May already be...
Printable View
May already be...
You think so? I don't know. I can go back and find all this bullshit they said about Bush... calling for him to die and all sorts of things. No one was ever arrested for that....
The vitriol directed at Bush came from the left and the ultra-liberal camps. My sense is that they get a free pass, just like the New Black Panther scumbags with voter intimidation. There's a storm forming and it's going to hit hard in the form of major oppression. It has already started in a more subtle fashion and will ramp up toward pretty major Nazi-esque patterns. I hope to God I'm wrong, but I don't think so. It's predicted in the Biblical texts and the Bible has a pretty darn good record of reliability.
MoveOn.org Demands ESPN Suspend Analyst Over His Christian Views On Homosexuality…
The so-called “progressive” left is about as intolerant of opposing views as it gets.
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/u...PM-548x597.png
Via MoveOn.org
Was Tim Tebow Fired Because He’s a Christian?
by John Galt
May 2, 2013 05:30 EDT
Tim Tebow, welcome to the world of Christian persecution. No, not like the administration ignoring rape and murder of Christians in the Arab Spring nations, nor that of those being evicted from millennial old homelands in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. This is the continuation of the American persecution led by the elitist citizenry who want to force feed grown adults arugula and broccoli and teach their children how to call the Department of Homeland Security on their parents for offering financial support to those heathens in Ye Olde Tea Party or Boy Scouts of America.
What Americans need to understand is that if Mr. Tebow had publicly renounced his faith, become an environmentalist activist, possibly com out of the closet and said he was a homosexual, and had seen the light to become a Muslim, the New York Jets could not have fired him. The firestorm of Islamic activist groups which would attack the team and the NFL would be so massive that in fact pressure would have been applied to force the coach to give him a fair shot to become the starter. Thus the onus for the termination clearly lies with Tim for failing to understand that talent no longer matters in this world, political correctness and an alignment with the correct perceived minority does.
The big story this week was not the firing of Tim Tebow as conveniently not long after his release from the Jets, the big story broke across the media and the nation putting his story on page 3 of the average four page newspaper sports section:
http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/wp-...AYER_COVER.jpg
The world, especially the politically correct faux journalistic world of sports reporting, could care less about Christian athletes. Hell, the mainstream media attacks Christian viewpoints about everything including homosexuality even when the average Christian individual expresses tolerance for the person not the movement; if one does not believe me, ask the Boy Scouts of America. When the story about Jason Collins broke the entire news media gasped in amazement and became giddy with excitement like a Catholic school girl seeing their first penis, yet most of the average sports fans like myself yawned. It was a big “who cares” in my world because unlike the media’s desire to destroy America’s traditions and moral history, most people in our society do not judge people by their race, religion, or sexual preferences.
Of course that does not fit the militant homosexual agenda which is portion of the radical leftist movement since the 1970′s so as to create civil rights which already exist and to force those institutions which have a right as private entities to accept the “modern” version of the extremists perverted moral viewpoint. After all, this is not about the sexuality of a basketball player, it is more about destroying American tradition so as to weaken society to the point of accepting a government based system of worship and morality to destroy the nation and force it to become part of a new world civilization ruled by a technocracy instead of freedom.
If anyone thinks that Christianity is not being marginalized in our nation, one simply needs to observe the blatant ignorance of the slave trade in North Africa and the Arab states by this very same media. If the individuals being bartered like cattle were members of the LGBT community it would be front page news until the realization that Islamic nations were involved forced the story back into the closet. The moral indignation that would be expressed would create nightly news stories about black slavery once again until the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ordered their media lackeys to silence their reporters on this issue. That silence has continued for twenty years regarding Christian children regardless of race being captured in the various African conflicts then sold to Muslim masters so why should anyone expect the news to be viewed favorably about any Christian ever in our national journalistic worldview.
Tim Tebow might well have been fired because he was a Christian and having a player who attempts to be his best in the name of God offends some NFL teams and players. Christians are noted for turning the other cheek and can take quite a bit of abuse regarding their personal character, political viewpoints, and criticism of their lifestyle so he was an easy mark. As Tim’s career moves forward the lesson other athletes might learn is that to be an active and visible Christian might indeed mean going into the closet so as to avoid the scrutiny and spotlight even as other alleged minorities like homosexuals, bigamists, Satanists, and others come out of the closet in the professional sports world. Time will indeed tell how this plays out.
The reality however is that Mr. Tebow was not that good as a NFL quarterback. He is a good man, a hard worker, a true Christian in ever sense of the word, and a competitor to the very end. Our society seems to view with glee the failings of Christians in sports, politics, and business as some sort of justification that their lifestyle is now the correct moral choice and all of America must learn to either join it or endorse it. Too bad they refuse to listen to the words of Tim, his faith, and our Lord Jesus Christ; they might find out that their is room for their beliefs within Christianity also, and that they can be saved just as America was when it was founded by the believers in the True Religion of Peace, not the false one the prophets of political correctness are promoting at this time.
I think it may have had more to do with his skill-level at throwing a downfield pass. Dropping Tiebow left the Jets with only 5 (!) more traditional QBs left in camp to fight for the job. So, I think his being an outspoken Christian didn't play as big of a role here.
I DO think that his being an outspoken Christian -- and specifically, the anti-religious hatred that is targeted at him -- invites a lot of extra non-football-related drama issues for a team to deal with ... and that may definitely be a negative for teams that are considering him.
At the end of it all, the guy is a talented and results-driven athlete that is dangerous when he's running with the ball ... I see a potential H-back role for him with a struggling team at some point. I think his QB-ing days are oven, except in a Wildcat/run-option situation.
(Is this the wrong thread to talk actual football? ;) :P)
-Bryk
Air Force Officer Told to Remove Bible from Desk
Todd Starnes | May 03, 2013
http://media.townhall.com/townhall/r...4672f5ebee.jpg
An Air Force spokesperson said personnel are not allowed to proselytize but are free to express their personal religious beliefs so long as it “does not make others uncomfortable.” But a critic pointed out an Air Force officer was told to remove a Bible that was on his desk.
“When on duty or in an official capacity, Air Force members are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable,” Lt. Col. Laurel Tingley said in a statement to Fox News. “Proselytizing (inducing someone to convert to one’s faith) goes over that line.”
Tingley said Air Force leaders “must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”
That statement has caused alarm among a number of religious liberty groups – including the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.
“What does ‘As long as it does not make others uncomfortable’ mean,” executive director Ron Crews asked Fox News.
He said last year an Air Force officer was told he could no longer keep a Bible on his desk because it “may” appear that he was condoning a particular religion.
“Air Force officers must be allowed to live out their faith in a way that is consistent with their faith,” Crews said. “If the Bible is important, then an Air Force officer should be able to have one on his desk.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) also took issue with the Air Force spokesperson’s use of the word ‘uncomfortable.’
“If that is the standard, then Christianity will be over because there will always be somebody who is uncomfortable no matter what someone’s belief is when it comes to Judeo-Christian beliefs,” he told Fox News. “It appears it is getting more and more difficult to be a Christian and serve in the military.”
Gohmert said it’s a different U.S. military under President Obama.
“Under President Obama’s military you are no longer allowed to share your faith,” he said – noting that the policy is putting Christians in a tough position. “Do you follow President Obama or do you follow God and the teachings of Jesus?”
“That’s pretty tough when your commander in chief puts you on the horn for that dilemma,” he added.
Fox News asked for a clarification on the Air Force policy after the Dept. of Defense backtracked on whether or not they allow religious proselytizing and whether military personnel could be at-risk for court-martialing if they share their faith.
On Monday, the Dept. of Defense released a statement noting that religious proselytization is not permitted within the department.
But earlier today, the Pentagon released a new statement noting “service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization).”
While religious groups are pleased with the Dept. of Defense clarification – they are troubled by the Air Force position on religion.
Daniel Blomberg, with the Becket Fund, told Fox News he was glad to see the Dept. of Defense issue a clarification, but expressed alarm at the Air Force statement.
“The Air Force spokesman’s statement sounds like the government can ban servicemen and women from talking to one another about their faith,” he said.
“And that couldn’t be more wrong. The Air Force must follow the Department of Defense’s example to immediately correct its statement to avoid chilling Airmen and women’s religious liberty.”
Blomberg said the Air Force policy is “unconstitutional and wrong.”
“Our brave fighting men and women should not be reduced to whispering fearfully about their faith by their own government,” he said.
Crews said mandating an Air Force officer not extend preferential treatment from one religion is absurd.
“If an Air Force officer is a Muslim, I would expect that officer to say prayers, attend services and not go to a Catholic mass,” he said. “That is extending preferential treatment, and rightly so.”
It would appear even Buddhists agree on this point.
Attachment 1098
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306
FWIW. A somewhat pussified BBC article follows.
Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?
By Alan Strathern Oxford University http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...214%281%29.jpg
Continue reading the main story In today's Magazine
- Tweets of the week: Jason Collins, Jamestown and a rasta banana
- 10 things about Bollywood
- How to come back from the dead
- The word detective
Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?
This is happening in two countries separated by well over 1,000 miles of Indian Ocean - Burma and Sri Lanka. It is puzzling because neither country is facing an Islamist militant threat. Muslims in both places are a generally peaceable and small minority.
In Sri Lanka, the issue of halal slaughter has been a flashpoint. Led by monks, members of the Bodu Bala Sena - the Buddhist Brigade - hold rallies, call for direct action and the boycotting of Muslim businesses, and rail against the size of Muslim families.
While no Muslims have been killed in Sri Lanka, the Burmese situation is far more serious. Here the antagonism is spearheaded by the 969 group, led by a monk, Ashin Wirathu, who was jailed in 2003 for inciting religious hatred. Released in 2012, he has referred to himself bizarrely as "the Burmese Bin Laden".
Continue reading the main story Buddhism and non-violence
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...1_74377263.jpg
Buddhist teachings were handed down orally and not written until centuries after the Buddha's lifetime. The principle of non-violence is intrinsic to the doctrine, as stressed in the Dhammapada, a collection of sayings attributed to the Buddha.
Its first verse teaches that a person is made up of the sum of his thoughts: "If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage."
The most basic principles of Buddhist morality are expressed in five precepts, which monks are obliged - and laymen encouraged - to follow. The first is to abstain from killing living creatures.
One objective of Buddhist meditation is to produce a state of "loving kindness" for all beings.
Verse five of the Dhammapada tells us that: "Hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an eternal rule."
March saw an outbreak of mob violence directed against Muslims in the town of Meiktila, in central Burma, which left at least 40 dead.
Tellingly, the violence began in a gold shop. The movements in both countries exploit a sense of economic grievance - a religious minority is used as the scapegoat for the frustrated aspirations of the majority.
On Tuesday, Buddhist mobs attacked mosques and burned more than 70 homes in Oakkan, north of Rangoon, after a Muslim girl on a bicycle collided with a monk. One person died and nine were injured.
But aren't Buddhist monks meant to be the good guys of religion?
Aggressive thoughts are inimical to all Buddhist teachings. Buddhism even comes equipped with a practical way to eliminate them. Through meditation the distinction between your feelings and those of others should begin to dissolve, while your compassion for all living things grows.
Of course, there is a strong strain of pacifism in Christian teachings too: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," were the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power. Buddhist monks looked to kings, the ultimate wielders of violence, for the support, patronage and order that only they could provide. Kings looked to monks to provide the popular legitimacy that only such a high moral vision can confer.
The result can seem ironic. If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.
Christian crusaders, Islamist militants, or the leaders of "freedom-loving nations", all justify what they see as necessary violence in the name of a higher good. Buddhist rulers and monks have been no exception.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image..._154146378.jpg
So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity.
One of the most famous kings in Sri Lankan history is Dutugamanu, whose unification of the island in the 2nd Century BC is related in an important chronicle, the Mahavamsa.
It says that he placed a Buddhist relic in his spear and took 500 monks with him along to war against a non-Buddhist king.
Continue reading the main story More on monks and violence
- The BBC's Charles Haviland on how hardline Buddhists target Sri Lanka's Muslim minority
- The origins of Burma's religious and communal tensions explained in a Q&A
- "Burmese bin Laden", Wirathu, tells the Guardian he's just protecting his people
- US magazine The Nation on the historical and political background to Buddhist violence
He destroyed his opponents. After the bloodshed, some enlightened ones consoled him: "The slain were like animals; you will make the Buddha's faith shine."
Burmese rulers, known as "kings of righteousness", justified wars in the name of what they called true Buddhist doctrine.
In Japan, many samurai were devotees of Zen Buddhism and various arguments sustained them - killing a man about to commit a dreadful crime was an act of compassion, for example. Such reasoning surfaced again when Japan mobilised for World War II.
Buddhism took a leading role in the nationalist movements that emerged as Burma and Sri Lanka sought to throw off the yoke of the British Empire. Occasionally this spilled out into violence. In 1930s Rangoon, amid resorts to direct action, monks knifed four Europeans.
More importantly, many came to feel Buddhism was integral to their national identity - and the position of minorities in these newly independent nations was an uncomfortable one.
In 1983, Sri Lanka's ethnic tensions broke out into civil war. Following anti-Tamil pogroms, separatist Tamil groups in the north and east of the island sought to break away from the Sinhalese majority government.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image..._154586342.jpg Violence has left many Burmese Muslims homeless
During the war, the worst violence against Sri Lankan Muslims came at the hands of the Tamil rebels. But after the fighting came to a bloody end with the defeat of the rebels in 2009, it seems that majority communal passions have found a new target in the Muslim minority.
In Burma, monks wielded their moral authority to challenge the military junta and argue for democracy in the Saffron Revolution of 2007. Peaceful protest was the main weapon of choice this time, and monks paid with their lives.
Now some monks are using their moral authority to serve a quite different end. They may be a minority, but the 500,000-strong monkhood, which includes many deposited in monasteries as children to escape poverty or as orphans, certainly has its fair share of angry young men.
The exact nature of the relationship between the Buddhist extremists and the ruling parties in both countries is unclear.
Sri Lanka's powerful Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was guest of honour at the opening of a Buddhist Brigade training school, and referred to the monks as those who "protect our country, religion and race".
But the anti-Muslim message seems to have struck a chord with parts of the population.
Even though they form a majority in both countries, many Buddhists share a sense that their nations must be unified and that their religion is under threat.
The global climate is crucial. People believe radical Islam to be at the centre of the many of the most violent conflicts around the world. They feel they are at the receiving end of conversion drives by the much more evangelical monotheistic faiths. And they feel that if other religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit.
Alan Strathern is a fellow in History at Brasenose College, Oxford and author of Kingship and Conversion in Sixteenth-Century Sri Lanka: Portuguese Imperialism in a Buddhist Land
Now for a more correct reason why Buddhists are pissed in Burma. I encourage a read of this blog as there is much more about the topic elsewhere.
http://religiontomorrow.wordpress.com/
Religion Tomorrow
Destroying the world – one day at a time.
Thailand: Muslims commit genocide of Thai Buddhists for not bending to Islam (Graphic images)
Posted on January 12, 2013 by kreutzer33
Reblogged from :
- http://themuslimissue.files.wordpres...72&crop=1&h=72
- http://themuslimissue.files.wordpres...72&crop=1&h=72
- http://themuslimissue.files.wordpres...72&h=72&crop=1
- http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http%3...0&resize=72,72
- http://themuslimissue.files.wordpres...72&h=72&crop=1
- http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http%3...0&resize=72,72
- http://themuslimissue.files.wordpres...72&h=72&crop=1
- http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http%3...0&resize=72,72
- http://themuslimissue.files.wordpres...72&h=72&crop=1
- http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http%3...0&resize=72,72
- http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http%3...0&resize=72,72
- http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http%3...0&resize=72,72
- http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http%3...0&resize=72,72
Is this what we want our future to be in our countries? Buddhists are being murdered in their own country in a deliberate Muslim genocide of anyone non-Muslim in the southern region.
Have you ever wondered how Muslims acquired Christian, Jewish and pagan (Hindu) countries and regions through history known today as Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar - which now total 51 countries?
Read more… 1,268 more words, 1 more video
Apparently even Buddhism is a threat to Islam. This is what happened in a country with only 4.6% muslim population.
Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...r_cross_AP.jpg
by Ken Klukowski 1 May 2013 11933 post a comment
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”.
The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.
(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)
Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.
So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.
This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.
In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:
It’s a matter of what do they mean by "proselytizing." ...I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 60,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.
**UPDATE**
The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.
Fox News: Obama wants a 'Christian cleansing' of the U.S. military
- FOX News
- May 3, 2013
- By: Robert Sobel
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=Gp8Aptyn
Fox News
Credits:
Robert Sobel
The loudest voice in the right-wing media, Fox News has been vocal in their opposition toward President Obama since he was campaigning to become the Democratic nominee for president in 2007. One of their largest criticisms has been the president's religious beliefs. Whether it's fanatical "birthers" questioning President Obama's place of birth or Christian extremists claiming the president is a radical Muslim, Fox News has given them all a platform and have often agreed with them in the process.
During an episode of "Hannity," Fox News radio host, Todd Starnes accused the Obama administration of attempting a "Christian cleansing" of the United States military.
"Under the Obama administration we've seen a Christian cleansing of the United States military. Dozens and dozens of incidences of Christianity under-attack. This most recent incident occurred a few days ago when Mikey Weinstein, who is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, had a meeting at the Pentagon where he was urging them, the military, to enforce regulations that he believes would result in the Court Martial, proselytizing, sharing their faith. The military, the pentagon, issued a statement to me on Monday. They said that proselytizing was against the Department of Defense regulations. After our story came out, they walked back that statement and they said they do believe in "sharing your faith," that soldiers are allowed to do that."The U.S. military released a statement, re-enforcing the fact that "proselytization" was not permitted regardless of the religion in question, but that soldiers were allowed to share their faith as long as they don't harass others.
"Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense. Court Martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis."Fox News and their guests claim that President Obama is trying to rid the military of Christianity, despite following the same rules and regulations that have been in place for years. One could only wonder what the reaction from Fox News would be if a Muslim, Jew or Atheist was "proselytizing" their beliefs to Christian soldiers in the U.S. military.
I think I will bring a cross and Bible to work.... and see how that works out for me.
You are a contractor so its worth a shot.
lol....
University of Chicago Chapel removes pews to accommodate Muslim prayers
http://standupforthetruth.com/files/...ws-300x201.png
http://www.mrconservative.com/files/...yer-muslim.jpg
Multiple sources are reporting that the University of Chicago removed pews from an 88-year old chapel to accommodate Islamic prayers.
This photo via Campus Reform shows the chapel before the pews were removed last year.Chicago NPR affiliate, WBEZ news, reported on May 23, the pews, which are now part of display at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) Chicago, were “removed in order to provide Muslim students a place to pray.”Full story
Literature describing the artwork that was created by UC Director of Arts and Public Life Theaster Gates, also describes the removal of the pews as symbol of religious tolerance.
“The pews were recently removed from the chapel in order to offer Muslim students a place to pray, a symbolic gesture of religious tolerance,” according to an official description of the exhibit which includes a “set of repurposed pews from the University of Chicago’s campus church.”
A spokesperson for UC also appeared to confirm the reason for the pews’ removal in a statement emailed to Campus Reform on Friday.
“The benches were removed… to make Bond Chapel a more appropriate comfortable space for its many uses: ceremonial, spiritual, and artistic,” said Susie Allen.
Allen, however, said the primary purpose for the change, which was part of a broader renovation, was to “accommodate the installation of a Boroque-style organ.”
The UC Muslim Student Association (MSA) also announced in its 2012-2013 edition of The Complete Muslims Guide to UChicago that Friday prayers would be held in the chapel once renovation was complete.
“Bond Chapel is where Friday prayers will be held once construction is over,” it says.
“Insha’Allah, Jumuah prayer will be held in Bond Chapel every Friday this quarter,” reads another announcement on the MSA Chicago website.
Related articles
- University of Chicago removed church pews from 88-year old chapel to accommodate Islamic prayers (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
Once they have worshiped in that church, under Sharia Law...it's now considered a Mosque.
When they bring in Tens of the Thousands more refugees from the Middle East they can spread their crescent moon throughout America.
All part of the plan under this Administration and the Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam.
If it were my church then I would tell them to go pound sand... and shoot em if they come back. lol