SC Priest: No communion for Obama Supporters...

[Socialist Neuveria]

Source (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94EB4BO0&show_article=1)


SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.

But bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers—and voters—should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from church teaching on abortion. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese. In their annual fall meeting, the nation's Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights.

According to national exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. In South Carolina, which McCain carried, voters in Greenville County—traditionally seen as among the state's most conservative areas—went 61 percent for the Republican, and 37 percent for Obama.

"It was not an attempt to make a partisan point," Newman said in a telephone interview Thursday. "In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same."

Conservative Catholics criticized Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 for supporting abortion rights, with a few Catholic bishops saying Kerry should refrain from receiving Holy Communion because his views were contrary to church teachings.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she had not heard of other churches taking this position in reaction to Obama's win. A Boston-based group that supports Catholic Democrats questioned the move, saying it was too extreme.

"Father Newman is off-base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."

A man who has attended St. Mary's for 18 years said he welcomed Newman's message and anticipated it would inspire further discussion at the church.

"I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate," said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. "You're talking about the murder of innocent beings."


Talk about pure ignorance.

[James Davis]

Following church doctrine. The Catholic Church has been staunchly pro-life ever since the issue became an issue. Obama is the most pro-abortion politician to ever be elected to the presidency. The Church made its position clear before the election, they can't say they weren't warned.

[tom the pit leader]

All I have to say is, "so what"?

what do they expect them to do, back down? Say, "gee I like communion more than my own personal princepals." If any of them do back down, then the fear that the Pope will control all Catholic politions will be confirmed, and then how many Catholics will be elected?

[James Davis]

As the priest clearly stated in the article, this was an abortion thing, no more.

As for "who cares," just about any Catholic who is affected by this cares. For Catholics, communion is very, very important (like salvation/damnation important), and to be denied communion is a really big deal for them.

[tom the pit leader]

But where do you draw the line? What if next they said that they will cut off communion if you don't vote for their other pet projects?

Warning: Silpery slope ahead.

[James Davis]

Perhaps...but considering that the Catholic Church believes abortion=murder, can you really blame them for taking such a harsh stand?

[Socialist Neuveria]

Then if the Church feels so strongly that they would take punative actions against parishioners who exercised their free and open right to vote, they should pay taxes and lose their status as Tax Exempt.

[tom the pit leader]

Then if the Church feels so strongly that they would take punative actions against parishioners who exercised their free and open right to vote, they should pay taxes and lose their status as Tax Exempt.

agreed. Honestly taxing churches like any other business would do two things :
Get rid of bogus chruches that only use relgion to dodge taxes and
increase tax revenue without affecting the average american.

Before you attack, relaize that if you donate to charity, your taxes owed goes down. So if you give enough, you don't have to pay almost anything in taxes.

[Socialist Neuveria]

Whats even more frightening is the role the Jewish faction in politics has effected a radical policy against human rights and civil freedoms within Israel. Israel is responsible for countless deaths and human rights abuses including murder, torture and illegal seizure of land based on racial supremacy of the Jewish people.

Palestinians and Jews used to live in harmony, but when the Jewish state was created, Zionist extremists came to power and began to systematically recreate a holocaust. Which, is sad. It is unfortunate that no American politician can stand up for the rights of the Arab Palestinian who is being utterly and completely oppressed by a regime that supports a system of occupation and eradication against an entire race.

[AzureShadow]

...

Again, why I hate the Catholic church.

If someone's right to vote for whoever they want goes against the Catholic church's principles, then they can take their principles and shove them up their asses. Who said these people voted for Obama because of his abortion policies? No-one. In fact, I bet most of the Catholics who voted for Obama voted for him for completely different reasons than abortion.

And for those of you who says their stance on abortion being murder justifies it... does that mean that their scientifically wrong stance on ex-vaginal ejaculation being murder should be taken seriously as well?

Seriously, what the fuck is up with religion these days?

[Socialist Neuveria]

Seriously, what the fuck is up with religion these days?

What, you mean it was fine up until now? Ha! ;)

[AzureShadow]

What, you mean it was fine up until now? Ha! ;)

True, that.

:D


EDIT: And I don't mean this to offend anyone. I don't think less of people who follow a religious belief. Only those who try to force all of their beliefs on everyone else and think they should have the unopposed right to.

[James Davis]

...

Again, why I hate the Catholic church.

If someone's right to vote for whoever they want goes against the Catholic church's principles, then they can take their principles and shove them up their asses. Who said these people voted for Obama because of his abortion policies? No-one. In fact, I bet most of the Catholics who voted for Obama voted for him for completely different reasons than abortion.

And for those of you who says their stance on abortion being murder justifies it... does that mean that their scientifically wrong stance on ex-vaginal ejaculation being murder should be taken seriously as well?

Seriously, what the fuck is up with religion these days?

For the Catholic Church, abortion is pretty much the most important political issue. They view abortion as a practice that kills more than 1 million Americans each year. For someone who believes that, can you honestly blame them for pursuing its abolition so zealously?

You're also missing something very important about religion. For devout followers of, in this case Catholicism, modern day niceties cannot even remotely compare to the doctrine of their faith. To use an example: there is enormous societal pressure today to embrace gay marriage. For practicing Christians and Muslims, this poses a huge problem, because their faiths have opposed homosexuality as immoral for more than a thousand years.

When your immortal soul is at stake, would you rather do what people around you say you should do, or do what your divine master says you should do? In order to understand what various religions of the world are doing, you must put their actions into context within their own faith.

[Socialist Neuveria]

When your immortal soul is at stake, would you rather do what people around you say you should do, or do what your divine master says you should do? In order to understand what various religions of the world are doing, you must put their actions into context within their own faith.

Forgive me, but where does it say that God even exists. You're attempting to justify actions taken against people exercising their free right to vote, based on what a religious body believes to be what a divine metaphysical being dictates. You cannot justify something using outmoded beliefs of hellfire and brimstone.

[Imperial]

I think this is one of the reasons that Catholic Church attendance is down...along with all their other problems from their priests & lawsuits and lack of clergy. Thank goodness for separation of church & state though with stuff like this, hard to believe it.

In any case, the keyword here is refrain. The Church doesn't stop people from being given communion, its up to the person to accept it or not to.

[Socialist Neuveria]

The only reason they don't out and out refuse folks, is because they cannot get away with it easily. If they could, you better believe they would.

[James Davis]

Forgive me, but where does it say that God even exists. You're attempting to justify actions taken against people exercising their free right to vote, based on what a religious body believes to be what a divine metaphysical being dictates. You cannot justify something using outmoded beliefs of hellfire and brimstone.

Again, you have to put their actions into the context of their worldview, not yours.

[James Davis]

The only reason they don't out and out refuse folks, is because they cannot get away with it easily. If they could, you better believe they would.

The Catholic Church can do whatever it wants, as long as it is within the laws of our civilization, and I can assure you, such an action is. The reason that it is "encouraged," is because they have no idea who voted for who. Public supporters of Obama have already been banned from communion in other parishes.

[Socialist Neuveria]

Public supporters of Obama have already been banned from communion in other parishes.

So you think that taking punitive actions against people voting for an elected official is a protected right afforded to religious groups in the constitution?

[Imperial]

So you think that taking punitive actions against people voting for an elected official is a protected right afforded to religious groups in the constitution?

The Church is voluntary membership...and on top of that a religious organization. You pay no member fees to the Church so you are not legally entitled to receive anything. Anything you give is a tax-deductible donation.

[Socialist Neuveria]

The Church is voluntary membership...and on top of that a religious organization. You pay no member fees to the Church so you are not legally entitled to receive anything. Anything you give is a tax-deductible donation.

However the Catholic church doesn't pay taxes, on the assumption that they will not take part in, endorse or take a political stand in affairs in politics. The Catholic Church is exercising the power they have over their members, to take action against those who don't conform to what the church feels as politically or socially acceptable and thereby taking a political stance against the President Elect, and all who supported him by vote.

[James Davis]

However the Catholic church doesn't pay taxes, on the assumption that they will not take part in, endorse or take a political stand in affairs in politics. The Catholic Church is exercising the power they have over their members, to take action against those who don't conform to what the church feels as politically or socially acceptable and thereby taking a political stance against the President Elect, and all who supported him by vote.

This is a legal dead end that the far left has tried for decades with absolutely no success. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that the government will stay out of religion. It is that religion's right to teach whatever the hell they want to. You can't try to handcuff a religious institution because it's doctrine is in conflict with yours.

[Socialist Neuveria]

This is a legal dead end that the far left has tried for decades with absolutely no success. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that the government will stay out of religion. It is that religion's right to teach whatever the hell they want to. You can't try to handcuff a religious institution because it's doctrine is in conflict with yours.

No, it's a fact that with this campaigns, the Catholic Church is not the only example of a church meddling in politics. I remember there was a pastor of a church on the radio that urged his members to vote for John McCain. Also, I saw a sign outside a church that said " What would Jesus Vote? ". That is part and parcel with interfering with politics and violates the agreement that the government will not interfere with the church and in turn grant them tax exempt status provided they abide by the rule and stay out of politics.

The Church can teach what it want. Both should be separate, and what you do in politics should not affect what happens inside the church. The minute it does, that ensures that voter's choices will be affected by the churches policies on certain issues. Fear of being denied communion ( which is one step less than out and out excommunication ) will influence voters to fall into step with the church.

[Imperial]

The Mormon Church told its members to pass Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California, they even said that their members had to donate to Pro organization & participate in helping to pass ban in anyway they could. The Mormon Church did not spend any of its own money in that goal so their non-profit status cannot be touched. Same applies with all places of worship assuming they don't fund political activities. They are free to advocate whatever they want.

[Socialist Neuveria]

The Mormon Church told its members to pass Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California, they even said that their members had to donate to Pro organization & participate in helping to pass ban in anyway they could. The Mormon Church did not spend any of its own money in that goal so their non-profit status cannot be touched. Same applies with all places of worship assuming they don't fund political activities. They are free to advocate whatever they want.

A prerequisite for being a member is that you pay tithes. That is mandatory. So all members are required to pay money to the church in essence, so you can't simply say they were forced unless you can give me an explicit example. And if you did, I would be saying the same thing. Religious bodies should not interfere, monetarily, or otherwise, in the affairs of politics. Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, it makes no difference. I'm not simply arguing against the catholics, but Religion as a whole. Muslim, Christian or anyone else.

[James Davis]

A prerequisite for being a member is that you pay tithes. That is mandatory. So all members are required to pay money to the church in essence, so you can't simply say they were forced unless you can give me an explicit example. And if you did, I would be saying the same thing. Religious bodies should not interfere, monetarily, or otherwise, in the affairs of politics. Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, it makes no difference. I'm not simply arguing against the catholics, but Religion as a whole. Muslim, Christian or anyone else.

Members of a church are not required to tithe. It is highly encouraged and is commanded in the Bible, and I'm sure in other religious texts as well, but this is a totally moot point.

Additionally, as long as churches of any kind do not directly fund a candidate or issue proposition or something like that, their tax-exempt status cannot be touched.

[Imperial]

Members of a church are not required to tithe. It is highly encouraged and is commanded in the Bible, and I'm sure in other religious texts as well, but this is a totally moot point.

Additionally, as long as churches of any kind do not directly fund a candidate or issue proposition or something like that, their tax-exempt status cannot be touched.

^ this.

I know at the local Catholic Church, you can sit through a service and not give a penny. It is not required, you aren't about to be kicked out a church for not paying up.

[Socialist Neuveria]

Members of a church are not required to tithe. It is highly encouraged and is commanded in the Bible, and I'm sure in other religious texts as well, but this is a totally moot point.

Additionally, as long as churches of any kind do not directly fund a candidate or issue proposition or something like that, their tax-exempt status cannot be touched.

As a former member, I assure you, that is incorrect. You are required to pay tithes, and no it was not moot to the point raised by Imperial. A Bishop is required to interview all investigators after they become members. In said interview, they are notified that they are required to pay tithes to be an active member of the church, and to partake of the Sacrament ( Communion ).

Also, as to your second point, do you believe the Mormon church should be stripped of their tax exempt status?

[James Davis]

As a former member, I assure you, that is incorrect. You are required to pay tithes, and no it was not moot to the point raised by Imperial. A Bishop is required to interview all investigators after they become members. In said interview, they are notified that they are required to pay tithes to be an active member of the church, and to partake of the Sacrament ( Communion ).
Which church is this exactly? I am familiar with virtually all denominations of Christianity, and none of the major ones require tithing, the Catholics included.

Also, as to your second point, do you believe the Mormon church should be stripped of their tax exempt status?
Of course not, they didn't directly fund the Prop 8 campaign, and thus, didn't do anything illegal.

[Socialist Neuveria]

Which church is this exactly? I am familiar with virtually all denominations of Christianity, and none of the major ones require tithing, the Catholics included.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( Mormon ) is a church founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820's. The Book of Mormon, which is essentially a second new testament which details a journey of a tribe of Israel which travels to North America and purports that they are the descendants of Native Americans. Key doctrinal points to them are that there is only one correct church, and that the gospel was lost to man after the original church of the apostles died, and that it was restored to Joseph Smith and to the church.

Of course not, they didn't directly fund the Prop 8 campaign, and thus, didn't do anything illegal.


According to Imperial they did, and I did hear that the LDS church did funnel money into the campaign against it, but not via it's members. The church paid for it, hence why there have been vandals tearing up some temples and an anthrax scare today at the Salt Lake Temple.

[Imperial]

According to Imperial they did, and I did hear that the LDS church did funnel money into the campaign against it, but not via it's members. The church paid for it, hence why there have been vandals tearing up some temples and an anthrax scare today at the Salt Lake Temple.

Umm, never said that. Encouraging members to do something is not illegal.

[Socialist Neuveria]

The Mormon Church told its members to pass Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California, they even said that their members had to donate to Pro organization & participate in helping to pass ban in anyway they could. The Mormon Church did not spend any of its own money in that goal so their non-profit status cannot be touched.

I see it now. I apologize. I'm sort of multi tasking right now. Debating Marxist theory with another guy at the same time.

Anyhow, since members are required to pay tithes, the church in concept did pay for it. And even if they didn't break the law, legally there are plenty of loopholes but it still doesn't hide the fact they're meddling in the affairs of the state and politics.

[James Davis]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( Mormon ) is a church founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820's. The Book of Mormon, which is essentially a second new testament which details a journey of a tribe of Israel which travels to North America and purports that they are the descendants of Native Americans. Key doctrinal points to them are that there is only one correct church, and that the gospel was lost to man after the original church of the apostles died, and that it was restored to Joseph Smith and to the church.
I know what LDS is, I just didn't know you were talking about them. I have some Mormon friends who vehemently deny that tithing is mandatory. In any case, LDS is not accepted as a Christian faith by mainstream Christians, and I can assure you with 100% certainty that tithing is not mandatory in the vast majority of American churches.

According to Imperial they did, and I did hear that the LDS church did funnel money into the campaign against it, but not via it's members. The church paid for it, hence why there have been vandals tearing up some temples and an anthrax scare today at the Salt Lake Temple.

It's generally not a good sign for that argument when a anti-prop 8 lawyer said the Mormons did nothing legally wrong.

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=97b66a40-0f35-4f4c-b843-32138998993a

[Imperial]

It's generally not a good sign for that argument when a anti-prop 8 lawyer said the Mormons did nothing legally wrong.

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=97b66a40-0f35-4f4c-b843-32138998993a

lulz... :banana:

[Socialist Neuveria]

Fair enough, but what I am trying to state is that while it may not be "legally" wrong, it still bespeaks volumes on the lengths religion will go to push that envelope and in my opinion, it's ludicrous to allow these churches to still be tax exempt. I'm the minority perhaps ( most likely really ) however that's how I feel. We've both stated our arguments. I don't think there's much else to be said. Good debate guys :)

As a side note, I'm pretty sure my bishop said I was required to tithe as a member.

[James Davis]

Fair enough, but what I am trying to state is that while it may not be "legally" wrong, it still bespeaks volumes on the lengths religion will go to push that envelope and in my opinion, it's ludicrous to allow these churches to still be tax exempt. I'm the minority perhaps ( most likely really ) however that's how I feel. We've both stated our arguments. I don't think there's much else to be said. Good debate guys :)

As a side note, I'm pretty sure my bishop said I was required to tithe as a member.

I'll take your word for it on that one, since I've never been a Mormon, and you have.

Anyway, good debate, I think I'm going to hit the hay here pretty soon..

[Socialist Neuveria]

I might be mistaken if other wards ( or churches to other folks ) are different. But I am fairly certain in a church like the LDS, things are fairly uniform.

G'night comrade.

[The Corporal]

Whats even more frightening is the role the Jewish faction in politics has effected a radical policy against human rights and civil freedoms within Israel. Israel is responsible for countless deaths and human rights abuses including murder, torture and illegal seizure of land based on racial supremacy of the Jewish people.

Palestinians and Jews used to live in harmony, but when the Jewish state was created, Zionist extremists came to power and began to systematically recreate a holocaust. Which, is sad. It is unfortunate that no American politician can stand up for the rights of the Arab Palestinian who is being utterly and completely oppressed by a regime that supports a system of occupation and eradication against an entire race.
I was originally going to say something very scathing about this, but I'll leave it at "you and all other Holocaust deniers should be put in a time machine and sent back to Poland in 1945."

No, it's a fact that with this campaigns, the Catholic Church is not the only example of a church meddling in politics. I remember there was a pastor of a church on the radio that urged his members to vote for John McCain. Also, I saw a sign outside a church that said " What would Jesus Vote? ". That is part and parcel with interfering with politics and violates the agreement that the government will not interfere with the church and in turn grant them tax exempt status provided they abide by the rule and stay out of politics.

The Church can teach what it want. Both should be separate, and what you do in politics should not affect what happens inside the church. The minute it does, that ensures that voter's choices will be affected by the churches policies on certain issues. Fear of being denied communion ( which is one step less than out and out excommunication ) will influence voters to fall into step with the church.
And do you think that pro-Obama churches are any different? That other left-wing civilian groups are any different? If churches cannot encourage their members to vote based on abortion, PETA should not be able to encourage their members to vote based on animal rights. Greenpeace should not be able to encourage members to vote based on environmental issues. I don't agree with the tax-exempt status for churches, but neither do I support singling out particular groups (that you don't like) to cry foul at when other groups are more guilty of meddling in the elections process.

[Melidan]

Following church doctrine. The Catholic Church has been staunchly pro-life ever since the issue became an issue. Obama is the most pro-abortion politician to ever be elected to the presidency. The Church made its position clear before the election, they can't say they weren't warned.

This^

Refusing communion for those who support taking a pair of scissors and piercing the skull of a baby..? Thats how I roll.

[Socialist Neuveria]

I was originally going to say something very scathing about this, but I'll leave it at "you and all other Holocaust deniers should be put in a time machine and sent back to Poland in 1945."

Wait, I forgot where I denied the holocaust? I'm pretty sure I acknowledge the actions taken against the Jewish people in those times, and I made it quite clear a t how saddening it is to see the Jewish people committing the same crimes against the Palestinians. It's all there. The UN has already condemned Israel for it's human rights abuses. There's plenty of videos out there that can demonstrate that.

[The Corporal]

Wait, I forgot where I denied the holocaust? I'm pretty sure I acknowledge the actions taken against the Jewish people in those times, and I made it quite clear a t how saddening it is to see the Jewish people committing the same crimes against the Palestinians. It's all there. The UN has already condemned Israel for it's human rights abuses. There's plenty of videos out there that can demonstrate that.

The part you forgot is the part where you accuse Israel of lining up 6 million Palestinians and burning them in "showers" for shits and giggles.

[Socialist Neuveria]

Actually you're sensationalizing your own argument and attempting to prey on the ever present pro-zionist feelings of guilt for what happened in nazi germany. But guess what: Its been decades since then, Germany has apologized, and Israel has it's own state. How about we focus on the facts as opposed to a bleeding heart guilt trip?

- 20,000 Palestinians detained illegally without charge in Israeli prisons.

- The fact that the occupation of palestine is a military one, wherein no palestinian has the right to freedom of movement ( Meaning they cannot move from one town or another ).

- The fact that anyone in the world can go to Israel, claim jewish heritage, and receive a plot of land that formally belonged to a palestinian family ( some of whom have lived there for generations and generations ). Homes are demolished without judicial or administrative consent, and usually with violent force.

- You know how important olive trees are in palestine? Very. It's an important part of their culture and industry. But the Israeli's have, between 2007 and 2008 uprooted over 20,000 of these trees and replanted them in Israeli settlements.

- http://phrconline.org/articles.php?ArtID=826

There's plenty of material for what I am saying. But honestly I really don't expect you to actually educate yourself on the matter. I expect you'll still continue in ignorance and label me as a terrorist sympathizer.

[The Corporal]

Actually you're sensationalizing your own argument and attempting to prey on the ever present pro-zionist feelings of guilt for what happened in nazi germany. But guess what: Its been decades since then, Germany has apologized, and Israel has it's own state. How about we focus on the facts as opposed to a bleeding heart guilt trip?

- 20,000 Palestinians detained illegally without charge in Israeli prisons.

- The fact that the occupation of palestine is a military one, wherein no palestinian has the right to freedom of movement ( Meaning they cannot move from one town or another ).

- The fact that anyone in the world can go to Israel, claim jewish heritage, and receive a plot of land that formally belonged to a palestinian family ( some of whom have lived there for generations and generations ). Homes are demolished without judicial or administrative consent, and usually with violent force.

- You know how important olive trees are in palestine? Very. It's an important part of their culture and industry. But the Israeli's have, between 2007 and 2008 uprooted over 20,000 of these trees and replanted them in Israeli settlements.

- http://phrconline.org/articles.php?ArtID=826

There's plenty of material for what I am saying. But honestly I really don't expect you to actually educate yourself on the matter. I expect you'll still continue in ignorance and label me as a terrorist sympathizer.
You're damn right I will. Last I checked, it was the Palestinians that were suicide-bombing buses full of children. Last I checked, it was the Palestinians who were calling for "pushing the Jews into the sea." You say there's plenty of material for your argument; surely during your search you must have run across some of the literature on Yasser Arafat, the PLO, Hamas, etc...

[Socialist Neuveria]

Certainly, and you haven't seen me stick up for those actions. Both sides are wrong. Ghandi once wrote an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind ( if I'm correct that he wrote it ). I don't take one side or the other. Both sides have committed horrible abuses.

[tom the pit leader]

To say that they were throw off their land was true a generation ago. I have pity for the peaceful Palistinans, but also the peaceful Isralies. It was their parnet's land, not theirs, or now grandparents'.

If The new PLO wasn't rocketing civilans indicrimatly and using schools and civilans as cover, I might agree with you. But they are and were. If they would stop terrorist attacks for more than a few months at a time, they might get peace, and might be integrated into Israle. But they clearly don't want that, and so I say, "we offerd peace, but you obivously don't want it, so you will get the war you want." And that is a war that they lose, and we know this because they already have in the 6 day war.

[Socialist Neuveria]

I agree with your statement to a certain degree. It all comes back to the chicken or the egg. Who started the violence first. Some say the PLO, some say it was the zionist "revisionists". However one thing is certain:

Both sides are at fault, and claiming Israel has a right to continue the status quo is both ignorant and more importantly, dangerous.