| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
You're problem Lamont is you think that because I don't clump all couple billion Muslims as fanatical terrorists I'm naive and weak on security. In this you would be wrong.
In fact, trying to be secure to a vast "whole", when you should be focusing on the dangerous few is not just a waste of time and resources, it insures you will not in fact win. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. When we looked at the entire population as enemies we got nowhere, and got no buy-in from the majority that would assist us if only we gave them some order and security.
You think casting a wide net will make you safe? How slow can you be? Those guys on the subway with beards? Those are just ugly dudes that are probably Hindu or Hasidic, and the terrorist with the C4 and cell-phone detonator looks like a nervous college kid. But you missed him because you're too damn busy staring at your version of the "barbarian hoard."
I have no illusions about the world we live in. All I read just about is non-fiction history, or contemporary reporting. And I don't mean BS op eds or TV commentaries. First hand, on the ground reporting. Crazy, violent, despicable stuff goes on- and if they could, many would try and import it right to our door.
But I got news for you. We're not going to insure it never happens by thinking it's one big undifferentiated hoard out there and all we need to do it have as many guns pointed outward as possible. If there is one bad guy in a family of ten what's the easiest way to get to him? Turn the rest of the family against him. You attack the family at random, and what do you think will happen? They'll all come after you and you you'll never get the one you wanted.
I know you like to come off as a blow-hard, it's like your shtick. But I also know you're smart enough to know nothing is ever a simple as you are making it out to be.
The example of Elin was meant to say that getting violently upset is not an indicator of deeper or stronger feeling than a person who does not lash out. It was meant as an example people might recognize - apologies if I communicated any direct concern for the Tag Hauer guy.
Your points about Islam are well made.
Jabberwock's defense of Islamic tolerance and multi-culturalism stopped with thousand year old examples.
Perhaps he could give us some contemporary examples?
In know, all religions have been oppressive and slaughtered their own versions of the infidel...but how many religions STILL carry this out systematically in this day and age? Now, civilized nations leave that to governments, not theocrats.
_____
I still think Islam has been left behind in the first world, and that failure to keep up creates anger - - which is directed outward rather than examined from within. It's like our loser white guys in the states sitting in their single-wides blaming the black man for preventing their own success rather than themselves.
Joe E's examples are potent.
"2,4,6,8
time to transubstantiate"
Tom Lear Vatican Rag
I loved singing that to myself as a child while at Mass :-)
There you go again.
At least Muslims as a whole don't act weak as a group. They won't even complain about their own bad guys. So, you sit tight. Do nothing. They'll come to your door. But not like Jehovah Witnesses.
The Witnesses (didn't they play with Louis Prima and Sam Butera?) are much more insidious. They slowly drive you crazy with their shiny shoes and pretty little comic books. Aaaarrgh!
Yes! He was perfect for his time. Wonderful songs.
Israel is close and makes a convenient "whipping boy". The real and deeper anger is actually directed at western civilization. The US is the point man for this. Hollywood movies, TV and MacDonald's are a potent force for westernization. If there were falafel stands on every other corner and a Mutaween patrolman (religious police) on every block they wouldn't be so pissed.
Where is the "outrage" from moderate Muslims for the terrorist acts performed by the zealots? I suggest there is none and never will be because the radicals have the moral and monetary support of the moderates.
BTW: I have a Tag Heuer Monaco. It's mechanical self winding and gorgeous.
Jehovah's Witnesses no longer knock on my door. Several years ago I placed the sign below on my door when I saw them coming. In my neighborhood I'm known as "Outlaw".
Witchcraft Practiced Here!
Coven meetings held every Saturday at sundown.
(Clothing Optional)
Very large donation (MONEY!!) required from males.
Females admitted free.
Please bring your own whips, chains, adult toys and Sacrificial animals.
Orgy starts promptly after the services end.
Don
So much to say, so little time.
I am gonna post a more detailed response later tonight.
But for now I am gonna put down some points.
First of all, thanks for all your reply's and questions I am happy to see that you guys have some valid unbiased concerns, and I hope to address them best I can.
JoeE here is your outrage from a Moderate Muslim.
WWHHYYYYYY?!?!?!!
OMG, TERRORIST ARE MAKING ISLAM LOOK BADDDD
OOOHHH NOOO, WHAT SHALL I DO!!!!
Sadly this topic is moving to fast for me to put in my input regarding Catholic Theology and Hagiography, both of which fascinate me.
Topics to be disscussed at length.
1) Women/Islam
2) Islam/Other Religions
3) Islam/Economy (This one is gonna be fun)
See Ya Soon.
Well done!
Nice to get that little issue out of the way.
But seriously, thanks for your posts. Great thread.
I'll alert the media.
Your outrage is gratifying.
You have a good sense of humor. 
FWIW:
I'm not fond of any religion. I think they are all silly. Those that require a person to dress or not dress a specific way and/or eat or not eat specific foods for religious reasons are IMO sillier than the others.
All religions exhibit a significant "silliness" quotient when examined solely from a rational perspective.
Interesting distinction when there are so many much more irrational religious concepts to ridicule. Like most human activity, religious belief has its good and bad points.
Muslims are not more violent as a group than Christians, for example. Unfortunately each has its crazies.
Regardless, "moderate Muslims" are just as appalled with violence as are "moderate Christians."
You know, the first world is still pretty newly'moderate' itself.
Into the 40's, European nations were rounding up and exterminating Jews.
In the 1960 Presidential race, JFK's Catholicism was a concern to many voters and was publically discussed.
In the 1960's white American Christians still lynched black American Christians and blew up black school girls - very Taliban, when you ponder it.
Many American Christians still insist public schools teach religious based science.
Texas Christians (who may have other good points going in for them in their book crusade) are trying to purge Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum.
Certain abortion doctors have been executed or threatened with such by peace-loving Christians.
Some American religions still promote polygamy.
_____________
Also keep in mind that with the temporary end of the cold war, America's political machinery required a new one dimensional boogeyman to fill the niche left vacant by the non-sino communists.
Pretty amazing how one mortal threat so conveniently morphed into the next.
If not for Islam, I like to ponder what we may have settled on as the next dire existential threat.
China/Korea would have meant the loss of bond investment in America, and Africa is just too obviously chaotic to be held up as the world's next global threat.
Any ideas?
I was a military brat. I remember Europe in the middle 50's when the scars from WWII were everywhere. The stench of the dead could be smelled from 5 miles away when my father took us to see what was once a concentration camp.
Although I was too young to vote I remember the church/pope state controversy with the election of JFK.
As a Black American the atrocities that routinely occured in the south were of great concern to me. To this day I still don't feel comfortable in the Deep South. I once turned down a very high paying job because it meant moving to Missippi.
Religious based science is religion, nothing more nothing less.
The purge Jefferson movement is new to me. I'm going to find out more.
Although I think abortion is "retroactive" birth control and find it distasteful. It's none of my business what a woman does to and with her body. The majority of the anti abortion movement is religiously based. Consequently most of the rabid "pro lifers" use "God" as their backstop. They can believe what they want. However, they should mind their own business. You don't believe in abortion, fine don't have one. You believe in abortion, fine have one but pay for it yourself.
If you believe in polygamy I don't care. As long as women aren't forced into it it's none of my business.
It's easy to say that this country has needed another boogeyman since the demise of the Soviet Union. If you choose to call Islam the new boogeyman that's OK with me. Recognizing the threat to freedom of religion and thought Islam represents is what's important.
I wonder how many people are aware the Grand Mufti of Islam visited Hitler in 1943 to collaborate with the Nazi's on exterminating Jews. That led to the creation of Muslim SS units with German officers. Those SS units are in a large part responsible for the recent war in Kosovo. So, when Muslims claim their problem with the Jews is because of Isreal and land grabbing it's just another lie in their campaign to make the Planet Earth a Muslim Earth.
Correct. Oh, and by-the-way, "outstanding!"
There are stakeholders in decisions of life or death- and not just the mother. Abortion and its use as de facto birth control says something about our society and the casual way we condone expediency over responsibility.
The prime moving force behind many civil rights advocates was their Judeo-Christian faith. That didn't make the issue any less compelling or valid.
There is similarly evidence of collaboration by the Vatican with the Nazis. Should we conclude that Christianity seeks genocide and this effort is supported by mainstream Christians?
Interesting claim. How do we know Muslim Nazi SS units are responsible? And how exactly to these tie back to ~70 years ago?
The Nazi Party wanted no part of the Vatican and visa versa. That was the similarity. The Vatican did not collaborate with the Nazi Party, which is what you are tying to persuade in your usual smoke and mirror intellectualizing.
I'm genetically Cathloic and the Church certainly did not do itself proud in that era.
I guess you could just say that the Germans were all Protestants, so what could the Pope have done? But all the damn Italians were Catholics and they jumped right on board with Hitler - the Pope could have raised Holy Hell!
The Poles were always good Catholics, too. The Pope didn't exactly exort them to protect their fellow humans in the Warsaw getto, now did he?
The Eastern Orthodox represented much better than the Catholics.
Hell, the Anglicans were the ones who really came through. I'm glad we and the English remain closely allied.
Woah, Okay so I was a little late, no need to bring Hitler into this...
I am pretty sure it
I was born Roman Catholic in addition to Italian and feel ptetty much the same way you do about the church. But come on, trying to bring up the Vatican, surrounded by the Nazi during WWII as a means to think about how sweet Islam is is a bit much. I think Elk could find something a little more sinister than the Vatican during WWII. Lets look at the Japanese Empire at that time. Nice sweet bunch of people. Not a single member of the Empire spoke out against Pearl Harbor. But the Vatican? What a bunch of shit.
The WWII era was really a weird time for the Church.
France was 98% Catholic and capitulated to the Germans rather readily. Plenty of people were placed on trains headed to the camps from France. Where was the general outrage?
Italy was almost 100% Catholic and allied with the Nazis.
I'm trying to think of a predominantly Catholic country that gave Germany any real trouble.
What if Italy had opposed the Germans? What if the Pope has been staiunch in his condemnations?
We know the Greek Orthodox church condemned Hitler and promulgated a vigorous resistence to the Nazis. Greece used up alot of German resources and went down figthing - it did not take an expeditious route of surrender or alignment with the Germans. The Orthodox were studly.
The Finns (Protestants) also did a great job.
Can you think of any Catholic countries that really went at it?
Hell, the Swiss (82% Catholic) helped launder the pillage and the Austrians (45% Catholic) were enthusiastic Nazis.
Imagine the Pope, leader of the world's Catholics, declaring/demanding universal resistence to the 'moral plague' of the Nazis. Seems something more could have been expected from the leader of the world's largest Christian denomination.
There seems to be a whiff of protecting assets rather than protecting virtue with the Pope's actions at the time.
Would a vigorous appeal by the Pope have drawn America into the fray any sooner? No telling.
All of this is pure speculation, of course, I just think the Pope didn't stand fully upright.
_____
All of this also reminds me of something else about WWII...
What we did was wage war against a nation until the whole freaking place said "Uncle."
Now, we do whatever it is we do and roadside bombs and suicide bombers have become part of the 'atmosphere' of 'nation buiding.'
The whole nature of America's approach, or the west's approach, to war seems different.
Are we now too nice?
___________________
I am enjoying this thread, so want to add that no flames are intended toward anybody.
Okay the last post was a little more hostile than I meant it to be, and I apologize if I offended anyone. I still stand by my point regarding raising the level of discussion.
Moving on.
Buddha you had a valid point about me providing recent examples of Islamic tolerance. I hope to get you some links soon. But off the top of my head, tying back into the WWII theme, my neighbor fought in WWII for Poland, He tells me stories of an Iraqi that fought alongside with him. Not so much tolerance but proof of working together.
if you want a proof of concept, I highly recommend the CBC comedy Little Mosque on the Prairie. Its quite funny, and occasionally informative.
http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/
I hope to get you some more concrete examples soon.
Islam and Women is a topic that is very misunderstood and I am by no means an expert in this field but I will try to ground out some misconceptions.
Here is a thought. In Islam men are allowed to marry up to 4 Women, if his proceeding wife/wives agree to it. Everyone thinks out right this is an example of Misogyny and male chauvanism. But you need to research the reason behind this rule/law. In the early days of Islam the number of Women who converted to Islam greatly out numbered the Men. There were literally 4 women to 1 man. The reason behind this number is twofold.
First of all this may come as a shock, but Women converted to Islam because Islam gave them more rights then before, and ensured their safety. Second reason is the men where killed/persecuted. If something wasn't done Islam would be wiped out even before it had a chance to spread. So a social audible was called, and men could marry more than one women and make lotsa babies which was needed.
How many nations can say they have had a female head of state, (one with actual power). Not many Western Nations can, but in the 80/90s Pakistan had a Female Prime Minister, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto.
The abuse you talk about is more of a cultural problem then a Islamic one. Islam actually inhibits this tendency in a lot of culture, the Arabs used to bury their female babies, because they only wanted sons, Islam stopped this practice.
This headscraf/viel issue; the veil is not mandatory and an Arab thing not a Islam thing. No veils in Turkey/Pakistan.
The headscarf is not mandatory but recommended under the lines of modesty.
Muslims are commanded to dress modestly, both men and women.
But if an individual decides not to wear it, no on is allowed to force them to do so. If they do force someone to wear it, they are doing something un-Islamic.
My sister wears the head scarf, my mom does not.
My ex-fiance wore it, my current GF does not.
(don't ask...you think crazy chicks are just a product of the west, their not)
There is still alot to talk about on this topic, try to make your questions specific so its easier for me. :P
I still have to talk about Islam and the Modern Economy and will get to that soon.
There is an article explaining Islamic monetary policy and how to integrate it with the west, it also covers how to implement a democracy within the Kalifa system. I thought it was written by John Rawls, but can't seem to find it. Its a good read and once if find it I will post it.
I understand that their are faults in the Islamic world, and there seems to be a connection between Islam and a lot of bad stuff, now if Islam is the reason is still to be proven, and won't in my opinion. But I recommend this to Muslims as well, but the western world needs to stop blaming Islam and see a lot of their own faults. Muslims need to do this as well.
And once again spend some time researching both sides of the story. Make it your goal, try to break your own prejudices because humility is a much more potent weapon than hate, Jesus is a good example of this, Good Friday to Easter Sunday, three days that revolutionized half of the world.
Once again, Thank You.
Jabberwock
Poland, they never surrendered.
You're redeemed.
There are no rational discussions here in the Open Bar. There is only your seat and you're welcome to sit there and post all you want. But it isn't for everybody.
I can assure you the Italian army did more to stop the Nazi eschaton than any other fighting force in Europe.
Collaborate was overly strong on my part, although there was collaboration exhibited by various Catholic bishops in there own best interests.
My comments address the claimed lack of moral outrage by moderate Muslims, and the assertion that since there is evidence of a connection between Muslim leadership that this is evidence of acceptance by these same Muslims of contemporary atrocities.
Back to the Vatican during WWII. The Vatican, at best, turned a deaf ear. There was no denouncement, no moral outrage. The Vatican sought neutrality, under cutting its own teachings.
BTW, sorry for the rational approach. I will put the concepts in terms you understand: homo . . . dick . . . anal . . . suck . . .
Make sense now?
Jabberwock, you mentioned the Holocaust.
Would any resonable modern nation tolerate its president denying this event ever occurred?
Would any real modern nation support the death penalty for the 'crime' of being homosexual?
How about caning/lashing rape victims?
Death for demonstrating against the governmemt?
Tolerating governmental theology squads who beat those who appear to slightly unpious?
Governmental haircut regulations?
If there were sufficient 'moderate' Muslims, these sort of things would not be tolerated.
Like any nation, when theocracy takes over, rights and culture suffer.
If there is a voice of moderate or liberal Islam, where is it?
After WWII, any guesses as to the predominant religious demography of the South American nations that sheltered and nurtured fleeing Nazis?
I only mentioned all this to show that even us 'civilized' people in the modern world are only 65 years or less ahead of the Muslims in their approach.
Don't be putting on any airs
Code:Don't put on any airs
When you're down on Rue Morgue Avenue
They got some hungry women there
And they really make a mess outa you.
I honestly wish I had a good reply for you Buddha, the questions you asked, I ask my self those as well.
But what I am trying to explain here is that Iran is one Muslim nation. None of those problems exist in Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, and to a lesser extent Pakistan.
As for the Arab states, we forget about Bahrain, U.A.E, Kuwait and Egypt.
Sadly the Muslim world is divided, and a lot of Moderate Muslims are just that Moderate, they are practicing but do no have the inclination or passion to intervene on the behalf of the millions of Muslims misrepresented in developing nations. A moderate Indonesian doesn't spend to much time thinking about Iran, they spend time worrying about a mortgage, tuition for kids, and maybe a new sailboat.
Being moderate does not always mean being passionless about ones religion. But unfortunately that is the case a lot of times.
South Africa had an apartheid till 1994 no matter what the world said, nothing changed until the people brought on that change.
Sadly it is up to the citizens them selves to take on the challenge of revolution. It seems to have begun in Iran, but a lot of moderate Iranians and Muslims in general live in the west, and have assimilated, now we worry more about health care then the religious police.
I truly wish that I had answers to a lot of your questions, but I can't rationalize what some Muslims do, just like we can't rationalize what some Christians do, Jews do, and so on.
I am just here to point out that not all Muslims are bad, and even the good ones have our faults (such as not voicing our opinion more), but its because we're are human.
You have to remember that if the media keeps showing the crazy fundamentalist, I can be standing next to him screaming my lungs out about moderation and tolerance, but all you'll see is the fundamentalist. But hopefully that's changing as more information is flowing thanks to modern technology, and once again the point I keep making, if you search you will find those voices of moderation.
Your concerns are valid, and I share them.
I hope the some of us can stop pointing fingers and blaming each other and start helping each other. We can chose to find the worst in each other and beat it down, or we can try and find the best among us and help them flourish, luckily we here are free.
That is one of my favorite quotes from Man's Search for Meaning an amazing book by Victor Frankl if you don't know who he is I highly recommend reading his Wikipedia page at least, and if you can his book.
I was kinda hoping we move past the whole pointing fingers and broad rhetorical questions and talk about something specific. Like the examples of Muslim tolerance in present day. Why do Muslims pray towards Mecca? Why did the prophet have so many wives? Whats the difference between Shia and Sunni?
Maybe we can continue discussing the Catholic Church its place during WWI/WWII. Muslims and the world wars? Why the latest Alice in Wonderland movie sucks and how many times has Lewis Carrol rolled over in his grave. What do you think Mr. Carrol's thoughts on Islam would be.
What would Mr. Rogers do?
I think it may be time for a new thread. Like President Obama we have all moved past Prime Minister Netanyahu and on to dinner.
EDIT: for grammar.
Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister Great Britain
I believe Great Britain is considered to be a "1'st World Country".
I don't like the idea of abortion. I'd never have one. I use protection/contraception to help prevent conception and disease. However, that's no reason to decide for someone else. Frankly, it's none of my business.
Hitler didn't initially want to meet with the Grand Mufti. The Mufti lobbied several highly placed party officials to arrange the meeting. After he disclosed he wanted to discuss helping the Nazis with the extermination of all Jewery the meeting was arranged. That led to the creation of at least one Muslim SS division with German Officers leading Muslim enlisted personel. They were deployed in the Balkans.
I have a couple of DVD's with archival film footage, still pictures and photo copies of Nazi Party documents that support my comments about Nazis and Muslims.
I don't have a problem with polygamy. I have a problem with the near slave status women are afforded in Islam. The following are two examples of current law in Saudi Arabia. Women can't drive or vote.
I'm aware that the West and Christianity haven't always been poster boys for what's right. Things continue to change for the better, not fast enough for some but they are constantly getting better. Islam on the other hand is making no moves whatsoever to move into the twenty first century.
Ohh Shit, I completely forgot about Margaret Thatcher. OK so touche.
Hmmm I don't really know where the abortion stuff is coming from, but if you want Islam's perspective. I think its allowed until a certain period in the pregnancy under normal circumstances, and if there is a health risk its allowed when ever.
I honestly agree with you about Saudi Arabia, I mean men aren't allowed to vote because there is no democracy, its a Kingdom. But the name "Saudi Arabia" it self is an example of what I mean. Saudi comes for the Saud family which rules the country. Even thought Saudi Arabia may be the center of Islam, it does not mean it represents Islam.
Islam is a religion, not a sentient being. It cannot move into the 21st century, Muslims can, but there fates are decided by their leaders. So if your gonna point fingers point them at the Ahmadiniajns, the Zardaris and Saddams of the world. Most Muslims live in developing nations, its not their fault just how it is, they are work 14 hour days one farms, factories and mills. The are a select few, on both sides of the spectrum and select few who leaders who misrepresent them, and the select few fanatics who misguide them.
I am ready to criticize when leaders of Muslim countries do wrong. But I ask the same of you, to acknowledge when a western country makes mistakes.
I would be very interested if you could find some links to sites about the Muslim SS. I wanna better understand how Kosovo is related to the Nazis.
Consider this the Dark Ages of Islam, the west has already been through it. So maybe you can lend a hand, teach.
As far as I know, teaching is done with pens and paper. Not F22s and Abrams.
Let's accept that this is historically true.
But how does this event roughly 70 years ago lead to the conclusion "Those SS units are in a large part responsible for the recent war in Kosovo." ??
Just trying to communicate with your emotional, seething-with-instinct, reptilian brain.
I would guess something along the same line as the Baathist Party slaughtering Shiites like cattle. Where did the Baathist Party get its start? The Nazi Party.
You mean common sense. I have not seen any videos of infidels being slaughtered making intellectual statements about second thoughts on Islam and survival. I just see Muslims wearing ski masks in hot weather regions reading bullshit and then making a bloody mess of everything with sound effects. I get the message. They want to group all Muslims wanting to convert or kill my sorry ass. It is they that are profiling themselves. I take them seriously. I'm thinking on moving to Arizona. A new Muslim state. Citizens of Arizona can carry any type of knife they like, carry a concealed firearm without a license, and the police can stop anybody they suspect is involved in violating "Illegal" Immigration Laws. Shame on Arizona.
The members created, perpetrated and perpetuated a history of bigotry, religious intolerance and genocide. Radical Muslims want and actively, with any "necessary" means, work for the elimination of any and all non-Muslims. Is it reasonable to expect non-Muslims to meekly be led to slaughter?
That's quite a leap.
That's like arguing the Crusades led directly to the killing of George Tiller at church in Wichita Kansas by anti-abortion zealot Scott Roeder. I mean, after all, they are both Christians, right?
This does appear to be one of their goals, although it seems more aimed a societies and government with which they disapprove rather than mere individuals.
My disagreement with you, and I may misunderstand your thinking, is the position that this intent is supported by all Muslims and the goal of Islam is the destruction of all other peoples.
You have stated: "If Muslims get rid of the Jews another non Islamic group is next." "The moderates give financial support to the radicals." "Muslims don't respond to logic."
This appears to paint Islam and all Muslims as murderers with global domination as the goal.
Do you really intend to equate all Muslims with their most radical counterparts?
Do you similarly equate all Christians with their most radical counterparts?
If not, what is the distinction?
Exactly.
I gotta say something about Muslims I deeply appreciate: They don't ring my doorbell and try to recruit me like the JW's and Mormons do.
______
Speaking of bombers...
The Catholics have only recently renounced bombing civilian targets, but threaten to return if things don't go their way...IRA.
The Basques are Catholics and they still blow shit up.
Bottom line:
Until the Sneetch Machine scrambles us all up effectively, this is going to be the state of the world.
And, likely, if the Sneetch Machine ever stopped working then we'd rapidly evolve back to the place we occupy now.
Not yet.
What is with all this rationalization about Muslims. They are a clear and present danger to your way of life. Fuck a bunch of goddamn Catholics. Stupid fucks.
Dr. Seuss could be very wise.
"They are a clear and present danger to your way of life."
Just so long as they take good care of our oil, we will let them live.
As soon as we get past the oil dependence, we'll firebomb the place and move on to the Mormom Menace.
Hey, Lamont, who's in second place to the Muslims when it comes to killing Americans with bombs?
(There is a Cathloic tie-in there, to!)
The Japanese Empire? No, not Catholic. I give up. The Russians?
Oklahoma City...April 19, 1995...by a Catholic.
168 dead in one attack.
From Wikipedia (so you know it's true)
:
"McVeigh's only known political affiliations were his voter registration with the Republican Party of New York when he lived in Buffalo, New York, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military.[76]
In a recorded interview with Time magazine[77] McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell.[78][79] McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."[80]"
Anyway, that would be mortal sin with special-place-in-hell-circumstances attached.
Aha! A Republican!
"Good Shephard Church," a known Catholic madrasah-style indoctrination center.
I knew it!
By the way, how many "Our Fathers" for blowing up 168 innocent people?
That would have been a Hell of a confession..."Forgive me father, for I have sinned, it has been 168 dead since my last confession..."
Pages