Radical Christianity — Pastor Who Hosted GOP: Paris Victims 'Devil-Worshippers'

a reply to: knoxie

Are we confusing religion with political/personal views now? I'm opposed to further immigration into the USA, fully opposed. That includes refugees, degreed professionals, and unskilled laborers, ALL of them. Hang the No Vacancy sign at the doors and shut them down. This is a political/economic view I have... nowhere have I stated "God said lock them out," nor have I seen anyone make that claim.

THIS is the very damned reason Sharia Law represents some scary-ass stuff to many Americans. *Most* Christians can easily separate their religious views from political realities (which is why we're not storming abortion clinics left and right). Muslims, on the other hand, resolve themselves to application of Islamic laws in place of nonsectarian legal systems. Their immigrations are controlled by the Hijira, which lays the blueprint not for assimilation into the receiving nation, but rather assimilation with Islam of the receiving nation.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

if that's your view i respect that.

personally i think we should help them.

" *Most* Christians can easily separate their religious views from political realities "

it's the few who scare me, especially those running for office. i have faith in the people and our government, but the world is a scary place now... and extremists from ANY religion scare me. I'd feel better if more moderate Christians stood up against these wackos a bit more. which was the premise for the op.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Same ole, same ole. Obfuscation and deflection. The millions killed in Jesus name. BTW, who is this thread supposed to be about?

Dissenting/difficult to counter positions are not obfuscatory nor deflectionary. They're simply difficult points for you to counter. This thread isn't about a "who," it's about a comparison, a false comparison which I am debating against. I'm directly responding to comments and arguments, recognizing that strategy is far more productive that trying to mutate this into a gatekeeping discussion anytime a hard to counter point is made. This is also part of the problem... how in the blue hell is any productive conversation ever going to occur when half the participants are viewing the issue through a hole smaller than a pin prick, constantly trying to apply false barriers to the discussion to prevent it from entering territory they aren't prepared to debate in?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you have no opinion on the people here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: theantediluvian

Kevin Swanson of Generations Ministries said last Thursday that the 89 people massacred inside the Bataclan theater were “devil-worshippers.” Two weeks earlier, Swanson headlined his own “Freedom 2015: National Religious Liberties Conference” featuring Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal.

Swanson believes God will annihilate America for tolerating homosexuality and seemed to say God already made an example out of the Bataclan.


Swanson and the like is a perfect example of devil worship

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you have no opinion on the people here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fifty posts or so back:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
These guys like Kevin Swanson are idiots, but at the end of the day they're harmless idiots who just enjoy the sound of their own voice.

Your reply was more of the same "you're obfuscating" nonsense, 'Trep. Repeated attempts at valid subject delegitimization is not becoming on you.

a reply to: theantediluvian

As a Christian, I find this pastors attitude, and approach entirely offensive and unbecoming of a man of God. A true man of God would never dare to judge another so harshly as to suggest that they deserve to be murdered because they showed up at a music event. A man of God would not condemn homosexuals because a man of God would know that to cast such harsh judgement is to assume a sinless state, and that only the Son of God, Jesus Christ, ever possessed both human flesh, and the capacity for perfection necessary to be considered a fit judge.

The sort of hate preaching that this man is associated with has about as much to do with Christ as pink marshmallows and candy floss have to do with armoured personnel carriers, ergo, bloody nothing what so ever. Absolutely abominable nonsense.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian

How many "radical Christians" are blowing themselves up inside apartment complexes, executing over a hundred people, or swan diving Boeings into skyscrapers? Perspective, you lack it severely, friend.

This thread is a prime example of a false equivalence.

They really are trying their best to equate Radical Christianity to Radical Islam.

Over 40 years of examples of radical Islam to current events in Paris.

Apples to oranges.

Radicalism is more than just the overt actions of the people it consumes.

Radical extremeism stems from emotions, ideologies, faith, and beliefs.

In those, both Islamic extremists and Christian extremists share the same fundamental underpinnings.

One side blows them self up, the other side uses a high-tech drone to blow something up. One uses cut-throat violence to rise to power, the other uses gerrymandering and media propaganda.

The tools of the trade may be different, the levels of actual physical, human violence may be different -- but the same place those emotions, thoughts, and beliefs come from -- are one in the same.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you have no opinion on the people here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fifty posts or so back:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
These guys like Kevin Swanson are idiots, but at the end of the day they're harmless idiots who just enjoy the sound of their own voice.

Your reply was more of the same "you're obfuscating" nonsense, 'Trep. Repeated attempts at valid subject delegitimization is not becoming on you.

Pot meet kettle?

The fact that Swanson hasn't exploded himself in a suicide attack doesn't mean that he's not dangerous. How many people do you think Hitler killed with his own hands? With a gun? Swanson is just one of many similar men who have entrenched themselves in the GOP starting in 1980 when Falwell's Moral Majority got Ronald Reagan elected. Later in the 80's you had Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition come on the scene. Just like Swanson, those two assholes gave a similarly extremist commentary on another terrorist attack, 9/11, two days after it happened:

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

You can pretend like he's standing alone screaming insane things that nobody is listening to but he's part of a very well financed, very influential network of nutters. Here's a few of the more important names and political action/lobbying groups, legal alliances and think tanks they founded/run:

Falwell, Robertson, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Paul Weyrich (don't know that one? he was (now deceased) the dominionist who co-founded Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)), Alan Sears, Tim LaHaye, Phyllis Schlafly, Christian Voice, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Center for Law and Justice, Alliance Defense Fund, Free Congress Foundation, SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Eagle Forum, Council for National Policy.

The membership roster of CNP is frankly amazing (and I'll provide individual sources if you need me too):

Marc J. Ambinder of ABC News said about the Council: "The group wants to be the conservative version of the Council on Foreign Relations." The CNP was founded in 1981. Among its founding members were: Tim LaHaye, then the head of the Moral Majority, Nelson Bunker Hunt, T. Cullen Davis, William Cies, and Paul Weyrich.[4]

Members of the CNP have included: General John Singlaub, shipping magnate J. Peter Grace, Edwin J. Feulner Jr of the Heritage Foundation, Rev. Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Jerry Falwell, U.S. Senator Trent Lott, Southern Baptist Convention activists and retired Texas Court of Appeals Judge Paul Pressler, and the Reverend Paige Patterson ,[5] Senator Don Nickles, former United States Attorneys General Ed Meese and John Ashcroft, gun-rights activist Larry Pratt, Col. Oliver North, and philanthropist Elsa Prince, mother of Erik Prince, the founder of the Blackwater private security firm.[citation needed]

Membership is by invitation only. The membership list, previously made public, is now "strictly confidential." Guests may attend "only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee." Members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks.[1] New York Times political writer David D. Kirkpatrick suggested that the secrecy since its founding was intended to insulate the Council from the "liberal bias of the news media".[3]

Other members past and present? Donald Rummsfeld, Wayne Wayne LaPierre, Irving Kristol and Grover Norquist.

Fun conspiracy fact, LaHaye who was one of the co-founders of CNP and former head of the Moral Majority is the co-author or the Left Behind series and said in his 2002 non-fiction book, Rapture (Under Attack): Will You Escape the Tribulation?:

"I myself have been a forty-five year student of the satanically-inspired, centuries-old conspiracy to use government, education, and media to destroy every vestige of Christianity within our society and establish a new world order. Having read at least fifty books on the Illuminati, I am convinced that it exists and can be blamed for many of man's inhumane actions against his fellow man during the past two hundred years."

So pretend that these are just "loud mouth bigots" who don't really count and meanwhile, they'll be behind the scenes with their MASSIVE media operations, dumping BILLIONS into campaigns (directly, indirectly) and getting the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people out to vote, picking the winners and influencing policy.

Just like Reagan visited Falwell's Liberty Baptist College a month before he was voted into his first term, Ted Cruz was there in March of this year (it's now called Liberty University) to announce his own bid for the presidency.

a reply to: theantediluvian

What's scary are the people I've met that believe in the "rapture" as described in those "Left Behind" books, and want to actively see it become reality in their lifetime. Donating money, voting for certain people, ect...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: theantediluvian

What's scary are the people I've met that believe in the "rapture" as described in those "Left Behind" books, and want to actively see it become reality in their lifetime. Donating money, voting for certain people, ect...

What's really scary is the thought that we have politicians who share that belief and given Ted Cruz's upbringing and choices in speaking venues, I'm of the opinion that he might be one of them.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
"I myself have been a forty-five year student of the satanically-inspired, centuries-old conspiracy to use government, education, and media to destroy every vestige of Christianity within our society and establish a new world order. Having read at least fifty books on the Illuminati, I am convinced that it exists and can be blamed for many of man's inhumane actions against his fellow man during the past two hundred years."

Did you quote this because you disagree with it? Find it dangerous? Or something else? I ask because, frankly, I agree with him.

As for Reagan, OK... what did he do when in power that screamed "CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST" to you? I'd really love to know because, honestly, the dude was a pretty decent man. Not the be all, end all conservative some of my ilk portray him as (personally, I think he was a pretty liberal Republican. Certainly too indulgent of social spending and such for my tastes.)

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Did you quote this because you disagree with it? Find it dangerous? Or something else? I ask because, frankly, I agree with him.

Actually neither. I excerpted it because I found it to be revealing. If you look at the past and present membership of CNP and the list of people who have given policy speeches at its meetings, it's fascinating. Keep in mind that this is a group that was founded by the co-author of the Left Behind series, while he was at Moral Majority (he was a founding member) and these characters:

Nelson Bunker Hunt - Billionaire Texas oil heir whose father was a member of the John Birch Society (also a major Reagan supporter and the primary inspiration for J.R. Ewing apparently) and who, along with his brother, notoriously (and calamitously) tried to corner the silver market two years prior in 1979. He was a JBS council member. Also a fundamentalist.

T. Cullen Davis - Another oil heir who in 1976 was tried unsuccessfully for the murder of his estranged wife's 12 year-old daughter — execution style, in the basement — and boyfriend and the attempted murder of his estranged wife and a family friend. This is despite her ID'ing him as the shooter. Then in 1978 he was arrested and tried for trying to hire a hit man to kill her and the judge who presided over his divorce and was again acquitted, despite being recording soliciting the murders. Became a born-again in the 80's.

William Cies - Another wealthy businessman and Executive Council Member of the JBS.

Paul Weyrich - The co-founder of Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Take a look at the document FCF released that was written under his guidance, The Integration of Theory and Practice:
A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement. Here's a few excerpts:

We will initially operate according to the belief that it is more important to win over the elites (or create a new, better one) than to build up a mass movement. Furthermore, it is more important to have a few impassioned members than a large number of largely indifferent members. The amount of energy, élan, and self-assurance that we are able to inculcate in the leaders of our movement will ultimately determine its success or failure.

The new movement must be, in part, exclusive and elite. It must not be afraid to pass along a body of knowledge that is not readily accessible to and understandable by everyone. The strong appeal of a feeling of exclusivity and superiority will give our members a reason to endure the slings and arrows of popular disapproval.

The New Traditionalist movement will appeal to the masses, but not immediately. The ideas of the masses never come from the masses. To the extent that the masses are more conservative than the elites, this is primarily because the masses have a long collective memory, and they still value the beliefs articulated by a long-lost elite. The conservative instincts of the American people will continue to erode unless a new elite is formed to refresh that memory.

We must recognize that literature and philosophy do not appeal to the masses. This is why we must develop ways to spread our philosophy using non-rational means--especially the moving image.

We should keep this in mind if we expect our people to make superhuman sacrifices for the movement. We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms. Putting the debate in terms of mere freedom, the "leave us alone" mentality, does not inspire apocalyptic fervor.

Some will argue that "conservatives" do not believe in apocalyptic fervor. The reader should simply ask himself, is he happy with the state of cultural conservatism in this country? If not, does he think it likely that conditions will improve in the future by operating according to the current rules? And if not, is he willing to witness the death of true civilization in this country so that conservatism will not suffer the ungentlemanly taint of "fervor"? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, this movement will not appeal to the reader.

I'll have to put together some more detailed posts on all these individuals and their connections.

As for Reagan, OK... what did he do when in power that screamed "CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST" to you? I'd really love to know because, honestly, the dude was a pretty decent man. Not the be all, end all conservative some of my ilk portray him as (personally, I think he was a pretty liberal Republican. Certainly too indulgent of social spending and such for my tastes.)

Reagan went from being too far left for the Democrats to being an FBI informant in the late 50's, turning over lists of people in Hollywood he suspected of being communists and testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee. He really launched his political career after giving a speech for Goldwater who became something of a mentor. He later had a falling out with Goldwater and moved onto a new mentor, Irving Kristol who as it turns out was part of the "anti-communist Left" funded by the CIA in the 60's and probably a knowing CIA operative who went on to become the godfather of neoconservatism as I'm sure you're aware.

In short I think Reagan used the Christian Right as much as they used him. I put Reagan in the same category as Hillary Clinton — wanted to be President regardless of the cost. I think he got a taste for it when he was the President of SAG and he was at the right place at the right time (the California GOP reconstruction). To answer your question though, no, I don't believe that Reagan was a religious extremist.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: PresidentCamacho

I wholly agree with that statement. So why is it then that one strain of crazy is so acceptable among mainstream American conservatives that GOP politicians can be immersed up to their necks in it without suffering negative effects and another is the subject of considerable consternation and copious ranting?

Because Christians aren't going around massacring 100s of innocent people?

That is a big difference to me.

So the Bosnian genocide of Muslims by Christians doesn't count?

drudgeretort.wordpress.com...

One of the most brutal acts of Christian terrorism is often overlooked. That is the Bosnian Genocide, which refers to the attempted annihilation of Muslims by Christian Serbs in former Yugoslavia from about 1992-1995. On July 1995, Bosnian Serbs killed more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys, as well as the ethnic cleansing of another 25,000–30,000 refugees, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina in what is now referred to as the Srebrenica massacre.

I don't see the comparison you are making, op.

Muslims are killing Christians and others for not sharing their beliefs.

Christians are talking about the spiritual warfare that goes on and the consequences of godlessness. This message is important, as it implies responsibility for our state of affairs. IMO, they are not exposing things like the STDs, spreading of disease and shorter life expectancy of homosexuals, or the occult use of abortions for rituals… all will have consequences is there is a God.

Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) the French social philosopher visited America to discover the reasons for our incredible success.  "Democracy in America" (1838)

"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. 

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims."

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
--John Adams

C.S. Lewis noted, "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling around with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
Muslims are killing Christians and others for not sharing their beliefs.

And Christians have done the same.

I have an important question that I still can't wrap my head around, and was central to my departure from Christianity.

In topics such as these, religiously inspired violence; when I reference God's demands for violence against non-believers in the Bible, the response is almost always, "Well, that's Old Testament." In fact, there are several ways in which one can argue that violence against non-believers is much more prevalent in the Old Testament than Koran. But for Christians, in this regard, somehow the Old Testament doesn't apply.

Why?

Modern Christians believe great big portions of the Old Testament as historical truth and the "Word of God." So why dismiss the Old Testament commands of God to kill non-believers? It's the Bible.

My Presbyterian and Baptist Ministers couldn't explain this for me, some 40 years ago. The best explanation was, "that's not how we, who are saved, should act today," however, the Old Testament is the Word of God.

If you believe it to be the Word of God, then you must accept that God has commanded violence toward non-believers. After all, the God of Moses is the same God as the God of Mohamed.

Westboro Baptist Church were democrats. That's why the westboro Baptist church and the GOP weren't friends

Fred Phelps endorsed both gore and Clinton. he got 30+ percent of the vote in one democratic primary for senate one year.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

Jesus took the Law of Moses one step further (He perfected It) by forgiving (something that the Law could not do because It could only condemn).

In Galatians 3.19, the Spirit speaks expressly, "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made..." This teaches us that the law was added to expose sin so that man would realize that he needs a Saviour because it says till the seed--which is Christ--should come.

Faith or Works of the Law

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?a 4Have you experienced be so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

7Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”d 9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”e 11Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”f 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”g 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”h 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.


The Law and the Promise

15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”i meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God

23Before the coming of this faith,j we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: neo96

Wasn't radical Christians that attacked on 9-11

Yes it was.

And everyone knows it.

Then they went on a "crusade" in Iraq.

Well that is a load of crap.

Didn't know Congress of the US were 'christians'.



Not a single 'christian' argument there.

Not a single 'religious' argument there.

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4] Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

en.wikipedia.org...

Have anything other than DOGMA ?

Back to the christianphobia.

a reply to: infolurker

The Bible is your source, then?

Sorry but, so much nope.