FOX NEWS

Friday, April 8, 2011

BISHOP REFUSES TO GIVE COMMUNION TO CO-HABITATING COUPLES

As much as I piss and moan about the bishops in America we still do have a bunch of them that aren't afraid to speak the truth, regardless of how counter-cultural it is. Archbishop Michael Sheehan is one of them. I've reprinted in full his pastoral letter about co-habitating couples...screw it, people shacking up... and the mortal danger that they are placing themselves in.

I was young once and if I'd had the opportunity I probably would have lived with my wife before we got married. People were doing it all the time but it still wasn't something that was readily accepted, not like it is today, just another lifestyle choice. But I knew that I was supposed to get married and Kathy felt the same. I wasn't very concerned about religion at the time but somehow that stuck with me. I'm glad it did.

Even taking the religious aspect away, I still don't quite understand why anyone would want to open themselves up to another in the way that marriage does without the vows. It's important to me to know that we're in this together, good times and bad. This isn't some passing thing, a quick roll in the hay and goodbye. Marriage is a partnership that has to last 'til death do us part. If you can't make that commitment then don't get married. And if you can't marry a person then don't live with them. Because vows or not, between the sex and all else that goes with living together, a bond will form, for good or bad, and it will be a bond for life, regardless of future separation. That's how we're built. It's our nature.

So I thank the good bishop for his wise words. I wish more of our leaders in the Church would speak up as forcefully.


April 3, 2011

Pastoral Care of Couples Who are Cohabitating

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We are all painfully aware that there are many Catholics today who are living in cohabitation.
The Church must make it clear to the faithful that these unions are not in accord with the Gospel, and to help Catholics who find themselves in these situations to do whatever they must do to make their lives pleasing to God.

First of all, we ourselves must be firmly rooted in the Gospel teaching that, when it comes to
sexual union, there are only two lifestyles acceptable to Jesus Christ for His disciples: a single life of chastity, or the union of man and woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony. There is no “third way” possible for a Christian. The Bible and the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and opposes same sex unions.

We have three groups of people who are living contrary to the Gospel teaching on marriage:
those who cohabit; those who have a merely civil union with no previous marriage; and those
who have a civil union who were married before. These people are objectively living in a state of mortal sin and may not receive Holy Communion. They are in great spiritual danger. At the best - and this is, sadly, often the case - they are ignorant of God’s plan for man and woman. At the worst, they are contemptuous of God’s commandments and His sacraments.

Of these three groups, the first two have no real excuse. They should marry in the Church or
separate. Often their plea is that they “cannot afford a church wedding” i.e. the external
trappings, or that “what difference does a piece of paper make?” - as if a sacramental covenant is nothing more than a piece of paper! Such statements show religious ignorance, or a lack of faith and awareness of the evil of sin.

The third group, those who were married before and married again outside the Church, can seek
a marriage annulment and have their marriage blest in the Church. Please remember that divorce
still is no reason to refrain from Holy Communion as long as they have not entered into another
marriage or sinful relationship. Many Catholics are confused on this point.

Christ our Lord loves all these people and wishes to save them - not by ignoring their sin, or
calling evil good, but by repentance and helping them to change their lives in accordance with
His teaching. We, as His Church, must do the same. In accord with this, I would remind you of
the following:

1. People in the above three situations cannot receive the Sacraments, with the important exception of those who agree to live chastely (“as brother and sister”) until their situation is regularized. Of course, those in danger of death are presumed to be repentant.

2. These people may not be commissioned as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, not only because of scandal, but even more because one commits the sin of sacrilege by administering a Sacrament in the state of mortal sin.

3. Nor are such people to be admitted to the role of sponsor for Baptism or Confirmation, as
is clearly stated on the Archdiocesan Affidavit for a Sponsor. It is critical for the sponsor
to be a practicing Catholic - and can anyone be seriously called a practicing Catholic who
is not able to receive the sacraments because they are living in sin?

4. When it comes to other parish ministries and organizations, I feel it best to leave these
situations to the judgment of the pastor. Prudence is needed, avoiding all occasions of
scandal. We must see their involvement in the parish as an opportunity to work urgently
to bring such people to repentance and the regularization of their lifestyle.

5. Many of these sins are committed out of ignorance. I ask that our pastors preach on the
gravity of sin and its evil consequences, the 6th and 9th Commandments of God, and the
sacramental nature and meaning of Christian marriage. Our catechetical programs in our
parishes - children, youth, and adult – must clearly and repeatedly teach these truths.

A Church wedding does not require some lavish spectacle and entertainment costing vast
sums of money (Indeed, how often we have seen the most costly weddings end in divorce
in but a few months or years!). While beauty and joy should surround a Christian
wedding, we must remind everyone that it is a sacrament, not a show.

6. Those who are married outside the Church because of a previous union are urged to seek
an annulment through our Marriage Tribunal. If it can be found that the first marriage
lacked some essential quality for a valid marriage, the Tribunal can grant an annulment.
Your pastor can help someone start a marriage case for this purpose. It is important for
such couples to continue to pray and get to Mass even though they may not receive
Communion, until their marriage can be blest in the Church.

Our popular American culture is often in conflict with the teachings of Jesus and His Church. I
urge especially young people to not cohabitate which is sinful, but to marry in the Church and
prepare well for it.

I congratulate and thank those thousands of Catholic married couples who role model the
Sacrament of Marriage according to the teachings of Jesus and his Church.

Sincerely yours in the Risen Lord,

Most Rev. Michael J. Sheehan
Archbishop of Santa Fe

23 comments:

  1. So... unless a man in a funny hat says some magic words to the couple your sky god hates people having sex?

    What about Jewish couples? They don't have the ceremonies that your region has, Jesus isn't even mentioned, are they making your god angry with their co-habitation?

    What about people in China who live in rural areas with no access to a priest but get married in a sort of commie civil ceremony, is your god okay with that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Salvage, long time, no hear. I have answers to all your questions but you know what, I'm not going to give them to you yet.

    It seems to me that you're one of those people that like to fire off questions in drive-bys. You'll pop up and shoot a burst then fade back into the shadows, expecting others to jump to the tune you play. I'm not playing that game.

    After the last round I answered your question to the best of my ability and published them at http://catawissagazetteer.blogspot.com/2011/02/reply-to-reader-and-reasons-for-my.html. Not surprisingly, I never heard anything from you, until today that is.

    So here's the deal. Answer a question from me first, then I'll answer yours. Explain to me what you believe about God, creation and man. Give me your reasoning. I want to see how far you can get before faith enters the picture. Not just religious faith but faith of any kind. Faith in science or whatever.

    I know why I believe and what I believe and I explained the reason in the post linked above.

    So now its your turn.

    If you are an honest actor and want to have a conversation then that will require that you have answers, not just questions. If your intent is to just do drive-bys, well that's fine, too. I'll post 'em, you just won't get a reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh sorry about not getting back to the other thread, honestly I forgot I had posted stuff here and didn't remember until you posted on the Commentarius site about the pink machine gun that apparently means you like Holy Wars or something?

    Explain to me what you believe about God, creation and man.

    Sure.

    Gods (and their myths) aren't real, they are how primitive cultures answer unanswerable (to them) questions. I know this because no one has ever actually seen a god and the god's behavior rarely makes much sense. This is especially true of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim one.

    "Creation" (not the right word as creation implies a creator and for that there is no evidence, quite the opposite in fact) occurred some 13.7 billion years ago as a result of a still unknown quantum event. This is refered to as the "Big Bang" but this is wrong as it was not big (it was the smallest thing ever) and it was silent (no medium to carry the sound waves you see). It was possibly a collision of matter and anti-matter beginning a chain reaction that is still going on to this day. Hopeful the discovery of the "God Particle" will shed some more light on the subject but knowing Quantum theory it will just lead to even more baffling stuff.

    Man is us and from what we know the only species on this planet and the universe that has attained and harnessed the power of imagination as a result of our brain's evolution. This in combination with other evolutionary edges (stereoscopic vision and hearing, opposable thumbs, the ability to sweat and walk / job great distances to name a few) has allowed us to clamber to the top of the food chain. A position held for millions of years by the dinosaurs so we'd best not get cocky about it.

    I believe these things because the physical evidence for them are overwhelming and well beyond doubt's shadow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is going to take a couple posts to get it all in so bear with me.

    Actually, I just posted the picture from Ioannes's site because I'm not opposed to calling a spade a spade. We are involved in a Holy War whether we want to admit it our not. The Jihadists are driven by their faith and that's why they keep attacking us. There may be other reasons as well but religion IS the primary motivating factor. Until we address the motives of our enemies truthfully and address them based on reality we will never end this. We've (Western civilization) been at war with Islam since Islam was created. Like it or not, that's the truth.

    You say that God doesn't make sense then you fail to give any examples. I don't know about other gods but the God of Christianity does. Give me a couple concrete examples if you don't mind but I can't give you answers outside Catholicism.

    Now I believe that the only completely true Christian faith is Catholicism so my remarks will have to be understood in that context. I'm not particularly concerned about Protestant views and understandings about the nature of God because while they may contain some truth they also contain much error. So if you try to wrap up all the various dogmas and doctrines of all the various Christian faiths I can see why God may seem somewhat capricious. I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, no more, no less.

    It's true that not all Gods are real; there's only one. And this can be proved through reason because there cannot be more than one infinite object.

    The Judeo-Christian God is the same God though I doubt that any clear thinking Jew would agree because the Trinitarian dogma comes through Christ, and they don't accept his divinity. If they did they'd be Christians. The Muslim God, at least in my opinion, is not the Judeo-Christian God. While all three religions share a belief in a monotheistic God, beyond this the actions and nature of the god of Islam are of an entirely different character, capricious and intolerant. Islam is also a works based salvation system as is Judaism. Catholicism believes that salvation comes as a fee gift and cannot be earned, only accepted.

    There is no absolute proof of either the Big Bang or evolution. There is, particularly regarding the Big Bang, a significant body of research that could lead one to believe it to be true. But that belief, that acceptance of either of these theories still require faith because neither can be proven. This is absolutely no different than my Catholic faith.

    But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that both the Big bang and evolution are true. How does either explain how everything started. Even if anti-matter and matter collided, where did they come from? And even if we evolved from the tiniest single cell organism, where did it come from?

    And if either of those things happened how does that negate the existence of God?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You see, while your faith may be different than mine it is still faith none the less. In the end, the things that you believe cannot be proven anymore than the existence of God. Like God, a string of evidence exists that can lead one to a reasonable and logical conclusion. The thing that strikes me though is that while my faith doesn't exclude yours, your seems to be fairly touchy about mine. Mine provides an answer to the ultimate questions about the reasons while yours provides answers about the method.

    Truth cannot contradict truth and so science doesn't hold any fear for me. All I care about is the truth. And I've yet to see anything in science that causes mew to question my faith, at least in honest science. I have seen some questionable statements, the latest being Hawkings pronouncement on the origin of the universe.

    So let's go back to your original questions this morning:

    Right off the bat you need to understand one thing. The Bishop's statement applies to Catholics and Catholics only. He is making sure that Catholic understand that living together with your boy/girlfriend will cut you off from most of the life of the Church. This is the effect of willfully participating in mortal sin.

    If you don't agree with this, fine. Find another church or don't go at all. That's completely up to the individual. But if you want to remain Catholic you have to follow the Church teachings.

    How is this different than any other organization? You can't belong to the Lion's Club if you willfully and openly refuse to follow the rules. That's just how life works.

    "So... unless a man in a funny hat says some magic words to the couple your sky god hates people having sex?"

    The Church doesn't marry us. It acts as a witness to a sacramental union between man and wife. A wedding makes public vows that have already been made in the heart. Also, because the Church does have authority over Catholics regarding their marriages it does have a responsibility to make sure that the marriage begins on a sound footing.

    And yes, Catholics believe, because it's what the Church teaches, based on the Bible, Tradition and really just plain common sense that sex is meant to only be engaged in within the bounds of marriage. Again, if you disagree, don't be a Catholic.

    As far as marriage outside the Church goes, the Church considers them valid most of the time because the sacrament is entered into between the two people. So if your are of another faith and are married according to the laws of that faith there generally isn't a problem. You still made your public vows. Or if you don't have access to a Church, then common law marriage is permitted. There have been places and still are, China being an example, where the only way you're going to get married is in a civil ceremony. The Catholic church, for all intents and purposes, does not exist in these places so civil law is the only option. The only caveat would be that if you are living in a common law marriage because you don't have access to a Church you would be expected to get to one as soon as possible and get married before a priest.

    I stand by my statements in the post above. I would have probably moved in with my girlfriend (now my wife) if I had the chance because I was young, inexperienced in the ways of life and just plain stupid. I've learned a few things since then and one of them is get married or live apart. This is my personal opinion apart from my religious beliefs and it's based on watching my friends go from one live in to the next while their personal lives spun in a vortex of constant turmoil. Those of us that got married, for the most part, have weathered the storms life tosses our way much better than those that shacked up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >The Jihadists are driven by their faith and that's why they keep attacking us.

    How many Christian nations have been invaded and occupied by Muslims in the last say 20 years?

    > We've (Western civilization) been at war with Islam since Islam was created.

    Actually it's more accurate to say that the Western and Eastern cultures having been warring since they were created. The fight predates both Christianity and Islam.

    Oh and the first real invasion was when Western Christian Europe invaded the Muslim Middle in the First Crusade. It was a naked act of aggression to "free" the "Holy Land" that even the Byzantines thought a little mad.

    >You say that God doesn't make sense then you fail to give any examples.

    Your god sacrificed himself to himself so he wouldn't be wrathful to his creation for behaving how he either created them or how he knew they'd behave.

    His "sacrifice" made little sense as well, one unpleasant day (billions of humans have suffered far worse fates) and then resurrection then flies off to heaven to rule. Wow. That's quite the sacrifice the poor dear.

    >Now I believe that the only completely true Christian faith is Catholicism

    And that makes even less sense, your god couldn't leave behind a complete and comprehensive religion? A real god's religion wouldn't have schisms and the like?

    ReplyDelete
  7. >why God may seem somewhat capricious.

    The Old Testament isn't much better. Your god was insane or illogical from day one, the transformation to a Christian god didn't change his past.

    >It's true that not all Gods are real; there's only one.

    And by an amazing coincidence it's yours! How lucky that of all the countless gods and religions in mankind's history you happen to be born into the right one. Guess your god liked you better than the billions of other people born into the wrong on and sent to Hell for the crime.

    > And this can be proved through reason because there cannot be more than one infinite object.

    What? I'm sorry I don't see how that makes any sense or how that proves anything. What are you basing this on?

    >The Judeo-Christian God is the same God though I doubt that any clear thinking Jew would agree because the Trinitarian dogma comes through Christ, and they don't accept his divinity. If they did they'd be Christians.

    One of your god's many failures, he couldn't even convince his own people who he was. Isn't that odd? An all powerful being failing like that? He could have of course proven himself by flying to the Pharisees and Pontius after his resurrection, shown him his bloody wrists and feet then asked "Any questions?" and right then and there the whole of the Roman Empire would have gone Christian. Instead he just vanishes in the exact same way people who don't exists or who are dead do.

    And that makes sense to you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. >The Muslim God, at least in my opinion, is not the Judeo-Christian God.

    It is the same god just twisted by a different culture. You say this because you fear and loath Muslims so you don't want to have anything in common with them. Islam is one of the most documented religions, it's the same god and that is a fact but as a theist you will ignore facts that don't suit.

    >entirely different character, capricious and intolerant.

    Not exactly while conversion is a big part of Islam in history Muslims were the most tolerant of rulers, anyone who was a "people of the book" was afforded the right to their religion. They couldn't own horses or swords and had to pay a head tax but for the most part they were let be. In Spain the Muslims rulers there let everyone be and as a result it was quite prosperous for a time then the Christians took over and it all went to hell.

    The First Crusade on the other hand had every Jew and Muslims in Jerusalem and anywhere else slaughtered (not before the women were raped of course) all in the name of Jesus via Pope Urban.

    >a fee gift and cannot be earned, only accepted.

    And if it's rejected your angry sky god tortures you forever and ever. Some "gift" some god.

    >There is no absolute proof of either the Big Bang or evolution

    See what I mean about theists denying facts? There is overwhelming physical proof of both from the microwave background field (you see it every time your TV shows static) to the DNA every critter on this planet shares. Facts, you can argue with me but you can't argue with them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >Even if anti-matter and matter collided, where did they come from?

    A fascinating question, I would suggest you read Stephen Hawkings' latest "The Grand Design" for the latest answers and for evolution Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" covers the broad strokes.

    >And even if we evolved from the tiniest single cell organism, where did it come from?

    Again questions that I would love to know the answer to alas all we have are dim theories (the problem is the very first living thing was probably eaten by the next living thing) and you can learn all about them in a whole series of books and lectures. I'm afraid the answers they suggest are not as comforting as a god nor do they offer any sort of afterlife or favor from said god in this life. Sad but true, we may be on our own.

    >And if either of those things happened how does that negate the existence of God?

    Well in terms of the Big Bang it proves that your god isn't true because his description of "creation" is so off! For instance he said he made the earth in a day or so? The facts say that the planet took some 4.5 billion years. He says he made all life as is? That simply isn't true, for millions of years there were no mammals much less people. Look at Genesis and look at the facts and the only two conclusion one can reach about your god is that he is a liar or doesn't exist.

    Then you look at how just our bodies are made and you can see there is not "intelligent design" that a god would indeed use. We are made "good enough". From poor eyesight to fragile knees and backs to a drainage system that is literally upside down! it's easy to see that we are evolution's result.

    That and whales with leg bones. Why would a god give a whale leg bones?

    >You see, while your faith may be different than mine it is still faith none the less.

    Nope. I know theists like to try and level things out but I believe in things that have facts backing them up not faith. Faith is delusion's serious brother.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >In the end, the things that you believe cannot be proven anymore than the existence of God.

    Nope. Evolution has been proven a dozen times over from fossils to DNA and the math of the "Big Bang" is likewise incontrovertible. Facts son, I got 'em in spades.

    >Like God, a string of evidence

    Huh? What evidence? You have a book that is rife with error from a tribe of desert savages some 6,000 years old. You got anything else?

    >your seems to be fairly touchy about mine.

    Well yeah, yours is a pack of lies that in the past has lead to misery for millions (oh please don't start with Hitler, he was raised in your religion in a nation that was officially Christian for some 1,700 years and allied with the Vatican and it was a Communist revolution not an atheists one in Russia and China, atheism had nothing to do with it as it is not a philosophy political or otherwise) so showing religion to be a "naked king" is fairly vital.

    >Mine provides an answer to the ultimate questions about the reasons while yours provides answers about the method.

    Nope. You want there to be reasons so you decided that there are, never mind those reasons never make much sense but method I suppose is right. The difference is you go looking for the answer you want and ignore anything that doesn't provide it. Science goes where the truth takes them even when it's not as comforting as a god is. That's why Einstein said "God does not play dice" he was a bit freaked out as to the direction quantum theory was going.

    ReplyDelete
  11. >All I care about is the truth

    Nope. You care about feeling safe and secure, that's what religion does for you and others. I imagine the idea of an all-powerful being who shares your political and cultural beliefs must be rather nice and as a bonus when you die he's going to make everything all right for you and yours? That is quite an intoxicating buzz and a hard habit to break. Religion is a mental air-bag that helps people get through life, to dispel the illusion would be more than a little harsh so you don't. You are not interested in the truth at all.

    >Right off the bat you need to understand one thing. The Bishop's statement applies to Catholics and Catholics only

    I know, your god hates anyone else.

    >the Church considers them valid most of the time

    How can it? It's not being done with the right ceremony talking about the right god?

    See it's these convenient compromises that make me suspect the surrealistic quality of your religion. Like how the Capybara (think of a large swimming guinea pig) was declared a fish by the Vatican (I'll let you Google the story if you don't know it already); when reality doesn't work you change the rules.

    >of life and just plain stupid.

    Nope. Moving in a with a chick before you marry her is the smartest thing in the world. You need to live with someone for at least three years before you know them.

    >personal lives spun in a vortex of constant turmoil.

    Yeah, that never happens in marriage!

    >Those of us that got married, for the most part, have weathered the storms life tosses our way much better than those that shacked up.

    And all because they stood in a room with a bunch of people while a guy in a funny hat said some magical words?

    So what actually does the ceremony do for the couple? Does your god intercede to make them get along better?

    Married or otherwise couples have about a 50-50 chance of making it, that is just how the human heart (and other bits) work.

    Facts! You can shun them all you like but that doesn't change them being facts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow! Nice work. I'll reply to all of this but it won't happen overnight, so give me some time. I've got a really busy week ahead of me and the work I do takes a fairly significant toll on me physically so I may be a bit slow.

    One thing that I'd like to say though is that you are making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs and how I came by them, such as saying that I'm less interested in the truth than comfort. My faith makes me very uncomfortable at times and forces me to act in ways that are not those which I would normally choose.

    It's because I believe the Church teaches the truth that I bend my will to it, not because I like everything it asks me to do. It's taken me years to get where I am after many more years getting to where I was. I don't come from a particularly religious family so my belief system isn't based on the familiar or comfortable.

    Regardless, I've got to get out of here and get to Church, then out to the garden 'til dark. As I say, I'll answer your objections but it may take a bit to get to all of them.

    By the way, thanks for the specifics. Now we've got something to talk about.

    Later.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Salvage,

    I've got a few minutes so we'll start at the top.

    "How many Christian nations have been invaded and occupied by Muslims in the last say 20 years?"

    Attacked and occupied are two different things so I'll just stick with attacked. Off the top of my head we've got America, Spain, France and England. There is every reason to believe that Hamas is active in Mexico along our border. I'm pretty sure you can put Australia on the list, too. Russia has been attacked in the Caucuses and lately we've seen all kinds of Christian churches burned and killings of Christians in Africa.

    "Actually it's more accurate to say that the Western and Eastern cultures having been warring since they were created. The fight predates both Christianity and Islam."

    While there has been fighting in all parts of the world for all sorts of reasons we are talking specifically about Islam so anything that took place before its founding is immaterial, outside of the inability of many in the East to ever let go of a grudge.

    "Oh and the first real invasion was when Western Christian Europe invaded the Muslim Middle in the First Crusade. It was a naked act of aggression to "free" the "Holy Land" that even the Byzantines thought a little mad."

    The first invasion was the Christian crusades? Well, I suppose it depends on your point of view. If you only recognize aggression from the West as aggression then maybe you have a point. But you are dismissing the 400 years of Islamic crusading that led up to Christendom's response:

    ReplyDelete
  14. 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca from his base in Medina.
    632 - Muhammad dies in Medina. Islam controls the Hijaz.
    636 - Muslims conquest of Syria, and the surrounding lands, all Christian - including Palestine and Iraq.
    637 - Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq (some date it in 635 or 636)
    638 - Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.
    638 - 650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.
    639 - 642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.
    641 - Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.
    643 - 707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.
    644 - 650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.
    673 - 678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire
    691 - Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.
    710 - 713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.
    711 - 713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. The Muslim conquest moves into Europe.
    718 - Conquest of Spain complete.
    732 - Muslim invasion of France is stopped at the Battle of Poitiers / Battle of Tours. The Franks, under their leader Charles Martel (the grandfather of Charlemagne), defeat the Muslims and turn them back out of France.
    762 - Foundation of Baghdad
    785 - Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova
    789 - Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.
    800 - Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia
    807 - Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses & of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem
    809 - Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy
    813 - Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country
    831 - Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy
    837 - 901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France
    869 - 883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq
    909 - Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia
    928 - 969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)
    937 - The Church of the Resurrection (aka Church of Holy Sepulcher) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked
    960 - Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam 969 - Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo
    973 - Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids
    1003 - First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed
    1009 - Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)
    1012 - Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians
    1050 - Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.
    1071 - Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia 1071 - Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine
    1073 - Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)
    1075 - Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia
    1076 - Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana
    1086 - Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca
    1090 - 1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands
    http://bit.ly/fIZZkV

    Wherever Islam conquered Islam demanded submission. These Islamic crusades were fought to spread the faith and for the spoils. The Christian Crusades were initiated to get back the lands taken, in many if not most cases, from Christians by Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  15. >Attacked and occupied are two different things so I'll just stick with attacked.

    Not what I asked. Try again.

    >Off the top of my head we've got America, Spain, France and England.

    Those are terrorist attacks, terrorists cannot occupy a nation. Please do not move the goal posts.

    I'll ask again "How many Christian nations have been invaded and occupied by Muslims in the last say 20 years?"

    The answer is terribly simple, you shouldn't even need to Google it.

    >There is every reason to believe that Hamas is active in Mexico along our border.

    No there isn't as far as I know but please enlighten me, you have a Jane's report on this issue? Time? 60 Minutes? CSM? CNN? Or is it Some Guy with a Blog that you found via Free Republic?

    More likely you will believe anything that feeds your fear and loathing so the source doesn't matter.

    >"Actually it's more accurate to say that the Western and Eastern cultures having been warring since they were created. The fight predates both Christianity and Islam."


    >talking specifically about Islam so anything that took place before its founding is immaterial,

    Suddenly you're interested in specifics?

    History doesn't stop and start at your convenience, the rise of Islam is a result of what preceded it. The conflict goes all the way back to Alexander attacking the Persians which was a response to the Persians attacking the Greeks and back and forth it goes and still goes.


    >The first invasion was the Christian crusades?
    >Well, I suppose it depends on your point of view. If you only recognize aggression from the West as aggression then maybe you have a point. But you are dismissing the 400 years of Islamic crusading that led up to Christendom's response:

    I am dismissing it because Islam did not invade Western Europe much less threaten it. The conflict between Western Europe and the Middle East began with the first Crusade launch by Pope Urban and supported by various Christian Kings, princes and barons. From what I can tell you are justifying the Crusades because Muslims were attacking Muslims in the Middle East. That makes no sense at all.

    The Islamic armies that swept away the Roman remnants were no more or less brutal than the Romans that preceded them so what' s your point?

    You are also carefully ignoring the slaughter in Jerusalem, that isn't propaganda, it's an historical fact confirmed by the proud Crusaders themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  16. They had good reason to think your god was on their side and they could do no wrong as they didn't expect to win, the odds were long but thanks to a moron on the Crusader's side (his team got there early, went rampaging after the first key city and was slaughtered, the Muslims thought "Really? That's it? We've been worried about these guys?" and relaxed too much. Then the Francs and the Normans showed up and those guys were tanks on horseback, lethal both in attack and siege and the Muslims didn't know what hit them).

    Fact: The first significant conflict between Christian Europe and Muslim Middle East was instigated by the Vatican who cheered and endorsed with "indulgences" the mass slaughter of anyone not Christian.

    Can you tell me if Jesus approved? As the Crusaders rode through the very streets that Jesus is alleged to have preached the golden rule cutting heads off the men to old or sick to fight, raping the woman and children (indulgences! What sin can't they get you out of ?) was Jesus up in Heaven cheering them on? Was he yelling "YEAH SEND THOSE HEATHENS TO HELL! IN MY NAME!"

    Be stranger if he didn't approve huh?

    >Wherever Islam conquered Islam demanded submission.

    Again, Islam actually tolerated "People of the Book" as I explained, they were second class citizens to be sure and encouraged to convert but they were not forced to do so for the most part. There were probably exceptions by the more zealous of their numbers but the policy was more carrot than stick.

    Christianity on the other hand was spread from Rome by the sword all over Europe, Pagans and everyone else were forced to convert so I'm not sure what your point is.

    Oh wait, I know what it is, you're a Christian, you think that Christianty is good and pure and can do no evil therefore it has not , facts (unlike the raping and murdering Crusaders) be damned.
    >These Islamic crusades were fought to spread the faith and for the spoils. The Christian Crusades were initiated to get back the lands taken, in many if not most cases, from Christians by Muslims.

    Are you ignorant or lying here? At what point before the Crusades were any lands in the Middle East the property of France, Spain, England or Italy? You'd have to go back to the Roman Empire to find a claim and you'd be hypocritically wrong of course as Rome conquered it from the leftovers of Alexander's empire that in turn conquered it from the Persians who in turn conquered it from the Egyptians and so on.


    Why don't you read the speech that Urban gave to fire up the masses for the Crusade? Tell me where the love of Jesus and peace was there. Tell me if you can spot the classic dehumanization of the enemy that makes their genocide not only easy but vital?

    Not a good start, you begin by moving a goal post, ignoring facts and throwing in nonsense about Hamas in Mexico. Why don't you do some reading on the history of the Crusades from a historian rather than Christian apologist? I'm pretty well read on the subject and know even more about the Reformation and Wars of Religion that followed (8 of them!). You want to talk about aggression? Christian Europe slaughtered itself over difference of opinion of the SAME religion and you want to tell me they were decent to non-Christians?


    You think it's possible that you may be a wee bit biased on the subject and that its impossible for you to be an honest debater?

    ReplyDelete
  17. ">Attacked and occupied are two different things so I'll just stick with attacked.

    Not what I asked. Try again.

    >Off the top of my head we've got America, Spain, France and England.

    Those are terrorist attacks, terrorists cannot occupy a nation. Please do not move the goal posts.

    I'll ask again "How many Christian nations have been invaded and occupied by Muslims in the last say 20 years?"

    The answer is terribly simple, you shouldn't even need to Google it"



    As I said yesterday I don't have much time this week to spend on this so I'm not going to get real involved today.

    Firstly, my original comment had nothing to do with occupation of anything by either side so it seems tome you moved the goal posts first. I just returned them to their original positions.

    Secondly, you sure seem to know an awful lot about what I read and where I get my information. Weird, I don't think I've ever seen you hanging out while I read or spending any time at my house or looking through my library. You're not a mind reader, are you?

    Thirdly, you also claim to know quite a bit about my opinions regarding Christian history, stating "Oh wait, I know what it is, you're a Christian, you think that Christianty is good and pure and can do no evil therefore it has not". Really? Again, are you a mind reader? Or perhaps you're blinded by irrational hatred and prejudice and thus unable to see beyond your own preconceptions of what you think I am based on my faith.

    Either way, it doesn't matter to me. I'll respond to your assertions sometime this week when I get the time.

    In the mean time, calm down. This isn't life and death, just a pleasant conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Why don't you read the speech that Urban gave to fire up the masses for the Crusade? Tell me where the love of Jesus and peace was there. Tell me if you can spot the classic dehumanization of the enemy that makes their genocide not only easy but vital?"

    By the way, I just read, AGAIN, the decree from the Council of Clermont, which is the speech that I assume you're talking about, the one given in response to a request sent from Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, asking for help from the Western Church to turn back the Seljuq Turks. I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed something all the other times I've read it since you seem so adamant that something terrible was uttered in it. And you know what, I still agree with the pope. Sorry.

    I think that the pope was correct in his assessment of the Muslims that had been burning, raping and destroying the Christian East for 400 years. He wasn't dehumanizing them by calling them demon, just speaking the truth.

    And you're right, history doesn't start and stop at my convenience. But it also doesn't conform to your world view any more than it does mine.

    ReplyDelete
  19. >The Jihadists are driven by their faith and that's why they keep attacking us.

    So what you were saying is that Muslims are naturally inclined to attacking so if that were true one would assume that whole nations of Islamists would be on the march, I asked for an example of this and so far you have refused to provide one.

    Or do you see Jihadists and Muslims as two separate groups?

    >Secondly, you sure seem to know an awful lot about what I read and where I get my information.

    When you says stuff like "Hamas in Mexico!" or "There's no proof of evolution!" one does not need to call Mulder and Scully in to solve the X-File.

    >Thirdly, you also claim to know quite a bit about my opinions regarding Christian history, stating "Oh wait, I know what it is, you're a Christian, you think that Christianty is good and pure and can do no evil therefore it has not". Really? Again, are you a mind reader?

    Nope, a reader of your blog, that doesn't grant the reader insight into the mind of the blogger?

    >Or perhaps you're blinded by irrational hatred and prejudice and thus unable to see beyond your own preconceptions of what you think I am based on my faith.

    Uh huh.

    Your god, when I die he is going to throw me into hell is he not? I know, you can't say for sure, him being all strange and mysterious with ways different from our own but I don't think I'm misinterpreting your religion when I say that an atheist who was born as a Jew, who openly mocks your god with every breath and has no use for Jesus and his sin-eating skills isn't going to fare as well as you in the afterlife? In fact there are many of your kind who are quite convinced that your god is going to have me tortured for the rest of infinity for my grave sin of not believing a word of it.
    Now if let's say a leader of a country did that, demanded unconditional love and obedience under the threat of torture wouldn't you call him a monster?

    I do find you offensive, I find the whole idea of worshipping such an insane creature as completely and totally insane if not disgusting.

    I know you don't see it that way; you can't even begin to allow yourself to see the deeply rooted illogic and outright madness of your theism.

    Think of it, if you're right, countless billions of people are being tormented for the crime of being born into the wrong culture at the wrong time.

    And this is something you champion?

    Fortunately it's perfectly obvious that you are wrong, there are no crazy sky gods with bizarre and arbitrary rules involving magic words, magic food or magic anything.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So no, I'm not into "a pleasant conversation" with you, if it were a blog about video games, graphic design, TV shows, movies or other stuff I like than it would be and I wouldn't care about your opinion beyond that context.

    What I'm into is making sure that more and more people understand that sky god worship is bunk, a scam, a lie, a mind virus and all manner of untrue things so when I stumble across a theistic blog I will post comments to that effect. It's like walking past a crooked picture or an unfinished nail, I just can't leave it be.

    Now that funny thing is when the theist blogger realizes that's all I'm going to do is attack them with facts and reason my posts are deleted / blocked.

    Then I laugh and laugh and laugh because that means that's the only comeback they have left and really the only one they ever have; denial.

    >, the decree from the Council of Clermont, which is the speech that I assume you're talking about

    Yeah, that was the official one, kinda of like Iraq's WMD. See the Romans had this saying that they never fought an unjust war, that's what barbarians did. When Rome invaded you, by the gods you were asking for it! It was more often than not complete BS, invading stuff was part of the Roman's economy, they couldn't stop. Well what was true in the BC was true in the AD. There were endless skirmishes in the Empire's borders the Turks were certainly a threat but they were not the target were they? The crusaders did not beat the Turks back and then head home did they? They just took Jerusalem and starting setting up little kingdoms wherever they could.

    As an aside there was some positive to this, the exchange of agricultural techniques alone was invaluable to both cultures. Another thing that was exchanged was the art of siege warfare with the Crusaders would learn to regret.

    From the pulpits to the masses on Sunday a different sort of the speech was given, less political you understand, talking about the Muslims as demons, no, not metaphorically, real honest to goodness hell-spawned demons. How killing them and the women and children (demon breeders, demons to be) was the path to Heaven.

    That will be awkward won't it? Mother Teresa getting the same reward as a Franc Crusader? What would they talk about I wonder?

    >But it also doesn't conform to your world view any more than it does mine.

    Oh true that, my world view is that raping and murdering woman and children is wrong, what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Man, lay off the caffeine!

    Right off the bat, I can't speak for other bloggers but I can for myself. You've never been banned or deleted from here and you won't be unless you do something damned offensive and that bar is pretty high for me. So perhaps, though we have a good deal to disagree about, we CAN keep it friendly.

    I'm not trying to convert you. Believe what you want. I really don't care. I'm not one of those people that's all into feelings and concern for others. I hope you don't go to hell but hey, if you're not worried then neither am I.

    But you gotta quit sounding so damned pissed off, even if you are. Look, I'll debate you all day long, at least when I'm not working. This week and maybe next I've got a lot of framing to do and I'm getting pretty old to still be swinging a hammer so it does tend to cloud the mind and kill the motivation to argue. I'd just as well slam a couple beers and hit the rack.

    But I do read what you write with interest, though a good deal of it is predictable, just as what I say sounds to you. We've both heard it all before.

    But I'm not making assumptions about you because I really don't know how or what you are. You have the advantage in this respect because you read my blog. And yes, the blog is obviously an accurate portrayal of what I think. However, your assumptions about where I get the information that forms my opinions is wrong.

    So keep posting and I'll respond when I can. If your intent in choosing the words that you do and the way you present them is to piss me off, it won't work. So you can lighten up.

    However, if you really are this absolutely enraged by the idea that someone has faith in God then I'd have to ask why? How can my faith possibly impact you? Kind of like your obsession with the crooked pictures. Life's too short.

    Anyway, I'm going to grab a beer, clean the house, put the chickens up and kick back. Talk to you later.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Man, lay off the caffeine!

    LOL! Dude if I did that Starbucks' stock would drop. I'm working three contracts right now caffeine is my blood.

    >you do something damned offensive

    I like to think I match tone for tone, you don't seem the type to bring out my worst but I want you to understand that I really and honestly find your religion and the Vatican deeply offensive on several levels.

    >I'm not trying to convert you.

    Oh I know that! I can even begin to imagine what sort of madman would take on that task.

    >I hope you don't go to hell but hey, if you're not worried then neither am I.

    I'm really not.

    >But you gotta quit sounding so damned pissed off, even if you are.

    Well I can't promise anything, the subject does raise my hackles but because you're being far more of a sport than most I will temper my tone.

    >However, if you really are this absolutely enraged by the idea that someone has faith in God then I'd have to ask why? How can my faith possibly impact you? Kind of like your obsession with the crooked pictures.

    Think about all the things that Jesus is alleged to have said and none of it is original or at the very least it's all pretty self-evident but just imagine if he has said "Wash your hands because there are tiny creatures that make you sick when you eat them." and then gave a recipe for soap.

    Just imagine how many lives over the last 2,000 years that would have been saved, how that simple instruction would have kick-started the health we now enjoy.

    Instead Jesus talked about demons being the cause of our illnesses.

    Understanding reality saves lives or at the very least improves them, lies, delusions and the like doe the exact opposite.

    Because the most valuable thing in the universe is understanding the reality we live in and anything that gets in the way of that makes me angry. Like jerks that don't get out of the way of an ambulance or fire truck despite the lights and sirens.

    The Vatican told outright lies about condoms in Africa. OUTRIGHT LIES and people died as a result.

    I won't even get into the other stuff, that's when my top gets totally blown.

    Why am I so angry? Why aren't you is my answer.

    > Life's too short.

    Yes, but it's longer these days thanks to science and reason, not your Jesus, not your Church but because enough people managed to break the chains of superstition and fear that theism has helped pile on humanity.

    >Anyway, I'm going to grab a beer, clean the house, put the chickens up and kick back. Talk to you later.

    You have chickens? I once spent a few weeks cleaning chicken coops in Israel, now when I eat them I see it as a sort of revenge for the worst job in the world. Nice thing about chickens is you can eat them at every stage of their lives save when they're cute. The minute they turn ugly it's time to turn on the deep fryer.

    ReplyDelete
  23. My mom used to raise doves and my dad always said they were the perfect pet because you could always eat 'em if you got tired of cleaning the cages.

    I don't know why but I got a feeling we could probably sit around the fire, drink a few beers and get pissed at each other and still come away laughing at the absurdity of it all.

    ReplyDelete