Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Was it a hate crime?
Topic Started: Jan 16 2005, 02:37 PM (773 Views)
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
The Pope ? Who cares what he thinks ?

Somerled,

I am not a Roman Catholic. However, do you realize how many people might find what you wrote insulting? Hmmm.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^

I guess we could add anti-Catholic to his offenses.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Jan 22 2005, 07:06 PM
^^^

I guess we could add anti-Catholic to his offenses.

You still haven't given specifics for your claim that religious leaders approved of murder.

You said
Quote:
 
I don't recall the Pope saying it's ok to chop off the heads of non-believers or those that have converted to other religions.


Now it's up you to provide something to support that rabbidly islamophobic statement.

Minuet - now you see what I mean by consistancy, Dwayne was only trying to cover his own arse, his statements are not consistant with what he said.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
somerland

A. Dwaynes is a new pet term made up by you. I still can't find christofascism in the English dictionary so I will assume that it is made up as well.

B. As to the Pope, ~968,000,000 care what he says. Now, how many care what you say?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 10:31 PM
Dwayne
Jan 22 2005, 07:06 PM
^^^

I guess we could add anti-Catholic to his offenses.

You still haven't given specifics for your claim that religious leaders approved of murder.

You said
Quote:
 
I don't recall the Pope saying it's ok to chop off the heads of non-believers or those that have converted to other religions.


Now it's up you to provide something to support that rabbidly islamophobic statement.

While I know, and everyone else with a modicum of intelligence and worldliness knows that the popular view in the Muslim world is that apostasy is a crime warranting prison and many times death, you continue to live with your head up your arse.

Quote:
 


Consider yourself proved wrong AGAIN!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 10:31 PM
Dwayne
Jan 22 2005, 07:06 PM
^^^

I guess we could add anti-Catholic to his offenses.

You still haven't given specifics for your claim that religious leaders approved of murder.

You said
Quote:
 
I don't recall the Pope saying it's ok to chop off the heads of non-believers or those that have converted to other religions.


Now it's up you to provide something to support that rabbidly islamophobic statement.

Minuet - now you see what I mean by consistancy, Dwayne was only trying to cover his own arse, his statements are not consistant with what he said.

Somerled - I have heard some (not all) Muslim religious leaders call for wars and punishment for non-believers. Have you ever heard of the term Fatwa?

Nothing Dwayne has said in this thread is untrue or anti-Islamic. I leave it to you to prove that he has done so elsewhere. I have not seen it myself.

I might add that all of a sudden you are saying that I am consistent - but you have leveled charges at me in the past similar to those you are leveling at Dwayne. I find you inconsistent in that you level charges when convienient to your argument and remove them when not.

Try using facts instead of leveling charges at other posters.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Jan 23 2005, 11:47 AM
Somerled - I have heard some (not all) Muslim religious leaders call for wars and punishment for non-believers. Have you ever heard of the term Fatwa?

Nothing Dwayne has said in this thread is untrue or anti-Islamic. I leave it to you to prove that he has done so elsewhere. I have not seen it myself.

I might add that all of a sudden you are saying that I am consistent - but you have leveled charges at me in the past similar to those you are leveling at Dwayne. I find you inconsistent in that you level charges when convienient to your argument and remove them when not.

Try using facts instead of leveling charges at other posters.

An unexpected, but most appreciated defense.

Thank you.

:kiss:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ I try to be fair.

It doesn't mean I agree with your politics :D
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Jan 23 2005, 12:15 PM
It doesn't mean I agree with your politics

Not yet ... as far as you know. :evil2: :evil1:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Minuet
Jan 23 2005, 11:47 AM
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 10:31 PM
Dwayne
Jan 22 2005, 07:06 PM
^^^

I guess we could add anti-Catholic to his offenses.

You still haven't given specifics for your claim that religious leaders approved of murder.

You said
Quote:
 
I don't recall the Pope saying it's ok to chop off the heads of non-believers or those that have converted to other religions.


Now it's up you to provide something to support that rabbidly islamophobic statement.

Minuet - now you see what I mean by consistancy, Dwayne was only trying to cover his own arse, his statements are not consistant with what he said.

Somerled - I have heard some (not all) Muslim religious leaders call for wars and punishment for non-believers. Have you ever heard of the term Fatwa?

Nothing Dwayne has said in this thread is untrue or anti-Islamic. I leave it to you to prove that he has done so elsewhere. I have not seen it myself.

I might add that all of a sudden you are saying that I am consistent - but you have leveled charges at me in the past similar to those you are leveling at Dwayne. I find you inconsistent in that you level charges when convienient to your argument and remove them when not.

Try using facts instead of leveling charges at other posters.

I am not ignorant of the terms apostate and fatwa and that impose on some occasions , by some self appointed islamic religious leaders who favour a more fundamentalist and retrograde interpretation of the words in the koran , and more often hardline fundamentalist laypeople (like Osama and is pals) try to incite violence or hatred.

I am also aware that the more moderate islamic religious and secular leaders distance themselve from these renogrades or hardliners, and it is these people who represent the vast majority of the islamic world.

If you want me to be more specific - then - here it is - you are more consistant than Dwayne , and that is the last I will say on it , and I am of the view that he has not been forthright, but that is my opinion, you and others will have to form your own opinions on the forthrightness of his responses.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
doctortobe
Jan 23 2005, 01:17 AM
somerland

A. Dwaynes is a new pet term made up by you. I still can't find christofascism in the English dictionary so I will assume that it is made up as well.

B. As to the Pope, ~968,000,000 care what he says. Now, how many care what you say?

2. Only because they are indoctrinated from a very young age to hang on every syllable "their representative of god on earth" has to say.

1. How about a dwaynism - that sound like a good term for his particular style of hate mongering.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
somerled
Jan 23 2005, 01:22 PM
doctortobe
Jan 23 2005, 01:17 AM
somerland

A.  Dwaynes is a new pet term made up by you.  I still can't find christofascism in the English dictionary so I will assume that it is made up as well.

B.  As to the Pope, ~968,000,000 care what he says.  Now, how many care what you say?

2. Only because they are indoctrinated from a very young age to hang on every syllable "their representative of god on earth" has to say.

1. How about a dwaynism - that sound like a good term for his particular style of hate mongering.

Yeah, know, you can be a real a$$ sometimes somerled. Thinking that the whole Catholic faith is basicly brain-washed. Or that because Dwayne is concerned about the militiant Islamo-fasicists trying to take over the world -like they are- is called hate mongering.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Somerled:

Mahommed himself approved of beheading for infidels. He basically said that any form of death except burning was alright. Burning was a punishment reserved for god alone.

The Suadis have been considered moderate secular leaders, yet they still alow for the beheading of converts and ban any religious conversion in the country.

The Egyptian government is secular but it has allowed the fundementalist to control the colleges and the print media. The result has been protests from the coptic Christians in egypt as their rights are infringed.

Islam as a religion, culture or society is not one founded on peace and tolerance.

Quite the contray its founder used war and was intolerant of other views.

Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? Oh, wait, I am repeating myself.

Yet anyone who can reduce Dwayne's witty retort to a moronic "listen jacka$$" can't be all bad.


ANOVA





Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Jan 23 2005, 02:17 PM
I am not ignorant of the terms apostate and fatwa  and that impose on some occasions , by some self appointed islamic religious leaders who favour a more fundamentalist and retrograde interpretation of the words in the koran , and more often hardline fundamentalist laypeople  (like Osama and is pals) try to incite violence or hatred.

The above statement by sumerled points out either profound ignorance or wilfull deception on somerleds part.

The Canadian Society of Muslims, in an attempt to promote "useful knowledge and accurate information on Islam", provides this on the crime of apostasy
Quote:
 
Hadd Crimes

Hadd crimes are those which are punishable by a pre-established punishment found in the Qur’an. These most serious of all crimes are found by an exact reference in the Qur’an to a specific act and a specific punishment for that act. There is no plea-bargaining or reducing the punishment for a Hadd crime. Hadd crimes have no minimum or maximum punishments attached to them. The punishment system is comparable to the determinate sentence imposed by some judges in the United States. If you commit a crime, you know what your punishment will be. There is no flexibility in the U.S. determinate model or in the punishment for Hadd crimes of Islamic Law.

No judge can change or reduce the punishment for these serious crimes [emphasis added]. The Hadd crimes are: 

1.  Murder; 
2. Apostasy from Islam [emphasis added]
1. (making war upon Allah and His messengers) 
     1. Theft 
     2. Adultery
     3. Defamation

2. (false accusation of adultery or fornication) 
      1. Robbery 
      2. Alcohol-drinking [any intoxicants]

The first four Hadd crimes have a specific punishment in the Qur’an. The last three crimes are mentioned but no specific punishment is found (Schmalleger, p.603).
 
Some more liberal Islamic judges do not consider apostasy from Islam or wine drinking as Hadd crimes. The more liberal Islamic nations treat these crimes as Tazir or a lesser crime. [emphasis added]

Hadd crimes have fixed punishments because they are set by God and are found in the Qur’an. Hadd crimes are crimes against God's law and Tazir crimes are crimes against society. There are some safeguards for Hadd crimes that many in the media fail to mention. Some in the media only mention that if you steal, your hand is cut off. The Islamic judge must look at a higher level of proof and reasons why the person committed the crime. A judge can only impose the Hadd punishment when a person confesses to the crime or there are enough witnesses to the crime. The usual number of witnesses is two, but in the case of adultery four witnesses are required. The media often leaves the public with the impression that all are punished with flimsy evidence or limited proof. Islamic law has a very high level of proof for the most serious crimes and punishments. When there is doubt about the guilt of a Hadd crime, the judge must treat the crime as a lesser Tazir crime. If there is no confession to a crime or not enough witnesses to the crime, Islamic law requires the Hadd crime to be punished as a Tazir crime.

So, even according to an organization that's attempting to promote knowledge and accuracy of Islam is stating that apostasy is considered a serious crime and that liberally minded Islamic nations consider it just a lesser crime.

somerled
Jan 23 2005, 02:17 PM
I am also aware that the more moderate islamic religious and secular leaders distance themselve from these renogrades or hardliners, and it is these people who represent the vast majority of the islamic world.

Another misinformed statement from somerset.

Here's the vast majority of the Islamic world...
Quote:
 
example 1: Saudi Arabia[xvi]
In Saudi Arabia the Qur’an is the state constitution and Shari’ah the legal system. The strict Wahhabi interpretation prohibits the public practice of any other religion than Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Even private practice can bring harassment by the religious police, arrests and deportation. Offences are regulated by a mixture of Shari’ah rules and government legislated laws, most of which are extremely vague and therefore open to abuse. In categorizing offences and deciding punishments, judges are guided by vaguely worded laws and general principles of Islamic jurisprudence which are subject to different interpretations by different jurists. For example, it is the judge who decides what constitutes apostasy. In a 1992 case brought against a Saudi Shia Muslim, ‘Abd al-Karim Mal al-Allah, it was reported that the judge told the accused: “Abandon your rejectionist beliefs or I will kill you”. The discretionary powers of the judge are further enhanced by the secrecy of court proceedings which protects judges from legal challenges by defence lawyers. In Saudi Arabia the absence of any debate on the death penalty is due to the threat of the imposition of the death penalty itself on anyone taking the initiative to start such a public debate, as only the state has the monopoly to declare on such issues. Anyone who started such a debate is liable to be branded an apostate or of being one of the “corrupt on earth”, both crimes liable to capital punishment.

example 2: pakistan[xvii]
In Pakistan following the gradual trend to Islamization, severe amendments were added in 1982 (section 295B) and 1986 (section 295C) to Section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, often called the “Blasphemy Law”. Under these new provisions, desecration of the Qur’an became a crime carrying a punishment of life imprisonment (295B), while defiling the name of Muhammad became a crime carrying as punishment the death penalty or imprisonment for life and a fine (295C). In 1990 the Federal Shari’aht Court ruled that the penalty for defiling the name of Muhammad “is death and nothing else”. This invalidated the words “punishment for life” in section 295C, leaving the death penalty as mandatory. Also under these laws, once a person has been accused of blasphemy, the police have to carry out an arrest without preliminary investigations.[xviii]

As a result of these legal changes, the number of blasphemy cases brought to court, especially against members of the Ahmadiyya community [xix] and Christians, but also against Muslims, increased dramatically. Blasphemy legislation became a weapon in personal disputes where unscrupulous persons could now manipulate it to their advantage knowing the great emotional impact of these charges on most Muslims, including the judges and jurors. The accuser has nothing to lose, while the accused might lose everything, including his life. Many cases originate because of professional jealousy and rivalry or the quest for economic gain particularly over land disputes. Interestingly, apostasy, which is a capital offence in Shari’ah, is not punishable by the Pakistani Penal Code, but blasphemy, which according to Shari’ah is a lesser crime, is a capital offence under the Penal Code.

Such laws have a significant impact in intimidating non-Muslim minorities and Muslim opposition or reform movements. They also create an atmosphere in which mob violence and extremist terrorist acts against non-Muslims are seen to be acceptable and even supported by the state and its law enforcers. Further, such laws encourage private violence by any Muslim zealous for his religion against presumed apostates. It is of interest to note, that when Benazir Bhutto, then leader of the opposition, criticized the Shari’aht Court in 1992 for increasing the severity of the penalties for blasphemy, the Federal Minister for Religious Affairs, Mawlana Abadu Sitar Niazi issued a fatwa against her declaring her to be a kafir liable to the death penalty. A year later when she was Prime Minister, a case was brought against her to the Lahore High Court under Section 295-C by Zia ul-Islam, leader of the Pakistan Movement for Workers, for criticizing the blasphemy law. This illustrates how the law can be manipulated against almost anyone and while powerful figures might be able to defend themselves, ordinary citizens are cowed into silence and live under the constant fear of its application to them. [xx]

While the higher courts have generally tended to acquit people accused of blasphemy on appeal and following long periods (usually years) in detention, the state security services have frequently failed to protect the rights of the accused. Threats and the use of violence by private persons seem to be condoned by the state and its agencies, leading to a climate of fear and insecurity, especially in minority groups.

A feature of the majority of blasphemy cases brought against Christians in Pakistan is that the accusations are made by people bearing a personal grudge against the accused for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Another is the ease with which religious leaders can whip a crowd into a murderous frenzy by spurious allegations of blasphemy, apostasy and insults to Muhammad.

Well known Pakistani scholar, Akbar S. Ahmed states that in recent years the blasphemy laws have been used more and more for settling political vendettas and land disputes. The law has become a powerful tool to intimidate anyone, but the main targets have been the minority groups, especially Ahmadis and Christians. He states that in the last decade some 2,000 Ahmadis were charged under the blasphemy laws, while some 60 Christians a year are being charged under these laws. Bail is usually denied those charged with blasphemy, trials are expensive and can take years to begin.[xxi]

People acquitted by higher courts of apostasy and blasphemy charges find themselves under attack by extremist groups.[xxii] Defence lawyers and judges dealing with blasphemy cases are often threatened.[xxiii]  Amnesty International has stated that “The blasphemy laws in Pakistan are a handy tool to silence debate and dissent. They are also used to detain people when the real motivation includes land issues or professional rivalry. In the interest of justice, the blasphemy laws should be abolished or as a first step amended to prevent abuse”.[xxiv]

Soon after he seized power, General Pervez Musharraf tried to alter the law to allow for an inquiry by district officials for any blasphemy complaint before police could arrest a suspect, but had to retract under pressure from Islamic hardliners.[xxv]

EXAMPLE 3. EGYPT[xxvi]
The Egyptian Constitution of 1923 guaranteed the equality of all Egyptians, without distinction of race, religion or language, before the law.  In 1971 a law was approved by the Supreme Constitutional Tribunal stating that: “Islam is the State religion and any law contrary to Islam is contrary to the Constitution”. While there is no direct law against apostasy in the constitution, the declaration of Shari’ah as the main source of legislation in the amended 1981 Constitution (article 2, see endnote 9), opened the door to the prosecution of apostates. There is a Supreme Court ruling that a Muslim who apostasizes is legally dead: he loses all civil rights and powers, cannot withdraw funds from his bank account, cannot marry or inherit, and cannot have his identity card changed to “Christian”. There is also an article of the Penal Code which prosecutes actions susceptible of endangering national unity or social peace which is often used by the authorities against Muslims wishing to convert to Christianity. More than 150 Muslims charged with converting to Christianity have been detained in maximum-security prisons accused of threatening national security and unity.[xxvii]

The influential al-Azhar Islamic University and its Islamic Research Academy (IRA) are officially recognized by the Government as having the authority to safeguard Islamic law and religion. This has resulted in al-Azhar exercising ever more stringent censorship on books, media and the arts, banning and confiscating many and labelling their authors as guilty of blasphemy or apostasy.[xxviii]

Interestingly, the al-Azhar Creed and Philosophy Committee affiliated to al-Azhar Islamic Research Institute recently recommended a change in the application of the apostasy law by giving the accused apostate a whole lifetime to renounce his apostasy instead of the three-day period laid down in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). This recommendation was severely criticized as a forbidden innovation by many religious leaders.[xxix]

With the growing influence of Islamists over the last two decades, groups like al-Jama‘a al-Islamiyya have mounted campaigns of takfir (accusation of heresy) against intellectuals and artists leading to violent attacks on some and even assassination. This culminated in Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, an influential theologian, issuing a fatwa legitimising the shedding of the blood of anyone opposing the application of Shari’ah.

example 4. Sudan
President Nimeiri introduced Shari’ah law in 1983, and Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, an Islamic scholar and leader of the Republican Brothers movement was condemned to death as an apostate and executed in 1985 for his efforts at reforming Islam and reinterpreting the Qur’an. Following Bashir’s military coup of 1989 the National Islamic Front of Turabi came to power and in the constitution of 1991 the Islamic Code was again enforced, effectively institutionalising an Islamic state. The use of Shari’ah as the basis of law and government has since become ever more explicit.[xxx] 

While the 1998 constitution proclaims religious freedom to all citizens, it also claims Islamic Shari’ah as a source of legislation.[xxxi] The Constitution, implemented in early 1999, provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government severely restricts this right in practice, treating Islam as the state religion and declaring that it must inspire the country's laws, institutions, and policies. Non-Muslims are forbidden to proselytise, and section 126 of the Sudan Criminal Law 1991 makes apostasy from Islam a criminal offence punishable by death in accordance with Shari’ah.[xxxii] Although this extreme penalty is seldom implemented, apostates face arrest, imprisonment and torture. Representatives of the Sudanese government claim it is not apostasy as such that is punishable, but that any manifestation of it in public constitutes a threat to public order and would be prosecuted as high treason[xxxiii].

example 5. Iran
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution Shia Islam is the state religion and the Shari’ah forms the basis of the Iranian constitution and legal system. Article 4 of the constitution states that “All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations . . .”

While the state recognizes Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism as official religions with limited freedoms to worship within their communities, apostasy is a crime and Muslims who convert to Christianity potentially face the death penalty while Islamic “heretics” like the Baha’is face severe persecution as unprotected infidels (see below for case studies, including the execution of a convert to Christianity in 1990).

While the constitution guarantees freedom of belief, various laws place restrictions on religious freedoms. These restrictive and often contradictory laws are found in the Penal Code, the Theologians’ Law (a body of law dealing with offences committed by clerics) and in the Public and Revolutionary Courts’ Procedural Law. A basic flaw in many of these laws is the absence of clear definitions of key concepts such as “state security”, “propaganda”, “insulting Islam”. Under Article 513 of the Penal Code offences classified as “insult to religion” can be punishable by death or prison terms of between one and five years. Articles 6 and 26 of the Press Code forbid writings “containing apostasy and matters against Islamic standards [and] ‘the true religion of Islam’ . . .” In cases where there are no specific codified laws, judges can deliver fatwas based on authoritative Islamic sources.[xxxiv] In recent years there have been many cases of arbitrary detention, unfair trial and imprisonment under these clauses, following the expression of conscientiously held beliefs.[xxxv]

example 6. Malaysia
The constitution declares Islam as the official state religion while guaranteeing religious freedom. The Islamist PAS opposition party has been pushing for an Islamic state including efforts in the parliament to pass a law imposing the death sentence for apostasy. While this has not yet succeeded on the federal level, two Malaysian states have passed Hudud laws which include the death penalty for apostasy. Kelantan State Legislative Assembly passed such laws in 1993, but they have never been enforced because of Federal Government opposition. According to the Malaysian constitution, while Shari’ah courts are under state, not federal control, criminal law is a federal matter. Unless the constitution were amended, the Kelantan state government is unable to apply the Hudud laws it has passed, especially as Malaysia’s prime minister has stated that he would not allow the Kelantan Hudud bill to be implemented.[xxxvi] In spite of the standoff in Kelantan, Teregganu State passed similar laws in 2002. 

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has so far opposed such attempts on the federal level. He advocates a more reformist type of Islam that stresses equality and justice for all, claiming that traditional forms of Islam as pushed by those clamouring for full implementation of Shari’ah are harsh and merely interpretations of ordinary humans influenced by their prejudices.[xxxvii] However, given the necessity to compete with the more Islamist trends, the government does favour Islam as the national religion and restricts activities of other religions, limiting the religious freedom of non-Muslims. It is against Malaysian law to write, speak, or preach against Islam. A 1993 bill states that it is illegal for a Muslim to change his religion. It is also almost impossible for non-Muslim religious groups to obtain additional land for places of worship, schools and cemeteries, and there are limits on the publication and distribution of Christian literature.[xxxviii] Muslims comprise some 57% of Malaysia’s population, and Malay Muslims are given a superior status as the original indigenous peoples of the country (bumiputera). [xxxix] As bumiputera, Malays are given many political and economic advantages over non-Malays. The legal definition of Malay includes a list of characteristics, one being that the person is a Muslim. In the decades since independence, the bumiputera advantage has become ever more enshrined in law and in programmes of affirmative action.[xl] Malays who convert from Islam lose their ethnic identity and all its associated privileges in addition to suffering the legal penalties. [xli]

The brave “Sisters in Islam” movement has also struggled against the imposition of Shari’ah and Hudud laws at both federal and state levels, claiming Islamic laws based on traditional jurists’ interpretations of the Qur’an are not necessarily relevant in the modern world. They stress that while the source texts are sacred, human interpretations cannot be taken as infallible and eternally valid.[xlii]


somerled
Jan 23 2005, 02:17 PM
If you want me to be more specific - then - here it is - you are more consistant than Dwayne , and that is the last I will say on it , and I am of the view that he has not been forthright, but that is my opinion, you and others will have to form your own opinions on the forthrightness of his responses.

forthright?

You don't know the definition of the word.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
2. Only because they are indoctrinated from a very young age to hang on every syllable "their representative of god on earth" has to say.


:loling: :loling: :loling:

So, can we add total ignorance (or hatred) of the Catholic relgion to you resume?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus