Israeli rabbinate severs ties with Vatican over Holocaust-denying bishop
posted at 5:00 pm on January 28, 2009 by Allahpundit
Or rather, ex-bishop: It’s Richard Williamson, who was excommunicated 20 years ago when he broke away to be ordained in a traditionalist Catholic sect, the Society of St. Pius X. Now the Pope’s un-excommunicated him and three others as a goodwill gesture aimed at returning the Society’s 150,000 members to the flock. The only problem? Williamson’s a hardcore whackjob. This isn’t the first traditionalist gesture Benedict’s made that’s touched a nerve among Jews, either. Evidently Israel’s chief rabbinate has finally had enough:
The chief rabbinate announced it was severing ties indefinitely, sending a letter to the Holy See expressing “sorrow and pain” at the decision…
The letter from the chief rabbinate said: “It will be very difficult for the chief rabbinate of Israel to continue its dialogue with the Vatican as before,” unless Bishop Williamson recanted his “deplorable statements.”
Underlining its anger, the Jewish body also cancelled a meeting with the Vatican scheduled for March.
In his first public comments on the issue, Pope Benedict attempted to soothe relations with Jews by calling the Shoah, or Holocaust, “a warning to everyone against oblivion, denials or reductionism.”
Addressing thousands of pilgrims at his weekly audience at the Vatican, he said: “As I renew my full and indisputable solidarity with our brothers, I wish that the memory of the Shoah will prompt humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the hearts of men.”
Elie Wiesel lowered the boom on him, too. As much as it pains me to defend, even obliquely, a Holocaust denier, what’s the rabbinate’s problem with the Vatican here, exactly? Benedict’s been clear enough that neither he nor the Church endorse Williamson’s views, and so far as I know, being a crackpot isn’t itself independent grounds for excommunication. Nor should it be, practically speaking: Once you start bouncing people from the congregation for their politics (or stupidity), you’re on a slippery slope. The Pope’s reluctant to do that even with legislators who support abortion. Exit question: Why not demand that he excommunicate the whole Gibson family while they’re at it?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
AP, Well Said.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
- Neal Boortz
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Maybe it should be looked at this way. What did the nutjob do to deserve a papal reconsideration? Has he been penitent and confessed he was wrong? If not, he doesn’t deserve reinstatement, especially as a political gesture.
redshirt on January 28, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Is he still defrocked?
ninjapirate on January 28, 2009 at 5:06 PM
If they profess sedevacantism, then they are automatically excommunicated. An excommunication doesn’t require a formal declaration of for every individual. Any Catholic who obtains an abortion is automatically excommunicated.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Free speech, that does not call for criminal acts, should not be reasons for punishment. This is political correctness. His views are political. Don’t like his views? Don’t be his friend. Don’t invite him to your dinner party. Give him the cold shoulder. Pretend he doesn’t exist. Is that so hard?
keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 5:08 PM
He was never defrocked. There is a difference between being tentatively excommunicated (insofar as there are some sketchy details about the lack of review procedures which are supposed to occur when excommunications of this sort happen) and defrocking. He is still a valid Bishop, even though his consecration was illicit.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:09 PM
It’s not so much that they want all holocaust deniers actively excommunicated, but rather they protest purposely un-excommunicating this guy who already is. It falls into a familiar pattern for the Vatican (see the ODESSA network.)
ebrawer on January 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Why did they defrock him? And why did they refrock (?) him?
Sue on January 28, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Folks, this is the Catholic Church, not the United States. The church is not a democracy, it does not afford Constitutional protections on its members like the freedom of speech. While I cannot speak to this specific case, it is entirely possible for someone to commit sin simply by what they say; and it is entirely Biblical to excommunicate someone for persistent, unrepentant sin.
mcg on January 28, 2009 at 5:12 PM
You’re kidding, right?
Now, whether it rises to the level of breaking off relations is one thing, but if you don’t understand the problem (after seeing the seething Jew-hatred that just swept around the world) then I don’t even know what to say.
progressoverpeace on January 28, 2009 at 5:13 PM
But the point here, as Allah said in the post, is that the excommunication had nothing to do with the holocaust. Lifting it has nothing to do with the holocaust either. In this respect, the issue of the excommunication is none of this Rabbi’s business. He can be upset if he wants, but his complaint is accidental to the reason behind the Vatican’s decision.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:13 PM
The point here is lost in the subject of excommunication. When one denies the Holocaust, one has to deny the lives of all the Jews lost. This denial of their lives is just as bad as killing them, in the eyes of many Jews. Don’t forget, these millions of human beings have no monuments, no grave markers…hell, most of them have no heirs to remember them.
We should all recognize that one of the worst fates for a man is to be forgotten.
stonemeister on January 28, 2009 at 5:13 PM
As a jew my beef is that of all the members of the society that you ‘want to bring back into the flock’ this is the guy you hold up as an example of repairing the break? He’s a miserable piece of filth and bringing him back into the catholic faith with the full approval of hte pope shows that perhaps his words to the Jewish faith is nothing but puffery. There’s better examples to make then this person
Defector01 on January 28, 2009 at 5:14 PM
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Point well taken.
ebrawer on January 28, 2009 at 5:14 PM
After the shameful and sordid history of the Roman Catholic Church in either ignoring the Holocaust or actively assisting its perpetrators (google “ratlines”), the redemption of this lunatic anti-Semite is inexplicable. One would think that a German pope like Benedict might be a little more sensitive to matters like this, but I guess not.
Cicero43 on January 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM
A bigger loser was never so well defrocked.
‘Rehabilitating’ him without a change in his rank lunacy is absurd.
profitsbeard on January 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM
So Israel wants him re-defrocked after he’s been un-defrocked. What was the upside for Pope Benedict again?
Mark30339 on January 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM
The Catholic Church has been openly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel for years. No surprises here.
The sedvacantists are the only group who openly acknowledge what the Popes taught for centuries.
If you read all the anathemas and the conditions for excommunication in RC dogma, there are only about 117 Catholics left.
mankai on January 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Geez, Jews get all touchy when you say the Holocaust was made up…
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Just to be clear, as I said above, he was never defrocked. To defrock means to remove the right to exercise one’s office. He has been validly ordained and the Vatican has recognized the Masses said by the SSPX as being valid (meaning that the priest’s are able to exercise their function).
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM
I don’t know the specifics, exactly. First I read he they were letting him back in as a bishop, but then I saw it clarified that he was just being un-excommunicated as a lay person, such that he had no official priesthood duties.
Then I see it he’s going to hole up in a monastery by the Pius X order and they will duct tape his mouth. So it sounds to me that although not a Bishop, they are letting him back in under his pre-excommunicated position of being a priest.
I don’t see why the Church can’t un-excommunicate him if his only “sin” now is being as big an idiot as Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi. I do think the Church ought not to let him back in as a priest, though.
Dusty on January 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Meh. The Catholic Church has never really been a friend to the Jews. But individual Catholics have. The problem, AP, is that the Church and its officials can have a harmful effect on Jews, depending on how their followers react. Will it start an Inquisition? Who knows. But with rhetoric like that, its a step in the wrong direction. Words can incite.
Israel still has diplomatic relations with the Vatican though. As a Jew, I support the Rabbis.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 28, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I don’t understand the denial of the holocaust. Is there a site that doesn’t fall off the looney ladder that discusses this that someone can recommend?
Sue on January 28, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Not only Jews. Your point?
Cicero43 on January 28, 2009 at 5:18 PM
A sarcastic rebuttal to AP’s post. Next!
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Frock you.
Bishop on January 28, 2009 at 5:19 PM
The Vatican is a political entity with similar goals as our own government. Another black eye for Christianity.
BoomJunkie on January 28, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Oh yeah, Didn’t the One say: “Just words?” during one of his propaganda tours.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM
And what about the teachings about sedevacantists? Who’s sitting in the seat of Peter? Some guy in Washington pretending to be pope?
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM
darii,
I saw your response after I posted that. Not being Catholic, I didn’t know the difference between defrocked and excommunicated. I certainly don’t understand tentatively excommunicated. But I appreciate you trying to help those of us who don’t know to understand.
Sue on January 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM
+1
Nice.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Why does the Church need to smear itself with feces like this just for collection plate money from half heretics?
BL@KBIRD on January 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM
AP, your logic here is indicative of how we live in an increasingly shady world, where there are no boundaries or standards that need to be respected or recognized.
The intent of your post seems to mean:
“Hey, the Pope is just trying to increase his customer base by welcoming back a whackjob (your term, not mine) that was kicked out earlier for holding the same beliefs. Why don’t the Jews realize it’s not about the Holocaust; it’s about revenue for the Catholic Church. A wink and a nod should suffice to quell any ruffled Jewish feathers”.
As I read the rest of your post, it also seems like the Pope apologized for doing it, making like he had no choice.
Good for the Rabbinate. Draw the line. More lines should, and need to be, drawn.
BobMbx on January 28, 2009 at 5:22 PM
The only people I’ve seen that hold him up as an “example” is the media.
Darth Executor on January 28, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I would add that the rabbinate ought to place much more emphasis on those who are fighting the muslim onslaught of Western civilization, but in that respect the Vatican is a bit wishy-washy. Pope Benedict started out really strong, giving an accurate and important quote to frame the nature of islam and the problems it poses, but he has been doing a lot of back-pedalling since then, unfortunately.
All in all, I couldn’t care less about Holocaust deniers. I knew back in the 70′s that the memory of the Holocaust would not last much longer. It’s not unlike the other thread here on Del Toro and his idiotic Che movie. People forget, especially what they want to forget. In the end, the intentionally forgetful are not nearly as bad as those who remember and then twist that memory to carry out the same program today, like those who compare Israel to Nazis to set up an argument for the “morally acceptable” extermination of the state.
progressoverpeace on January 28, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Ooooo. Soooooooo cynical.
It’s not because of money. The church wants to save souls. Reconciling with all the people who attend SSPX Masses is for the sake of salvation.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:23 PM
As much as I hate holocaust deniers, this is much ado about nothing.
This idiot was excommunicated as a heretic. They denied him the right to trial. The Vatican reconsidered, and thought the excommunication heavy handed. So, now he’s back in the church. That’s it. They don’t excommunicate for sin, just heresy. If they kicked everyone out who was a sinner, there would only be a handful of saints left in each church.
Why not kick the NK’s out of Israel? They drive me crazy with their sucking up to Iran and protesting in Israel. They claim the right to live their but they don’t want any one else to. Deport them to Iran. Send the leftards with them. Seriously, do you think Williamson’s a$$holery is any worse than the NK freaks?
Blake on January 28, 2009 at 5:23 PM
AP, It pains me that you’re too oblique with this issue to recognize the difference between criticizing the Gibsons, who are just laity, vs. tacit Papal endorsement of a high ranking official of the Church by way of his horrendous comments. Really, you ought to be ashamed. How could you make such a ridiculous argument?
Western_Civ on January 28, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Not funny.
stonemeister on January 28, 2009 at 5:25 PM
This is a bit of a knee jerk reaction. With nutty Jewish whack jobs out there supporting Iran and wishing to see Israel destroyed, how can a spiritual leader be expected to counter these incidences with fringe elements that claim affiliation?
Acting what appears to be hysterically and giving a kook like this Catholic Bishop a spotlight doesn’t help the situation. Does Israel really want to put up walls with a Pope that has the guts to take on Islam and call it what it really is?
Hening on January 28, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Prudence would dictate that Jews be a “little” more concerned with other enemies right now than with incited Catholics running amok and stating another inquisition.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I think that the Israel rabbinate has a legit beef. This isn’t some crazy whack job spewing his on personal views on his website; this is a religious bishop being publically welcomed back into the fold. It’s a high profile gesture that really doesn’t get Benedict much in terms of revitalizing the Church in Europe, but does really hurt the Church’s public image and outreach efforts. Very clumsy politics on Benedict’s part (in contract with John Paul II – the master politician).
Illinidiva on January 28, 2009 at 5:25 PM
This is a sick man — he desperately needs therapy to get over this mental illness.
Richard Romano on January 28, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Tacit approval?????? That sure seems to clash with this gag order on Williamson and this statement denouncing Williamson.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:27 PM
I agree. Which is why I’m with the chief rabbinate.
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Did Jim really have to put a /sarc tag on that? I thought the “geez” was enough of a hint, along with the ending ellipses.
progressoverpeace on January 28, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Point of Information: The Office of the Inquisition never truly ceased, it took some time off now and again, but it’s still with us… they just changed the name (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).
mankai on January 28, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I think the Church is right on this one. You don’t kick someone out of the Church simply because they hold objectionable views. It’d be a different matter if somehow these people were creating an imminent threat of death or bodily harm to innocent people. That’s not the case here.
NorthernCross on January 28, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Wrong AP. You sound like Obama. Where is it written that Israel has to talk to Rome? Screw em. It is just the usual diplomatic cognitive dissonance. Know who your friends are.
You can’t tell them who they let practice their religion, but oh well “we just don’t feel like talking to you today”?
Now “re-communication” is not the same as making him a Bishop again, but when you are not certain of your “friends” next action, they may not be your friends.
Agrippa2k on January 28, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Without objection.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 28, 2009 at 5:33 PM
No gas chambers?
Well, I don’t believe dinosaurs existed. All I’ve seen are bones, but how can we be certain their bones? How can we be certain they’re not oddly shaped rocks.
As a Catholic, I don’t believe the the Pope should have un-excommunicated him. Then again, I speak for myself.
madmonkphotog on January 28, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I’m not sure how this has a deleterious effect on the Israeli military.
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Yeah, great question, AP. I was trying to figure out which is worse – excommunicating a non-Christian nutball who was fired 20 years ago and long before this Pope took office, or not?
Jaibones on January 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I love these liberals
In spite of
Movies
Photos
Signed and dated documents
Its all a fake..
but BUT when a liberal reporter
Composed a document using ms word 2003
and says hey its official
Even though
there is No other cooberating evidence worldwide..
Why they cant understand why you dont believe it..
Same thing here.. just like the idiot carter
You could hand a liberal like carter
A live grenade
with the flag of islam painted right on it
a signed letter from osama bin laden
ADDRESSED to Carter himself
Saying “Hey meathead your going to get blown up in about 3 seconds”
And carters respose would be
“its made in america so it must be our fault)..
their all idiots..
logic doenst work liberalism is a mental disorder
jcila on January 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Do we really want to silence “acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.” right now.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM
There’s always Scientology………….
(just so there is no misunderstanding……..
………….. I am being sarcastic)
Seven Percent Solution on January 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM
High ranking? Bishop? I’m not so sure of that.
He is once again a catholic. However, as far as I can tell, he is still suspended a divinis and prohibited from fully acting as a priest. He can say mass but Catholics can’t attend.
Blake on January 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM
But freedom of speech does not negate consequences faced by those that will also exercise their right to disagree with you.
The freedom of speech clasue won’t get the Dixie chicks records sold by force, nor force the Catholic church to act in any way but what they see as their best interest, even as they ignore the all knowing wish of AP and others that continue to show that they just don’t get that freedom of speech clause.
Noelie on January 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM
I don’t think anyone here or at the Vatican is supporting Williamson’s statements. Do you think that members of other religions should dictate whether or not the Pope should lift excommunications on individuals?
I don’t. I understand why the Rabbi is pissed off. I would be too if I were him. But this isn’t his business, it isn’t his church.
Too many Catholics have waited far too long for Rome to begin the process of reconciliation with the SSPX to allow this step to be screwed up by the opinions of a bishop the vast majority of people had no idea existed until last week.
I truly s
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Yeah right. And who have they tortured lately. You are an effing propagandist and it’s a bloody shame that the Pope egregiously opened the door for you with this idiotic decision.
Basilsbest on January 28, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Ah, so they’re trying to silence this guy. Every day I learn new meanings for words I’ve apparently been using incorrectly my whole life.
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Yes, please have him thrown into prison before he leaves Germany; this guy is sick.
fiscallyconservative on January 28, 2009 at 5:38 PM
p-k-b
I don’t think Jews have excommunication. However, they have there own losers who deny the Holocaust. But, the Vatican is supposed to excommunicate and the Rabbinate not?
Blake on January 28, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Another thing, as a heretic, what power did the Pope have to punish him? He has to be in the church before he can be church spanked, so to speak.
Blake on January 28, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Yes they can. in 1991 a Hawaii bishop tried to excommunicate members of the Laity for attending SSPX masses, but then Cardinal Ratzinger overturned it:
From here.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Spinoza was excommunicated, whatever that meant at the time. I’ve never heard of another case.
But, you’re generally correct. Jews don’t have any central authority, so it kills most of the fun of excommunicating someone.
progressoverpeace on January 28, 2009 at 5:42 PM
The Church is an institution founded on the idea seeking repentance and forgiving sins. Don’t you know the parabels of the Prodigal Son and the Good Shepard? Why are people surprised when the Church forgives? That’s what its supposed to do. In the face of (presumed) actual contrition it cannot carry a grudge, it has to follow Christ’s example.
Iblis on January 28, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Not sure whether to laugh or not….very funny (but soooooo inappropriate esp. with sex abuse scandals).
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Okay. So where’s the contrition?
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Nope, not an ex-bishop. Your ordained a bishop for life (like a priest).
Believing in the Shoah is not Catholic dogma, you can’t be excommunicated for not believing in it. You can be dumb, but you can stay a dumb Catholic.
By the way, his superiors already silenced him and apologized for him.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=305970
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
bnelson44 on January 28, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Well the general idea does rather seem to be that he shut his mouth.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 5:50 PM
It comes after his superiors hand him his ass in private.
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I think you better read this:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM
Blake on January 28, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Oh, get a grip. We’re not talking about kids.
Blake on January 28, 2009 at 5:54 PM
“General idea.” Yeah, what a jackboot to the face.
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 5:55 PM
He doesn’t think 6 million Jews were gassed.
I guess it was all those Third Reich Comfy Chairs that killed them, right padre?
He doesn’t deserve a zucchetto, just a tinfoil asshat.
profitsbeard on January 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Albert Einstein was a great admire of Benedictus Spinoza so I guess he was fortunate not to have been born in the 1600′s.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 5:58 PM
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:58 PM
fun w/ altar boys, cover ups, money-hoarding, holocaust denying…..
everyone meet today’s catholic church!
(though the money-hoarding is nothing new!)
Noneya on January 28, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I have just got to quit trying to make jokes over the interwebs. :P
darii on January 28, 2009 at 5:59 PM
It probably doesn’t hold anymore.
bnelson44 on January 28, 2009 at 6:02 PM
What you have got your panties in a twist about now is becoming less and less clear.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Yeah. When you only do 1 excommunication and you pick one of the greatest geniuses ever, it’s not a proud moment. Oh well. At least they stopped there.
progressoverpeace on January 28, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Those of you Catholic bashers need to get a grip and shut up. The lifting of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops is an internal Church matter, period, and only one of these four bishops has made these comments. The rabbinate has no right to dictate to Holy Mother Church about anything.
trainwife1962 on January 28, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Panties in a twist? I’m not the one talking about people being “silenced.”
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 6:05 PM
No, free speech is meant to protect unpopular good speech, since the founders knew full well that what is most popular is seldom what is good. It protects unpopular bad speech as a necessary evil.
The founding fathers were not thinking about pornography or holocaust denial when they called the freedom of expression a sacred right. That it happens to protect profane and disgusting speech does not make its purpose to propagate such speech. Case in point, the radical Muslims’ call for the destruction of free speech under Sharia. That is by definition an abuse of a right. This is no less an abuse.
spmat on January 28, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I don’t much care one way or another on this whole issue, but what you said here is inaccurate. The rabbinate has every right to decide who they want relations with. And, frankly, I don’t think the Vatican is affected one way or another by whether the Israeli Rabbinate has ties with them or not.
progressoverpeace on January 28, 2009 at 6:10 PM
IMO the Israeli rabbinate has every right to express their displeasure with the Pope’s willingness to bring someone like this guy back into the fold without making him renounce his denial of the Holocaust. Just as the Pope can ignore them.
IMO the Pope is concerned about the 150,000 parishoners they want back in the pews – as is his right. However like everything else – actions have consequences.
katiejane on January 28, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Thank you for a very reasoned piece, AP.
Connie on January 28, 2009 at 6:12 PM
As I said, it is becoming ever less clear what you are even going on about.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 6:12 PM
trainwife1962 on January 28, 2009 at 6:14 PM
There is no need for you to strain yourself trying to channeling the dead as the Founding Fathers wrote quite clearly.
First Amendment –
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Excommunication is a big deal. I would analogize it to all the leftards who go overseas and bad mouth our country, yet we can’t take away their citizenship except for very specific reasons. And, we can’t demand they renounce their looneyness before we allow them back into the country.
Blake on January 28, 2009 at 6:18 PM
No, Spinoza. We were talking about Jewish excommunication.
progressoverpeace on January 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Something that is unclaer to me: is he now an ordained priest of the Catholic Church? If he is, then he isn’t simply a whack job. If he isn’t, then I agree, he’s just a whack job. In the former case, I can easily see where the rabbinate is coming from. In the latter case, I think they need to cool off.
HiHo on January 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Okay, hon.
Jim Treacher on January 28, 2009 at 6:22 PM
The founding fathers were not thinking about disrespecting Islam or global warming denial when they called the freedom of expression a sacred right.
- The UN
See what I mean?
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 6:24 PM
You nailed it right on the head, AP. Thank you.
AbaddonsReign on January 28, 2009 at 6:25 PM
OK, be that way. You are sleeping in the garage tonight.
MB4 on January 28, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »