhile, my mailbox was bombarded with the all too familiar hatemail (some even containing the usual death-threats).

All in all, I'm encouraged to see that the clips are well-viewed and favorited quite often after a few days. Correspondence with the producers of the docu. in the US indicates that the Dutch subs are soon to be followed by a lot more, perhaps even resulting in a DVD for the European market.

Kind regs,

@ Sagunto

Hello Sagunto,

I see, of course, now I understand.

eg #pt 10/12 still has 5 stars.
Untill now it's viewed 1,608 times, about 5 times less as #pt 1/12.
It's obvious when you read the reactions, a lot of people didn't see all parts of the docu, and probably not even the first part till the end.

I had no idea about the hoax linked to the Wilders movie. I didn't read anything about it in online newspapers.
Hopefully it will be subtitled in more languages, and many people will see this docu.
However, even when it would be broadcasted on TV, it wouldn't reach many people, because it's too historical, political,.. . Call it "dry", if you know what I mean. Unfortunately the "grey zone" of civilians prefer to watch Temptation Island etc., or simply don't have time for these things because their state's slave status. (work, eat, sleep, and don't think about important evolutions that are an attack on their children's future.)
This isn't critic on the docu, I'll pass the link to anyone I know who wants to take the time to listen to this deeper view into Islam. Thank you very much for the translation work!

Keeping the Wilders movie in mind - I look forward to its release-, and thinking of the reactions that we are "warned" about already before anyone saw it, by the PC elite.. . Well, when you compare that with the replies you got in your mailbox, for even this honest docu, I'm very curious for the impact after the Wilders docu. It's going to be massive.

Soon we'll know.

concerning Christians and war

Although Judaic-Christian theology teaches the opposite of Mohammed in many things, killing heretics among them, the early Christian church was greatly strengthened by "in hoc signo vinces". But the Christian church has always been a separate institution from the state and Constantine was not God's representative. By allowing the enemies of Christ to destroy the Christian church, either from within or from without, we are in effect aiding the destruction of Christ's teaching. Therefore, in times of heresy and war it may be necessary to kill our enemies. How Popes, their advisors and individual Christians look into their souls to determine this is not for me to say but I would hazard a guess that if John Paul II had been killed there would have been some realignment of the perception of threat to Christianity. There may be some mechanism within the various branches of the Christian faith that will begin to reassess circumstances in the coming years as she struggles with her enemies.

To Steiner: Simply pointing out past behavior of Christians in times of dangerous heresy isn't valid criticism. Also, you seem to go on a bit about the Lamb of God. But there's another side in case you've forgotten, doesn't the Lord's Prayer end with ". . . for Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, forever." ? I'm not sure if its the same with the Catholic version but that's how I was taught it. Christian grandeur, in particular the Catholic church's influence on the arts and culture, goes a long way in my book.


gryphos, it seems that you are confused, otherwise you are simply as insane as those islamists and papists who call/ed for death of heretics.

If you are confused, it probably has to do with your misunderstanding of the role of the state and the role of the church/religious institutions. You speak about separation of these two, but then you seem to think that it is ok for the Pope and Christians to kill the heretics based on their...- soul searching?!-.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just conclude that you are confused between the role of the state and the role of religious institutions.

One of the main roles of the state is to enact laws that protect the natural and fundamental rights of the people living within its borders. The equality of humans under the law, freedom of speech , freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom to live anywhere one chooses, freedom from physical abuse, freedom to be a religious heretic…freedom to speak out against what one sees as a threat, as long as one does not condone physical attacks.

The state has a fundamental duty to protect these natural and fundamental rights. Those that do not respect the laws of the state, and to not tolerate these freedoms in others must be prosecuted. Those that attempt to set up other laws that deny these fundamental rights must also be prosecuted.

It is incumbent on the state to prosecute people and organizations who act and connive to undermine these natural human rights by the use of religion or other means.

Churches have a duty to preach the Gospel and to spread their message, as long as they do not condone physical attacks.

As regards to threats and judgment in the afterlife…I see nothing wrong with these. The laws that govern the afterlife are not temporal business, and hence no need for the temporal state to get involved. Local religious institutions also have a right to expel whom they deem unworthy of their local church.

As regards to people judging a religion historically, and the consistency of the message and the messengers….why is there anything wrong with that ?

People have a fundamental right to speak their mind as long as they do not condone physical attack.

The problem arises when the state does not protect the natural and fundamental rights of man.

Hence, the papacy sending crusades against defenseless people/heretics in Europe. Or the Islamic states conditioning the fundamental and human rights to Sharia (and the U.N. allows them to remain signatories!?and more)… This is the problem..essentially a religious/political union or in other words a fascism between church and state that rips humanity asunder.

Wasn’t Jesus put on the cross for blasphemy? Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus condemn anyone to death, nor ask his disciples to physically attack those that did not believe. He used parables to warn people of a future judgment. He also spelled out the basic principle of separation of state and religion: give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. He ate with the outcasts ..and was judged a glutton, a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners by the religious zealots of His day.

As regards to Constantine; he actually weakened the church by creating a political center for it alongside the emperors. Christianity had already reached its greatest expanse, without the Papacy.
From then on, it was downhill for the churches that were outside Rome as they were forced to submit to Romes bishops. Those who would not submit were the heretics….

In conclusion , under the Papacy, Christianity has shrunk and suffered its worse setbacks. The papacy is also responsible for the advance of Islamism as it sought to undo the power of the eastern orthodox church, and is directly responsible for the collapse of the eastern front against islamists as the Bogomils(Serbia, Albania) were being attacked from both the islamists and the crusades of the papacy…Think about that before you ever defend popery.

To Italy, the papacy has brought continuous ruin and setbacks. The Longobards had quietly achieved in uniting Italy before the 13th century, but the Pope called in the French armies to break their power, and shatter Italy into fiefdoms each less powerful than the popes.

Later, the successful city states in Italy, like Venice (who was responsible in stopping the islamists at sea) would succumb to the power of the inquisitions and allow popery to have its ways …

As regards to your quote on the Lords prayer, as being the other side...what other side? Thine refers to God, not to some Vicar here on earth.

@traveller...one sentence says it all on Jinnah:

Hey Traveller,

Talk about the buckets of slime that Jinnah flung around to convince the gullible gluttons that he was a secularist. Here is Jinnah in all his glory gory and the rest:

" When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

This is the one liner that says it all...Jinnah the great. Poor india, poor Ghandi, and poor anybody who would believe this fellows secularism. hey, Osama is trying to do one better..he is trying to bring democracy (islam style) to the whole world!!!!?

@ steiner

I was talking about your comments in this topic, like what you said to Gryphos.
We have agreed that we don't agree on Jinnah.
His comment about democracy was rethoric, but I am not going to open that discussion again, it is useless.


I trust that you have the skill to do some research on your own. As I have said, there is plenty on the history of the papacy and its crusades against Europeans who did not wish to submit to their arrogance.

The Waldensians, Bogomils,  Huguenots,  Cathars....were Europeans which the Papacy led crusades against, promising those that would kill these men and women the forgiveness of all their sins and the prize of paradise. Sound familiar?

The papacy politicised Christianity, as it sought to bring all under its fold. It led crusades against Christians, even before the crusades against Islam...

Today, its apologists wish people to believe that these murderers(the many popes) were looking out to save peoples souls from eternal damnation...

Hence, they are clothed as lambs of Christ, concerned for the souls of their enemies. So concerned that torture, burning, maiming, raping were tools of the trade in converting and saving people from themselves...

We are told that these methods were the methods of the times to keep people from sinning, hence these murderers did not know any better, but were simply trying to do the right thing by saving whole towns from eternal damnation.

How interesting that many have accepted this line of argument...they were only watching out for their souls...

Unfortunately for them, this argument does not hold true in the light of Jesus.

Jesus did not kill his enemies so that he could save them, nor did he torture them, nor did he rape them...and so on.

Hence, they cannot hide the very fact that they were UnChristian, or to put it bluntly not Christian altogether in their deeds and their gospel.


Just give some names and instances. That is all I asked for. Quit evading and obfuscating.


"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


atheling, do you agree with Gryphon? please explain your position.


I think gryphon is more honest than you are.

I don't have to explain anything to you as you refuse to answer my question directly. You have no credibility. You are a hypocrite.

That's my position.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine


"....for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Go and do some reading...there is enough on the web for you to carry out your duty...you have closed your eyes and shut your ears. You have become the zealous sycophant and hypocrite of a bankrupt institution and failed to do your duty to think for yourself...now go.

Anyway, look atheling, if you are still having trouble, let us go through them one by one, and one at a time.

I will choose a pope at random....we can discuss this fellow, and then move on to another and so forth. Here is one:

Gregory the XIII..

what do you think of this fellow? Is he someone that you would like to imitate?

And by the way, I am intent on hearing the answer to my last question. Do you also think that religious heretics should lose their heads, or get hung, or simply be eliminated?

Something else to think about

If God did not allow Abraham to slay his own son Isaac…why do these deluded souls think that it is just fine to kill their sons through suicide bombings in the name of Jihad? Does Abrahams God desire human sacrifice?

Conclusion: the God of Abraham is not the same as the god of mohammed.

Re: Something to Think About...


Still waiting for the list of "many Popes" whose reigns were as murderous and tyrannical as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc...

Before you go pontificating about "love thy neighbor" (Christian theology 405), how about mastering Christian theology 101?

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor".

Does that ring a bell?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine