Concerned Shell Script Now Limited:

Shell scripts are boring.

Pseudo,

To reiterate: "Love your neighbor as yourself",

And:

Reiteration is one of the main elements of educating. We have been "educated" actually brainwashed with religious mumbo-jumbo for over 6000 years. Hopefully it will not take this long to deprogram all the lies, myths and embellishments. But the deprogramming will continue and I have 6000 years to accomplish this prime project called a Return to Reality.

Let me know your religion and we will forward a five step method to deprogram your current "mumbo jumboed" neurons.

And I recommend reading the many books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html to aid your personal deprogramming.

Concerned Shell Script Now Limited:

"Reiteration is one of the main elements of educating."

Goebbles put that a different way: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Repeat after me...

Repeating... Yourself... Is... Boring...

Repeating... Yourself... Is... Boring...

Repeating... Yourself... Is... Boring...

Repeating... Yourself... Is... Boring...

Pseudo,

Reiteration is one of the main elements of educating. We have been "educated" actually brainwashed with religious mumbo-jumbo for over 6000 years. Hopefully it will not take this long to deprogram all the lies, myths and embellishments. But the deprogramming will continue and I have 6000 years to accomplish this prime project called a Return to Reality.

And I recommend reading the many books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html to aid your personal deprogramming.

Rev. Thomas J. Reese:

As we go about God's business of seeking truth and justice perhaps as a Jesuit you can be of help. The Spanish inquisition managed to recover some of the ill gotten wealth in the hands of Jews at the time, a fact of history. I'm talking about the Aztec and Inca gold in particular. Being a Jesuit, surely you must have studied 'official' Jesuit history. Is any of that gold in the solid gold altar where the son of God is sacrificed so sins can be forgiven gold recovered from Jews via the inquisition?

We need to be a bit more sure about the burning bush. That being, whatever IT was is the foundation of all three great faiths is it not? For sure it's the being called God by Jews and Christians.

What if http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is correct, that it was really Lucifer? What does that mean? Well, we can be sure Lucifer would just love to see the son of God sacrificed would we not? And putting a few Jews to the rack so their Aztec-Inca gold could be requisitioned for that altar...

Doesn't it all fit into a nice neat package? I mean, hell is chaos supreme with all those angels and people on fire dashing about and screaming etc. Isn't ecumenical a plan to bring that chaos to earth? And this week's topic is all about that chaos, one of the being-in-the-bush's reps got the story, (party line) something less than straight? Of course it can be explained. Ever hear a lie that couldn't be explained?

And "his" Shari'ah laws would be classified as the Dark Age "visions" of a bunch of "Sun poisoned" males from various sides of the sand dunes.

TO KNOW THE DANGERS OF ISLAM READ:

http://akram.rediffiland.com/blogs/2007/10/06/Read-It-Translate-It-Forward.html

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/library/english-library/islam-sex01/index.htm

AKRAM & NIGARKHAN

God Almighty bless you, Reverend Reese.

I have tears flowing down my cheeks reading your comments.

Is it not a basic quality of the good-natured human being to try to understand first before passing judgement? Archbishop Rowan William tried to understand what Sharia is, what may be the aspirations of minority Muslim communities living in western societies and, like the very best not only of Christians but of all human beings, his automatic, heartfelt response was to 'do unto others' (in this case to Muslims) not just what he would have wanted Muslims do unto minority Christian communities living in Muslim countries, but to go beyond that and do unto Muslims what the, the Muslims, would want others do unto them, taking account of what their better judgement indicates would maximize total welfare.

Reverend Reese writes: " A believing Muslim is already bound by shari`a even if he or she is living in a non-shari`a state. All the rules about diet, prayer, relations with others bind the believer even if there is no state enforcement. So you can actually say that shari`a is already operative in the Britain and the United States among Muslims".

The above formulation is as wise as any piece of wisdom could get had it been informed by the following Sunnah (practices of the Prophet and companions of the prophet). It is related by a close companion of the Prophet that, one day, an eminent person from the Madina community ran up to Caliph Omar to apprise him of an event that of of communal concern. A Muslim of some social prominence had decided to come clean and repent, and therefore had approached his religious guide, Ulama, to confess his misdemeanors. Having listened to him carefuly and with compassion, the Ulama told him in a very grave tone that the text of the Sharia is clear -- he had to be stoned to death. The repentant Muslim, being somewhat knowledgeable himself, asked the Ulama to weigh the various nuances in the Ahaadith (sayings of the Prophet) and Sunnah, to decide if alternative modes of atonement would be applicable (presumably, but this is my interpretation, giving up al his wealth in charity, accepting to be flogged in public, etc., anything short of death). The Ulama was struck with commizeration, but still felt that stoning unto death was mandatory. The repentant Muslim accepted and it was decided that the next day, after Fajr (morning) prayers, the sentence would be carried out. The repentant man stood stoically in the square in front of the Mosque as stones started being thrown at him. He read verses of the Quran to bolster his resolve. But at a certain point, his resolve faltered and he ran away. " I ran after him, O Umar" the community leader told the Prophet's companion proudly, " and I brought him back!"

Umar's voice softened to a murmur, soothing and reflective : "Why did you not allow him to run away?" The community leader was aghast, his face changing and his voice gone. "This is a man who accepted the precepts of Islam, coming back to the right path even after he had deviated, and willingly confessing his misdemeanors and repenting. He even complied when the sentence started being executed. Maybe it was Allah's way of showing His mercy that the man's resolve faltered and he ran away. The Ulama knows the texts of Sharia but not the philosophy of Sharia".

The above version of this particular Sunnah, I heard it from Professor Tariq Ramadan (who had been denied a visa by the US Government when the School of Theology of Notre Dame University had offered him a teaching position, and thereaftert became Tony Blair's Adviser on Religious matters)when he visited Cote d'Ivoire around the time of that country's civil war.

The tears that ran down my cheek as I read Reverend Reese's very moving piece, reflected the common values that bind humanity and that help usweather the vicissitudes of life similar to those related above, as well as others more rewarding or more tragic.

Thank you Reverend, and God Almighty bless you!

REPLY TO MARYCUNNINGHAM:

Would you please tell us what country on this planet that has Sharia as the supreme law of the land, you would have no problem living in?

Rev. Reese probably raises some valid points but the muddled message overall mainly left me puzzled about what message he is attempting to convey. So let me deal with some selective issues.

"One wonders why people are concerned about implementing shari`a in the United States and Britain when there appears to be little or no pressure for this from Muslims themselves."

I presume when Rev Reese in this sentence was using the word "people" as a synonym for "Archbishop Williams." It's the only way it makes sense. In this case, I agree. The Archbishop should never have raised this issue to begin with. But if Rev Reese is really referring to the popular reaction to Williams' words, then we have an issue. Thank goodness so many voices were raised so eloquently so quickly to to see to it that this proposal met a quick and merciful death.

Rev Reese's attempt to depict Sharia as no different from other bodies of religious law is frightening. It's not only that his depiction is substantively flawed. What's really frightening is the idea that any intelligent person in the West would have a benign attitude toward the implementation of Sharia and its consequences for Muslims in the West, especially women. Other voices throughout the On Faith forum have made that point forcefully. I suggest that Rev. Reese and anyone else who still see this issue through the rose -colored glasses of the multicultural ethos (bathos) read those comments and absorb their meaning.

To sum it up: the Muslim religion, as currently practiced, and the Sharia are incompatible with Western liberal democracy. The truth of that statement is found, not in some abstract ideological debate, but, first, by looking at the countries in which Sharia is the supreme law of the land. Second, by looking at the experience of Muslims in Europe who have dared to try to break free of the shackles of Sharia. Just look at the violence, the gang rapes, the whippings, the beatings, and the killing of Muslim women in Europe who have dared to take such steps. No responsible person, after examining the evidence, would dare call for the Sharia and its male enforcers to be given so much as a foothold of recognition or legitimacy in their country.

The idea that the Sharia or any of its parts could be used as the basis of a fair resolution of family disputes is just plain dumb. It's a Big Lie. Women and children caught up in such a system would be subjected to all sorts of intimidation and outright violence to make sure that, in the end, the system continued to serve the interests of the male ulema and male Muslim community, and everybody else--especially Muslim females--be damned.

Rev. Reese probably raises some valid points but the muddled message overall mainly left me puzzled about what message he is attempting to convey. So let me deal with some selective issues.

"One wonders why people are concerned about implementing shari`a in the United States and Britain when there appears to be little or no pressure for this from Muslims themselves."

I presume when Rev Reese in this sentence was using the word "people" as a synonym for "Archbishop Williams." It's the only way it makes sense. In this case, I agree. The Archbishop should never have raised this issue to begin with. But if Rev Reese is really referring to the popular reaction to Williams' words, then we have an issue. Thank goodness so many voices were raised so eloquently so quickly to to see to it that this proposal met a quick and merciful death.

Rev Reese's attempt to depict Sharia as no different from other bodies of religious law is frightening. It's not only that his depiction is substantively flawed. What's really frightening is the idea that any intelligent person in the West would have a benign attitude toward the implementation of Sharia and its consequences for Muslims in the West, especially women. Other voices throughout the On Faith forum have made that point forcefully. I suggest that Rev. Reese and anyone else who still see this issue through the rose -colored glasses of the multicultural ethos (bathos) read those comments and absorb their meaning.

To sum it up: the Muslim religion, as currently practiced, and the Sharia are incompatible with Western liberal democracy. The truth of that statement is found, not in some abstract ideological debate, but, first, by looking at the countries in which Sharia is the supreme law of the land. Second, by looking at the experience of Muslims in Europe who have dared to try to break free of the shackles of Sharia. Just look at the violence, the gang rapes, the whippings, the beatings, and the killing of Muslim women in Europe who have dared to take such steps. No responsible person, after examining the evidence, would dare call for the Sharia and its male enforcers to be given so much as a foothold of recognition or legitimacy in their country.

The idea that the Sharia or any of its parts could be used as the basis of a fair resolution of family disputes is just plain dumb. It's a Big Lie. Women and children caught up in such a system would be subjected to all sorts of intimidation and outright violence to make sure that, in the end, the system continued to serve the interests of the male ulema and male Muslim community, and everybody else--especially Muslim females--be damned.

!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

VOTE:

NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Theocracy!
No Monarchi!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!
MORE Protection For Kids & SAFER ‘Glorious Food. Not Bibles!

NOT: MODERN MORALiTY iS SUPERiOR to any BIBLICAL MORALITY!

THANK YOU!

IMO, the only reason the archbishop and others like him push the muslim agenda is because they're getting paid big bucks for their treason. The muslims stay in the background and get fools like the archbishop to do their dirty work.

Concerned Shell Script Now Limited:

Do you live in Antarctic and have an Internet connection as your only communication lifeline? Otherwise why do you keep repeating the same boring stuff on all these blogs?

You need to get out more, meet some real people, find a new cuisine, read a fun novel, smell a flower, go sky diving, climb a mountain, visit Paris, find new friends, enjoy life. Then later come back with something new.

Islam does not belong to Ahmet prophet. Ahmet prophet was poisoned and His Grandsons (for 12 generations to cease) and His DAughter were tortured.

today Islam is to be applied from Jacobsons. we cannot talk about a religion that is not from the source of it.

Muhammed is different than Ahmet prophet today. what Ahmet had lived is different than today's Islam. his speech is not in today's ISlam.

it should not be plugged into today's system.

Well said, Fr. Reese,

Disclosure: I live in England. I'm a Catholic, what Anglicans persist in calling a Roman Catholic, just to emphasize that I am foreign and they are indigenous..Not so, but that is another story.

Anyway, I've been following this whole (non)event and let me say a lot of the press was disgraceful. Did you know that a Sunday Times pundit actually charged the kindly and (it must be said) rather wooly Archbishop with treason. Treason! The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England. And she hadn't even read the speech and it showed. Disgraceful, just disgraceful.

Orthodox Jews run their own religious courts and these have some civil authority. It's pretty clear to me that this is the model Muslims were aspiring towards. Not that they'll get it in the near future.

You'll get lots of neocons threatening awful things as well as lots of Islam-is-evil prose and England will become Islamic in the next few years. Don't believe a word of it! Look, I'm not one of those Islam is a victim types. I was at Sunday Mass in Westminster Cathedral that awful September, 2006 when the craven London police let a jeering Islamist mob crowd very close to the cathedral. (In contrast the nativist BNP is kept at least a mile from any mosque it might care to picket.) When we came out we had to run a gauntlet. It was pretty bad.

So that is why we need cool heads to prevail. We need to defeat radical Islamists (not Islam) whilst at the same time assimilating--or at least pacifying--the remainder of the restive Muslim population. It won't be easy--but spreading hate like parts of the UK press is guilty of is not the answer.

(BTW the worst offenders were the Murdoch papers--the Sun and the Times. The left(ish) Guardian and Independent were better. Best were the London Evening Standard and the Financial Times. Be very careful about any religious 'news' you read from the Times.)

There is only one thing worse than having Henry VIII or the "Mormon-con" Joseph Smith as the founder of your religion and that is having Mohammed that illiterate, warmongering, greed/lust driven, hallucinating Arab as your founder.

And "his" Shari'ah laws would be classified as the Dark Age "visions" of a bunch of "Sun poisoned" males from various sides of the sand dunes.