Jerry Falwell just died

[red states rule]

You really need to stop believing everything you hear on Shill Olielys show redstates.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705040008?f=h_top

Ah, more from the Soros funded smear site

 

[Truthmatters]

Now I know you wont read that but others might and it shows how stupid it is to believe what Oliely has to say.

Soros does NOT contribute to media matters.

This is why you make a fool out of yourself every day.

You really need to broaden your sources.

If your point of view is really worth defending you will find what you need to defend it the broader media.

When you use only one source as a gospel you end up making yourself their tool.

Do you enjoy being a tool?

Come on boy Man Up and go out there and really research your subjects and come back here and blow us away with how much you learned.

Come on restates "You can do it".

 

[Truthmatters]

Why is it I have this vision of Redstates raeching past the pile of trash next to his computor and getting into the mini fridge his Grandma gave him to grab a strawberry Yahoo while saying to his Ronny the cowboy doll "Im no tool huh gipper".

 

[red states rule]

Media Matters: The Steps of Propaganda

By: Lee Kent Hempfling
Media Matters (http://www.mediamatters.org) seems to have lost control. In its Wed, May 2, 2007 piece entitled, ‘Schlussel claimed Media Matters is “Nazi-funded”‘, its propaganda soldiers jumped on a blogger for the following sentence: “After all, I wouldn’t want to disappoint my friends from the deceptively-named, Nazi-funded Media Matters for America.” Media Matters found space and time on its valuable real estate to attack a blogger for a single sentence and did so in setting her up as a ‘nutcase’ first. But in doing so, Media Matters simply exposed both their desperation at being overwhelmed with facts and their frustration at the consistent, factual exposure to what Media Matters, moveon.org, Open Society and the Tides Foundation really are. And just in time, too.

Good ol’ Keith Olbermann joined in to make her a worst winner. Debbie Schlussel just goes to show the far left and George Soros only use or abuse bloggers. Bloggers are not ‘media’ and they just don’t matter, unless they are used to push an agenda that has nothing to do with the feel-good group hug the liberals bloggers want.

Media Matters has a habit of drolling on in the same way, about their sugar daddy. They refer to him as “financier, philanthropist, and political activist.” He sure is. He finances overthrows of governments, philanthropist-izes himself into a felony conviction and works within the political frame of our two party system to give ‘activist’ the meaning it had before it became slang. George Soros not only funds Media Matters through a web of organizations, he is actively using his money and his influence, to overthrow this country, just as he has done with other countries prior.

Would Media Matters bother to address any of that? Not likely! They like ‘financier, philanthropist, and political activist’ George Soros and they always distance themselves from him, like the good propaganda ministry soldiers they are.

Media Matters says “Soros, who is founder and chairman of Open Society Institute (OSI), has contributed generously to progressive organizations — including America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and the Campaign for America’s Future.” Sounds all nice and cuddly, doesn’t it? Actually, Soros uses the front of the Open Society (which is another word for ‘how to make the world a Soros world’) to funnel money into other ‘organizations’ who can then claim no Soros funding. It is nothing but an upside down pyramid scheme.

OSI’s money comes from Soros, it goes to places like the Tydes Foundation, where it is then funneled again into lower organizations who are then able to claim never to have received money from George Soros. That makes Soros The Shadow, behind the party he wants to have so much he’ll spend every dime you have to get it. (What do you think donations to those organizations are for anyway? Without donations they would be funded by Soros alone. With donations, they allow you to buy a piece of the deception so you cannot become wise to it or you will expose yourself.)

Media Matters is in business to attack the enemy. The enemy to the gullible press (not the complicit press, who know better) is the conservative. (To those who know better the enemy is the republican form of government where capitalism does not funnel the cash to the leaders unless they do it with taxes.) The method Media Matters employs is one of selective focus. If an individual lived in a selective focus they would reside in their own reality and would indeed be mentally unstable. But to use selective focus on purpose is the very definition of deception.

for the complete article

http://www.thelandofthefree.net/con.../05/07/media-matters-the-steps-of-propaganda/

 

[Truthmatters]

Yeah the guys a moster.
from wiki

Soros has been active as a philanthropist since the 1970s, when he began providing funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa, and began funding dissident movements behind the iron curtain.

Soros' philanthropic funding in Central and Eastern Europe mostly occurs through the Open Society Institute (OSI) and national Soros Foundations, which sometimes go under other names, e.g., the Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland. As of 2003, PBS[14] estimated that he had given away a total of $4 billion.

The OSI says it has spent about $400 million annually in recent years.

Notable projects have included aid to scientists and universities throughout Central and Eastern Europe, help to civilians during the siege of Sarajevo, worldwide efforts to repeal drug prohibition laws, and Transparency International. Soros also pledged an endowment of €420 million to the Central European University (CEU). The Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus and his microfinance bank Grameen Bank received support from the OSI.

According to the National Review[15] the Open Society Institute gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Defense Committee of Lynne Stewart. She is a controversial lawyer who has defended terrorists in court and was sentenced to 2⅓ years in prison for "providing material support for a terrorist conspiracy" via a press conference for a client. An OSI spokeswoman said "it appeared to us at that time that there was a right-to-counsel issue worthy of our support."

In September 2006, Soros departed from his characteristic sponsorship of democracy building programs, pledging $50 million to the Jeffrey Sachs-led Millennium Promise to help eradicate extreme poverty in Africa. Noting the connection between bad governance and poverty, he remarked on the humanitarian value of the project.[16]

He received honorary doctoral degrees from the New School for Social Research (New York), the University of Oxford in 1980, the Budapest University of Economics, and Yale University in 1991. Soros also received the Yale International Center for Finance Award from the Yale School of Management in 2000 as well as the Laurea Honoris Causa, the highest honor of the University of Bologna in 1995.

BTW the insider trading he was charged with was in France ,I thought you hated France?

 

[red states rule]

and he has wasted tens of millions trying to defeat Pres Bush and pours even more millions into left wing smear sites

 

[mattskramer]

Oh, media matters - the site funded by George Soros.

Just look at the name of the web site that you found: BlameBush. That sure sounds balanced and politically neutral. Anyway, it does not matter who paid for the web site, as long as the facts are there. Instead of criticizing the messenger, why not try to disprove the facts.

 

[mattskramer]

There is much more hate speech coming from the left - that is valid - then from conservatives

That is your opinion. I think that the amount of hate speech coming from the left is practically equal to the amount of hate speech coming from the right.

 

[Birdzeye]

That is your opinion. I think that the amount of hate speech coming from the left is practically equal to the amount of hate speech coming from the right.

I agree. Recently, I got treated to a link to a really hateful anti-liberal screed from some right wing looneytarian, who called for shutting liberals up. I can't post the link right now because I'm still fairly new here, but I will later when I can.


His love of our freedoms was, to say the least, underwhelming.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shogun
you give me opinons.. which is fine.. as long as you realize that yours is not the only opinion on the matter and, im betting, will fluxuate according to the issue at hand and the position in which you find yourself argueing.

indeed, I would suggest that your idea of CORE VALUES will greatly differ than that of your fellow Americans..

for example,

the US was still a democracy before womens suffrage and civil rights. religion was venerated in school for at least 75% of our American history. indeed, slavery too. You have an opinon based on your understanding of those issues THIS SIDE of their historic relevance that is the direct product of the historic result of each issue.

democracy has many faces.. of which there are many values relevant to the particular culture that it serves... Hell, do you think Indias government would look strange to us in America? and likewise, im sure.. now, what should THEIR opinons matter to us?

Shogun,

Sorry for the delay. Just like matt, I also have a life outside the net : )

I would like to highlight what I think are two basic errors:

1) Your belief that the core values of a democratic state like the US evolved with the passage of time and are the result of the history of each country varying from place to place.

2) Your belief that the United States is a democratic state since its foundation in 1776.

Let me address the first error:

My understanding of the central values of a democratic state is not derived from the historic result in the US of issues like slavery, universal suffrage, etc, etc…

My understanding is based on the general principles of a modern democratic state established by the French social philosophers and John Locke during the Enlightenment in the 18th century.

Don’t take my word for it. Just read the works of these thinkers. It’s all there, all the basic principles of a democratic state:

1) Democratic process (periodic elections)
2) Separation between church and state.
3) Rule of law
4) Equality of all human beings/citizens before the law
5) Right of property
6) Even the separation of powers was conceived by Montesquieu

The basic principles of a democratic state are not the result of the history of the US, buddy.

They were conceived in France and England before the creation of the US!!

You say the core values of democracy are subjective and vary from individual to individual and from country to country but in reality they are so objective that I even created a list with six items!

There is no “American democracy”, “Indian democracy” and “Russian democracy”.

Societies that respect the items listed above are democratic the ones that do not are dictatorships, autocracies, theocracies, ethnocracies etc…

It’s as simple as that.

Are there differences between the way the democratic state is organized in America and India?

Of course there are but the items cited above are found in both countries. Therefore they are both democratic states.

So the core values of democracy are objective, universal and were conceived in Europe before the creation of the US, therefore they cannot be considered a product of the american history.

Originally posted by Shogun
the US was still a democracy before womens suffrage and civil rights.

Your information is in error, Shogun.

The values of the Enlightenment were the inspiration of the framers but they did not, by any stretch of the imagination, create a democratic state.

The founders were the first ones to realize the world of difference that separated the political ideals of the Enlightenment from the country they had just created in North America.

Thomas “all men are created equal” Jefferson always opposed slavery. Washington even freed his “negroes”.

And not only these two. Most of the founders were haunted by the ghost of slavery till the end of their lives.

They had to create a racist and sexist society in the US and be slave owners themselves due to the historical circunstances of their time (everybody had slaves, you just couldn’t live/be a farm owner without them).

But the contradiction between slavery/sexism and the core values of democracy that inspired the american constitution was as flagrant in 1776 as it is today.

As I said above, universal suffrage is an absolute requirement of the democratic political system, shogun.

That’s precisely why, the US untill the 60’s just like South Africa under Apartheid were not democratic states, but white ethnocracies or white racial dictatorships as I prefer to call this kind of political system.

I know perfectly well the statement that the US was a racist dictatorship until the 60`s is extremely shocking for most members of the twin communities: US Message Board/Debate Policy Message Board.

I know perfectly well that the american educational system indoctrinates the american youth with the “200 year old democracy” ultra nationalist myth in order to reinforce patriotism.

I myself would love to state that the US is a democracy since 1776.

But I cannot prostitute my analysis and distort the real history of the US in order to please my fellow members.

Until 64 the US failed to conform with item number 4 of the list of basic democratic principles: equality of all citizens before the law (specially one of the most crucial civil rights, ie, political rights: the right to vote and be elected in order to obtain additional rights).

Until 1964 southern states were allowed to circumvent the federal ruling and created legal obstacles to keep blacks from voting.

Calling America a democratic state before 64 is akin to calling SA under Apartheid a democracy.

All I can say to help comfort people who are now outraged by my statement is that in 1776 the founders created a kind of PRE DEMOCRATIC STATE, a kind of PROTOTYPE of what would become the democratic US.

When you look at the US through a historical perspective you see this kind of prototype that would eventually evolve to become a democratic state.

But considered in itself the US of 1776, 1800 and 1900 was indeed a sexist, racial dictatorship.

But this in no way diminishes America’s stature as a poster country for democracy.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Shogun,

Sorry for the delay. Just like matt, I also have a life outside the net : )

I would like to highlight what I think are two basic errors:

1) Your belief that the core values of a democratic state like the US evolved with the passage of time and are the result of the history of each country varying from place to place.

2) Your belief that the United States is a democratic state since its foundation in 1776.

Let me address the first error:

My understanding of the central values of a democratic state is not derived from the historic result in the US of issues like slavery, universal suffrage, etc, etc…

My understanding is based on the general principles of a modern democratic state established by the French social philosophers and John Locke during the Enlightenment in the 18th century.

Don’t take my word for it. Just read the works of these thinkers. It’s all there, all the basic principles of a democratic state:

1) Democratic process (periodic elections)
2) Separation between church and state.
3) Rule of law
4) Equality of all human beings/citizens before the law
5) Right of property
6) Even the separation of powers was conceived by Montesquieu

The basic principles of a democratic state are not the result of the history of the US, buddy.

They were conceived in France and England before the creation of the US!!

You say the core values of democracy are subjective and vary from individual to individual and from country to country but in reality they are so objective that I even created a list with six items!

There is no “American democracy”, “Indian democracy” and “Russian democracy”.

Societies that respect the items listed above are democratic the ones that do not are dictatorships, autocracies, theocracies, ethnocracies etc…

It’s as simple as that.

Are there differences between the way the democratic state is organized in America and India?

Of course there are but the items cited above are found in both countries. Therefore they are both democratic states.

So the core values of democracy are objective, universal and were conceived in Europe before the creation of the US, therefore they cannot be considered a product of the american history.



Your information is in error, Shogun.

The values of the Enlightenment were the inspiration of the framers but they did not, by any stretch of the imagination, create a democratic state.

The founders were the first ones to realize the world of difference that separated the political ideals of the Enlightenment and the country they had just created in North America.

Thomas “all men are created equal” Jefferson always opposed slavery. Washington even freed his “negroes”.

And not only these two. Most of the founders were haunted by the ghost of slavery till the end of their lives.

They had to create a racist and sexist society in the US and be slave owners themselves due to the historical circunstances of their time (everybody had slaves, you just couldn’t live/be a farm owner without them).

But the contradiction between slavery/sexism and the core values of democracy that inspired the american constitution was as flagrant in 1776 as it is today.

As I said above, universal suffrage is an absolute requirement of the democratic political system, shogun.

That’s precisely why, the US untill the 60’s just like South Africa under Apartheid were not democratic states, but white ethnocracies or white racial dictatorships as I prefer to call this kind of political system.

I know perfectly well the statement that the US was a racist dictatorship until the 60`s is extremely shocking for most members of the twin communities: US Message Board/Debate Policy Message Board.

I know perfectly well that the american educational system indoctrinate the american youth with the “200 year old democracy” ultra nationalist myth in order to reinforce patriotism.

I myself would love to state that the US is a democracy since 1776.

But I cannot prostitute my analysis and distort the real history of the US in order to please my fellow members.

Until 64 the US failed to conform with item number 4 of the list of basic democratic principles: equality of all citizens before the law (specially political rights: the right to vote).

Until 1964 southern states were allowed to circumvent the federal ruling and created legal obstacles to keep blacks from voting.

Calling America a democratic state before 64 is akin to calling SA under Apartheid a democracy.

All I can say to help comfort people who are now outraged by my statement is that in 1776 the founders created a kind of PRE DEMOCRATIC STATE, a kind of PROTOTYPE of what would become the democratic US.

When you look at the US through a historical perspective you see this kind of prototype that would eventually evolve to become a democratic state.

But considered in itself the US of 1776, 1800 and 1900 was indeed a sexist, racial dictatorship.

But this in no way diminishes America’s stature as a poster country for democracy.

Thomas “all men are created equal” Jefferson always opposed slavery. Washington even freed his “negroes”.

Sorry to disillusion you, Jose, but Jefferson was a complete fucking hypocrite and so was Washington

In fact Jefferson would even be charged with rape these days for holding a woman against her will for sexual purposes.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Sorry to disillusion you, Jose, but Jefferson was a complete fucking hypocrite and so was Washington

In fact Jefferson would even be charged with rape these days for holding a woman against her will for sexual purposes.

BTW, Jesus, in ALL his guises, supported slavery too!

 

[Dirt McGirt]

BTW, Jesus, in ALL his guises, supported slavery too!

That link debunks one of your earlier posts:

Does this mean you don't like religion?
I disagree. Sounds to me like your indictment of religion is based on the actions of people from long ago, and the persent day extremists, who might make all the noise, but don't represent the majority of their respective religions.

In regard to Christianity specifically, NOTHING in the New Testament intones anyone to kill others in Christ's name. You may blame the idiot extremists that have done so, but blaming the religion itself is just misplacing blame.

What about what Jewsarse said in Luke 19:27, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=551917&postcount=163

"In verse 27 the greedy, wicked nobleman tells his slaves, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Instead of condemning such a display of wanton cruelty and intolerance as he should have Jesus simply ignores it and goes on with his money-saving lecture thereby passing up another opportunity to register his condemnation of slavery."- http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html

Since it was the tax collector who said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." instead of Jesus, as you wrongly claimed, how can anyone expect that you have enough knowledge or understanding to even debate the bible after making such an obvious error?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

That link debunks one of your earlier posts:



"In verse 27 the greedy, wicked nobleman tells his slaves, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Instead of condemning such a display of wanton cruelty and intolerance as he should have Jesus simply ignores it and goes on with his money-saving lecture thereby passing up another opportunity to register his condemnation of slavery."- http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html

Since it was the tax collector who said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." instead of Jesus, as you wrongly claimed, how can anyone expect that you have enough knowledge or understanding to even debate the bible after making such an obvious error?

Get off the grass, McGirt!

Even a Christmas Night Christian, like you, couldn’t interpret Luke 19:27 as meaning anything BUT Jewsarse making up a parable about how his enemies; those that do not believe he is the Messiah, should be paraded before him and murdered.

And that is PRECISELY how it was interpreted by millions of spineless, safety-in-a-mob Christain killers to justify their genocides, Inquistions, and pogroms against “evil” unbelievers for centuries.

Only an hysterically heretical American “Christian,” trying to make his sadomasochistic Messiah out as “Jesus Meek and Mild” could interpret it otherwise.


Here, here is a few to go on with. Yell out I you want more, there’s plenty more where these insanely hateful statements from your God come from. The bilious Bible is chock-a-block full of them

And the brother shall deliver up the brother of death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Matt. 10:21

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father . . . Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and thy daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matt. 10:33-36

Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it . . . Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and wives ravished. Isaiah 13:9,15,16


Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18

He that blasphemeth the Lord must be killed. Leviticus 24:16

There are many whose mouths must be stopped. Titus 1:10,11

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath will be killed. Exodus 31:15

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the bloody city. I will make the pile for fire great. Heap on wood, kindle the fire, consume the flesh, and spice it well, and let the bones be burned. Ez. 24:9,10

Look, the Lord is coming with thousands of his holy ones. he will bring the people of the world to judgment. He will convict the ungodly of all the evil things they have done in rebellion and of all the insults godless sinners have spoken against him. Jude 14, 15

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4

False prophets are also to be executed - Deuteronomy 13:1-5

Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Psalms 139:21-2

Yahweh directed his warriors to take girl children from other villages as their household slaves and concubines, after raping and killing the girls' mothers. Num. 31:17-18; Judges 21:10-12

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/gracious.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Get off the grass, McGirt!

Even a Christmas Night Christian, like you, couldn’t interpret Luke 19:27 as meaning anything BUT Jewsarse making up a parable about how his enemies; those that do not believe he is the Messiah, should be paraded before him and murdered.

And that is PRECISELY how it was interpreted by millions of spineless, safety-in-a-mob Christain killers to justify their genocides, Inquistions, and pogroms against “evil” unbelievers for centuries.

Only an hysterically heretical American “Christian,” trying to make his sadomasochistic Messiah out as “Jesus Meek and Mild” could interpret it otherwise.

No Chips, the preceeding passage in Luke is a parable that hadn't happened but obviously takes place after Jesus returns. The bible is pretty clear that a war takes place after he returns. You didn't expect the final battle between good and evil to follow the Geneva Conventions did you?

Here, here is a few to go on with. Yell out I you want more, there’s plenty more where these insanely hateful statements from your God come from. The bilious Bible is chock-a-block full of them

And the brother shall deliver up the brother of death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Matt. 10:21

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father . . . Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and thy daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matt. 10:33-36

Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it . . . Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and wives ravished. Isaiah 13:9,15,16


Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18

He that blasphemeth the Lord must be killed. Leviticus 24:16

There are many whose mouths must be stopped. Titus 1:10,11

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath will be killed. Exodus 31:15

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the bloody city. I will make the pile for fire great. Heap on wood, kindle the fire, consume the flesh, and spice it well, and let the bones be burned. Ez. 24:9,10

Look, the Lord is coming with thousands of his holy ones. he will bring the people of the world to judgment. He will convict the ungodly of all the evil things they have done in rebellion and of all the insults godless sinners have spoken against him. Jude 14, 15

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4

False prophets are also to be executed - Deuteronomy 13:1-5

Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Psalms 139:21-2

Yahweh directed his warriors to take girl children from other villages as their household slaves and concubines, after raping and killing the girls' mothers. Num. 31:17-18; Judges 21:10-12

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/gracious.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html

Again, you take passages out of context. I don't deny the bible is full of contradictions and is open to interpretation. I personally don't believe in the literal translation, but as a whole, I think we're better off with Christianity today than without. If people can conform to society through religion and do some charity because of their beliefs, why do you have such a problem with it?

 

[red states rule]

No Chips, the preceeding passage in Luke is a fable that hadn't happened but obviously takes place after Jesus returns. The bible is pretty clear that a war takes place after he returns. You didn't expect the final battle between good and evil to follow the Geneva Conventions did you?


Again, you take passages out of context. I don't deny the bible is full of contradictions and is open to interpretation. I personally don't believe in the literal translation, but as a whole, I think we're better off with Christianity today than without. If people can conform to society through religion and do some charity because of their beliefs, why do you have such a problem with it?

Tell that to Muslims

I have yet to see a Christain behead someone for not converting

 

[Shogun]

thats because you dont live in africa..


Jose.. ill be getting back to your post.. busy day today.

 

[Birdzeye]

Tell that to Muslims

I have yet to see a Christain behead someone for not converting

I don't know if they beheaded people during the Spanish Inquisition, but they sure as hell persecuted the religiously incorrect (i.e., not Roman Catholic), and their tactics were none too gentle.

 

[mattskramer]

Tell that to Muslims

I have yet to see a Christain behead someone for not converting

Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials?

http://www.thenagain.info/Webchron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html

The Inquisition was run procedurally by the inquisitor-general who established local tribunals of the Inquisition. Accused heretics were identified by the general population and brought before the tribunal. The were given a chance to confess their heresy against the Catholic Church and were also encouraged to indict other heretics. If they admitted their wrongs and turned in other aggressors against the church they were either released or sentenced to a prison penalty. If they would not admit their heresy or indict others the accused were publicly introduced in a large ceremony before they were publicly killed or sentenced to a life in prison.

 

[red states rule]

I don't know if they beheaded people during the Spanish Inquisition, but they sure as hell persecuted the religiously incorrect (i.e., not Roman Catholic), and their tactics were none too gentle.

So you have to go back that far to find something on Christians?

Here is where a girl was stoned to death for dating a man of a different faith

This is the type of nuts that want to kill Americans (liberals as well as conservatives)

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1...to_Death_for_Dating_a_Man_of_Another_Religion