Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

+ Remain a good citizen.  Follow our laws.  Stop at stop signs.  Treat others with respect.  and you won’t have anything to worry about.  Be a jerk, and I suggest you put a lawyer on retainer.

Just requesting a clarification, Patrick: do you also believe that the freedom riders, civil rights’ marchers, and lunch-counter-sitters-in of the 1950s and 1960s, were "jerks"? Do you deny that sometimes horrible conditions of social threat and oppression compel "good citizens" to invoke a higher criterion of "right" than mere obedience to civil law? Frankly, I believe that the brief exhortation you’ve just delivered to us might well have been delivered to "good German citizens" during the 1930s, by THEIR government officials.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You got to be kidding, even if one has no US citizenship, they have right to counsel, the many court cases of this kind has already proven that. Not in the new tribunals they’re putting on for people they’ve decided are terrorists.  They’re holding people incommunicado and are refusing to even identify whom they’re holding.  They’re basically treating the Bill of Rights as if it were toilet paper.  Oh, but it’s for national security! No-one can rest easy, because no-one knows whom they’re going to come after next. If you’re not a terrorist, Priscilla, you have nothing to worry about.

Since when did conviction preceed arrest?  If they don’t perceive you as a possible terrorist, THEN you have nothing to worry about.  But if you’re Muslim, or appear to be from a part of the world where there are a lot of Muslims, or if you object to the actions of the people now in power, then you have PLENTY to worry about, and if we let them have their way now, the categories will expand. These are tough and troubled times in which the terrorists could care less about our Bill of Rights or anything else connected with the U.S. We gotta do what we gotta do.

No, we gotta do what the Constitution says. Our nation is a Republic and as such our elected leaders are entrusted to do what is right for the country as a whole, even if that goes against public opinion.

Not if its unconstitutional. thank God we are not governed by public opinion polls. Thank God we have a president who is willing to stick it to these terrorists. It is our right under international law.

He’s not doing anything about the terrorists these days.  It’s all about Iraq. Priscilla — "I would listen to Priscilla. Her advice is excellent!"            – Frankenmel (Sharon) on alt.support.menopause

Response:

If you’re not a terrorist, Priscilla, you have nothing to worry about. Since when did conviction preceed arrest?  If they don’t perceive you as a possible terrorist, THEN you have nothing to worry about.  But if you’re Muslim, or appear to be from a part of the world where there are a lot of Muslims, or if you object to the actions of the people now in power, then you have PLENTY to worry about, and if we let them have their way now, the categories will expand.

I admit, Priscilla, I don’t look at Moslems the same way any more. You can’t tell who is and who isn’t part of a secret terrorist cell. These are tough and troubled times in which the terrorists could care less about our Bill of Rights or anything else connected with the U.S. We gotta do what we gotta do. No, we gotta do what the Constitution says.

***That leaves the door pretty wide open. Our nation is a Republic and as such our elected leaders are entrusted to do what is right for the country as a whole, even if that goes against public opinion. Not if its unconstitutional.

***It’s the Constitution that set it up this way. thank God we are not governed by public opinion polls. Thank God we have a president who is willing to stick it to these terrorists. It is our right under international law. He’s not doing anything about the terrorists these days.  It’s all about Iraq.

***Then who was the hairy Muhammed guy busted over the weekend by the Pakistanis? He looks like he’s one rung up on the food chain from home-semierectus. Al

Response:

You got to be kidding, even if one has no US citizenship, they have right to counsel, the many court cases of this kind has already proven that. Not in the new tribunals they’re putting on for people they’ve decided are terrorists.  They’re holding people incommunicado and are refusing to even identify whom they’re holding.  They’re basically treating the Bill of Rights as if it were toilet paper.  Oh, but it’s for national security!   No-one can rest easy, because no-one knows whom they’re going to come after next.

+ The Bill of Rights was written for the citizens of the United States of America.  It was not written for the USA to follow when questioning prisoners from foreign lands.  Geneva wrote rules for prisoners of war.  We follow those rules.  Persons who have been captured in foreign lands do not fall under the Bill of Rights.   + Do you think the terrorists follow the Bill of Rights? + Do you think the terrorists were thinking about our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when they crashed those airplanes on 9-11? + Remain a good citizen.  Follow our laws.  Stop at stop signs.  Treat others with respect.  and you won’t have anything to worry about.  Be a jerk, and I suggest you put a lawyer on retainer.

Response:

In fact Al, they will use ALL of our freedoms against us! That is exactly what they did 9/11

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You got to be kidding, even if one has no US citizenship, they have right to counsel, the many court cases of this kind has already proven that. Not in the new tribunals they’re putting on for people they’ve decided are terrorists.  They’re holding people incommunicado and are refusing to even identify whom they’re holding.  They’re basically treating the Bill of Rights as if it were toilet paper.  Oh, but it’s for national security! No-one can rest easy, because no-one knows whom they’re going to come after next. If you’re not a terrorist, Priscilla, you have nothing to worry about. These are tough and troubled times in which the terrorists could care less about our Bill of Rights or anything else connected with the U.S. We gotta do what we gotta do. Our nation is a Republic and as such our elected leaders are entrusted to do what is right for the country as a whole, even if that goes against public opinion. thank God we are not governed by public opinion polls. Thank God we have a president who is willing to stick it to these terrorists. It is our right under international law. Al — Orthodox Church and Bible Study Links http://aggreen.net/orth_links/orthlink.html

Response:

You got to be kidding, even if one has no US citizenship, they have right to counsel, the many court cases of this kind has already proven that.

Thanks for your post, Raymond…but unfortunately, I’m NOT kidding. This is PRECISELY what Ashcroft proposed to do, in "Son of Patriot": strip native-born American citizens of most of their constitutional rights, if they could be in any way loosely associated with "terrorists". The fact that a Justice of Department staffer was alarmed enough by this proposal to leak the document to the press has probably guranteed that it will now be scutinized by Congress, rather than blindly rubber-stamped by it, as was the first "Patriot Act". But it was a mighty close call. We can’t afford many more "close calls" like this. Our constitutional democracy is completely at stake.

Response:

You got to be kidding, even if one has no US citizenship, they have right to counsel, the many court cases of this kind has already proven that.

Not in the new tribunals they’re putting on for people they’ve decided are terrorists.  They’re holding people incommunicado and are refusing to even identify whom they’re holding.  They’re basically treating the Bill of Rights as if it were toilet paper.  Oh, but it’s for national security!   No-one can rest easy, because no-one knows whom they’re going to come after next. Priscilla — "I would listen to Priscilla. Her advice is excellent!"            – Frankenmel (Sharon) on alt.support.menopause

Response:

You got to be kidding, even if one has no US citizenship, they have right to counsel, the many court cases of this kind has already proven that. Not in the new tribunals they’re putting on for people they’ve decided are terrorists.  They’re holding people incommunicado and are refusing to even identify whom they’re holding.  They’re basically treating the Bill of Rights as if it were toilet paper.  Oh, but it’s for national security! No-one can rest easy, because no-one knows whom they’re going to come after next.

If you’re not a terrorist, Priscilla, you have nothing to worry about. These are tough and troubled times in which the terrorists could care less about our Bill of Rights or anything else connected with the U.S. We gotta do what we gotta do. Our nation is a Republic and as such our elected leaders are entrusted to do what is right for the country as a whole, even if that goes against public opinion. thank God we are not governed by public opinion polls. Thank God we have a president who is willing to stick it to these terrorists. It is our right under international law. Al — Orthodox Church and Bible Study Links http://aggreen.net/orth_links/orthlink.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike That’s pretty snide, Mike…but just wait…Ashcroft and company are not through with us yet. Under the proposed "Son Of Patriot" legislation, which was leaked to the press a few weeks ago by a gravely concerned Justice Department staffer, even if you’re a native-born American citizen, you could be STRIPPED OF YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, upon the U.S. government’s decision that you’re some kind of "terrorist"…i.e., for example, if you gave money to an Islamic charity, which (without your knowledge) sent some of those funds to a political entity that the U.S. Government declares to be "terrorist". At which point, of course, stripped of your U.S. citizenship, you’re set up to be secretly detained, with no right to counsel, with no right to file for habeas corpus, with no right to contact your family. In other words, you can be treated just like any other targeted "non-citizen". Especially an Arab one. Does this REALLY sound like the America you know and love?

You got to be kidding, even if one has no US citizenship, they have right to counsel, the many court cases of this kind has already proven that.

Response:

Sajo, can you summarize what the heck you’re getting at in 25 words or less? Make believe it’s a cereal box contest! Al

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike That’s pretty snide, Mike… I’m entitled to be so. The original poster was attempting to draw moral equivalency between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The poster was therefore a moral idiot and should not expect respectful treatment. but just wait…Ashcroft and company are not through with us yet. Under the proposed "Son Of Patriot" legislation, which was leaked to the press a few weeks ago by a gravely concerned Justice Department staffer, even if you’re a native-born American citizen, you could be STRIPPED OF YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, upon the U.S. government’s decision that you’re some kind of "terrorist"…i.e., for example, if you gave money to an Islamic charity, which (without your knowledge) sent some of those funds to a political entity that the U.S. Government declares to be "terrorist". At which point, of course, stripped of your U.S. citizenship, you’re set up to be secretly detained, with no right to counsel, with no right to file for habeas corpus, with no right to contact your family. In other words, you can be treated just like any other targeted "non-citizen". Especially an Arab one. Does this REALLY sound like the America you know and love? You’re changing the subject from the (1) administration’s actions on the world stage to (2) domestic civil defense policy. If you have these thinks linked in your mind, so be it, but they are two issues which are only circumstantially related. But, to answer your question, I have no problem with harsh penalties for traitorous activities. Nor should anybody. The notion that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights should apply to those who take *action* to subvert this country is absurd. I note that the liberal site of the political equation has been running around in the courts since Afghanistan trying to make the Bill of Rights apply to the morons in Guantanamo. Fortuantely, the courts have better sense. As for the provisions of "Son of Patriot", it is the administration’s "negotiation position." Like all legislation, they know they’ll have to compromise in order to get things passed; what they’ll give on is the demand for greater court oversight over the legal processes enumerated in S of P. So no, I see S of P as *ultimately* strenghening the possibility that the "America I know and love" continues on into perpetuity. Mike   Evidently you haven’t kept an open mind. We need protection from all enemies foreign and domestic, and not all our enemies ARE foreign. Son of Patriot Act is an unjust travesty and would punish US citizens for protecting their own interests against those of corporate america. There are many similarities between Osama – bin – Laden , Hasan – bin – Sabah , Charles Manson , and Joseph Smith . Charles Manson believed that the blacks , or very dark brown Africans , were the sons of Ham , one of Noah’s sons , whom Noah cursed to be the ancestor of slaves [ Genesis 9 : 18 - 29 ] . No where in Genesis 9 : 18 – 29 is skin colour mentioned , and in the Acts of the Apostles , chapter 8 : 26 – 39 , it is said that St. Philip the Evangelist converted to Christianity the treasurer of the Queen of the Ethiopians , Candace . Charles Manson was also a statutory "polygamist"/concubinist/rapist , as some post – 1890 Mormon splinter groups still are to this day. A statutory "polygamist"/concubinist/rapist is someone who marries or has as a concubine more than one female under the age of 16 at the same time . " The Family " that Charles Manson gave members of his cult might have been an allusion on Manson’s part to Ephesians 3 : 14 – 15 , where the Apostle St. Paul says : " For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named …" The Prophet Muhammad , the founder of Islam , allowed the Muslims to own slaves and to have a maximum of four wives at the same time . To this day , many southern Sudanese Christians and polytheists are sold into slavery to Saudi Arabian sheiks by the northern Sudanese Muslims . Hasan – bin – Sabah was the leader of a Muslim terrorist group called the " Assassins ," or " hashashins ," Persian or Iranian for " hemp – eaters . " These Assassins belonged to the Ismaili denomination of the Shiite division of Islam . These Muslim terrorists killed their enemies while under the influence of hashish , a drug made from the hemp plant . Hasan – bin – Sabah was alleged by both his Muslim and Christian Crusader enemies to use hashish and belly – dancing concubines and wives from his harem who performed sexual favours in order to gain recruits for his terrorist organization . Hasan – bin – Sabah was called " The Old Man of the Mountain " because he had as his base a mountain castle – fortress called " Alamut ," meaning " eagle’s nest ," located in what is today the nation – state of Iran . The reason why the mainstream Mormon Church , officially known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter – Day Saints , abolished polygamy in 1890 , was because that was one of the requirements that had to be met in order to allow Utah to gain the status of a state , even though freedom of religious expression is protected by the U.S. Constitution . Joseph Smith , the founder of the Mormon church , based his favourable views on polygamy on the fact that many famous Jews mentioned in the Old Testament practiced polygamy , and if memory serves , they also practiced concubinage [ see 1 Kings 11 : 1 - 13 , Galatians chapter 4 ] . Joseph Smith also claimed that Jesus Christ had three wives at the same time , and that they were Mary of Bethany , Martha , and Mary Magdalene , also known as Mary of Magdala . Joseph Smith believed that only members of the Mormon church were true Jews , and that the non – Mormon Jews , the non – Mormon Christians , and the Muslims , pagans or polytheists , agnostics , and atheists were all " Gentiles ." There have been several Christian groups and cults throughout history who have claimed that sexual intercourse is some kind of mystical , religious , and emotionally as well as physically ecstatic experience . They have included the Puritan sects and cults called the Ranters and Antinomians [ "antinomos," Greek for "anti - law." ] . I personally do not believe that the Apostle St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 10 : 13 , " that whomsoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved ," is a justification to shout the word " God " when having a sexual orgasm , and then claim that it is an action done in the faith . I also do not believe that the Apostle St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 4 : 15 , " that where there is no law , there is no sin , " is a justification to walk around nakedly because Adam and Eve once did so unashamedly before Satan , the fallen angel , disguised as a snake [ Revelation 12 : 7 - 9 ] , tricked them into eating the fruit of forbidden knowledge , thereby causing Adam and Eve to lose their innocence and immortality [ Romans chapter 7 , and Song of Songs ] . I also do not believe that because God the Father is physically speaking neither a man nor a woman it is morally justifiable to engage in bisexual , homosexual , and lesbian sexual intercourse . The evolutionary purpose of sexual intercourse for humans is to produce offspring . However , a literal , fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible can sometimes lead to sin , as those Christians who engage in incest might argue that the children of Adam and Eve and the grandchildren of Noah had to have had sexual intercourse with each other in order to have offspring . Charles Manson , who sometimes believed that he was the Son of Man , the Second Coming of Jesus Christ opening the seven seals mentioned in the New Testament book of Revelation , the Parousia , was also a strong admirer of Adolf Hitler , and one of the possible reasons why Charles Manson carved a swastika in his forehead , was because he was angry with those Jews who refused to believe that he was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ . Jesus Christ told His disciples in Matthew 10 : 1 – 15 to first preach the Gospel of Christianity to the Jews of Israel , and later Jesus told His disciples to preach the Christian Gospel to all the nations of the world in Matthew 28 : 18 – 20 . However , Jesus Christ would not have sanctioned the use of force and violence in converting people to Christianity , as He had taught His disciples in Matthew 7 : 12 and Luke 6 : 31 to do towards others as we would want them to do to us . Charles Manson was of Scotch – Irish Baptist ancestry . Charles Manson was a Nazi who decided to use the Hippies because they were

… read more »

Response:

***I posted the article, so I must be the moral idiot you are referring to. However, I did not WRITE the article and the opinion expressed therein is not necessarily my opinion. But this moral idiot loves you anyway. ***Jerk! Al

Advice: Engage brain before replying. The moral idiot I was responding to was this guy: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Christians living under Saddam Hussein would certainly find many aspects of life difficult. But there are Christians who live under a far worse threat to world peace – George Bush! He not only has all of the weapons that were banned from Iraq by the UN, he is openly threatening to use them against the innocent civilians, men women and children, of all faiths, living in Iraq. Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Charlie

Response:

  Evidently you haven’t kept an open mind.

Evidently you don’t know history (see below). We need protection from all enemies foreign and domestic, and not all our enemies ARE foreign. Son of Patriot Act is an unjust travesty and would punish US citizens for protecting their own interests against those of corporate america.

No shit, Sherlock. Here’s a history lesson: during times of war, personal liberties always take a beating. This is to be expected and not to be a concern. Things swing in favor of freedoms during times of peace. So, don’t worry about it; history is on your side. (Unless you tend to fall for a logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope"…..) Mike

Response:

Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one!

Genes from a penal colony, what can we expect <sigh… Or… could it be by any chance….  was your mommy kinda short and did she carry a spear and a shield? Pastor Winter — Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry http://www.pentecostal.biz for Bible studies (text and audio) Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?

Response:

Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Genes from a penal colony, what can we expect <sigh… Or… could it be by any chance….  was your mommy kinda short and did she carry a spear and a shield? Pastor Winter — Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry http://www.pentecostal.biz for Bible studies (text and audio) Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?

Are you the "pastor" Winter who has brought all of those silly lawsuits against people who disagree with you? There’s a web site that lists you and all of your lawsuits. What’s up with that? Also, what’s a pre-Rapture ministry. I searchd for "rapture" in the King James Bible and the word doesn’t appear there. What’s up with that? Al

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike That’s pretty snide, Mike… I’m entitled to be so. The original poster was attempting to draw moral equivalency between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The poster was therefore a moral idiot and should not expect respectful treatment. but just wait…Ashcroft and company are not through with us yet. Under the proposed "Son Of Patriot" legislation, which was leaked to the press a few weeks ago by a gravely concerned Justice Department staffer, even if you’re a native-born American citizen, you could be STRIPPED OF YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, upon the U.S. government’s decision that you’re some kind of "terrorist"…i.e., for example, if you gave money to an Islamic charity, which (without your knowledge) sent some of those funds to a political entity that the U.S. Government declares to be "terrorist". At which point, of course, stripped of your U.S. citizenship, you’re set up to be secretly detained, with no right to counsel, with no right to file for habeas corpus, with no right to contact your family. In other words, you can be treated just like any other targeted "non-citizen". Especially an Arab one. Does this REALLY sound like the America you know and love? You’re changing the subject from the (1) administration’s actions on the world stage to (2) domestic civil defense policy. If you have these thinks linked in your mind, so be it, but they are two issues which are only circumstantially related. But, to answer your question, I have no problem with harsh penalties for traitorous activities. Nor should anybody. The notion that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights should apply to those who take *action* to subvert this country is absurd. I note that the liberal site of the political equation has been running around in the courts since Afghanistan trying to make the Bill of Rights apply to the morons in Guantanamo. Fortuantely, the courts have better sense. As for the provisions of "Son of Patriot", it is the administration’s "negotiation position." Like all legislation, they know they’ll have to compromise in order to get things passed; what they’ll give on is the demand for greater court oversight over the legal processes enumerated in S of P. So no, I see S of P as *ultimately* strenghening the possibility that the "America I know and love" continues on into perpetuity. Mike   Evidently you haven’t kept an open mind. We need protection from all enemies foreign and domestic, and not all our enemies ARE foreign. Son of Patriot Act is an unjust travesty and would punish US citizens for protecting their own interests against those of corporate america.

There are many similarities between Osama – bin – Laden , Hasan – bin – Sabah , Charles Manson , and Joseph Smith . Charles Manson believed that the blacks , or very dark brown Africans , were the sons of Ham , one of Noah’s sons , whom Noah cursed to be the ancestor of slaves [ Genesis 9 : 18 - 29 ] . No where in Genesis 9 : 18 – 29 is skin colour mentioned , and in the Acts of the Apostles , chapter 8 : 26 – 39 , it is said that St. Philip the Evangelist converted to Christianity the treasurer of the Queen of the Ethiopians , Candace . Charles Manson was also a statutory "polygamist"/concubinist/rapist , as some post – 1890 Mormon splinter groups still are to this day. A statutory "polygamist"/concubinist/rapist is someone who marries or has as a concubine more than one female under the age of 16 at the same time . " The Family " that Charles Manson gave members of his cult might have been an allusion on Manson’s part to Ephesians 3 : 14 – 15 , where the Apostle St. Paul says : " For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named …" The Prophet Muhammad , the founder of Islam , allowed the Muslims to own slaves and to have a maximum of four wives at the same time . To this day , many southern Sudanese Christians and polytheists are sold into slavery to Saudi Arabian sheiks by the northern Sudanese Muslims . Hasan – bin – Sabah was the leader of a Muslim terrorist group called the " Assassins ," or " hashashins ," Persian or Iranian for " hemp – eaters . " These Assassins belonged to the Ismaili denomination of the Shiite division of Islam . These Muslim terrorists killed their enemies while under the influence of hashish , a drug made from the hemp plant . Hasan – bin – Sabah was alleged by both his Muslim and Christian Crusader enemies to use hashish and belly – dancing concubines and wives from his harem who performed sexual favours in order to gain recruits for his terrorist organization . Hasan – bin – Sabah was called " The Old Man of the Mountain " because he had as his base a mountain castle – fortress called " Alamut ," meaning " eagle’s nest ," located in what is today the nation – state of Iran . The reason why the mainstream Mormon Church , officially known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter – Day Saints , abolished polygamy in 1890 , was because that was one of the requirements that had to be met in order to allow Utah to gain the status of a state , even though freedom of religious expression is protected by the U.S. Constitution . Joseph Smith , the founder of the Mormon church , based his favourable views on polygamy on the fact that many famous Jews mentioned in the Old Testament practiced polygamy , and if memory serves , they also practiced concubinage [ see 1 Kings 11 : 1 - 13 , Galatians chapter 4 ] . Joseph Smith also claimed that Jesus Christ had three wives at the same time , and that they were Mary of Bethany , Martha , and Mary Magdalene , also known as Mary of Magdala . Joseph Smith believed that only members of the Mormon church were true Jews , and that the non – Mormon Jews , the non – Mormon Christians , and the Muslims , pagans or polytheists , agnostics , and atheists were all " Gentiles ." There have been several Christian groups and cults throughout history who have claimed that sexual intercourse is some kind of mystical , religious , and emotionally as well as physically ecstatic experience . They have included the Puritan sects and cults called the Ranters and Antinomians [ "antinomos," Greek for "anti - law." ] . I personally do not believe that the Apostle St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 10 : 13 , " that whomsoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved ," is a justification to shout the word " God " when having a sexual orgasm , and then claim that it is an action done in the faith . I also do not believe that the Apostle St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 4 : 15 , " that where there is no law , there is no sin , " is a justification to walk around nakedly because Adam and Eve once did so unashamedly before Satan , the fallen angel , disguised as a snake [ Revelation 12 : 7 - 9 ] , tricked them into eating the fruit of forbidden knowledge , thereby causing Adam and Eve to lose their innocence and immortality [ Romans chapter 7 , and Song of Songs ] . I also do not believe that because God the Father is physically speaking neither a man nor a woman it is morally justifiable to engage in bisexual , homosexual , and lesbian sexual intercourse . The evolutionary purpose of sexual intercourse for humans is to produce offspring . However , a literal , fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible can sometimes lead to sin , as those Christians who engage in incest might argue that the children of Adam and Eve and the grandchildren of Noah had to have had sexual intercourse with each other in order to have offspring . Charles Manson , who sometimes believed that he was the Son of Man , the Second Coming of Jesus Christ opening the seven seals mentioned in the New Testament book of Revelation , the Parousia , was also a strong admirer of Adolf Hitler , and one of the possible reasons why Charles Manson carved a swastika in his forehead , was because he was angry with those Jews who refused to believe that he was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ . Jesus Christ told His disciples in Matthew 10 : 1 – 15 to first preach the Gospel of Christianity to the Jews of Israel , and later Jesus told His disciples to preach the Christian Gospel to all the nations of the world in Matthew 28 : 18 – 20 . However , Jesus Christ would not have sanctioned the use of force and violence in converting people to Christianity , as He had taught His disciples in Matthew 7 : 12 and Luke 6 : 31 to do towards others as we would want them to do to us . Charles Manson was of Scotch – Irish Baptist ancestry . Charles Manson was a Nazi who decided to use the Hippies because they were so easy to mislead , being for the most part usually unwise and easily bought with drugs and sexual favours .The real reason why Charles Manson was angry with the police was because they refused to make him the Chief of the Gestapo , with the power to send to the gas chambers those Jews who refused to believe that he was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ . Jesus Christ said in Matthew 23 : 37 – 39 the following : " O Jerusalem , Jerusalem , the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her ! How often I wanted to gather your … read more »

Response:

  Evidently you haven’t kept an open mind. We need protection from all enemies foreign and domestic, and not all our enemies ARE foreign. Son of Patriot Act is an unjust travesty and would punish US citizens for protecting their own interests against those of corporate america.

Yet, one cannot be too anti-corporate America since it is the corporations that keep the country going. It’s the politicians who screw it all up. No other country on earth runs quite so smoothly as the U.S….(I’ll concede Canada and the UK). Al

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike That’s pretty snide, Mike… I’m entitled to be so. The original poster was attempting to draw moral equivalency between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The poster was therefore a moral idiot and should not expect respectful treatment. but just wait…Ashcroft and company are not through with us yet. Under the proposed "Son Of Patriot" legislation, which was leaked to the press a few weeks ago by a gravely concerned Justice Department staffer, even if you’re a native-born American citizen, you could be STRIPPED OF YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, upon the U.S. government’s decision that you’re some kind of "terrorist"…i.e., for example, if you gave money to an Islamic charity, which (without your knowledge) sent some of those funds to a political entity that the U.S. Government declares to be "terrorist". At which point, of course, stripped of your U.S. citizenship, you’re set up to be secretly detained, with no right to counsel, with no right to file for habeas corpus, with no right to contact your family. In other words, you can be treated just like any other targeted "non-citizen". Especially an Arab one. Does this REALLY sound like the America you know and love? You’re changing the subject from the (1) administration’s actions on the world stage to (2) domestic civil defense policy. If you have these thinks linked in your mind, so be it, but they are two issues which are only circumstantially related. But, to answer your question, I have no problem with harsh penalties for traitorous activities. Nor should anybody. The notion that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights should apply to those who take *action* to subvert this country is absurd. I note that the liberal site of the political equation has been running around in the courts since Afghanistan trying to make the Bill of Rights apply to the morons in Guantanamo. Fortuantely, the courts have better sense. As for the provisions of "Son of Patriot", it is the administration’s "negotiation position." Like all legislation, they know they’ll have to compromise in order to get things passed; what they’ll give on is the demand for greater court oversight over the legal processes enumerated in S of P. So no, I see S of P as *ultimately* strenghening the possibility that the "America I know and love" continues on into perpetuity. Mike

  Evidently you haven’t kept an open mind. We need protection from all enemies foreign and domestic, and not all our enemies ARE foreign. Son of Patriot Act is an unjust travesty and would punish US citizens for protecting their own interests against those of corporate america.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike That’s pretty snide, Mike… I’m entitled to be so. The original poster was attempting to draw moral equivalency between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The poster was therefore a moral idiot and should not expect respectful treatment.

***I posted the article, so I must be the moral idiot you are referring to. However, I did not WRITE the article and the opinion expressed therein is not necessarily my opinion. But this moral idiot loves you anyway. ***Jerk! Al

Response:

I’m entitled to be so. The original poster was attempting to draw moral equivalency between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The poster was therefore a moral idiot and should not expect respectful treatment.

Apparently, "moral idiocy" is a dominant position on the planet at the moment, since most of the rest of the world (i.e., the world outside of the U.S.) views with mounting alarm the swaggering, posturing, irrational extremism practiced by BOTH leaders. I don’t know what you access for global news sources, but try the BBC in England, and the CBC in Canada, via the web. You’ll get a very different picture of world opinion (regarding Bush and Saddam) than you’ll get from the corporate-controlled U.S. news media, wherein two of the major TV networks are actually owned by major DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. Ahem. Can you say "conflict of interest"? You’re changing the subject from the (1) administration’s actions on the world stage to (2) domestic civil defense policy. If you have these thinks linked in your mind, so be it, but they are two issues which are only circumstantially related.

They are quite intimately related, in the fact that global instability is apparently being used as a convenient "cover" for totalitarian-minded elements in the present "Justice Department" to "steamroller" a draconian repression of our domestic civil liberties. Curious, isn’t it, that the 1000-page "PATRIOT ACT" was all rolled up and ready to go, mere days after the 9/11 attacks. You mean to tell me that a whole lot of advance "prep work" at the Justice Department hadn’t gone into preparing this assault on our basic American civil liberties? Here are some additional news and information sources on the web, which cover the looming domestic war against our basic rights of citizenship. (Needless to say, I don’t believe or endorse everything propounded on these sites, but they’re definitely information resources which are being excluded from the corporate-controlled media, and which deserve to be seen:) http://www.deceptiondollar.com http://www.questionsquestions.net http://www.whatreallyhappened.com http://www.copvcia.com http://www.gnn.tv http://www.truth-now.com http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH http://www.globalresearch.ca http://www.unansweredquestions.org http://www.911pi.com http://www.legitgov.org http://www.thewaronfreedom.com http://www.onlinejournal.com http://www.sigacanada.com http://www.falloutshelternews.com But, to answer your question, I have no problem with harsh penalties for traitorous activities.

Please define "activities". Dissenting political speech? Participating in anti-Bush protest demonstrations? Placing an anti-Bush poster on the wall of one’s college dormitory room? ALL of these "traitorous" activities have resulted in FBI action against the "perps", in one-or-another part of the country, since 9/11. This is not the America I envision as a global beacon of freedom and democracy. Nor should anybody. The notion that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights should apply to those who take *action* to subvert this country is absurd.

Again, please define "action". Do the activities enumerated above constitute "traitorous behavior", in your world view? I note that the liberal site of the political equation has been running around in the courts since Afghanistan trying to make the Bill of Rights apply to the morons in Guantanamo. Fortuantely, the courts have better sense.

Our treatment of the "morons" in Guantanamo is enabled only by the fact that the Bush Administration concocted this strange, extra-judicial category called "illegal combattant", in order to specifically exempt our treatment of "people we don’t like" from the binding provisions of the U.N. Geneva Conventions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. All the anecdotal reports indicate that what we’re doing there is practicing the kind of low-level intimidation, torture and "mind-breaking" that the Israeli army is well-known for practicing against captured Palestinian Arabs, and (of course) that Stalin practiced at an exponentially higher level as a "dark art". In other words, Guantanamo is a gulag. An American-run gulag. This quasi-Stalinist behavior by my own government is supposed to make me proud to be an American citizen? As for the provisions of "Son of Patriot", it is the administration’s "negotiation position."

What sort of executive-branch mentality propounds outright fascism as an opening "negotiation position", in the preparation of legislation to be submitted to the American Congress for its consideration? Like all legislation, they know they’ll have to compromise in order to get things passed; what they’ll give on is the demand for greater court oversight over the legal processes enumerated in S of P. So no, I see S of P as *ultimately* strenghening the possibility that the "America I know and love" continues on into perpetuity. Mike

Apparently we live — or would wish to live — in two entirely different countries, Mike. My sincere apologies to Louis for once again "going political" with this…but my buttons got pushed by that exchange, and I felt I needed to sound off about Mike’s sarcastic jibe.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike That’s pretty snide, Mike…but just wait…Ashcroft and company are not through with us yet. Under the proposed "Son Of Patriot" legislation, which was leaked to the press a few weeks ago by a gravely concerned Justice Department staffer, even if you’re a native-born American citizen, you could be STRIPPED OF YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, upon the U.S. government’s decision that you’re some kind of "terrorist"…i.e., for example, if you gave money to an Islamic charity, which (without your knowledge) sent some of those funds to a political entity that the U.S. Government declares to be "terrorist". At which point, of course, stripped of your U.S. citizenship, you’re set up to be secretly detained, with no right to counsel, with no right to file for habeas corpus, with no right to contact your family. In other words, you can be treated just like any other targeted "non-citizen". Especially an Arab one. Does this REALLY sound like the America you know and love?

The sorld has changed so much since the late 18th century that the America we know and love can no longer exists as the founding fathers envisioned it. Yes, indeed, it is unfortunate. But we can no longer be the open country we used to be. Al

Response:

Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike That’s pretty snide, Mike…

I’m entitled to be so. The original poster was attempting to draw moral equivalency between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The poster was therefore a moral idiot and should not expect respectful treatment. but just wait…Ashcroft and company are not through with us yet. Under the proposed "Son Of Patriot" legislation, which was leaked to the press a few weeks ago by a gravely concerned Justice Department staffer, even if you’re a native-born American citizen, you could be STRIPPED OF YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, upon the U.S. government’s decision that you’re some kind of "terrorist"…i.e., for example, if you gave money to an Islamic charity, which (without your knowledge) sent some of those funds to a political entity that the U.S. Government declares to be "terrorist". At which point, of course, stripped of your U.S. citizenship, you’re set up to be secretly detained, with no right to counsel, with no right to file for habeas corpus, with no right to contact your family. In other words, you can be treated just like any other targeted "non-citizen". Especially an Arab one. Does this REALLY sound like the America you know and love?

You’re changing the subject from the (1) administration’s actions on the world stage to (2) domestic civil defense policy. If you have these thinks linked in your mind, so be it, but they are two issues which are only circumstantially related. But, to answer your question, I have no problem with harsh penalties for traitorous activities. Nor should anybody. The notion that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights should apply to those who take *action* to subvert this country is absurd. I note that the liberal site of the political equation has been running around in the courts since Afghanistan trying to make the Bill of Rights apply to the morons in Guantanamo. Fortuantely, the courts have better sense. As for the provisions of "Son of Patriot", it is the administration’s "negotiation position." Like all legislation, they know they’ll have to compromise in order to get things passed; what they’ll give on is the demand for greater court oversight over the legal processes enumerated in S of P. So no, I see S of P as *ultimately* strenghening the possibility that the "America I know and love" continues on into perpetuity. Mike

Response:

Christians living under Saddam Hussein would certainly find many aspects of life difficult. But there are Christians who live under a far worse threat to world peace – George Bush! He not only has all of the weapons that were banned from Iraq by the UN, he is openly threatening to use them against the innocent civilians, men women and children, of all faiths, living in Iraq. Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one!

Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike

Response:

Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Not if you’re a US citizen. If you’re not, sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Mike

That’s pretty snide, Mike…but just wait…Ashcroft and company are not through with us yet. Under the proposed "Son Of Patriot" legislation, which was leaked to the press a few weeks ago by a gravely concerned Justice Department staffer, even if you’re a native-born American citizen, you could be STRIPPED OF YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, upon the U.S. government’s decision that you’re some kind of "terrorist"…i.e., for example, if you gave money to an Islamic charity, which (without your knowledge) sent some of those funds to a political entity that the U.S. Government declares to be "terrorist". At which point, of course, stripped of your U.S. citizenship, you’re set up to be secretly detained, with no right to counsel, with no right to file for habeas corpus, with no right to contact your family. In other words, you can be treated just like any other targeted "non-citizen". Especially an Arab one. Does this REALLY sound like the America you know and love?

Response:

Christians living under Saddam Hussein would certainly find many aspects of life difficult. But there are Christians who live under a far worse threat to world peace – George Bush! He not only has all of the weapons that were banned from Iraq by the UN, he is openly threatening to use them against the innocent civilians, men women and children, of all faiths, living in Iraq. Whatever the threat to world peace that Hussein represents, Gorge Bush represents a for worse one! Charlie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 2003.02.25 LewRockwell: Christians for Saddam? by Glen Chancy Introduction After the Divine Liturgy a few Sundays ago, I joined several other men from my parish for brunch. The topic of Iraq came up, and one of the men remarked that he had heard that there was a substantial Christian population in Iraq, and that Tariq Assiz, the Iraqi foreign minister, was a Roman Catholic. He was shocked that a Christian could be associated with such a man as Saddam Hussein. "What can that mean for his witness as a Christian to serve such a leader?" my friend asked in bewilderment. While I cannot know what is in Mr. Assiz’s heart, only God can know that, I can certainly understand, on a basic level, his service to Saddam Hussein. Before we, in the West, become too judgmental of our co-religionists living under Muslim rule, I believe we need to understand the world Iraqi Christians inhabit. It is a brutal world of few good choices, and many potential dangers. Theirs is a truly desperate plight, and it is one that our forthcoming invasion of Iraq is quite likely to make much, much worse. Background – Iraqi Christians In Iraq, live an estimated 1 million Christians who are ethnically Assyrian. This community descends from the various Mesopotamian kingdoms that once ruled the area and formed powerful empires in the Fertile Crescent. Their Christian heritage is ancient. Many Assyrians converted to Christianity as early as the second century A.D. Assyrians define themselves as a broad category of Christian groups speaking Aramaic (the language of Jesus) that includes followers of the Chaldean Catholic Church (in communion with Rome), the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of the East, among others. The Assyrians have lived under foreign domination since the fall of the Assyrian kingdom to Persian power in the seventh century B.C. Since then, the Assyrians have been subjected to Persian, Arab, and Ottoman domination. As a result of ethnic cleansing by Iranian, Turkish, and Arab-Iraqi forces in the 1920s and 1930s, the Assyrians lost thousands of people and have found themselves mostly concentrated in the mountainous regions north of Baghdad. Under various Iraqi governments, particularly those following the British withdrawal in 1945, Christians in Iraq have been politically suppressed. Although substantial numbers of their intellectuals chose to join the Ba’th regime and identify themselves as Arab Christians, the Assyrians have been subjected to systematic attempts by Saddam’s regime to "Arabize" them, a process that includes driving ethnic minorities from their lands and seizing some of their properties, especially in the strategic, oil-rich northern region bordering the Kurdish enclave. This has been done partly out of Saddam’s fear of disloyalty on the part of non-Arabs, and partly out of a desire to reward Saddam’s political supporters with their land. "The Iraqi government has also forced ethnic minorities such as the Assyrians, the Kurds and the Turkomen to sign ‘national correction forms’ that require them to renounce their ethnic identities and declare themselves to be Arabs," says Hania Mufti of Human Rights Watch. Today, in the Middle East, Assyrians are spread across Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran, where rights groups say they live as small, often discriminated-against minorities under governments largely unsympathetic to their religious and cultural aspirations. In Iraq, most Assyrians live in the North, under Kurdish control in an enclave that was established after the 1991 Gulf War. There, they have achieved a modicum of independence, and are allowed five seats in the Kurdish Parliament. In fact, this is perhaps the best situation in which Assyrians have found themselves in some time. Given their history with Saddam, and the relative freedom they are experiencing in Northern Iraq, you would probably assume that the Assyrians would like nothing better than to see Saddam’s murderous regime consigned to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. Saddam Hussein – That Bad in Context? This may come as a shock to many Americans, whose image of Saddam has been framed by comparisons to Adolf Hitler, but the prevalent fear among Assyrians, both in Iraq and abroad, is that what comes next after an American invasion will be worse. "Our greatest fear if there is a regime change in Iraq is if there will be a substitution of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny for a new tyranny," says Ronald Michael, president of the Assyrian American League, an Illinois-based organization representing the estimated four-million-strong Assyrian community in the United States. Saddam Hussein and the Ba’th Regime have been, and still are, nasty and oppressive to all Iraqis. However, Saddam has not been particularly oppressive to the Assyrians, at least compared to what has been the norm elsewhere in the region. One must always keep in mind that the oldest members of Middle Eastern Christian communities remember outright slaughters of Christians by the millions. By the yardstick of his neighbors and Middle Eastern history, Saddam just doesn’t look that bad. The secular Saddam has neither encouraged nor permitted the type of anti-Christian riots seen in Egypt and Iran. Further, Saddam has never engaged in actual anti-Christian genocide of the type seen in Sudan, where 2 million Christian have lost their lives in the past decade. Unlike any other regime in the Middle East, Saddam has permitted Christians to occupy high public office. This includes the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Assiz, who is a Roman Catholic. In addition, Saddam’s regime has permitted a degree of free practice for Christians that is positively enviable compared to the situations experienced in such U.S. ‘allies’ as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Christmas and Easter decorations always abound, even in Baghdad, and attending church does not require an act of courage. Today, the Christians of Iraq seem to be split between those who support the status quo – de facto autonomy of a type in the North – and those who support Saddam Hussein’s continuation in power. Broad support, enthusiastic or otherwise, for the ouster of Saddam Hussein by the U.S. Army seems to be noticeably absent from the political landscape. Is this anxiety warranted? Should the Assyrians be so concerned about being liberated by U.S. military power? If history is our guide, they shouldn’t be afraid. They should be terrified. Our Friends The Kurds As noted earlier, the majority of Assyrians live in northern Iraq in the Kurdish enclave. So far, this situation has been reasonably tolerable for the Assyrians, as the Kurds have been conducting a fairly successful democratic experiment under the cover of U.S. and British combat patrols. Given the historical tendency of the Kurds to victimize and slaughter the Assyrians, the current situation seems quite impressive. However, Assyrians are quick to ask, have the Kurds really moderated their traditional attitudes and embraced Western notions of civil rights? Or, are they only moderating their tone in order to build a unified front against Saddam Hussein? This leads to a great fear among Assyrians in the north that when the unifying factor of a common enemy is removed, the traditional problems between the Kurds and the Assyrians will resurface with a vengeance. Among the future problems between the two groups are disputes over land, that for now have been put on hold. "There are outstanding issues of Assyrian villages and lands, which were vacated under Baghdad’s forced repatriations during the 1970s and ’80s," says Hania Mufti of Human Rights Watch. Recent events in the north fuel fears that the Assyrians may become victims of Kurdish aggression again. The Kurdish authorities have begun attempts to classify Iraq’s Christians as "Kurdish Christians." This appellation is an outright fabrication, but it points to a future in which the Assyrians, who survived ‘Arabization’ in Saddam’s Iraq, may find themselves subjected to a harsh ‘Kurdization’ at the hands of an independent Kurdistan. Also, there has been a resurgence of traditional Kurdish attacks on Christians. The Kurdish authorities have resolutely ignored these attacks. As Ronald Michael explains, it is in the best interests of Kurdish politicians to not antagonize their Muslim constituents by being zealous in the defense of Christians. "The nationalist parties don’t want to lose the support of the Kurdish people," says Michael. "The KDP [Kurdish Democratic Party] turns a blind eye to these attacks out of fear of an Islamic backlash." The Kurds have an estimated 70,000 anti-Saddam soldiers in the north. How extensively the U.S. plans to make use of them in its war effort remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear – these men aren’t going away after the fighting stops. If the blind eye turned by Kurdish authorities to violence against Christians becomes outright genocide, will our U.S. military forces intervene against our Kurdish ‘allies’ to protect defenseless Christians? If you and I

… read more »

Response:

2003.02.25 LewRockwell: Christians for Saddam? by Glen Chancy Introduction After the Divine Liturgy a few Sundays ago, I joined several other men from my parish for brunch. The topic of Iraq came up, and one of the men remarked that he had heard that there was a substantial Christian population in Iraq, and that Tariq Assiz, the Iraqi foreign minister, was a Roman Catholic. He was shocked that a Christian could be associated with such a man as Saddam Hussein. "What can that mean for his witness as a Christian to serve such a leader?" my friend asked in bewilderment. While I cannot know what is in Mr. Assiz’s heart, only God can know that, I can certainly understand, on a basic level, his service to Saddam Hussein. Before we, in the West, become too judgmental of our co-religionists living under Muslim rule, I believe we need to understand the world Iraqi Christians inhabit. It is a brutal world of few good choices, and many potential dangers. Theirs is a truly desperate plight, and it is one that our forthcoming invasion of Iraq is quite likely to make much, much worse. Background – Iraqi Christians In Iraq, live an estimated 1 million Christians who are ethnically Assyrian. This community descends from the various Mesopotamian kingdoms that once ruled the area and formed powerful empires in the Fertile Crescent. Their Christian heritage is ancient. Many Assyrians converted to Christianity as early as the second century A.D. Assyrians define themselves as a broad category of Christian groups speaking Aramaic (the language of Jesus) that includes followers of the Chaldean Catholic Church (in communion with Rome), the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of the East, among others. The Assyrians have lived under foreign domination since the fall of the Assyrian kingdom to Persian power in the seventh century B.C. Since then, the Assyrians have been subjected to Persian, Arab, and Ottoman domination. As a result of ethnic cleansing by Iranian, Turkish, and Arab-Iraqi forces in the 1920s and 1930s, the Assyrians lost thousands of people and have found themselves mostly concentrated in the mountainous regions north of Baghdad. Under various Iraqi governments, particularly those following the British withdrawal in 1945, Christians in Iraq have been politically suppressed. Although substantial numbers of their intellectuals chose to join the Ba’th regime and identify themselves as Arab Christians, the Assyrians have been subjected to systematic attempts by Saddam’s regime to "Arabize" them, a process that includes driving ethnic minorities from their lands and seizing some of their properties, especially in the strategic, oil-rich northern region bordering the Kurdish enclave. This has been done partly out of Saddam’s fear of disloyalty on the part of non-Arabs, and partly out of a desire to reward Saddam’s political supporters with their land. "The Iraqi government has also forced ethnic minorities such as the Assyrians, the Kurds and the Turkomen to sign ‘national correction forms’ that require them to renounce their ethnic identities and declare themselves to be Arabs," says Hania Mufti of Human Rights Watch. Today, in the Middle East, Assyrians are spread across Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran, where rights groups say they live as small, often discriminated-against minorities under governments largely unsympathetic to their religious and cultural aspirations. In Iraq, most Assyrians live in the North, under Kurdish control in an enclave that was established after the 1991 Gulf War. There, they have achieved a modicum of independence, and are allowed five seats in the Kurdish Parliament. In fact, this is perhaps the best situation in which Assyrians have found themselves in some time. Given their history with Saddam, and the relative freedom they are experiencing in Northern Iraq, you would probably assume that the Assyrians would like nothing better than to see Saddam’s murderous regime consigned to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. Saddam Hussein – That Bad in Context? This may come as a shock to many Americans, whose image of Saddam has been framed by comparisons to Adolf Hitler, but the prevalent fear among Assyrians, both in Iraq and abroad, is that what comes next after an American invasion will be worse. "Our greatest fear if there is a regime change in Iraq is if there will be a substitution of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny for a new tyranny," says Ronald Michael, president of the Assyrian American League, an Illinois-based organization representing the estimated four-million-strong Assyrian community in the United States. Saddam Hussein and the Ba’th Regime have been, and still are, nasty and oppressive to all Iraqis. However, Saddam has not been particularly oppressive to the Assyrians, at least compared to what has been the norm elsewhere in the region. One must always keep in mind that the oldest members of Middle Eastern Christian communities remember outright slaughters of Christians by the millions. By the yardstick of his neighbors and Middle Eastern history, Saddam just doesn’t look that bad. The secular Saddam has neither encouraged nor permitted the type of anti-Christian riots seen in Egypt and Iran. Further, Saddam has never engaged in actual anti-Christian genocide of the type seen in Sudan, where 2 million Christian have lost their lives in the past decade. Unlike any other regime in the Middle East, Saddam has permitted Christians to occupy high public office. This includes the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Assiz, who is a Roman Catholic. In addition, Saddam’s regime has permitted a degree of free practice for Christians that is positively enviable compared to the situations experienced in such U.S. ‘allies’ as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Christmas and Easter decorations always abound, even in Baghdad, and attending church does not require an act of courage. Today, the Christians of Iraq seem to be split between those who support the status quo – de facto autonomy of a type in the North – and those who support Saddam Hussein’s continuation in power. Broad support, enthusiastic or otherwise, for the ouster of Saddam Hussein by the U.S. Army seems to be noticeably absent from the political landscape. Is this anxiety warranted? Should the Assyrians be so concerned about being liberated by U.S. military power? If history is our guide, they shouldn’t be afraid. They should be terrified. Our Friends The Kurds As noted earlier, the majority of Assyrians live in northern Iraq in the Kurdish enclave. So far, this situation has been reasonably tolerable for the Assyrians, as the Kurds have been conducting a fairly successful democratic experiment under the cover of U.S. and British combat patrols. Given the historical tendency of the Kurds to victimize and slaughter the Assyrians, the current situation seems quite impressive. However, Assyrians are quick to ask, have the Kurds really moderated their traditional attitudes and embraced Western notions of civil rights? Or, are they only moderating their tone in order to build a unified front against Saddam Hussein? This leads to a great fear among Assyrians in the north that when the unifying factor of a common enemy is removed, the traditional problems between the Kurds and the Assyrians will resurface with a vengeance. Among the future problems between the two groups are disputes over land, that for now have been put on hold. "There are outstanding issues of Assyrian villages and lands, which were vacated under Baghdad’s forced repatriations during the 1970s and ’80s," says Hania Mufti of Human Rights Watch. Recent events in the north fuel fears that the Assyrians may become victims of Kurdish aggression again. The Kurdish authorities have begun attempts to classify Iraq’s Christians as "Kurdish Christians." This appellation is an outright fabrication, but it points to a future in which the Assyrians, who survived ‘Arabization’ in Saddam’s Iraq, may find themselves subjected to a harsh ‘Kurdization’ at the hands of an independent Kurdistan. Also, there has been a resurgence of traditional Kurdish attacks on Christians. The Kurdish authorities have resolutely ignored these attacks. As Ronald Michael explains, it is in the best interests of Kurdish politicians to not antagonize their Muslim constituents by being zealous in the defense of Christians. "The nationalist parties don’t want to lose the support of the Kurdish people," says Michael. "The KDP [Kurdish Democratic Party] turns a blind eye to these attacks out of fear of an Islamic backlash." The Kurds have an estimated 70,000 anti-Saddam soldiers in the north. How extensively the U.S. plans to make use of them in its war effort remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear – these men aren’t going away after the fighting stops. If the blind eye turned by Kurdish authorities to violence against Christians becomes outright genocide, will our U.S. military forces intervene against our Kurdish ‘allies’ to protect defenseless Christians? If you and I don’t know the answer to that troubling question, how do you think the Assyrians feel? Our Friends the Turks Turkey has repeatedly warned against any attempt to establish an independent Kurdish political entity. The Ankara government is fearful that independent Kurds will be an example for the millions of Kurds under Turkish domination. Should the Kurds attempt to achieve independence, there is a real threat that Turkey will enter the war in order to stop a Kurdish state from forming. In fact, there is a chance that Turkey may intervene aggressively in any event. Leading up to the latest Turkish election, which brought to power a party with Islamic roots, nationalist Turkish politicians and senior generals threatened to seize Kirkuk and Mosul in the event of war, citing Ottoman-era claims to the two oil-rich northern Iraqi cities. In September 2002, Ozdem Sanberk, the former Turkish ambassador to Britain, … read more »

Response: