The Future King of England
I read about Prince Charles giving a speech about Islam last week. I have had a hard time finding anything but much abbreviated articles on the speech, but you can read a fairly good article from Father Zuhlsdorf's blog here.
Basically the Prince touts Islam as a religion that is one with nature, a religion that can help us save the planet. While I am concerned about how we treat the plante that God has entrusted us with, I do not see the heretical religion of Islam as the answer to our environmental problems, and I find it disturbing that the future King of England does. This is one more example of why I think the Prince of Wales will make an awful King of England. As a monarchist, I will show him respect and honor, but I am not looking forward to the day when his mother, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II dies.
15 comments:
Hear, hear! I pray Her Majesty will outlive him. Islam will damage Britain, not help it. God save the Queen, and long may She reign!
http://swellanddandy.blogspot.com/2010/06/prince-charles-must-be-republican.html
P.
Amen, may God grant her many more years in this life.
For God sake! Do you know that during eid al haj muslims all across the world butcher hundreds of thousands of goats, cows, and camels to show their devotion to their false god? What kind of god that demand blood, anyway?
Nevertheless, I cannot blame the Prince entirely; if he fails to see their real face. Muslims in the west always portrait themselves as gentle and peaceful bunch; but that what they always do when they are the minority.
If they are the majority, what will they do? Well history tells us that under that condition they will:
1.Conquered and forced you to convert to islam
2.Allow you to live under their protection, but you must always pay them “protection fee”
3.Snatched your women and “marry” them so the conversion process can be done in peaceful manner.
4.Burnt down your sacred religious icons and monuments and later say, “Ups! we are really sorry. We don’t mean that?” Remember it was the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher that triggered the first crusade, these barbaric infidels had the nerve to destroy one of the holiest sites in Christianity, and later on they say it was not the doing of islam; it was the doing of a single mad man.
Like all listed were not done by other religion believers in history..
to anonymous,
perhaps true, but at least other religions did those things simply because some overzealous followers. For example: You never hear a single verse in Christianity that tells you to hate the Jew. However, in this shitty religion it is actually written in the hadits, if I am not mistaken the order to be weary (suspicious)toward the Jew.
Just look at this way okay, after 2 thousands years Europe still can remember its pagan mythologies, The Farsi still lives happily in India, so does the Nestorian in the far east, Buddhism holiest sites still exist in Nepal, etc. However, you don't see any trace of Buddhism in Afghanistan, Judaism in Arabia, Hinduism in Java (or the temples in Java survived the ages simply because they were burried and rediscovered during the Dutch rule), or preislamic Arabia. Even up to this day these assholes; pardon my word still harbour hatred toward the Hindus in Malaysia, Christian and Buddhist in Indonesia even one of their own "denomination"; the shiite in Saudi Arabia.
Here a little joke for you, it wasn't the heat of battles, or the mockeries of other European powers that turned Vlad III into a crazy ass "demon"; it was them simply because Vlad III refused to become a muslim.
I think what we did in Granada, for example was just beating them in their own game. Look at the history of the Ottoman, for example... how many times they conquered territories and "married" the women and converted the children? (these converted children were the backbone of the janissaries). You never see these actions in Christendoms or other Empires in the far east.
Fricking heck. American Monarchist? A country that complains so much about the healthcare bill being brought in for the welfare of the countries residents because it will be expensive. Why would you want to pay to support an outdated institution? And as for Muslims being heretics... well plenty of the ideas espoused in Christianity seem primitive and outdated to me; but I don't go around tarring all christians with the same brush as I tar those who hold anti-gay protests at American soldiers funerals and murder doctors. Stop living in the past.
Originally posted by anonymous:
"to anonymous,
perhaps true, but at least other religions did those things simply because some overzealous followers. For example: You never hear a single verse in Christianity that tells you to hate the Jew. However, in this ****** religion it is actually written in the hadits, if I am not mistaken the order to be weary (suspicious)toward the Jew.
Just look at this way okay, after 2 thousands years Europe still can remember its pagan mythologies, The Farsi still lives happily in India, so does the Nestorian in the far east, Buddhism holiest sites still exist in Nepal, etc. However, you don't see any trace of Buddhism in Afghanistan, Judaism in Arabia, Hinduism in Java (or the temples in Java survived the ages simply because they were burried and rediscovered during the Dutch rule), or preislamic Arabia. Even up to this day these ***holes; pardon my word still harbour hatred toward the Hindus in Malaysia, Christian and Buddhist in Indonesia even one of their own "denomination"; the shiite in Saudi Arabia.
Here a little joke for you, it wasn't the heat of battles, or the mockeries of other European powers that turned Vlad III into a crazy ass "demon"; it was them simply because Vlad III refused to become a muslim.
I think what we did in Granada, for example was just beating them in their own game. Look at the history of the Ottoman, for example... how many times they conquered territories and "married" the women and converted the children? (these converted children were the backbone of the janissaries). You never see these actions in Christendoms or other Empires in the far east."
Prince William will be a better king than Charles. Love live King Billy! ;)
Calling another religion "heretical" is not being very Christian, and makes you sound just like the small minority of muslims that are overzealous.
Islam is a very peaceful religion on the whole, and is also growing larger in the west by the day.
The Catholic church, like Anonymous said is out-dated and not without problems of it's own ie: priests that abuse young boys, so please try to refrain from putting others down.
Thanks.
Any religion that rejects the truth of Jesus Christ is heretical. Interestingly enough, the Sunnis and Shias of Islam both consider each other heretical, so where's your criticism of them, hmm?
Calling another religion heretical when it rejects the truth is no more un-Christian than calling a man a bus driver when he drives a bus. Bringing up priest abusers is simply a red herring.
Oh, and since it is my blog, I will feel free to continue "putting others down" as I please.
I think this site would be interesting for you guys and also for you, Mr. mule; ... oops mr. the last anonymous...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
A heretic is someone who deviates from their own religion
An "infidel" is what someone calls the followers of a religion that they consider false.
Therefore, christians calling muslims heretical makes absolutely no sense.
While I join you in wishing Her Majesty The Queen long life indeed, I think it a mistake to make prognostications as to what sort of Sovereign HRH The Prince of Wales will be. With Coronation (and Anointing) there comes a special and peculiar grace which provides kings and queens the wisdom and fortitude to carry out their difficult function, similar to the special graces given a pope; Benedict XVI is not the same man Josef Ratzinger was, nor could he be.
The truth is we have no idea what sort of King the Prince will make, though we do know he has spent all of his life preparing for the role. He deserves our prayers, support, and most importantly, the benefit of the doubt.
Blogger Nick said...
"Any religion that rejects the truth of Jesus Christ is heretical."
Not so, patently untrue! IN a Christian/Catholic context, a heretic is one who rejects Catholic Christian teachings. Gnostic Christians were deemed heretics. Martin Luther was deemed a heretic. Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and Hindus cannot be heretics because they are not Christians. As non-Christians, they can hardly dissent from, or depart from, the religious norm!
Heretic: those who know the teaching of Christ through official Christian tenets, yet they choose to reject or adulterate them.
Heathens: those who don’t know the teaching of Christ, or even the person of Christ.
So, from the point of view of the medieval Europe (before the reformation), Jews, Gnostic Christians, and Muslims were heretics, while other religions were considered pagans (heathens).
During the reformation, Catholics considered Protestants as heretics, and vice versa.
Officially, the terms, heathens and heretics were abrogated by the 2nd Vatican Council.
Interestingly, these terms are also known by other monotheist religions. While, officially the Catholic had abrogated them, I don’t know whether the others have done so or not.
Post a Comment