Christian Blood cult -obviously biased, read with grain of salt

[Hey Bubu]

Bush's "Christian" Blood Cult
Concerns Raised by the Vatican
by WAYNE MADSEN

George W. Bush proclaims himself a born-again Christian. However, Bush and fellow self-anointed neo-Christians like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, and sports arena Book of Revelations carnival hawker Franklin Graham appear to wallow in a "Christian" blood lust cult when it comes to practicing the teachings of the founder of Christianity. This cultist form of Christianity, with its emphasis on death rather than life, is also worrying the leaders of mainstream Christian religions, particularly the Pope.

One only has to check out Bush's record as Governor of Texas to see his own preference for death over life. During his tenure as Governor, Bush presided over a record setting 152 executions, including the 1998 execution of fellow born-again Christian Karla Faye Tucker, a convicted murderer who later led a prison ministry. Forty of Bush's executions were carried out in 2000, the year the Bush presidential campaign was spotlighting their candidate's strong law enforcement record. The Washington Post's Richard Cohen reported in October 2000 that one of the execution chamber's "tie-down team" members, Fred Allen, had to prepare so many people for lethal injections during 2000, he quit his job in disgust.

Bush mocked Tucker's appeal for clemency. In an interview with Talk magazine, Bush imitated Tucker's appeal for him to spare her life - pursing his lips, squinting his eyes, and in a squeaky voice saying, "Please don't kill me." That went too far for former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer, himself an evangelical Christian. "I think it is nothing short of unbelievable that the governor of a major state running for president thought it was acceptable to mock a woman he decided to put to death," said Bauer.

A former Texas Department of Public Safety officer, a devout Roman Catholic, told this reporter that evidence to the contrary, Bush was more than happy to ignore DNA data and documented cases of prosecutorial misconduct to send innocent people to the Huntsville, Texas lethal injection chamber. He said the number of executed mentally retarded, African Americans, and those who committed capital crimes as minors was proof that Bush was insensitive and a "phony Christian." When faced with similar problems in Illinois, Governor George Ryan, a Republican, commuted the death sentences of his state's death row inmates and released others after discovering they were wrongfully convicted. Yet the Republican Party is pillorying Ryan and John Ashcroft's Justice Department continues to investigate the former Governor for political malfeasance as if Bush and Ashcroft are without sin in such matters. Hypocrisy certainly rules in the Republican Party.

Bush's blood lust has been extended across the globe. He has given the CIA authority to assassinate those deemed a threat to U.S. national interests. Bush has virtually suspended Executive Orders 11905 (Gerald Ford), 12306 (Jimmy Carter), and 12333 (Ronald Reagan) which prohibit the assassination of foreign leaders. Bush's determination to kill Saddam Hussein, his family, and his top leaders with precision-guided missiles and tactical nuclear weapon-like Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bombs is yet another indication of Bush's disregard for his Republican and Democratic predecessors. It now appears that in his zeal to kill Hussein, innocent civilian patrons of a Baghdad restaurant were killed by one of Bush's precision Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). Like it or not, Saddam Hussein was recognized by over 100 nations as the leader of Iraq -- a member state of the United Nations. Hussein, like North Korea' Kim Jong Il, Syria's Bashir Assad, and Iran's Mohammed Khatami, are covered by Executive Order 12333, which the Bush mouthpieces claim is still in effect. Bush's "Christian" blood cult sees no other option than death for those who become his enemies. This doctrine is found no place in Christian theology.

Bush has not once prayed for the innocent civilians who died as a result of the U.S. attack on Iraq. He constantly "embeds" himself with the military at Goebbels-like speech fests and makes constant references to God when he refers to America's "victory" in Iraq, as if God endorses his sordid killing spree. He makes no mention of the children, women, and old men killed by America's "precision-guided" missiles and bombs and trigger-happy U.S. troops. In fact, Bush revels in indiscriminate blood letting. Since he never experienced such killing in Southeast Asia, when he was AWOL from his Texas Air National Guard unit, Bush just does not seem to understand the horror of a parent watching one's children having their heads and limbs blown off in a sudden blast of shrapnel or children witnessing their parents burning to death with their own body fat nurturing the flames.

[Hey Bubu]

Bush and his advisers, previously warned that Iraq's ancient artifacts and collection of historical documents and books were in danger of being looted or destroyed, instead, sat back while the Baghdad and Mosul museums and Baghdad Library were ransacked and destroyed. Cult leaders have historically attempted to destroy history in order to invent their own. The Soviets tried to obliterate Russia's Orthodox traditions, turning a number of churches into warehouses and animal barns. Cambodia's Pol Pot tried to wipe out Buddhism's famed Angkor Wat shrine in an attempt to stamp out his country's Buddhist history. In March 2001, while they were negotiating with the Bush administration on a natural gas pipeline, Afghanistan's Taliban blew up two massive 1600-year old Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Bush administration, itself run by fanatic religious cultists, barely made a fuss about the loss of the relics. It would not be the first time the cultists within the Bush administration ignored the pillaging of history's treasures.

The ransacking of Iraq's historical treasures is explainable when one considers what the blood cult Christians really think about Islam. Franklin Graham, the heir to the empire built up by his anti-Semitic father, Billy Graham, has decided being anti-Muslim is far more financially rewarding than being anti-Jewish. Billy Graham, history notes from the Nixon tapes, complained about the Jewish stranglehold on the media and Jews being responsible for pornography.

Franklin Graham continues to enjoy his father's unfettered and questionable access to the White House. But in the case of Bush, the younger Graham has a fanatic adherent. Graham has called Islam a "very evil and wicked" religion. He then announces he wants to go to Iraq. Graham obviously sees an opportunity to convert Muslims and unrepentant Eastern Christians, who owe their allegiance to Roman and Greek prelates, to his perverted form of blood cult Christianity.

Graham says he is ready to send his Samaritan's Purse missionaries into Iraq to provide assistance. Muslims and mainstream Christians are wary that Graham wants to exchange food, water, and medicine for the baptism of Iraqis into his intolerant brand of Christianity. In the last Gulf War, Graham could not get away with his chicanery. The Desert Storm Commander, General Norman Schwarzkopf, stopped dead in the tracks Graham's plan to send 30,000 Arabic language Bibles to U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Today's Pentagon shows no such compunction to put a rein on Graham. It invited him to give a Good Friday sermon at the Pentagon to the consternation of the Defense Department's Muslim employees. To make matters worse, under Bush's "Faith Based Initiative," Graham's Samaritan's Purse stands to receive U.S. government funds for its proselytizing efforts in Iraq, something that should be an affront to every American taxpayer.

Bush's self-proclaimed adherence to Christianity (during one of the presidential debates he said Jesus Christ was his favorite "philosopher") and his constant reference to a new international structure bypassing the United Nations system and long-standing international treaties are worrying the top leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. Well-informed sources close to the Vatican report that Pope John Paul II is growing increasingly concerned about Bush's ultimate intentions. The Pope has had experience with Bush's death fetish. Bush ignored the Pope's plea to spare the life of Karla Faye Tucker. To show that he was similarly ignorant of the world's mainstream religions, Bush also rejected an appeal to spare Tucker from the World Council of Churches - an organization that represents over 350 of the world's Protestant and Orthodox Churches. It did not matter that Bush's own Methodist Church and his parents' Episcopal Church are members of the World Council.

Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs, and his constant references to "evil doers," in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations - the anti-Christ. People close to the Pope claim that amid these concerns, the Pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament. Before he became Pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel." The Pope, who grew up facing the evils of Hitler and Stalin, knows evil when he sees it. Although we can all endlessly argue over the Pope's effectiveness in curtailing abuses within his Church, his accomplishments external to Catholicism are impressive.

According to journalists close to the Vatican, the Pope and his closest advisers are also concerned that the ultimate acts of evil - the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon - were known in advance by senior Bush administration officials. By permitting the attacks to take their course, there is a perception within the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy that a coup d'etat was implemented, one that gave Bush and his leadership near-dictatorial powers to carry out their agenda.

The Pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the Pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the Pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution. If one were to believe in the Book of Revelations, as the Pope fervently does, he can seek solace in scoring a symbolic victory against the Bush administration. Whether Bush represents a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult (as I believe) or he is either the anti-Christ or heralds one, the Pope should know he has fought the good battle and has gained the respect and admiration of many non-Catholics around the world.

[-m-]

I honestly don't think the Bushies are hardcore Christian fundamentalists. I think they're just catering to the ignorance of that crowd so they can push their own policies through. I think it's pretty brilliant actually.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Shitler

I honestly don't think the Bushies are hardcore Christian fundamentalists. I think they're just catering to the ignorance of that crowd so they can push their own policies through. I think it's pretty brilliant actually.

I wouldn't call it ignorance - I'd call it pandering and I'd suggest that those who've been pandered to are pissed off and taking their ball and going home

see...


Stratfor: Public Policy Intelligence Report - November 30, 2006


The Widening Gaps in the Evangelical-Republican Coalition

By Bart Mongoven

The Christian Coalition of America announced Nov. 28 that it has
asked its president-elect, Joel Hunter, to resign. The news came a
week after Hunter told the coalition's board that he wanted the
organization to take on a new set of issues, particularly poverty,
AIDS and the environment. The board reportedly said it did not
think the group's grassroots membership was ready for such a shift,
and that Hunter would not be given an opportunity to follow through
on these plans.

The story behind Hunter's forced resignation reveals far more than
a difference of opinion over the organization's future direction.
Membership in the Christian Coalition has plunged from the millions
to the thousands, four state chapters have bolted and its budget is
a fraction of what it used to be. However, while the group no
longer stands as the political vanguard of the conservative
Christian movement, its internal disagreements do represent in a
nutshell a major problem faced by the religious right and, by
extension, by the Republican Party in the coming two years. At the
center of the conflict is the recognition that the religious views
of evangelical Christians and the politics of the American right
are diverging after two decades of confluence.

In essence, the overlap between the libertarian Republican point of
view and that of religious conservatives has dissolved during the
past decade of Republican control of government. Historically, the
religious conservatives and secular libertarians justified their
advocacy of a small federal government for very different reasons.
For secular libertarians, a small government was the central
objective; for the religious conservatives, small government was an
element of a strategy to reduce the power -- or at least slow the
growth -- of institutions purveying secular values. The growth of
government over the past 10 years has suggested to evangelicals
that the strategy does not work. The Faith-Based Initiative, for
instance, is seen as a small move in a positive direction, but one
that also has done nothing to displace secular federal government
activity.

What comes next will be guided by three variables: First, whether
Christian leaders together find a new path forward that balances
politics and faith; second, whether the GOP changes its policies
and approaches to accommodate the evangelicals' new direction; and
third, whether the Democrats find a way to accommodate at least
some of the evangelicals' wishes.

Libertarianism: A Goal or a Tool

The alliance between the Republican Party and evangelical
Christians developed over two decades -- and the Christian
Coalition was the most important player in creating this alliance.
The Christian Coalition championed the argument that secular forces
were degrading the moral underpinning of the United States and that
the federal government -- through, for example, large and expensive
welfare programs -- was the largest single instigator of the growth
of these secular forces.

The Christian Coalition -- and the evangelical right in general --
argued that in addition to strengthening powerful secular
organizations, federal government institutions are inherently
hostile to religion. Particularly in the earlier years of the
coalition, the evangelical opposition to the federal judiciary was
as focused on countering a liberal reading of the Establishment
Clause as it was on Roe v. Wade. Throughout the Reagan presidency,
evangelicals battled judicial prohibitions against any government
endorsement of religion -- whether federal, state or local -- which
had come to mean any expression of religion in a government context
(school Christmas plays, creches at city halls, religious groups
meeting in schools, etc.). Evangelicals became driven by the idea
that the federal government was not merely secular, but after the
Warren Court, it was aggressively secular or even anti-religious.

In addition, most conservative evangelicals also held that the
traditional family should be the center of an individual's life,
and saw a large active federal government as replacing traditional
family roles in many ways. Evangelicals spoke out against welfare
programs -- such as the WIC program that in early inceptions
penalized unwed mothers for marrying -- as threatening to the
traditional family structure.

In this context, an alliance with the libertarian wing of the
Republican Party made perfect sense. Libertarian Republicans come
in two major factions: ideological libertarians who are simply
against large, active government, regulation and high taxes; and
federalists who oppose a large federal government and see the most
effective government as one that is closest to the people. Most
members of the Christian Coalition fell into the latter group. They
were not opposed to government helping people per se, but they
wanted it to reflect local values, which in most of the South and
Midwest were often quite different from the coasts. Further, the
federalism approach to governance fit perfectly into the
state-by-state approach to abortion that the Christian Coalition
began to advance in the 1980s.

Libertarian Republicans were always uneasy with this alliance. Many
libertarians see abortion, for instance, as part of that vast realm
where government has no right to intrude. Others were opposed to
abortion or ambivalent, but were upset by the evangelical drive
against the Warren Court's position on the Establishment Clause.
Finally, many libertarians saw Christian conservatives as desiring
to inject religion into government wherever possible.

These are the hazards when one group's ideological ideal is another
group's strategy.

The leaders of the two sides of this coalition, Newt Gingrich
representing the libertarians and Ralph Reed of the Christian
Coalition, maintained the careful balance between the libertarian
and evangelical approaches long enough to take power in 1995. With
power came a sense of optimism on both the libertarian and the
evangelical sides that the large, secular government would be
reined in. In 2000, that sense was heightened when the last
impediment -- a Democratic president -- was dislodged in favor of a
pro-business, pro-federalism evangelical.

Problems with Power

The past six years have not offered as many bright spots as either
side expected. Mostly, this is due to natural disappointment that
more idealistic activists feel once in power (it is far more
difficult to achieve ideals than it appears from outside of power).
One example is a severe disenchantment with the Bush
administration's ability to rein in government. From the
libertarian perspective, the deficit is back, government is bigger
and the programs that Republicans promised to abolish 10 years ago
are still in place. Gingrich came to power talking about
dismantling Cabinet departments; instead, Republicans have added
one. Furthermore, libertarians increasingly argue that the
Republican Party has been taken over by evangelicals, and they fret
that the party no longer has a place for them.

For the evangelicals, the strategy has not worked as well as they
had hoped either. Roe v. Wade still stands, the Establishment
Clause is still read mostly as it was 20 years ago and secular
federal government programs are growing. The victories that the
evangelical right can account for have not satisfied the
grassroots. In fact, three-quarters through George W. Bush's
eight-year presidency, the only solid evangelical victories have
been two Supreme Court appointments (one only modestly acceptable)
and Bush's consistent opposition to federal funding of stem cell
research. Not only do evangelicals have little to cheer for, but
both victories relied on the president's support -- they have won
nothing from Congress.

The sense among the evangelical grassroots is that the Republican
Party has used them, but only paid lip service to their goals,
aspirations and values. The scandal surrounding Rep. Mark Foley,
R-Fla., hit at the same time as the release of a book by former
White House aide David Kuo, who alleged that the nonreligious White
House staff scoffed at the evangelicals, referring to them as
"crazies" and treating them like a captive political group; on this
last point akin to how Democrats treat African-American voters.

[PETA]

con't...

As the dispute at the leadership of the Christian Coalition shows,
however, evangelicals are far less captive than many thought. A
solid coalition within the evangelical movement appears to be
moving toward a new political approach that adds poverty,
environment and health care to the familiar Christian conservative
issues of abortion, gay marriage and public decency.

The leadership of the evangelical movement is beginning to split on
these issues. In addition to Hunter, influential evangelicals such
as conservative Wheaton College President Duane Litfin and the more
liberal Jim Wallis are increasingly pressing for a new issue set.
At the core of this new political outlook is a growing sense that
the libertarian battle is lost, but the Christian mission of
helping the poor remains. Evangelicals argue that by shunning
aggressively secular government involvement in issues relating to
poverty and other things, libertarian approaches were preferable,
but they now add that failing in the libertarian mission is not an
excuse to stop helping the poor or working toward other Christian
missions such as environmental stewardship.

The Republican Perspective

As evangelical support for the libertarian approach erodes, the
ball is in the Republicans' court to determine whether to try to
keep the evangelicals in the fold, or to hope the party can win
enough religious conservatives by sticking with its current
ideological approach that champions traditional values without
changing course on issues such as environment or poverty policy.

The evangelicals' emerging interest in government poverty programs,
for instance, represents an acceptance of what they see as the new
reality. Evangelicals no longer view American culture as responsive
to propositional truths and preaching. Instead, they see a culture
that responds to attractive lifestyles and communities. As a
result, successful evangelical churches are de-emphasizing sin and
issues of personal responsibility, and emphasizing compassion,
open-mindedness and values that open Christians to progressive
ideals and solutions.

The Christian Coalition's decision to move away from these issues
is indicative of the Republican Party's instinctive response to
stay with the current approach. The Christian Coalition is a shadow
of its former self for a reason, however. In addition to no longer
seeing the libertarian approach as the best strategic path,
evangelicals are starting to change their minds about some policy
issues. Climate change has emerged as the clearest symbol of this
changing position. Evangelical leaders, including Pat Robertson,
have publicly said they were wrong on the issue of climate change
and that they now believe human activity is changing the climate.
If Republicans want to hold the evangelical block, they will have
to adjust to these shifting positions. The question is whether the
evangelical leaders and the Republican Party leadership find
themselves on the same page, or whether the relationship between
the evangelicals and the political system continues to evolve
outside the bounds of one political party. If the evangelicals take
the initiative and begin to follow voices like Hunter's, the GOP
will be hard-pressed not to follow. The party faces two conflicting
problems: Many moderates and libertarians are moving away from the
party due to the perception that the religious right has too much
power, and at the same time the evangelicals have found that the
party has little to offer them.

Before evangelicals give up on the Republican Party, they would
have to conclude that the GOP has not delivered on abortion (which
will remain a key issue no matter what) -- and that it will not
deliver. Democrats are not as unsympathetic on the issue as they
once were. For example, in the last congressional elections,
Democrats offered anti-abortion candidates such as Bob Casey --
whose father was denied a chance to speak at the Democratic
Convention because of his anti-abortion stance 14 years ago.
Previously, some in the religious right might have shunned such
candidates just because a vote for Democratic candidates meant
contributing to the creation of a Democratic Congress and dealing a
blow to the federal anti-abortion campaign. However, if
evangelicals no longer believe the Republicans are truly committed
to evangelical goals, such larger national strategies will no
longer influence local voting.

With these cross-currents in place, the Republicans will follow the
evangelicals because the party has started down a path that is
difficult to leave. Other than in the new "solid South," support
for Republicans is eroding nationwide. The mountain states are
increasingly being settled by wealthy retirees from the coasts, who
bring with them more liberal, less-individualist political views.
In shunning almost all pro-choice candidates, such as Sen. Jim
Jeffords, I-Vt., and then Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, R-R.I., the
Republican Party has lost most of the Northeast and the West Coast.
Without the evangelicals, the Republicans have no geographic base
of support and a hold on few major ideological constituencies
besides the pro-business libertarians. The evangelicals, therefore,
hold the power to steer the party, and it appears that, despite the
Christian Coalition's position, the evangelical community is headed
toward the middle -- and on some particular issues, toward what
used to be considered the left.

[-m-]

So basically, the Evangelicals are too nutty for either side. Okay. Got it.

Lol.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Shitler

So basically, the Evangelicals are too nutty for either side. Okay. Got it.

Lol.

hehe - no that's not quite what the author was saying (even if it may be true) but you seem to have latched onto his notion that they're not a well unified and aligned group

[-m-]

Well it seems that their beliefs are so extreme that not even the most extreme of the credible political groups can keep up with their insanity. And that's really interesting about their alliance with the Libertarians. I really would never see that happening, but the way the article lays it out makes perfect sense.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Shitler

Well it seems that their beliefs are so extreme that not even the most extreme of the credible political groups can keep up with their insanity. And that's really interesting about their alliance with the Libertarians. I really would never see that happening, but the way the article lays it out makes perfect sense.

charity and environmental stewardship is the direction that the group is moving into - hardly extreme

[-m-]

Yeah but the abortion crap, the gay rights crap and the insistence of, and I quote the article for so aptly putting it, injecting religion into government at every given opportunity is.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Shitler

Yeah but the abortion crap, the gay rights crap and the insistence of, and I quote the article for so aptly putting it, injecting religion into government at every given opportunity is.

abortion limits crap isn't extreme - Bill Clinton signed the partial birth abortion ban

Abortion on demand is extreme in so far as it kills an unborn baby everytime one is performed.

gay rights crap - what is extreme is demanding that a fundamental institution of society be redefined to approve of a union that less than a decade ago was criminal.

where's "injecting" bit? been a while since I've read the article

[-m-]

Originally Posted by xian

abortion limits crap isn't extreme - Bill Clinton signed the partial birth abortion ban

Abortion on demand is extreme in so far as it kills an unborn baby everytime one is performed.

gay rights crap - what is extreme is demanding that a fundamental institution of society be redefined to approve of a union that less than a decade ago was criminal.

where's "injecting" bit? been a while since I've read the article

It's always been my impression that Evangelicals want abortion banned altogether. Partial birth and setting limitations are things that I'm 100% okay with. And like I've said before on here, the morning after pill pretty much dissolves the abortion as birth control debate in my opinion.

And the problem with the gay rights crap, lol, is that there is such a vast amount of variety in views on the subject of homosexuality within Christianity that one group of extremists have no business determining how everyone else is able to live their lives. Plus, not everyone who are married are Christians. It's just kind of a standard now, sort of like Christmas. I'm nothing approaching being Christian, but yet I celebrate Christmas. I know a lot of folks who had a traditional wedding and yet never attend church. Most of them don't buy into anything Christianity has to offer. The bottom line with me is that I think any church should be allowed to marry who it wants but the choice of marrying a gay couple should always be legally available. Society is outgrowing a lot of its traditions, and we must adapt our policies to change with it. And besides, we both know that the root of it all has nothing to do with the label of what a union between two people is. It's obvious that the Evangelicals just don't like fags and don't want them to have any rights at all because they view their lifestyle as a sin. And that's fine, but we can't let that one narrow minded view govern a group of people as diverse as us Americans.

The reference to injecting was in one sentence of the article describing how the opposition of the CC feels about their agenda. You posted a lot of text and I can't seem to find it at the moment. I thought it was pretty apt.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Shitler

It's always been my impression that Evangelicals want abortion banned altogether. Partial birth and setting limitations are things that I'm 100% okay with. And like I've said before on here, the morning after pill pretty much dissolves the abortion as birth control debate in my opinion.

And the problem with the gay rights crap, lol, is that there is such a vast amount of variety in views on the subject of homosexuality within Christianity that one group of extremists have no business determining how everyone else is able to live their lives. Plus, not everyone who are married are Christians. It's just kind of a standard now, sort of like Christmas. I'm nothing approaching being Christian, but yet I celebrate Christmas. I know a lot of folks who had a traditional wedding and yet never attend church. Most of them don't buy into anything Christianity has to offer. The bottom line with me is that I think any church should be allowed to marry who it wants but the choice of marrying a gay couple should always be legally available. Society is outgrowing a lot of its traditional roots, and we must adapt our policies to change with it. And besides, we both know that the root of it all has nothing to do with the label of what a union between two people is. It's obvious that the Evangelicals just don't like fags and don't want them to have any rights at all because they view their lifestyle as a sin. And that's fine, but we can't let that one narrow minded view govern a group of people as diverse as us Americans.

The reference to injecting was in one sentence of the article describing how the opposition of the CC feels about their agenda. You posted a lot of text and I can't seem to find it at the moment. I thought it was pretty apt.

hehe - already hit you with a PM to avoid hijacking this thread further

[Hey Bubu]

Archaic views that will encounter a paradigm shift soon enough, a schism/reformation will follow soon there after.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Porkchop Avenger

Archaic views that will encounter a paradigm shift soon enough, a schism/reformation will follow soon there after.

Nando with the big words and mighty prognostication for six!