Welcome to Anti

The Anti Slavery Quotes Page

Latest Anti Slavery Quotes News

Slavery discussed during Martin Luther King Jr. tribute at Ave Maria ... - Naples Daily News

On Monday, Ave Maria School of Law held a powerful tribute in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. More than 40 people gathered in the classroom at the St. Thomas More Commons building to take in a special showing of “Amazing Grace” and hear a ...

Censorship and Libel at USC - Front Page

Editor’s note: In September 2009, David Horowitz was invited by the University of Southern California College Republicans to come on campus and protest an Islamic Hadith calling for the genocide of the Jews that appeared on an official USC ...

Harry Reid and the offense game - Hendricks County Flyer

... Limbaugh quotes endorsing slavery than comments Reid doesn’t deny making. The fraudulent Rush quotes illustrate the next logical step in the charade: Accusing someone of racism based on the belief that the person somehow should be racist.

Anderson Cooper 360 - News Busters

On Monday’s AC360, CNN’s Jessica Yellin spun the rise of Republican candidate Scott Brown as coming from “folks here in Massachusetts [who] are feeling angry and scared. They’re angry and scared about the economy, about jobs...and especially ...

Talibanization or the Turkish Model? - Chowk

Few people are aware that Pakistan has Vedic temples prima au pareil (unparallel) languishing for want of care and dying a dusty death. Umpteen temples have vanished from the skyline of the prominent cities of Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Sindh and ...

Op-Ed: Reid's Word Choice Reveals Character Flaw - NPR News

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has apologized for referring to President Obama, while he was running for president, as "light-skinned" with "no Negro dialect." The comments prompted many Republicans to call on Reid to resign. But ...

January 2010 - prospect

They propose public funding of campaigns based on "multiple matching" for small contributions (as in New York City's acclaimed system), lower contribution limits as a condition of public financing, tax credits and rebates for small donors, as well as ...

Resolved Question: LDS, is it true that Joseph smith ran for president on an "anti-slavery" platform?

i think i read something like but its vague in my memory. that would imply that he is NOT racist, would it not any quotes to understand if this true? more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support the Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Note: Please Read Entire Page and pay Attention to References which work as proof in claims. This Is a Real Question I am Seeking Educated Answers Please Do not Stick to Mindless Childish Insults, Also France Which is a Marxist Based Government And Canada Are Much Older Then America So Don’t Bring Up Russia Also remember America is like Iron were a republic that Makes us exactly like the old roman empire Were not a true democracy like parliament Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the feudal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgeoisie class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not an excuse there are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that Christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative Christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not necessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobedience your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against the two books "John Locke The two treatises of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember you can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality is to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institute prejudice in pursuant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically by any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains because the early church demonstrated a socialistic quality and in no way dose capitalism demonstrate the parable of the shrewd manager. Please do not also bring up madness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how Christians serve to condemn people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. Please also explain how slaves were called of Babylon and many killed for asking for freedom in church validation that the wealthy slave owners were covered by the blood of Jesus showing indeed the idols that have sold out our morality for profit and our need of the divine where many are slain for the validation of this system of economics and government which portends to money P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so don’t use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant more

Resolved Question: How are Republicans so evil?

All the time I hear this famous quote from the left, "Republicans are against everything America stands for!" Please enlighten me on this. State what liberty or freedom Republican oppose and what constitutional amendment it is directed at. What is it Republicans oppose that is in your version of what America 'stands for'? What does America stand for to you that they hate? Please, be specific. No vague answers. I am shocked sometimes when people right 'Republikkkan', when in FACT the original party was called the Democrat-Republican Party but a little issue called 'slavery' forced the anti-slavery activist to split the party and form the "Republican Party". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States) The KKK history clearly shows that the 'klan' used to murder white Republicans to remain Democrat control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan Do you people know your history? Or facts? Or do you just make stuff up?The reason I ask this question is because I am a Republican. I'm more than a little tired of these references that are complete lies. Statements that make no sense. (i.e. Republicans are against...) I wanted to hear from them how I am against everything America stands for. What is their version of 'everything' that I supposedly oppose. Can I get one answer here?By the way, the house version was writen by Democrat David Obey, and the Senate version by Democrat Harry Reid. Get your facts straight.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009 "Read my lips, no new taxes". President George H. W. Bush. (""I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." -Barrack Obama) They are stupid as all hell, and treat US Citizens like they are stupid also: (Generalize much? Any facts here? Or was this all opinion?) "I want to bring in more oil from Mexico to reduce our dependence on foreign oil". President George W. Bush. ("I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - Barrack Obama) They lie a lot: "I am not a crook". President Richard M. Nixon. (Is that all you have is quotes?) Source(s): Truth = The Anti-Republican. (Go figure.)@Army Vet: My reply as follows to your statements: They oppose decent health care in the USA. (That would be a violation of FEDERAL LAW, noone is denied health CARE. Once again, misleading facts.) They oppose conservation and promote waste and price gouging. (They promote capitalism and free enterprise, you sound upset that someone made money, but you didn't. Promote waste? When was the last time you went to the bathroom? So, since Democrats have control of the Congress and the Senate and the White House, sudeenly all 'waiste' disappeared? They squander our tax dollars on their pet pork belly projects, and raise our taxes, and then lie about it, blaming Democrats. (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed in Febuary. Who had control of Congress? Democrats? Again, misleading information. This bill was commonly refered to as the 'porkulus bill' due to sheer number of earmarks in it. more

Resolved Question: Why do Christians try so hard to ban gay marriage because it's "immoral"?

Christians, If you beleive a bible-based marriage is between one man and one woman. You're a bit wrong. One common anti-gay Christian quote is "Well God made and Adam & Eve"... but you people never got to finish the story? God made Adam and Eve, Eve had two sons or something like that, One killed the other, and then he had incestuous sex with his sister. According to the bible a marriage can be between one man and... - his sister AND her servant (Abraham loved having sex with his sister and her servant) - A pile of salt - Three hundred whores and several hundred wives. (That's one thousand vaginas for one man!) - A young virgin girl after you raped her and slaughtered her family. - His sex slaves - And another woman, and another woman, and a few more woman, and an adulterer, and a group of raped whores. Since you're trying so hard to ban gay marriage because it's 'immoral'? Why don't you just try to legalise incest, polygamy and sex slaves? God has clearly no problem with this, infact he wrote it down in a book for you so you can follow the moral examples. (Don't Forget - God and Jesus very much approve of slavery) ___________________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw - VersesI'm not trying to be offensive. - This is your religion so you shouldn't be offended by the bible.@Paul M. If you're such an expert, WATCH THE VIDEO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw It's ALL in there.@Paul M, Abraham had sex with his sister (so they married) and her slave? Long after Genesis@Mel, I just think if you're going to tell a gay person they can't get married because it's "immoral" according to the bible. That's a ridicilous statement because the bible is so immoral itself when it comes to sex & marriage. more

Resolved Question: does anyone know what this is called?

so there's this picture that im sure i've seen before at some point in my history class. it was a slavery picture, and there was a caption at the bottom reading "do you often buy the wife without the husband?" "yes, very often; and frequently, too. They sell me the mother while i keep her children." this is a quote from the American Anti-Slavery Almanac. I've googled this, and i just can't find it!! please help, i need it for a history assignment due monday. thanks :)) more

Resolved Question: Do you think RUSH did wrong?

The Race Card, Football and Me My Critics Would Have You Believe No Conservative Meets NFL 'Standards.' By RUSH LIMBAUGH David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer. It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot. Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray. Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . " Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source. I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand. The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views? The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred. When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama. Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did. As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests. These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society. Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated talk radio host. http://on more

Voting Question: Can someone answer questions about writing a paper?

Okay, I found an article at an online writing source. The author quotes several authors in the body of the text. For example, he said: "Gibbs (2005) said that Lincoln's first speech set the stage for his anti-slavery presidency." When I write the paper about the article, which is really more like a paper, do I site the authors that the author references? Or would i just write: Lincoln's first speech...?" I don't remember how I'm supposed to handle this. Thanks.I mean do I have to include the cited authors the paper's author cited? Do I have to write Gibbs (2005), too? Or is it understand that what I wrote about is already cited by the paper's author? more

Resolved Question: I need a rational "argument" for getting over slavery........?

There is this guy who keeps on using slavery as an excuse for all, quote, "his peoples" problems. I am anti-slavery, BUT, i dont feel sorry for what happened. (yes, im an evil white man.) The past is the past and what happened in the past was necessary for were we are today. No slavery, no America. our economy relied on it and without it, we would all be British. Hell, maybe German. Anyway, im getting sick of his constant bitching... and need some help. thanks. more

Resolved Question: What do you think about everyone linking Nostradamus and obama?

Okay I'm not the first person to ask this, but it just makes me so mad that just because obama is in office, now oh no the world is gonna end.. i read another blog that people were talking in, about a quote from Nostradamus: (243) The great empire will be torn from limb, The all-powerful one for more than four hundred years: Great power given to the dark one from slaves come, The Aryana will not be satisfied thereby. This is how i take it: (The great empire will be torn from limb)- okay yea yea..when isn't the world messed up... (The all-powerful one for more than four hundred years; Great power given to the dark one from slaves come,) - well, slavery in the U.S. lasted over 400 years, approx. 465 years if i'm not mistaken. Now when someone even with just the slightest of african american in them has a great deal of power (being president) they have to be an anit-christ (please)! (The Aryana will not be satisfied thereby.)- I may not be able to break down what aryana truly means..but last time i heard..don't the KKK sometimes go by the Aryan brotherhood..I ono maybe I'm wrong...and everybody knows that they ain't happy with obama being president. Yea yea..and some may also say.."well what about all that with nostradamus talkin' about mabus being the third anti-christ" and all that bs when you put obama and bush together and take away the oba..that too much ignorance for me..but if u do wanna play those type of games..u could of easily did that with osama and bush. Then there's some that wanna bring in.."well what about the mayan calendar with it ending in 2012" ...well as far as i know..Remember how everyone was freaking out with the predictions about 2000? The whole the-Mayans-said-the-world-will-end-in-2012 thing is basically just Y2K fever, ancient Mesoamerican style. And then there will be someone saying.."But those are just too many signs" I think of it like this...when July,6,06 (6,06,06) came around, did that mean it was devil day? No that's ridiculous. The mayan calendar doesn't even mean the end. Maybe in spiritual sense..a change..but why does it have to be a bad change..why does obama have to be a bad change? As i read in history there have been worse presidents. So as I refer back to nostradamus' prophecies, yea it may seem like the world is coming to an end for those racist mofo's out there, that the thought of a black person even being able to use the same bathroom as them makes their teeth cringe. But for people that have the same way of thinking as i do, this is a new, good change, and the world hasn't seen nothing yet. more

Voting Question: Are conservatives sure they want to use the one Lincoln quote where he defends conservatism?

Some con used it with no source. I got curious and looked it up to see it in context. Apparently Lincoln and his party was accused of being radical, revolutionary, destructive, and sectional (a Northern Party). To defend himself and his party, he said you guys call yourself CONSERVATIVE because you DEFEND SLAVERY. He said no, we're conservative because we plan on doing nothing about slavery. Of Course, Lincoln and his "Radical Republican Party" did do something about slavery. They used the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to destroy a "state-rights" to own slaves. 1860 CONSERVATIVE STAND = PRO-SLAVERY 1860 RADICAL STAND = ANTI-SLAVERY ================ ``You claim that you are conservative; and we are not. We deny it. What is conservatism? Preserving the old against the new. And yet you are conservative in struggling for the new, and we are destructive in trying to maintain the old. Possibly you mean you are conservative in trying to maintain the existing institution of slavery. Very well; we are not trying to destroy it. The peace of society, and the structure of our government both require that we should let it alone, and we insist on letting it alone. If I might advise my Republican friends here, I would say to them, leave your Missouri neighbors alone. Have nothing whatever to do with their slaves. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div2;q1=What%20is%20conservatism;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln3;node=lincoln3%3A166.1 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div2;q1=What%20is%20conservatism;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln3;node=lincoln3%3A199.1Jack B, Are you sure. Can you find the speech in which Lincoln said that? I always see alot of FALSE unreference quotes out there. This one turned out to be true, but was selectively quoted and not put in context.eelfins, Southern CONSERVATIVE "state-rights" Democrats supported slavery, while the Radical Republican Party (based in the northeast) was against it. We know that. Have you taken a look at your party? Things have changed. Today's GOP is the party of south and "state-rights". Blacks and notherners have been moving towards the Dem Party ever since the 1964 presidential election. Back then liberal Democrat LBJ supported civil rights and conservative Republican Barry Goldwater opposed them. That was the first year the South went Republican for president. more

Voting Question: Are conservatives sure they want to use the one Lincoln quote where he defends conservatism?

Resolved Question: After reading this quote on abortion, does your perspective change at all?

"…Clarence put his fingers on the keyboard and started the next day's column. Like an extemporaneous speech that's twenty years in the making, his column came from deep within, having been forged in the fires of many years' thoughts and experiences: The slaveowners were pro-choice. They said, "Those who don't want to have slaves don't have to, but don't tell us we can't choose to. It's our right." Those who wanted to make slaveholding illegal were accused of being anti-choice and anti-freedom, of trying to impose their morality on others. The civil rights movement, like the abolitionist movement one hundred years earlier, opposed the exercise of free choice that much of society defended. It was solidly anti-choice when it came to racial discrimination. Historically, whites had a free choice to own slaves, and later to have segregated lunch counters. After all, America was a free country. But the civil rights movement fought to take away that free choice from them. Likewise, the women's movement fought to take away an employer's free choice to discriminate against women. Nearly every movement of oppression and exploitation--from slavery to abortion--has labeled itself "pro-choice". Likewise, opposing movements offering compassion and deliverance have been labeled "anti-choice" by exploiters. In reality, the pro-choice position always emphasizes one person's right to choose instead of the others'. But what about the victims right to choose? Blacks didn't choose slavery. Jews didn't choose the ovens. Women don't choose rape. And babies don't choose abortion. He pressed the word count button. Only two hundred words, a quarter of the way to a column. He'd have to flesh it out, tie it to some current event of the last few days. He took some comfort knowing how many toes he would step on. But he also hoped maybe he would do some good. Maybe somebody out there would listen." From: Dominion by Randy Alcorn Page 138Here's another one for ya: "He'd written some columns on abortion that were among his most controversial. He looked at the one in front of him, written after Susan Smith drowned her children in that Carolina lake:Susan Smith killed her two sons. Amid all the shock and dismay expressed in the media, I can only ask, What's the big deal? Why is everybody so upset? After all, people all over the country, including columnists at this newspaper, have for years defended her right to kill the same two children. Their only stipulation was that Susan Smith kill them when they were younger and smaller. Based on this I can only conclude that Susan Smith, exercising her right to privacy and freedom of choice, was not guilty of doing a bad thing. She was only guilty of bad timing. What she did to her sons was just a very late-term abortion. He'd concluded the article, "It's time for abortion advocates to be honest and admit that Susan Smith is the poster child for pro-choice America."" From: Dominion by Randy Alcorn Page 157Just a comment: So there seems to be a general concensus that if you don't have the means to support an unborn child, you have the right to execute it before it's born. But say you are happily wealthy and years AFTER the baby is born, you lose all means to support it, you should then have the right to dispose of it as well. After all, you don't have the means to give it a decent life anymore. Put it out of it's missery. The only difference is that THEN you would be a classified murderer but if it's just a "fetus" (which by the way, never turns out to be anything other than a human baby... so in my opinion, it IS a human BABY), then you're just doing it a favor? I say, if you aren't prepared to have kids, don't have sex, you can't have your cake and eat it too... so you shouldn't be allowed to have your pleasure without your responsibility. more

Resolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?

What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god? One the book Don Quixote and John Locke are the reasons we say it is silly to be evangelical or that the nobility was god ordained two the book Huckle berry finn shows that somehow people believed slaves were babylon and had misused grace and would burn in hell three the church was split in two during the civil war one said cursed be Canaan against slaves the other quoted a passage in Corinthians concerning slavery Lastly they engaged in politics of opposite ends each signifying biblical reference and of course the attack against progress as being called of anti christ when christ said himself we must be born again more

Resolved Question: If you lived in these Timeless historcial scanerio's ?

How Would you play them out ? 1. You are a slave in 1850 in Maryland. You have heard about a great black woman known as "Moses" who helps slaves try to escape using something called the Underground Railroad. Another slave has approached you and has asked you to run away and try to escape to freedom. Will you go? 2.You are a businessman living in Pennsylvania in 1855. You are personally opposed to slavery but have never spoken publicly against it. You were approached by an abolitionist group and have been asked to become a stop on the Underground Railroad. You know other families have been threatened for helping slaves and that there is a new law that carries stiff penalties for assisting runaways. Will you help 3.You are a newspaper editor living in Virginia in 1840. You own two slaves yourself. You were approached by an abolitionist group and have been asked to publish a series of anti-slavery editorials. You have always tried to be fair about reporting, but your readers are mostly in favor of slavery. Would you run the editorials? 4.You are a clergyman in North Carolina in 1750. You believe that all men are your brothers, but many of your parishioners own slaves. You have heard other clergy deliver sermons quoting sections of the Bible that seem to support slavery, but you still believe it is wrong. Your church is largely dependent upon the contributions of slave owners. How do you address the issue of slavery in your churchp.s. if you must know i created these questions myself more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Note: This Is a Real Question I am Seeking Educated Answers Please Do not Stick to Mindless Childish Insults, Also France Which is a Marxist Based Governement And Canada Are Much Older Then America So Dont Bring Up Russia Also remeber America is Iron were a republic that Makes us exactly like the old roman empire Were not a true democracy like parliment Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. Please also explain how slaves were called of babylon and many killed for asking for freedom in church validation that the wealthy slave owners were covered by the blood of jesus showing indeed the idols that have sold out our morality for profit and our need of the divine where many are slain for the validation of this system of econmics and governemnt P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Note: This Is a Real Question I am Seeking Educated Answers Please Do not Stick to Mindless Childish Insults, Also France Which Isd Marxist Based Governement And Canada Are Much Older Then The US So Dont Bring Up Russia Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti Christ System Of Mammon ?

Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China billions, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition to Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced a waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes first, he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via Max Weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and was not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issues, republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change. We live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom such things are not neccessary. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau's civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King, Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against The two books "John Locke The two treatise of Government" and "Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism" are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. Karl Marx has said "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests." This quote has been proved true by sociology, history and political science. This is mainly due to the fact that the ruling class must institutie prejudice in pursuiant to its own interests in order to continue to rule. It can not give place to any religious or moral opposition so it must validate itself politically buy any means needed out of fear. Do not state Mammon is ill gotten gains becuase the early church demonstrated a socalistic quality and in no way does capitalism demonstarte the parable of the shrewed manager. Please do not also bring up maddness of a micro chip. Christ stated that some around him would not taste death, till all should come to pass. Explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice of the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support the Anti-Christ system of Mammon?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Public ownership of property as to have no bourgiose class is communism. This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable, despite What Adam Smith might say. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes firs,t he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau and civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is in no way a rant more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Please Do not bring up Adam Smiths book "Wealth of Nations" China Canada and France do just fine. In fact its America that’s economically failing, we owe China money, So much for capitalism. Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility. Do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist, Trade does not equal capitalism. Private property as to have a bourgiose class is communism. This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable, despite What Adam Smith might say. Now when you consider peak oil is this idea so far fetched, Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy. Once more god is not about money morality comes firs,t he who is not for is against. We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic. Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization. Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for Social welfare or work release. Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom. Also If your against Henry David Thoreau and civil disobediance your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery. He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts more

Voting Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ? Do not bring up the wealth of nations China Canada and France do just fine in fact its America that’s economically failing and we owe China money So much for capitalism Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility So do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist Trade does not equal capitalism private property as to have a bourgiose class does This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable despite What Adam Smith says. Now when you consider peak oil is this so far fetched Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy And once more god is not about money morality comes first he who is not for is against We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these types of issues republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for any social welfare program or work release Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Henry David Thoreau your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts this is not a rant I have used creditable thought and logos more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Do not bring up the wealth of nations China Canada and France do just fine in fact its America that’s economically failing and we owe China money So much for capitalism Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility So do not make the foolish statement that China is capitalist Trade does not equal capitalism private property as to have a bourgiose class does This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable despite What Adam Smith says. Now when you consider peak oil is this so far fetched Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy And once more god is not about money morality comes first he who is not for is against We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these types of issues republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians and are not for any social welfare program or work release Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Henry David Thoreau your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain the prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book Huckle Berry Finn and Don Quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Do not bring up the wealth of nations China Canada and France do just fine in fact its America that’s economically failing and we owe China money So much for capitalism Also Socialism is not communism nor is the fuedal system of nobility This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable despite What Adam Smith says. Now when you consider peak oil is this so far fetched Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy And once more god is not about money morality comes first he who is not for is against We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Henry David Thoreau your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. Explain tyhe prejudice opf the duke of bridge water and how christains serve to condem people to hell as in the prejudice of the book huckle berry finn anmd don quixote P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts more

Voting Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ? Do not bring up the wealth of nations China Canada and France do just fine in fact its America that’s economically failing and we owe China money So much for capitalism This in addition Marx prediction of proletariat overthrow from a depression that will systematically continue to decline shows us that economic inquiry is not always capital favorable despite What Adam Smith says. Now when you consider peak oil is this so far fetched Its obvious capitalism has only produced waste economy And once more god is not about money morality comes first he who is not for is against We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Henry David Thoreau your against Martin Luther King Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and pay taxes so dont use that baseless answer for attack on ethos I am very creditable and am using real sources other then my own thoughts more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ? We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or Other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Thoreau your against Martin Luther KIng Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education and I do work and contribute to the system more

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

We need money is not a excuse their are other systems of economics that work and actually are better suited for equality and hard work moral ethic Also capitalism as modern day is widely accepted via weber that it stemmed from Protestant ethos and not a by product of industrialization Please do not state that christians try to fix these issue republicans show a direct phallus to that statement as most of them are conservative christians Please do not also state crime or Other sanctions are the reason we don't change we live in a Democratic republic founded on freedom Also If your against Thoreau your against Martin Luther KIng Civil Rights and Feminism your even against abolition of slavery He who is not for is against John Locke The two treatise of Government Max Weber The Spirit Of Capitalism these two books are the reference of mammon I speak of in which god is said to be of money and is also the modern scope of the protestant ethos and government as well as economics. Remember You can not love god and mammon you will love one and hate the other. "Law religion and morality are to him so many bourgeoisie prejudices upon which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeoisie interests" karl marx said this quote and its been proved true by sociology history and political science; explain how the nobility was thrown off and called not of god or god ordained. P.S. I am using a computer at a college library and am working to help change the system through education more

Voting Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?

Question Is Above Bottom Is reference One the book Don Quixote and John Locke are the reasons we say it is silly to be evangelical or that the nobility was god ordained. Two the book Huckle berry finn shows that somehow people believed slaves were babylon and had misused grace and would burn in hell. Three the church was split in two during the civil war one said cursed be Canaan against slaves the other quoted a passage in Corinthians. Concerning slavery Lastly both the northern states and southern engaged in politics of opposite ends each signifying biblical reference. This shows that they didnt in fact know god, and of course the attack against progress as being called of anti christ when christ said himself we must be born again. So of all this reference how does anyone know god or end times because the civil war and throwing off of nobility was said to signify end times by most illuminate and is agreed by most christain philosophers more

Resolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?

One the book Don Quixote and John Locke are the reasons we say it is silly to be evangelical or that the nobility was god ordained two the book Huckle berry finn shows that somehow people believed slaves were babylon and had misused grace and would burn in hell three the church was split in two during the civil war one said cursed be Canaan against slaves the other quoted a passage in Corinthians concerning slavery Lastly they engaged in politics of opposite ends each signifying biblical reference and of course the attack against progress as being called of anti christ when christ said himself we must be born again more

Resolved Question: So if we ban gay marriage then shouldn't we ban interracial marriage?

I am the only one that is laughing at the issue of gay marraige? I am not gay but I could care less if gay people get married. I think people forget history. Just in the 1950's and 1960's it was illeagal for a white man and a black women or vice versa to get married. Why you might ask? Well here are some quotes from people at the time. "No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy" Seaborn Roddenbery In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws So does anyone else think that in 50 years from now our children will look back on this time and be like wow those people were F*****g ignorant and discriminatory? more

Voting Question: How Can Obama quote MLK--when BO has turned against all that King Stood For? ..see attached source article..?

ps--There are dozens just like this one...and I quote: "Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican By Frances Rice It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism. It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's. During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King." so, I ask you why was MLK a republican and BO is super leftist liberal if MLK was so profound and insightful about the treatment of minorities? And why doesn't BO care about women's rights? He never talks about them? Even whenyougive libs the FACTS--they can't understand me....??go ahead and keep defending..you're wrong---johnson and kennedy were against civil rights for blacks.... Read Your History. more

Resolved Question: Where do we go now Barack?

Now that Obama has revealed some of his socialist and anti-american ways, have some of his (and his supporters) arguments become void? Redistribution of the wealth: Obama's people first said that the "joe the plumber" quote was taken out of context. Well, Obama reaffirmed this "redistributive" ideal in a recent interview, and he explains in depth what this means in his 2001 interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=email Questioning Obama's patriotism: Obama has said that we shouldn't question his patriotism. Well, Obama has said, in the above interview, that the basic purpose of the constitution--defining and limiting the power of government--is flawed. Certainly the constitution has had flaws: like allowing slavery and disallowing women's right to vote, but the basic purpose of the constitution is not flawed and is what this country is built upon. So, for calling the constitution--the basic purpose of the constitution--flawed, surely we can question Obama's patriotism now, right?"Sounds like some of your anti-Obama cohorts have made plasn." Oh, please. I think these two men are disgusting and should be imprisoned for life. Nice, trying to associate me with those scum."Let's see how 'urban dictionary' defines patriotism." Yes, urban dictionary- the aggregate of all human knowledge."Interesting clip.. doesn't sound very Obama like or rather sound like it could have been faked.. I wonder if there is a way of getting it so that friends can't question it's validity." The obama campaign has already put out a press release on the clip, validating it, but downplaying it's importance. more

Resolved Question: Is feminism anti-family?

I ask because of these quotes from prominent feminists: "Most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294 "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan "The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women's rebellion throughout history." -- Marlene Dixon, "Why Women's Liberation? Racism and Male Supremacy" . "How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." -- Irina Dunn, 1970 . Intersting note: this famous quote comes from Irina Dunn, an Australian journalist who coined it in 1970. But the most interesting thing is, Ms Dunn stole this quote from a philosopher who said, "Man needs God like a fish needs a bicycle." Irina Dunn needed a man to come up with the only phrase that gave her fame. How empowering! . "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworki Note: Andrea Dworkin was secretly married to a man for many years. She was against marriage.... Against your marriage, not hers. "The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254."I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal." -- Sylvia Fraser; Journalist "All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey." -- Marilyn French"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon,"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry." -- Germaine Greer"The nuclear family is a cornerstone of woman's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jaggar"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine. That's as mainstream as you can get."The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." -- (National NOW Times, Jan. 1988) Scarlett, misogyny isn't a political and social movement."The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger"I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it's OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys." -- Treena Shapiro more

Resolved Question: Copyright question?

There is an historic image of a slave that was used on anti-slavery coins circa 1780s. The image is of a slave on his knees with his hands above his hands, infront of his face. Almost as if he is pleaing for mercy. There is a quote 'Am I not a Man and a Brother' that is attached to the image. The Smithsonian owns the coin. My question is is it ok to use that quote on a t-shirt? I've seen other shirts with a similar saying 'Am I not a Woman,' which is an historic quote of Sojourner Truth.Angel, I understand your concern, but we created a different image to attach the saying to. more

Resolved Question: I'd like your feedback on this website - Anti-Bible site.?

I'm not posting this link to stir up bad emotions. Sure, I've often voiced my opinion on religion here - and I find that a lack of religion and a push for common sense morals would serve our society much better. But barring my personal beliefs, I've got a few questions for those who have read the Bible and understand how it's constructed. There is a website called EvilBible.com. On it are hundreds of listings of alleged quotes which openly promote murder, slavery, rape - you name it. What I want to know is: 1.) Are these quotes real? 2.) Are they taken completely out of context? If so, could you choose one and explain it to me in context, provided that it is a legitimate quote? 3.) Are the sections of the Bible quoted ones which are actively supported and followed today? I'm seeing a lot of "Deuteronomy", "Exodus", and "Judges". I have never studied the Bible, so these distinctions are entirely foreign to me. I'm out of space here, but I'll list some alleged quotes below.Quotes: (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)These sound like paraphrased interpretations of verses, not actual scripture. Is that correct?I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I took the advice below and looked them up on BibleGateway.com. They do appear to be real, which leads me to another question. If these are Old Testament, and Jesus proclaimed that they were not to be followed, then is Jesus in direct defiance of his father, God? Do Christians not believe that God wrote the Old Testament? I don't know exactly how an ethereal being can put pen to paper, but do they not believe that the words within are his?Oh, and thanks :D I am quite fond of this hat as well.FamousFool: Why does the Old Testament not apply anymore? I'd always heard that God was infallible, so the casting off of the Old Testament would seem like an admission that the original word of God was wrong.James: Great answer, thanks! That really helps to shed some light on things. more

Resolved Question: Racism - Why is it always once sided?

Have you not noticed the huge amounts of anti white media, anti white laws there are? Doesn't it seem that unless you are in the right area you will not get any benefit, support or favor unless you are an ethnic? I'd like to remind all those blacks that if it were not for the likes of the white countries such as the US and Britain (who abolished slavery a good 100 years before the US) and crushed the Nazi's that they would really be in a terrible position right now. And yes the majority of those fighting those racist powers were in fact mostly whites, in the US the whites although fighting to abolish the slaves rejected the idea of blacks fighting for a long long time! And on a deeper level try and quote any black power in a black country that has stood up to the likes of Mugabe on the protection of whites! I think that blacks should remember that while bad has been done it as also been undone by the only power that could do it, the own sentiments of the whites in their home nations. more

Resolved Question: Is it valid to compare "Christian" anti-gay attitudes with "Christian" racism?

Before you report this, here's what I'm asking - and note that I put "Christian" in quotes, because I'm referring specifically to those types of Christianity that ARE anti-gay or racist - and I think we can all admit that those types exist, even though we may disagree with them. Anti-abolitionists used to cite the Biblical "Curse of Ham" as evidence that black people were inferior, since Ham was believed to be the progenitor of the black African races. They would also point out what modern Christians are loathe to acknowledge, viz. that the Bible clearly endorses the practice of slavery, in multiple passages. In other words, they cited specific Biblical texts to justify their own racist attitudes. Nowadays we've collectively decided that they were wrong in so doing. But it's hard not to see a parallel in what's going on now with the "Christian" push against gay rights. Specific texts are selected from among hundreds of others in the Bible as validating anti-gay sentiment.I'm asking because I honestly want your opinions on this. Do you feel that this is a fair comparison? Why or why not? Feel free to actually think about it rather than kneejerk-reacting. Has Biblical Truth changed, or have people's notions of right and wrong? And in the case of the latter, is it always "bad" to depart from old ways of thinking?I knew that people would say that the Bible "clearly" condemns homosexuality but never specifically endorses slavery. In the first place, that it clearly condemns homosexuality is debatable. And it's hardly "consistent" - a few isolated passages that have received an inordinate amount of attention of late. "Paul" goes on and on about how women are subordinate to men, and nobody says anything about that; yet his few vague remarks that have been interpreted as referring to homosexuality are dwelt upon obsessively. As for slavery, yes, the Bible specifically endorses it. Cf. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-11 (includes directions for selling your daughter into sex-slavery), Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, etc etc. I daresay that the fact that people would say that the Bible condemns homosexuality but doesn't endorse slavery is merely symptomatic of the times in which we live. more

Resolved Question: Who was the most divisive President in the history of the United States?

It was a President that Democrats accused of lying and starting a War under false pretenses. It was a President that whose ideology was so hated his election literally ripped the nation into pieces, caused violent riots in New York city where Democrats lynched blacks and tossed their babies from 3rd story windows. Here is a quote written by a group of Democrats that might help you: "While it [The Republican Party) attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose." Here is a hint, it wasn't President George W. Bush. Here is another hint, that quote was written in 1861.Jackson was a jerk, but, the nation did not split apart because he was elected. Abe sure was a jerk, you know people still say that Abe was a liar fighting an illegal War and that the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery even though the Letters of the causes of Secession filed by the various States make it obvious Slavery had everything to do with it. Democrats don't study history, they just make up what they want for history as they go along.Crunch has the best researched answer, as well as being correct. His sources are reasonably accurate although they do not portray an accurate representation of the period. Like Barack Obama today there were blacks during the Civil War who supported the ideology of the Democratic party in spite being slaves and the Democratic party supported genocide of Slavery. Since Democrats refused to allow Slaves or Black Freedmen to vote for almost a hundred and fifty years it is difficult to present well documented evidence that the majority of Africans forced into slavery despised their conditions. Thanks to the good works of Republicans, including Martin Luther King Jr., Africans enjoy the right to vote. Lets say we ask for a national referendum with only those of African American decent whose ancestors included slaves on how many think slavery is a good thing. Bet we find that the common Democratic argument for the last hundred and fifty years that blacks liked slavery is wrong. :-)realst1: thanks for copying verbatim the article from In the Shadow of Slavery. What a special piece of propaganda. It wasn't the Irish. The Democrats in New York city almost got the state of New York to seceed into the Confederacy. There was Slavery in New York city before the Civil War. Rich Democrats would go south, buy slaves and keep them in their homes. I understand the same thing still happens today in that same city. Democratic Traditions are so hard to break. I suggest you review the declarations of the causes for secession, particularly the one published by Georgia. Excerpt: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party." http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html Compare that to the propaganda from your article. You have to love people who make up history to suit when they hate the facts."On January 7, five days after this dignified and conservative appeal, Fernando Wood, imitating the example of South Carolina, advocated the secession of the city from the State. "Why should not New York City," said the Mayor, as if playing the part of a satirist, "instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become, also, equally independent?" A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CHAPTER XXVI gutenberg.org more

Resolved Question: was jesus the anti-christ?

if jesus never came about, everything linked to him would never exsist. so there would be no dark ages, no mass murders, most likely less war, maybe no slavery, science would be able to have a more progressive start earlier. so if there was, is a god, what if jesus was the test of the devil and god to see what humanity would do? if you look at history, i would say the devil won. the earth is not united, many different religions have seperated and prevoke hatred and wanting to be better then others, many can not be tolerant of others. so the question stands, was or could jesus have been the anti-christ? (no bible quotes, please, its man made, not word of god, i get it, i want "YOUR" answer)haha, u dont want to answer the question, 1st, i said less war, not no war, PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL, do i have to explain it to you kindergarden style.2telldatruth and abu, thank you for actually answering the questionobanroo, who is to say what religion is false, they all say god has spoken to them to do this and that, so they are all jesus in a way, no one can really say what jesus really did or what happened to him in real detail. the books of history are written by selfish eyes. nothing is true.zig, and all you people dont get it, think 4th dementionally, if there was NO JESUS, all the religions in relation to him would be gone. that means all the fights about him would never have happend. so if there was no jesus. would the world be a better place?plain00: xmas is not christianity, santa came from something not even related to christianity so santa would still be around.EVERYONE!!! look at Skaran's answer, u see that, he used his brain and made a real answer. a lot of you are not getting this. more

Resolved Question: should christian missionary be prohibited in India?

Sati-Pratha is a favourite topic among Hindu-bashers. As soon as they are questioned about the validity of their own claims, goals and methods they immediately start harping on Sati-Pratha. And lo! The trick works. The questioning Hindu becomes defensive. He never tries to probe into the origin of so-called Sati-Pratha, or at least about its rumours. So, let us try to do it here, what the typical-Hindu always refrains to. Sati-Pratha is nowhere mentioned in Hindu scriptures. Not a hint of it. There is no case of forceful widow burning in any of our scriptures. News about Sati-Pratha started surfacing only with the advent of Christian Missionaries in India. They with their mission of converting the wretched idolaters, i.e., Hindus to Christianity started slandering Hinduism. For they quickly perceived that Hindus were an unyielding, staunch lot. They would not yield to the treacherous methods of Christian Missionaries. So they devised a new way for accomplishing their Harvest. They decided to slander Hinduism in front of Hindus, so as to shake their belief in it, and also in front of global community so as to justify their demonic agendas of Conversion. And for that they had a new tool in their hands to which Hindus had no access. This tool was the combined institution of Modern British Education System and the newly born media, i.e., the propaganda machine. (How they developed these mediums in India is another topic, related to Macaulay and many others and too long to be discussed here). So, they started their well-planned campaign against Hinduism. A very good example of this is the English word ?Juggernaut?, meaning, ?a huge and overwhelming force?. It is originated form the Rath Yatra of Jagganath. Christian Missionaries said that there goes one evil Yatra among Hindus, in which wretched idolaters take out a procession of three idols. In the Yatra, they take intoxicating drugs, dance nude in front of the chariot, make obscene gestures to each other and then in a fit throw themselves in front of the chariot to commit suicide. Hence, the word with its meaning of an ?overwhelming force?. Swami Vivekanand also mentions this at one place along with many other calumnies heaped over Hinduism and Hindu civilization by the designing Christian Missionaries. Here is an excerpt of that, ?What is meant by those pictures in the school-books for children where the Hindu mother is painted as throwing her children to the crocodiles in the Ganga? The mother is black, but the baby is painted white, to arouse more sympathy, and get more money. What is meant by those pictures, which painted a man burning his wife at a stake with his own hands, so that she may become a ghost and torment the husband?s enemy? What is meant by the pictures of huge cars crushing over human beings? I have heard one of these gentlemen preach in Memphis that, in every village of India, there is a pond of the bones of little babies? What have the Hindus done to these disciples of Christ that every Christian child is taught to call the Hindus ?vile? and ?wretched? and the most horrible demons on earth?? Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works, Vol. IV (1945 ed.) Any person even most slightly acquainted with the Rath Yatra needs no explaining about the truth. Similarly, they harped on Sati, and invented the very term and phenomenon of Sati-Pratha, citing some allegedly eye-witness accounts of widow burning on the funeral pyre of their husband. So, what was the truth in those accounts? If, there was any truth in those accounts, then what was their origin? For finding their origin, we have to stretch our memory some centuries back to the Medieval Ages, the era of great unprecedented rape, pillage and looting of India by Muslims and their armies. Among the very first provinces to bear the brunt of Islamic sword were Sindh, Punjab and Rajputana. Sindh being Buddhist in majority and Punjab also having a considerable population of Buddhists, succumbed soon to the unprecedented barbarous Islamic invasions. But Rajputana being completely Hindu held out for centuries. Even now there are only 9% Muslims in Rajasthan. But this resistance cost them a great deal. They had never faced such barbarous invaders and looters. All of the wars which they fought until then, were fought with a moral ethical code. Being synonymous with the Hindu philosophy, wars were fought only between warriors and concerned only them. Civil populace was never even touched, let alone molested. But the new Islamic enemy they were now facing was an unprecedented evil force, which did not rely on valour for victory, but instead on treachery, deceit, malice, crookedness and all other evil means. Those Islamic armies instead of fighting chivalrously with their opponents, chose to decimate the civilian populace, by laying siege to the country side, thus decimating the social, cultural and economic fabric of the nations. They massacred and butchered complete populations of Hindus, broke their idols, desecrated their temples, butchered the Brahmins, converted them forcibly to Islam (by making them eat beef!) destroyed their corps, poisoned their wells, burned their houses, abducted their children and raped their women. They took their inspiration from Quran. Ayats 2:193, 8:39, orders them to break idols. Ayats 8:12, 22: 19-22 exhorts them to massacre the religious leaders of the other religion. Ayats 33:59 and 4:24 encourages them to commit sexual transgressions without compunction with the non-Muslim women. This, this last atrocity done to the local populace by these Islamic marauders was without precedence in cruelty. (No one in Hindu era even thought of touching another woman, let alone raping her). It was a greater calamity on women than their family men. They did not think of such calamity befalling them in their wildest nightmares. They were free women under Hinduism with an equal say in society as men. They were not used to the sexual, and mental humiliation and torture to which Muslim and non-Muslim women under Islamic rule were subjected to. Chastity for them was everything, the prime value of life. They could not imagine an unchaste life. The very concept was unthinkable to them. And for preserving their chastity they were prepared to do anything, to break every barrier, to sacrifice every tying, even their life. And so they did. Facing these Islamic molesters, the brave Hindu women chose death. They built big cauldron like pots, lit then with fire and jumped into them, to die voluntarily and happily in order to save their honour and chastity. They chose and embraced death themselves and nobody forced them to do so. They with their very feminine bravery defied whole armies of Islamic marauders with all of their evil means and intentions. This phenomenon was called ?johar?, meaning giving themselves to fire in order to be saved from disgrace. So, this was ?Johar?, later practiced by Hindu women in every part of India in order to save themselves from the dirty hands of Islamic marauders. There was no forced immolation in that process, no malign Brahmins, no cruel priests, thus no ?Sati-Pratha.? And for suicide no other person can be blamed, other than those Islamic marauders whose threat forced Hindu women to suicide. ?Sati? is an ancient Sanskrit term, meaning a chaste woman who thinks of no other man than her own husband. The famous examples are Sati Anusuiya, Savitri, Ahilya etc. None of them committed suicide, let alone being forcible burned. So how is that that they are called Sati? The word ?Sati? means a chaste woman, and it has no co-relations with either suicide or murder. The term ?Sati? was never accompanied by ?Pratha?. The phrase, ?Sati-Pratha? was a Christian Missionary invention. Sati was taken form the above quoted source and ?Pratha? was taken from the practice of Johar?, (by distorting its meaning from ?suicide? to ?murder?) and the myth of ?Sati-Pratha? was born to haunt Hindus forever. So ?Sati-Pratha? (in its modern avatar of forcible widow burning) is not a fault of Hinduism but a crime of Islam. Islam is the perpetrator of crime here, and Hinduism, the victim. It is a joint crime of Islam and Christianity. The crime of Islam was transposed on Hinduism (absolving Islam in the process) by the historical connivance of anti-Hindu forces (Islam, Christianity and Marxism). To insert a spiritual clause here, it is very important to say that in modern times whenever is there a case reported of voluntary immolation of a woman on her husband?s pyre, it is never reported that the dying woman shrieked in the unbearable pain of the burning flesh. Sucha case is reported by Mark Tully in his book ?No Full Stops in India?. He tells of a woman Roop Kanwar in the village Deorala, district Sikar of Rajasthan who in Sep 1987 voluntarily died by burning herself with fire, without emitting any cries or shrieks. So what does it signify? No mortal can remain calm when his flesh is being burnt. So what is the reason of this superhuman quality of these women? The answer lies in dharma, Yoga and meditation. There are umpteen stories in Puranas and Vedas in which both men and women voluntarily accept death by immolating their mortal bodies by various means, including fire. The power of Yoga makes them oblivious of the pain of the decay of the mortal body. So women who voluntarily gave up their life in fire were empowered with the power of Yoga. Pain did not touch their chaste bodies. Hindus being oppressed for centuries have developed a mental state called ?Dhimmitude?, which means a mental slavery to its long time oppressor Islam. So, now even those Hindus who stand against Islam are timid, defensive and guilty of some hypothetical crimes, imagined for their chagrin, for them by their enemies. They still can?t think freely, analyze history objectively and recognize the true nature of Hinduism, i.e., Dharma. But, if they want to re-generate Dharma, Truth and Goodness then they will have to view History in its true light, with Courage, Resolution and with Objectivity. Then only they will be able to re-discover their Dharma and do something for its regeneration. History being ?Dharma? itself hopes them to do so. more

Resolved Question: How can the following two biblical interpretations be reconciled?

As we all know, a controversial moral topic is whether or not gay marriages are permitted. The main anti-gay marriage argument I hear is that the Bible says "A man is not to lie with a man the way he would with a woman." (I don't know the exact chapter of the Bible this quote is from.) However, if you look at Leviticus 25:44-46, the Bible says: " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property..." This passage essentially says that slavery is acceptable, so here's my question: Is it logical for some people to use a literal interpretation of the Bible to justify being against gay marriage, yet avoid using a literal interpretation for the passage on slavery? I am not saying that slavery is in any way moral. If you want to see my quote in context, here's a link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2025&version=31A bunch of you are arguing that slavery was different when the Bible was written, claiming that slaves worked voluntarily. However, the passage clearly talks about buying someone and owning him/her as property. In Leviticus 25:46, it says that slaves can be willed to children. How can a "slave" choose to work for someone if the owner gets to choose who he sells the slave to?According to the next sentence of the Bible, Hebrews could not be kept as slaves. A lot of you seem to be suggesting that Hebrews were the slaves.Some of you mention that the slavery passage is from the Old Testament, but the Homosexuality one is also from the OT. more

Resolved Question: If this "No Fly Zone" resolution was put in place in 2005, why was it still being discussed in the Dem. Debate

If this "No Fly Zone" resolution was put in place in 2005, why was it still being discussed in the Dem. Debates recently in 2007? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Boxer In March 2005 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed Boxer's amendment to the Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Bill strongly urging Saudi Arabia to permit women to run for office and vote in all future elections. Boxer is a cosponsor of S. 495, or the Darfur Accountability Act of 2005, which would impose sanctions against perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Darfur. Sanctions under this legislation include imposition of a military no-fly zone in Darfur, a coordinated effort between the U.S. and Sudanese governments to track down and prosecute individuals in Sudan in any way involved with genocide or other war crimes in Darfur, a call for the Sudanese Government to take an active roll in combating Janjaweed forces within its borders, and a policy of sanctions against the Sudanese government, including sanctions that will affect the petroleum sector, and individual members of the Sudanese government whose actions support the crimes of violent militias in Darfur. Khartoum is also where the CIA hunted bin-laden according to the book "Hunting the Jackal" (militarybookclub.com). China's involvement in acquiring oil in areas where it is politically unsavory for the U.S. gives them a strategic advantage in every anti-U.S. country (like Venezuela) in the world. Energy Security (wikipedia.org) becomes of grave concerns as we are 5% of the worlds population, use 25% of the worlds energy and 40% of the worlds petrol products. tim trevathan <trevathantim@yahoo.com> wrote: http://www.gvnews.net/html/Corp/newsfeed.html HOME | ABOUT GVNN | OUR PHILOSOPHY | GVNN IN THE NEWS | REGISTER | CONTACT US HOME | ABOUT GVNN | OUR PHILOSOPHY | GVNN IN THE NEWS | REGISTER | CONTACT US October 25, 2005 Subscribe to GVNN Global News Feed A powerful, real-time news wire delivered directly to subscriber desktops. GVNN News Alerts Hourly or daily updates of select news stories from our editors. World Headlines Global Crisis News Global Op-Ed Global Business Alert Environment Alert Information Tech World Lifestyles Other News Alerts GVNN Impact Reports Daily or weekly news and information reviews moderated by our editors. Global Crisis Impact Global ICT Impact Environment Women's Issues Other Impact Reports Intelligence Reports Weekly or monthly news-based analysis of global trends. Global Crisis Report World Business Report Global Diversity Information Tech Other Intelligence Partnerships Join the fastest growing global network of independent news providers. MediaChannel Globalvision's media issues supersite. Globalvision Independent media production for the new millennium. Op-Ed In Khartoum's Oil Pipelines Flow Blood By Peter Wanbali The Nation KHARTOUM, May 21, 2002 -- Two documents on the Sudan released almost simultaneously last week expose the complexities and contradictions inherent in the search for peace in that country's conflict that has lasted two decades, killed two million people, displaced 4.5 million others and burnt hundreds of billions of dollars. And nowhere is this more dramatic than in the reports' treatment of the role of oil in the war between the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and its allies, and the Government of Sudan GOS. The first report, Depopulating Sudan's Oil Regions, is written by Diane deGuzman for the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan. It is a searing condemnation of the GOS strategy to strafe civilian populated regions in South Sudan for the express purpose of clearing the regions for oil drilling work to either start or continue. It documents atrocities against the civilians starting from October 2001, when the GOS launched an offensive in the southeast part of Ruweng County, in oil concession Block 2. Although no SPLA troops were on the ground, the report says that the villages between Jukabar and Bal were bombarded from the air, with ground troops moving in to mop up. Many were killed and those lucky to survive now huddle in swampland to the northeast and southeast of the county. Timing too fortuitous to be coincidental Within a month of the clearing up of the region, the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), comprising Talisman Energy, Chinese National Petroleum Corporation, Petronas Carigali and Sudapet, moved a drilling rig into the area. The timing of the raid and the decision by GNPOC was too fortuitous to be coincidental. The report also documents another raid that by mid-February this year had depopulated the northern part of Block 5A, in Western Upper Nile. The two campaigns by the GOS have displaced an estimated 80,000 people from Ruweng County and another 50,000 from the Western Upper Nile, who are now forced to wander in search of food, safety and shelter. Harrowing quotes from men and women who lost loved ones during the raids make for very sober reading, very much in the vein of two earlier reports: The Scorched Earth by Christian Aid in 2000, and Report of an Investigation into Oil Development, Conflict and Displacement in Western Upper Nile, released mid-last year by Georgette Gagnon and John Ryle. The second report released this month was Sen John C. Danforth's memo to the US President. Mr Danforth was appointed Special Envoy for Peace in the Sudan in late 2000 and this is a report on his mission. Several observations stand out, not least his advice that there should be no more new US-led initiatives. Rather, the US should engage more actively bilaterally in the Sudan and that increased support should be offered to existing initiatives like the Kenya-led IGAD peace process and the Egyptian-led Joint Initiative (with Libya). Sen Danforth details four "tests" of will that he subjected the GOS and the SPLA to, whose results were the basis of his guarded optimism. One was demand for a cease-fire and setting up of a comprehensive relief and rehabilitation programme for the devastated Nuba Mountains region; the second was observing days of tranquillity to allow relief agencies work on programmes to eradicate polio, guinea worm and bovine rinderpest. The third was prevention of intentional, wanton attacks (often by government) against innocent civilians and fourth was a proposal to the GOS to strengthen the effectiveness of its own anti-slavery commission. He claims varying degrees of success in these tests. Although Sen Danforth acknowledges that any movement forward must grapple with the thorny issues of self-determination for South Sudan, governance, religion and oil, his analysis of how oil features in the cauldron is perverse. His suggestion that a formula should be worked out for sharing the oil revenue between the GOS and the SPLA is both bizarre and impracticable. Renewed confidence The oil revenue, about $2 million every day, has given GOS renewed confidence and apart from enabling it increase its fighting efficiency, will soon become a significant cause for the war. For the process of peace to move forward - even with renewed vigour from the US and a boost to the sub-regional initiatives - the oil booty must be made a non-issue in the process. Companies like the GNPOC consortium must be prevailed upon to exercise some moral influence on the government and stop pretending that they do not see or care about what their money is financing in the Sudan. Countries like Kenya should also rethink the ridiculous posturing they are involved in - on the one hand acting as concerned mediators and peace-makers while on the other hand they are key customers buying the oil and financing the war. Ultimately, UN sanctions would be considered against all parties involved even if such penalties have not been great successes in the past. This clearly, is a hard number to push when there is so little moral firepower left for the US to expend - see what it did with Nigeria and Angola even at the height of human rights atrocities in those countries. These two reports do not give cause for hope that south Sudan's long walk out of the swamps and depths of despair it has been forced into will be ending any time soon. © The Nation, 2002. Distributed in partnership with Globalvision News Network (www.gvnews.net). All rights reserved. Featured Stories: more

Resolved Question: When I was pretending to be straight...I was very vocally anti-gay...quoting the same scriptures that people?

here are quoting. I was trying to prove to the world and myself that I was not gay. I wonder if the fundies today who are so vocal and obsessed with homosexuality are the most tempted by it...and in an effort to turn eyes away from their own lives, point their fingers to avoid looking inside themselves? Why do you think fundies are so anti-gay? Especially considering all of the other sins in the Bible that people seem to be committing every day...divorce, gluttony, bankruptcy/stealing, etc...why do they focus so heavily on gays? Many progressive churches are taking a new look at homosexuality and the Bible and are changing their positions... Why are fundies so afraid of this change...much like the Southern Baptists who were once afraid of freeing the slaves....they thought slavery ordained by God. Will fundies see the light a hundred years from now? more

Resolved Question: do you think that yahoo is anti-islamic racist?!!?

please check this site http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=allah&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 a picture with god name on a pig?!! what on earth is this picture supposed 2 mean/??! ISLAM’S ANSWER TO THE RACIAL PROBLEM BY A GERMAN DIPLOMAT THE HAJJ This annual pilgrimage, or Hajj as it is called in the Arabic language, is one of the five pillars, one of the five fundamental religious duties to be performed by Muslims. Without going further into the details of the conditions to be fulfilled in order to be able to proceed on this pilgrimage, or of the rites and rituals to be observed in its course, let me describe in a few words the most striking and unforgettable sight that will be present itself to your eye upon reaching the sacred territory: You will see a multitude of men, women and also children, close perhaps to two million, from every corner of the world, black and brown of complexion, Yellow and white, Arabs and Iranians, Turks and Malays, Chinese and Africans, black and white Americans, blond and blue-eyed Europeans- in short to quote one of our great Germanic Poets, Frederick Schiller : " Who knows the nations, who the names of all who here together came?" NO DISTINCTION And there is still more that fills us with wonder: Whether black or brown, yellow or white, rich or poor, young or old, every male that our eye beholds is dressed alike, wearing two white seamless sheets of simple material, thus eliminating completely all marks and signs of distinction of dress between the African and American, the Asian, Australian and European, the mighty and wealthy and the poor and lowly. Here they have come, brother unto brother, sister unto sister, bearing witness to the brotherhood of mankind, to the equality of all human beings before their creator, for it is to worship Him and to extol His glory that has brought them here. They have heard and heeded His call, and their reply uttered, nay cried out by all and sundry, echoing and re-echoing from the surrounding mountains is: "LABBAIK, ALLAHUMMA LABBAIK" HERE AM I, O ALLAH, HERE AM I, THERE IS NONE WHO IS THE PARTNER, ALL PRAISE AND BLESSING BELONG TO THEE ALONE, FOR THOU ART THE SOVEREIGN, AND THOU HAST NO PARTNER." The pilgrimage to Mecca, the huge assembly of believers from all five continents, the gathering together of the multitude of worshippers of all races on the plain of Arafat is perhaps the most spectacular expression, symbol and proof of unity and brotherhood of man as enunciated and upheld by the religion of Islam, and it is equally a symbol and proof of the equality of man before Allah, the Supreme Being, as taught by this religion. The concept and idea of the oneness of humanity is Islam's unique contribution to human civilization, and it came as a natural sequel to its cardinal doctrine, the doctrine of " TAUHID" or the unity of God. The doctrine which runs through all teachings of the Holly Quran like a red thread, has found its most concise and terse expression in the 112th chapter of the Holly book, called "AL-IKHLAS," or purity of Faith: "Say He is God, the One and Only; God the Eternal, Absolute; He begotten not, nor is He begotten; And there is None like unto Him." Holly Quran 112: 1-4 (Read these verses and the verses following in conjunction with their commentary by A. Yusuf Ali.) THE RABB He, Allah, the One and Only, is the author of all existence; He is our creator, to Him we belong and to Him is our return. And He is more than mere author and creator: He is also the "RABB" of his creation and His creatures: and "RABB" according to the great authority on the Holly Quran , Imam Raghib, in Arabic it signifies 'THE CHERISHER, SUSTAINER AND FOSTERER OF A THING IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MAKE IT ATTAIN ONE CONDITION AFTER ANOTHE RUNTIL IT REACHES ITS GOAL OF COMPLETION AND PERFECTION." "Thus Allah being the "Rabb ul-Alamin," the "Rabb of the worlds," as He is called in the opening chapter, of the Holly Quran and of all of us, whom He created. "HE DEALS WITH ALL OF US ALIKE, NO MATTER TO WHICH RACE, NATION, TRIBE OR PARENTAGE WE MAY BELONG, for He created us all alike, as the Holly Quran further elucidates in numerous verses and words, such as: "AND MANKIND IS NAUGHT BUT A SINGLE NATION." Holy Quran 2:213 We are all the children of Adam, and Adam was made of dust. Here Dawned the idea for the first time in human history that all men have a common origin and that, because of their common origin, because we belong to Allah, all and sundry, to whom is our ultimate return, the whole of humanity is but one family, one nation and should, ideally, form one fraternity, the universal brotherhood of man. The differences of color and languages, of build and of features are not regarded as differences of quality, or as marks or degrees of excellence, but as an expression of the diversity in nature: Says the Holy Quran: "AMONG HIS SIGNS IS THIS,THAT HE CREATED YOU FROM DUST: AND THEN, BEHOLD, YE ARE MEN SCATTERED( FAR AND WIDE)" "AND AMONG HIS SIGNS IS THE CREATION OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, AND THE VARIATIONS AND DIVERSITY OF YOUR TONGUES AND OF YOUR COLOR; VERILY IN THAT ARE SIGNS FOR THOSE WHO KNOW." Holy Qur'an 30:22 Allama Yousuf Ali, commenting on this verse, remarks: "All mankind were created of a single pair of parents; yet they had spread to different climates and developed different languages and different shades of complexions. And yet, their basic unity remains unaltered. They feel in the same way, and are equally under God's care". Whatever a country in which a people lives, whatever the language they speak, whatever the color of their skin, they are recognized as one family, living under one roof- the canopy of heaven scattered, but of common origin: Says the Holy Qur'an: "O MANKIND! REVERENCE YOUR GURDIAN LORD, WHO CREATED YOU FROM A SINGLE PERSON, CREATED OF LIKE NATURE, HIS MATE, AND FROM THEM TWAIN SCATTERED (LIKE SEEDS) COUNTLESS MEN AND WOMAN." Holy Qur'an4:1 UNITY OF MANKIND There is one verse in the Holy Qur'an, however, which not only re-states the common origin of man, explains the division of humanity into nations, or race and tribes, tells us that the object and purpose of this division was also the ultimate unification of humanity, but goes a step further: It points out to us the one and only criterion, the only standard by which man is judged by god, and thus by which we should also judge our fellow-man. As you will presently see, THIS CRITERION IS NOT HIS COLOR, NOR HIS RACE, NOT HIS SOCIAL STANDING OR CASTE, NOT EVEN HIS SKILL AND THE DEGREE OF HIS INTELLIGENCE. It is something which to achieve lies within reach of every human being, black or brown, white or yellow, rich or poor, if only he made an effort to cultivate it within himself. Says the Holy Qur'an: "O MANKIND WE CREATED YOU FROM A SINGLE (PAIR) OF A MALE AND A FEMALE, AND MADE YOU INTO NATIONS AND TRIBES, THAT YE MAY KNOW EACH OTHER. VERILY THE MOST HONORED OF YOU IN THE SIGHT OF GOD IS (HE WHO IS) THE MOST RIGHTIOUS OF YOU AND GOD HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE AND IS WELL AQUAINTED (WITH ALL THINGS)." Holy Qur'an 49:13 "The principle of the brotherhood of man laid down here", observe an author of an English translation of the Holy Qur'an, "is based on the broadest foundation. The address here is not the believers: but to men in general, who are told that they are all, as it were, members of one family, and their divisions into nations, races, tribes and families should not lead to estrangement from, but to a better knowledge of each other. Superiority of one over another in this vast brotherhood does not depend on race, nationality, wealth or rank but on righteousness, on the careful observance of duty towards God and fellow-man, on moral greatness", to which I maybe permitted to add: and on the strength of one's "IMAN", of faith in the one and only God because it is through faith and through submission unto the will of God only through which we can attain to moral greatness. This verse of the Holy Qur'an is the answer of Islam to racism, an answer which, as far as the Muslim community is concerned, did not remain a pious exhortation but sounded the death knell of racial discrimination in the world of Islam as borne out not only by the example set by the Prophet Mohammed (P.B.O.H.); but also subsequent events in the history of all Muslim nations and by the general attitude of the Muslims until the present day. I am inclined by personal experiences gathered during travels in almost all Muslim countries in the course of the last 25 years, to insist that, in consequence of these teachings of Islam and their translation into practice by the Prophet (P.B.U.H.); such a complete change was brought in the minds and hearts of all who embraced Islam, in the minds and hearts of all Muslims that is, that to them racial differences present no problems at all, nay, that they are largely almost totally unaware of, and most certainly little disturbed or embarrassed by, such differences. A BEAUTIFUL PATTERN OF CONDUCT There are instances galore in the life of the Prophet Mohammed, upon whom be peace and blessings of God, which show us that, as is the case with regard to all injunctions of the Holy Qur'an, he was the perfect exemplar, the beautiful pattern of conduct also with regard to the application and actualization of the principle of the brotherhood of man in his own dealings with his followers as well as in his personal relations with adherents of other faiths. But we can only appreciate fully how formidable a task it was to establish this principle among his followers, if we look at the social conditions which prevailed in Arabia before the advent of the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) .Let me in order to illustrate this point, quote from a book of a non-Muslim author, namely from "The social structure of Islam" by reuben levy: " The population of Arabia , outside of a few settled communities embedded in it, has throughout historical times been so constituted as to form a number of groups or tribes, very loosely held together either by loyalty to a particular leader or by the assumption of descent from a common ancestor, whether real or legendary. Within each of such groups or tribes, the independence of individual units- the tents or families- has always been taken as a matter of course, and the head of each unit has been regarded as being in status the equal of every other. In the heads of the families lies the power to elect the "SHAYKH" or tribal chief, of whom in theory, no special qualification is required. In actual practice, however there is normally a strong prejudice in favor of choosing the "SHAYKH" from amongst the number of particular families. At the time of the rise of Mohammed such families held a position of great influence within the community, so that in any claim to authority the factor of birth was considered of a paramount importance. Noble ancestry was the supreme test of nobility, and no person whose genealogy was not entirely free of hereditary taint for example ancestors of servile or Negro origin could be regarded as conforming to the requisite standard. Such person were relegated to the humbler ranks of society and were thus compelled to undertake careers that inevitably marked them as inferior beings ... In the same way that the old nobility resisted the assumption of equality by other Arabs, so the inhabitants of Arabia as a whole refused to consider foreigners as being their peers." The Arabs regarded themselves as a superior race. And as regards the Negroes they did not recognize them except as slaves. It is to this situation to which the Holy Qur'an refers in the following verse: "AND HOLD FAST ALL TOGETHER , BY THE ROPE WHICH GOD (STRETCHES OUT FOR YOU), AND BE NOT DIVIDED AMONG YOURSELVES; AND REMEMBER WITH GRATITUDE GOD'S FAVOURON YOU; FOR YE WERE ENEMIES, AND HE JOINED YOUR HEARTS IN LOVE, SO THAT BY HIS GRACEYE BECAME BRETHREN; AND YE WERE ON THE BRINK OF THE PIT OF FIRE, AND HE SAVED YOU FROM IT. THUS DOTH GOD MAKE HIS SIGNS CLEAR TO YOU: THAT YE MAY BE GUIDED." Holy Qur'an 3:103 Among the measures introduced by the Prophet of Islam to level the differences of rank and of race among his steadily growing community perhaps prayer ought to be mentioned in particular. Five times a day the Muslims meet together for prayer. Among the first Muslims were members of the noblest Arab families as well as a good number of Negro slaves. At prayers they all stood shoulder to shoulder before the Almighty, and when, in the further course of prayer, they prostrated before their Lord, it might well have been that the head of a noble Arab praying in a row behind a Negro slave rested at the latter's feet. In prayer and in the company of the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) no differences of status was recognized between the two. UNITY IN PRAYER From standing side by side in the ranks of prayer, the next step was a mere corollary; they mingled freely on terms of perfect equality on all other occasions. Service to God was thus the door through which the fraternization of humanity was effected... The negro slaves and the noble Arab were made to meet together on terms of equality in prayer and in religious gatherings. It was thus impressed on their minds, that they were all equal before God, and life once molded on these lines led to the natural consequence that the negro slaves and the Arab nobility enjoyed equal status in society. In the first Muslim community a negro slave, Bilal, was chosen by the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) himself to deliver the "ADHAN", the call to prayer, while the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) himself was the "IMAM" or leader of congregation. Thus, of the two office-bearers of the Mosque, the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) himself of noble blood and birth, was one, the other being Bilal, a negro. In his famous oration, which he delivered on the occasion of his "Farewell Pilgrimage", his last pilgrimage before he closed his eyes forever, the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) re-affirmed re-stated the principle of equality and brotherhood of man in Islam, thus bequeathing it as a sacred legacy to generation after generation of Muslims after him until the present day. Let me quote from the oration: "YE PEOPLE! LISTEN TO MY WORDS, FOR I KNOW NOT WHTHER ANOTHER YEAR WILL BE VOUCH SAFED TO ME AFTER THIS YEAR TO FIND MYSELF AMONGST YOU AT THIS PLACE." "YOUR LIVES AND PROPERTY ARE SACRED AND INVIOLABLE AMONGST ONE ANOTHER UNTIL YE APPEAR BEFORE THE LORD... AND REMEMBER, YE SHALL HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOUR LORD WHO SHALL DEMAND FROM YOU AN ACCOUNT OF ALL YOUR ACTIONS... YE PEOPLE, YE HAVE RIGHTS OVER YOUR WIVES, AND YOUR WIVES HAVE RIGHTS OVER YOU. TREAT THEM WITH KINDNESS AND LOVE... KEEP ALWAYS FAITHFULL TO THE TRUST REPOSED IN YOU." "YE PEOPLE LISTEN TO MY WORDSAND UNDERSTAND THEM. KNOE YE THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BROTHERS UNTO ONE ANOTHER. YE ARE ONE BROTHERHOOD." "ALL MEN ARE EQUAL IN ISLAM. THE ARAB HAS NO SUPERIORITY OVER THE NON-ARAB,NOR DOES THE NON-ARAB HAVE SUPERIORITY OVER THE ARAB, SAVE IN THE FEAR OF GOD." That the Prophet's bequest was heeded and the example set by him was followed by subsequent generations of Muslims through out the ages and history. It is impossible for me within the limits of the time allotted to me for this talk to render a detailed, much less a comprehensive account of all such facts and incidents which afford proof of my assertion. I can only quote some of them, and I maybe permitted to do so at random: One of the acid tests of unrestrained and unrestnoted inter-racial relations are inter-racial marriages. That such marriages were never frowned upon by Muslims in borne out by the fact that many a Ruler of the Umayad and Abasside as well as of later dynasties, had Turkish, Greek or even Negro mothers. On the other hand, social rank or high office did not bestow upon the bearer special privileges before the law and certainly did not entitle him to ill-treat a brother Muslim with impunity. The following incident which is reported to have occurred during the reign of Omar, the second Caliph after the death of the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) is an example of absolute equality of all men in Islam. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW Jabbala, king of the Ghassanides, having embraced Islam, set out on a pilgrimage to Mecca. While performing the circumambulation of the Ka'aba, a humble pilgrim engaged in the same sacred duties, accidentally dropped a piece of his pilgrim's dress over the royal shoulders. Jabbala turned round furiously and struck him a blow. The poor man went to the caliph and prayed for justice. Omar sent for Jabbala and asked him why he has so ill-treated a brother Muslim. He answered that the man had insulted him, and had it not been for the sanctity of the place, he would have killed him on the spot. Omar replied that his words added to the gravity of his offense, and that, unless he obtained the pardon of the injured man he would have to submit to the penalty of the law. When Jabbala refused to do as he was bidden because- as he returned- he was a king and the other only a common man, Omar replied " king or no king, both of you are Muslims and both of you are equal in the eye of law." But perhaps one of the most instructive examples of the policy of Islam towards different races is furnished by Spain. Permit me to quote from Syed Amir Ali's fundamental work "The spirit of Islam": "Immediately by their arrival on the soll of Spain, the Muslims or Saracens publish an edict assuring to the subject races, without any difference, the most ample liberty. Suevl, Goth, Vandal, Roman and Jew, were all placed on an equal footing. Their woman were invited to intermarry with the conquerors. ...THE FIDELITY OF THE ARABS IN MAINTAINING THEIR PROMISES, THE EQUAL-HEADED JUSTICE WHICH THEY ADMINISTERED TO ALLRACES AND CLASSES, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF ANY KIND, SECURED THEM THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE... The Jews profited most by the change of government ", and when many centuries later Spain was re- conquered by ferdinand and Isabelle, innumerable Jews left the country for Muslims lands, preferring a life in their home-country under the new rulers of whose racial and religious tolerance they were not convinced. RELIGIOUS OF TOLERANCE And this is another aspect of the principle of the brotherhood of mankind as envisaged and enunciated by Islam: namely religious tolerance. The essence of the attitude of Islam towards adherents of other faiths is to be found in the charter which was granted to the Jews by the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) after his arrival in Madina, and in the massage which he sent to the Christians of Najran, a town in Southern Arabia, then largely inhabited by Christians, after Islam had fully established itself in the Arab Peninsula. "IN THE NAME OF THE MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE GOD," says this first charter of freedom of conscience, "GIVEN BY MOHAMMED, THE PROPHET(P.B.U.H.), TO THE BELIEVERS, WHETHER OF THE QURESH OR OF YATHRIB(AS MADINA WAS THEN CALLED) -AND TO ALL INDIVIDUALS, OF WHATEVER ORIGIN, WHO HAVE MADE COMMON CAUSE WITH THEM: ALL THESE SHALLCONSTITUDE ONE NATION... THE JEWS WHO ATTACH THEMSELVES TO OUR COMMONWEALTH SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM ALL INSULTS AND VEXATIONS:THEY SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT. WITH OUR PEOPLE TO OUR ASSISTANCE AND GOOD OFFICES. THE JEWS OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES-(and here follows the names of the various Jewish tribes of Medina and the surrounding territories)- AND ALL OTHER SDOMICILED IN YATHRIB, SHALL FORM WITH THE MUSLIMS ONE COMPOSITE NATION; THEY SHALL PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION AS FREELY AS THE MUSLIMS;THE CLIENTS- MENING THE PROTECTED, AND THE ALLIES OF THE JEWS SHALL ENJOY THE SAME SECURITY AND FREEDOM." This was a paraphrase of the charter granted by the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) to the Jews after he had arrived in Yathrib, a town which because of him became known as MEDINAT-UN-NABI -THE CITY OF THE PROPHET, or in short Madina, while the massage to the Christians of Najran , sent to them almost at the end of the Prophet's mission, runs as follows: MASSAGE TO CHRISTIANS "TO THE CHRISTIANS OF NAJRAN AND THE NEIGHBOURING TERRITORIES,THE SECURITY OF GOD AND THE PLEDGE OF HIS PROPHET ARE EXTENDED FOR THEIR LIVES, THEIR RELIGION AND THEIR PROPERTY- TO THE PRESENT AS WELL AS THE ABSENT AND OTHERS BESIDES; THERE SHALL BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE PRACTICE OF THEIR FAITH OR THEIR OBSERVANCES; NOR ANY CHANGE IN THEIR RIGHTS OR PRIVILEDGES; NO BISHOP SHALL BE REMOVED FROM HIS BISHORPIC NOR ANY MONK FROM HIS MONASTERY, NOR ANY PRIEST FROMHIS PRIESTHOOD, AND THEY SHALL CONTINUE TO ENJOY EVERYTHING GREAT AND SMALL AS HERETOFORE; NO IMAGE OR CROSS SHALL BE DESTROYED; THEYSHALL NOT OPPRESS OR BE OPPRESSED; THEY SHALL NOT PRACTICE THE RIGHTS OF BLOOD VENGEANCE AS IN THE DAYS OF IGNORANCE- (the era before the advent of Islam)-; NO TITLE SHALL BELEVIED FROM THEM NOR SHALL THEY BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH PROVISIONS FOR THE TROOPS." "This document," observes Sayed Amir Ali in his book quoted before " has furnished the guiding principle to all Muslim rulers in their mode of dealing with their non-Muslim subjects, and if they have departed from it in any instance the cause is to be found in the character of the particular king. If we separate the political necessity which has often spoken and acted in the name of religion, no faith is more tolerant than Islam to the followers of other creeds. "Reasons of State" may have led a sovereign here and there to display a certain degree of intolerance, or to insist upon a certain uniformity of faith; BUT THE SYSTEM ITSELF HAS EVER MAINTAINED THE MOST COMPLETE TOLERANCE. Christians and Jews, as a rule, have never been molested in the exercise of their religion, or force to change their faith. If they are required to pay a special tax, it is in lieu of military service, and it is but right that those who enjoy the protection of the State should also contribute in some shape to the public burdens. Towards the idolaters there was greater strictness in theory, but in practice the law was equally liberal. If at any time they were treated with harshness, the cause is to be found in the passions of the ruler of the population. The religious element was used only as pretext." If there have been instances of religious intolerance in the history of the Muslims nations, these instances- and that should be very clearly understood- did not happen because of Islam but in spite of Islam and they only betray back of knowledge of the teachings of Islam, and of understanding of the spirit and principles of that religion. You might like to interpose here that the idea of racial equality and of the brotherhood of mankind is not the exclusive property of Islam, nay that these ideas have been proclaimed by different individuals and ideologies in different places of our globe and at different times. You might like to quote to me- as I did to you- from various sacred and profane works of the most dissimilar authors, and you will certainly insist that in the west- in Europe and America- this idea has been accepted and adopted as a principle or policy, of organized society, since the 18th century at the latest when the Age of Enlightenment had dawned and the French Revolution had sounded the clarion call of "Liberate, Egalite, Fraternite!" EQUALITY IN ACTION I certainly can not and shall not claim that the idea of racial equality and of human brotherhood is the invention of Islam and has only been proclaimed by that religion and by nobody else. BUT I CLAIM AND INSIST THAT ONLY IN AND AMONG THROUGH ISLAM HAS THIS IDEA EVER BEEN REALIZED IN ACTION OVER CENTURIES AND AMONG THE MOST DIFFERENT AND DISSIMILAR NATIONS AND RACES. In spite of the lofty ideals of enlightenment and of the French Revolution the West did not and has still not solved the racial problem, nor has the West been able until today to establish racial equality everywhere in its hemisphere. It is barely thirty years ago racism raised to the position of State Philosophy- the most brutal and barbaric racism that can be imagined- the one I referred to at the very beginning of my talk, was crushed in my own country. Racism in the shape of "Apartheid" is still allowed to raise its ugly head in South Africa, and racism is certainly not eradicated in the United States in spite of the abolition of slavery that took place some time ago and in spite of legislation introduced after the Second World War, aiming at the leveling of differences between the various racial groups and at the doing away with racial discrimination. In the Socialist World, Marxism Leninism or Communism has introduced its own brand and type of racism - namely what I maybe permitted to call "IDEOLOGICAL RACISM" WHICH IS AS HATEFUL AND ABHORRENT AS BIOLOGICAL RACISM. So, wherever we look we find that neither the ideals of Age of Enlightenment and of the French Revolution, nor the UN charter of Human Rights, the latest exercise in bringing about racial equality and in abolishing racial discrimination have been able to achieve their goal, while Islam has most certainly done so. I maybe forgiven if at this place I narrate some of my own personal experiences as a Muslim: I mentioned before as in the course of the last 25 years or so I have visited almost every Muslim country and I have been posted for longer or shorter periods in about half a dozen of them. Wherever I went I was immediately accepted by the local Muslims as one of theirs, and my religious affiliation proved to have an incomparably stronger and deeper effect on them than my nationality or the color of my skin. As a matter of fact the latter were of absolutely no consequence at all in their attitude towards me. And when I married to a young Muslim lady from Pakistan, more than 22 years ago, it did not create the slightest embarrassment to the family of my wife nor to us, the young couple. The marriage was accepted with the same naturalness as any marriage of two Pakistanis, and no one of my Muslim relative or friends ever considered or treated our children as half-caste in the ugly meaning of that word, nor were my children ever made to feel any different from full-blooded Pakistani, or full-blooded German children. They, who grew up among Muslims never knew of racial differences between men until- yes, until in the wake of one of our numerous transfers from one post to another we perforce had to make a brief sojourn in South Africa. There they saw for the first time in their life those ugly signs "For Whites Only" And it was there that they were made to realize that in a country where racism reigns, Ahmed can not play football in the street with John, and Leila cannot just drop in at Linda's to admire her new doll. And what a shock they got when they saw that their father and their mother, in order to do such a simple transaction as to buy postage stamps, had to enter the post office through different doors. - But then they stood in front of a beautiful church, and their perturbed minds were set at rest when,- for it was Christmas time - they read the invitation written in bold letters above the door: "ALL ARE WELCOME ," MUCH SMALLER LETTERS, ONCE AGAIN THE UGLY SIGN "FOR WHITES ONLY!" So even here, in the House of God, and during Christmas, the Festival of Joy and of Love, there was no bridge to cross the deep, deep gap between fellow human-beings who have everything else in common- except the color of their skin. THE SUCCESS OF ISLAM Why, then, has Islam succeeded where other systems and ideologies seem to have failed? What is the secret of its success, and in what way can the religion of Islam contribute to the solution of the racial problem under which millions and millions of our fellow human-beings are still reeling? In my humble opinion Islam has succeeded where other systems and ideologies have failed because of two decisive factors: NAMELY THE UNIVERSALITY OF ITS TEACHINGS AND THE DIVINE SANCTION ON WHICH THE ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF MANKIND IS BASED. A Muslim believes that Islam is not only the last of the world's great religions but also an all-inclusive religion which contains within itself all religions which went before it. It is one of its most striking characteristics that is requires its followers to believe that all great religions of the world that preceded it have been revealed by God, and it is a fundamental principle of Islam that a Muslim must also believe in all prophets who were raised up before the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H.). Prophets according to the express teachings of the Holy Qur'an were sent by God to all nations: Says the Holy Qur'an: "AND THERE IS NOT A NATION BUT A WARNER HAS GONE AMONG THEM." Holy Qur'an 13:7 But whereas all previous Prophets were sent with SPECIFIC MISSIONSTO THEIR OWN PEOPLE ONLY, Prophet Mohammed(P.B.U.H.) was SENT TO ALL NATIONS OF THE EARTH, as the Holy Qur'an teaches us: "O MANKIND! I AM THE APOSTLE THAT HATH COME TO YOU IN TRUTH FROM GOD: Holy Quran 4:170 and elsewhere: WE SENT THEE NOT BUT AS A MERCY FOR ALL NATIONS." Holy Qur'an 21:107 "There is no question now," say Allama Yusuf Ali in his commentary to this chosen verse, of race or nation, of a "CHOSEN PEOPLE" or "THE SEED OF ABRAHAM' or 'the seed of David' or of Hindu Arya-Varta, of Jew or Gentile, Arab or Ajam, Turk or Tajik, European or Asiatic, White or colored; Aryan, Semitic, Mongolian, or African; or American, Australian or Polynesian." The Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H.) was sent to them all- and that distinguishes him from all other Prophets, and that also distinguishes Islam from all other religions. The massage that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H.) from On High was a massage addressed to all nations on earth, and the principles set forth in that message applied universally to the whole mankind. He was the last of the Prophets, and Islam, based on the revelation which the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) received is the final and perfect expression of the Divine will. Says the Holy Qur'an: "THIS DAY HAVE I PERFECTED YOUR RELIGION FOR YOU, COMPLETED MY FAVOUR UPON YOU, AND HAVE CHOSEN FOR YOU ISLAM AS YOUR RELIGION" Holy Qur'an 5:4 It is the self-same God, the Supreme Being, the Ultimate Cause, the One and Only, our Lord and Creator Who has also spoken to us, through the mouth of the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H.), the words which I have already quoted earlier and which I should like to call back into our memory: "AND MANKIND IS NAUGHT BUT A SINGLE NATION." Holy Qur'an 2:213 "VERILY, O MANKIND, WE CRWEATED YOU FROM A SINGLE (PAIR) OF A MALE AND A FEMALE AND MADE YOU INTO NATIONS AND TRIBES, THAT YE MAY KNOW EACH OTHER, (NOT THAT YE MAY DESPISE EACH OTHER). VERILY THE MOST HONOURED OF YOU IN THE SIGHT OF GOD IS HE WHO IS THE MOST RIGHTEOUS (AND GOD FEARING DUTIFUL) OF YOU." Holy Qur'an 49:13 In Islam and to every single one of its followers the equality of man and the brotherhood of mankind are not the figment of the human brain and mind. They are guiding principles decreed by God. Equality and Fraternity, as well as liberty, according to the teachings of Islam, are religious categories, and only where they are conceived as such can these lofty ideals become reality. There is no road to the unification of humanity, no road to a brotherhood of man which knows no boundaries of color, race, country, language and rank except through God, the Creator and "Rabb" of all that is in the heavens and on earth. Without absolute and unreserved faith in Him, and in the truth and universality of His revelation- without the will to serve Him, which is the purpose of our creation, and to follow His commandments and guidance this goal can never be achieved as history tells us. ABSOLUTE VALUES Only God, the Absolute, has established absolute values by which we can access our and our fellow- "VERILY, THE MOST HONOURED OF YOU IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, O MEN, IS HE WHO IS THE MOST RIGHTIOUS, THE MOST GOD-FEARING, OF YOU." Holy Qur'an 49:13 This is the yard stick by which in Islam man is measured, and not his race, caste, or rank. Peace and mutual trust among individuals and nations alike can only be brought about if we base our inter-human relations on the recognition of, and strict adherence to, ABSOLUTE VALUES. Materialism, humanity's ideal in modern times, lacks all prerequisites because its VALUE CONCEPTS HCANGE FROM TIME TO TIME AND FROM PLACE TO PLACE. Islam is the only force which provides man with the spiritual and ,oral foundation on which lasting peace and mutual trust and respect among the nations of the world can be built. Islam is, first and foremost, an international religion, and it is before the grand international ideal of Islam, the ideal of equality of all races and of the unity of the human kind, an ideal founded on the belief in the Oneness of God, that the curse of racism and narrow minded nationalism, which have been and still are responsible for many of the troubles of the ancient and the modern world, can be swept away. The Muslim community, past and present, has not only established true and lasting brotherhood among its members, a brotherhood that encompasses everyone who belongs to it, irrespective of racial or social differences, it has also shown us by its example the road to this goal. THE STARTING POINT IS FAITH, UNQUESTIONING FAITH IN GOD, THE "RABB" OF THE WORLD. From there it leads us to submission unto His will-the stage at which we willingly and cheerfully obey His commandments and actualize the principles laid down by Him for our actions and conduct- until we reach the stage of supererogatory service to God and men. The road leads us, to use Arabic terms, from IMAN, FAITH to ISLAM, SUBMISSION and ULTIMATLY to IHSAN. And this the road we have to tread if we want to bring about mutual respect and trust among men, the road to the abolition of all racial and social discriminations, the road to the unification of mankind, to the universal brotherhood to which the assembly of Muslims of all races and from every nook and corner of the world at Mecca during the day of Hajj of pilgrimage bears witness. But this assembly also shows us that our unity lies in God, and God only. May we be inspired by their faith and example; may we follow their road, A'ameen! (This is a paper read at the international Islamic Conference in London on April4th by brother Muhammad Amen Hobohm, who is a diplomat now in the West German embassy in Sri Lanka). more

Resolved Question: Is it true that most U.S. Presidents were racist, sexist by today's standards?

I've come across a number of quotes from presidents, founding fathers, and others, that seem to support this. I'm not passing judgement either way, but I've even heard that Abraham Lincoln had no intention of creating a multiracial society, and instead intended that blacks be repatriated to Africa. Even the most anti slavery presidents tended to not believe in equal rights for blacks, or natives for that matter. Also many Presidents courted and married underage girls. Is this factual or fiction? Would candidates who held such views today even be electable? more

Welcome to Anti

Latest Anti Slavery Quotes News

Slavery discussed during Martin Luther King Jr. tribute at Ave Maria ... - Naples Daily News

Censorship and Libel at USC - Front Page

Harry Reid and the offense game - Hendricks County Flyer

Anderson Cooper 360 - News Busters

Talibanization or the Turkish Model? - Chowk

Op-Ed: Reid's Word Choice Reveals Character Flaw - NPR News

January 2010 - prospect

Anti Slavery Quotes Questions asked

Resolved Question: LDS, is it true that Joseph smith ran for president on an "anti-slavery" platform?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support the Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Resolved Question: How are Republicans so evil?

Resolved Question: Why do Christians try so hard to ban gay marriage because it's "immoral"?

Resolved Question: does anyone know what this is called?

Resolved Question: Do you think RUSH did wrong?

Voting Question: Can someone answer questions about writing a paper?

Resolved Question: I need a rational "argument" for getting over slavery........?

Resolved Question: What do you think about everyone linking Nostradamus and obama?

Voting Question: Are conservatives sure they want to use the one Lincoln quote where he defends conservatism?

Voting Question: Are conservatives sure they want to use the one Lincoln quote where he defends conservatism?

Resolved Question: After reading this quote on abortion, does your perspective change at all?

Resolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?

Resolved Question: If you lived in these Timeless historcial scanerio's ?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti-Christ System of Mammon?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support The Anti Christ System Of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians Support the Anti-Christ system of Mammon?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Voting Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Voting Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Voting Question: Why Do Christians support the anti christ system of Mammon ?

Resolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?

Resolved Question: What is Revelation and Daniel Concerning Why wont pastors explain it yet assume to know god?

Resolved Question: So if we ban gay marriage then shouldn't we ban interracial marriage?

Voting Question: How Can Obama quote MLK--when BO has turned against all that King Stood For? ..see attached source article..?

Resolved Question: Where do we go now Barack?

Resolved Question: Is feminism anti-family?

Resolved Question: Copyright question?

Resolved Question: I'd like your feedback on this website - Anti-Bible site.?

Resolved Question: Racism - Why is it always once sided?

Resolved Question: Is it valid to compare "Christian" anti-gay attitudes with "Christian" racism?

Resolved Question: Who was the most divisive President in the history of the United States?

Resolved Question: was jesus the anti-christ?

Resolved Question: should christian missionary be prohibited in India?

Resolved Question: How can the following two biblical interpretations be reconciled?

Resolved Question: If this "No Fly Zone" resolution was put in place in 2005, why was it still being discussed in the Dem. Debate

Resolved Question: When I was pretending to be straight...I was very vocally anti-gay...quoting the same scriptures that people?

Resolved Question: do you think that yahoo is anti-islamic racist?!!?

Resolved Question: Is it true that most U.S. Presidents were racist, sexist by today's standards?

Top Anti Slavery Quotes Links

Slavery quotes

Quotes by Abraham Lincoln

Slavery Quotes

History of the British abolitionist movement by Lord Peter Archer

Abraham Lincoln Quotes

BBC - h2g2 - John Brown, Anti-Slavery Zealot

Menu