Surely you realize that you had to go back FORTY YEARS to find decent liberals, who even then, WOULD NOT HAVE DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS LIBERAL. You think Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson et al, would approve of some Frankensteinian freak transvestite TEACHING their CHILDREN with stuck on breasts and a cut off penis? You think any of those esteemed men would make a pact with satan by trying to rid the world of Jesus like the modern day leaders of the DemoNcratic Party? Riddle me this Batman….

1. Who condemns their government for “torturing” terrorists, who were not tortured at all?
2. Who thinks that terrorist baby killing scum have the same rights as American Citizens?
3.Who is on a Jihad against Christianity while taking school children on field trips to MOSQUES, convieniently forgetting the whole “church and state” thing? ( L.A. Unified School District)
4. Who mandated that new students to University of North Carolina HAD to read a book called INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM, while trying to eliminate Christian Bible study clubs?
5. Who currently is ramming a radical homosexual agenda down the throats of California Residents by making it ILLEGAL to SPEAK against homosexuality, bi-sexuality and TRANSVESTITISM, or forfeit receiving federal funds.
6. Who elevated a pedophile to the Supreme Court? (Ruth Bader Ginsberg is on record saying that the age of consent for children to have sex with adults should be TWELVE!)

Your last statement where you proclaim virtue for not “judging” whether someone is a “real” Catholic would be hysterical, if it weren’t so sad. Did you know that the word Catholic MEANS Liberal? Please don’t be offended, it’ true.

While you are aware of the church as a historical body, the word used to describe them (Catholic) had a meaning in the language of the day, prior to it’s being assigned to that church. It means : COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests

Much the same as liberals of today, rebel against tradition, the Catholic church was similarly formed. They didn’t want to follow the teaching of the Apostles, because this had them getting eaten by the lions! See the Romans only objected to the church while it was teaching in JESUS’S NAME, you’ll see that the persecutors of the early Christians were quite content with the Aposles talking about “God”! So did the Pharisees! But the name of Jesus has the power you see (Acts 4:12), Acts 5:12-29. Notice the oppostition was to the Name of Jesus, only! Well, the liberals amongst the faithful who heretofore had followed the Apostles Doctrine, APPEASED, those who were persecuting them, by removing the Jesus Name baptism which had been ordered by PETER, (Acts 2:38)
They further gave in to LIBERALS who were unwilling to “tarry” for the Holy Ghost. (this is what the Apostles and disciples were doing in the “upper room” after Christ told them at his ascension, not to start their missionary Journey until they had received the Holy Ghost, Acts 1:4-8) This is when the Liberal church stopped teaching that the new believer needed to have a “like” experience as the Apostles complete with attendant glossalalia (speaking in tongues).

If you read the book of Acts, you will see that the Apostles not only regarded this as necessary, since they all had the same experience, they were completely against the idea that someone could receive the Holy Ghost a different way. In fact, they were in open rebellion to Peter’s conversion of the Gentile Cornelius until Peter told them that Cornelius and his household had received the Holy Spirit just like the Apostles did. Leaving the formerly prejudiced Jews to conclude that Christ “has granted repentance to the Gentiles”. Acts 11:1-18, Acts 15:1-9

Instead of following the Apostles they sought to take the easy road and appease everyone by “re-interpreting ” everything Christ said to his apostles and coming to different conclusions! SOUND LIKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE? Especially aggressive was the naming of a “Pope”, this was a direct slap in the face to the teaching of the Apostles because the Pope was purported to be God’s representative here on earth. Which would directly conflict with. 1Timothy 2:5- For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Not to mention that just calling a priest “Father”, was a violation of the very words of Jesus Christ! ( MATT 23:9)

Liberals have perverted everything they have gotten their grimy hands on, I say this not to be mean but to educate. Look at the deception they practiced on the church by changing his name in Baptism or saying you don’t need “proof” that you have the Holy Spirit. Baptism, and In-Dwelling of the Holy Ghost, are the REASON WHY HE CAME! He came that we may be saved thru baptism of the WATER AND THE SPIRIT. John 3:3-8. Curiously the Catholic church refuses to take Jesus’ lead in these matters, because of LIBERALISM.
No one in the entire Bible is Baptized the way you and I were in the Catholic Church. Read Acts then go get that corrected. Most Apostolic churches will baptize you correctly and they’ll even tarry with you until you speak in the tongue of “men and angels”. IMHO.

When are they ever for anything but appeasement

PS, januarius

Hey you ask a question, I got an answer:

OK: WWI–Wilson; WWII-Roosevelt; Korea-Truman; Vietnam-Johnson. All Democrats if I am not mistaken.

Your serve.

Back to my main point: Liberals ARE the terrorists’ greatest allies. This is irrefutable, which is why you are changing the subject.

januarius on August 30, 2006 at 3:32 PM

Ok, just curious: say the liberals take over in 2008. Will you be emigrating? Or taking up arms against the govt?Don’t tell me you will live in a country that will be turning Islam into the official state religion?? I mean, if liberals are the terrorists greatest allies, which I have just been advised is not only irrefutable, but deserves caps: ARE the terrorists’ greatest allies. (I have learned that CAPS are as good, hell BETTER than actual logic or proof).

PS: I go to Mass every week. However, I do not presume to define who is a “real” Catholic is, and neither should you. That one of the favorite parlor games of the right wing, passing judgment on other people. (If you really are religious, ask yourself exactly where Christ stood on that little issue.) I get my stats from Gallup BTW.

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Surah 8:36-)

“…make war on the leaders of unbelief…Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them…” (Surah 9:12-)

“Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]…until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Surah 9:27-)

“If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.” (Surah 9:37-)

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.” (Surah 9:121-)

The following, including great explanations for what you read can be found here.

BOTTOM LINE? This is a religious war whether you want to see it that way or not. You can only lose by burying your head in the sand hoping for some non-existant “moderate Muslim’s” to come to your rescue. If he’s moderate, he isn’t a Muslim because being a Muslim requires the killing of non-believers.

And ps, Catholics still vote more Democratic than Republican.

I’m talking about real Catholics, not “cafeteria Catholics.” Go to any Catholic church on a Sunday; you will see loads of “George Allen” (here in Northern Virginia) and Bush bumper stickers. Real Catholics vote pro-life. I don’t know where you get your statistics from. In Virginia, Catholics who attend mass weekly voted for Bush by a margin of something like 65% to 35%. Hint: one of the rules of being a Catholic is that you must go to mass every week; therefore, someone who calls himself a “Catholic” but does not go to mass is not really a Catholic.

As for the Democratic party not being more radical now than it was in the 20’s and 30’s, just look at what they stand for now. What kind of judges do they appoint to the benches? When are they ever for anything but appeasement (true, similar to the 1920’s and 1930’s but you think after Hitler and Stalin we would have learned by now)? You gotta love the great family values of partial birth abortion on demand and the culture liberal Hollywood pushes on youth.

The only way that Democrats can get elected is by tricking the population into thinking they stand for things they don’t.

Back to my main point: Liberals ARE the terrorists’ greatest allies. This is irrefutable, which is why you are changing the subject.

What a crock. Your “history” is so stunningly simplistic it’s almost funny. The Democratic party is more radical now that in oh, say the 20’s and 30’s?

And ps, Catholics still vote more Democratic than Republican.

Got a question for you: if radical Muslims are anti-Semitic and also “the liberals’ greatest allies”, why do you suppose American Jews vote over 3:1 Democratic?

A better person to ask would be one of them, not me. Traditionally, the Democratic party has been not been as radicalized as it has been in the last 20 years or so. These days we basically have two parties to choose from: A socialist party (the Democratic party) and a party with values that Republicans and Democrats traditionally stood for (the Republican party). It takes a while for old habits to die. It seems, though, that more Jews are waking up. Catholics used to be a Democrat staple, but now almost every “real” (i.e. devout Catholic, as opposed to cafeteria Catholic) votes Republican.

But what I said still stands: Liberals are terrorists’ greatest allies. David Horowitz has an entire book on this subject: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

Anybody can be a religious scholar, which is one of the freedoms we have and cherish. We’re just not compeled to join at the threat of discrimination or death.

These guys don’t see Jesus as a Jew, but as an infidel, like th rest of us. Besides, I don’t think Islam wasn’t around back then.

I was sure that The Passion of the Christ would be the rage around the Middle East after Mel Gibson’s comments.

Isn’t it ironic? The only “backlash” against Jews because of The Passion of the Christ (something liberals were constantly fretting about when the movie was released) has been by the liberals’ greatest allies, radical Muslims. Then again, the Muslims are as anti-semitic now as they were before the movie came out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/ts_nm/syria_chavez_dc_4

januarius on August 30, 2006 at 1:15 PM

Got a question for you: if radical Muslims are anti-Semitic and also “the liberals’ greatest allies”, why do you suppose American Jews vote over 3:1 Democratic?

Isn’t it ironic? The only “backlash” against Jews because of The Passion of the Christ (something liberals were constantly fretting about when the movie was released) has been by the liberals’ greatest allies, radical Muslims. Then again, the Muslims are as anti-semitic now as they were before the movie came out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/ts_nm/syria_chavez_dc_4

Qaradawi has been attacked by all sides of the Islamic ideology spectrum for his vision of “moderate” Islam.

The scary thing is that this anti-semitism IS the face of “moderate” Islam. 1) It is time to stop importing this anti-semitism into our country. 2)It is also time to that conservatives correct the flaw in Bush’s foreign policy philosophy: The enemy of America and Israel is not a lack of democracy in the Middle East (the thesis of Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, the book that Bush recommended to understand his foreign policy objectives). Islam itself is the enemy.

Okey Dokey. I understand completely.