The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream, CA_Avgvstinus, goalie31
5,767 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Graeculus), 95 guests, and 40 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,055
Posts414,073
Members5,767
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Otto von Bismark might not have been as bad as I described. Otto von Bismarck was. And that's as far as I'm going with this discussion, because I would have to write a very long dissertation to correct all your errors, and I have neither time nor the patience at this moment.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Scotty-


Quote
Zarove, Due to the fact that I am not an "INTELLECTUAL" I can only explain my position in so many ways. Let me give it one more try. Any country can have a Democratic election, which is too say they have candidates, have a ballot, provide time for candidate research then have an election day at the polls. The ballots are verified, even by outside agencies. This is a democratic election. We have them all the time here and in most of the free world. So we have no disagreement there. This changes when ever a democratic government's laws are formed and kept within the bounds of a religious law or "other" authority. In other words,IF a country that has Sharia law and can change Sharia law at the will of "the people"-THEN it is a true democracy. IF the Sharia Law is protected by secular law against any change then it is a form of theocracy.



ACTUALLY, as I stated earlier, Theocracy is not “Rule by Religious Law”. This is how the word is often sued these days, and like Monarchism its used as an evil, oppressive form of Government in contrast to the Noble pursuit of Democracy, but a Nation that Operates under Shariah is NOT a Theocracy.

Theocracy has a very specific meaning. Theocracy means that you are Ruled by God. Under a Theocracy God is the Actual head of State, who is the Supreme Vested Authority and who is seen as discharging those Duties personally.

There is only one Theocracy on the Planet, and that is the Vatican City-State.

Iran is not a Theocracy. Neither is Saudi Arabia, and neither is the Palestinian Authority. They operate under a Religious Law yes, but this a Religious Law that is interpreted by Clerics, none of whom declare so much as direct Divine Mandate.

In Islam, Muhammad was the Final Prophet and after this Time God no longer speaks directly to his Creation except through his Final Revelation in the Holy Koran. Under that belief, it is impossible to erect an actual Theocracy since that would require God’s direct involvement. Even if a Nation is run by Religious Clergy base don Religious Law, if it is not said to run by God himself administering it as Head of State it is not a Theocracy. The Proper Term is Eccleseocracy.

Secondly, as I said, I do not see Theocracy in the same way people today do. Just like I don’t see Monarchism as bad, I don’t think Theocracy is a form of Government in which people are forced to be all the same Religion and live in oppression and fear and tyrannical control.


I further don’t really see a difference, in terms of how well the Government allows Change, between Shariah law ansd modern Western Constitutions. The Truth about Shariah law is that, contrary to what a lot of people think today in the West, there is no singular Law Code that Governs all Muslims in Islam, but several different Shariah law Codes based on differing Schools of Thought within Islam. How Shariah is Interpreted and Implemented has actually often changed within Nations. Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey, for instance, saw Great liberalising under different Governments who understood Shariah differently than their predecessors. The Currant King of Saudi Arabia, for instance, has Granted unprecedented Rights to Women based not on going back on SHariah, but a new Interpretation of it.

While you are Right though that Shariah may not be repealable, the same can be said of the Constitution of the United States of America. If a Movement got Started that demanded its abolition, I would wager that this Movement would be suppressed, and not get vry far.

Its very Rare for any nation to undermine the Basis of its own Laws.

The only difference is, you like the US Constitution and don’t like Shariah.


Quote

So some Arab countries may well have true democracies as Western counties know it. I think that remains to be seen. I know that you truly believe that the rule of Kings is the only way to go. I respect you belief, I disagree with it, but I respect it.


I doubt you respect my beliefs sicne you don’t seem to understand them. I don’t mean that as an insult but, given what you said both above and below…

Quote

You see that's one nice aspect of a Democracy![quote]

One thing I get tired of hearing as a Monarchist is that Democracy allows you to agree to disagree and to hold your own beliefs, whilst Monarchy is either implied, or directly stated, to oppose such.

I really don’t think this is a “Nice thing about Democracy” since I see no evidence that Democracy must automatically allow Free Expression, and I certainly don’t’ see this Nice Aspect of Democracy as Restricted to Democracy as if other forms of Government simply can never allow this Freedom.


[quote]
A democratic system of governing is not the problem, it is mans straying from the faith that is the problem and I don't think that would be protected against any better than if we were in monarchy.





I nominally agree but with a qualifier. I actually do think a Monarchy would better Protect the Faith. Why? While I do not doubt that Kings can go Astray or a People can be lead astray in a Monarchy, the Monarchy itself is not based on Populism and does not focus all the attention on calculating what the Majority wants.

You see, the biggest cause of Sin today is Selfishness and Division. Electoral Systems are by Nature Divisive, and we can never elect a Leader who will unify us all simply because not all of us voted for him. Political parties polarise around Issues and must by definition constantly struggle to make their Will Supreme over others. The constant bickering between political Ideologies and the need to show superiority prevents real Dialogue and ends up producing a Social Divide that tears even Families apart. It’s also driven by an inherent Selfishness, in that you vote in order to get your own way in the hopes that enough people will Vote like you did.

The Mentality fosters a sense of Entitlement and Resentment towards others that Monarchy simply does not.

So while I would agree that monarchy is no Guarantee of living in the Faith, just as it is no Guarantee of Liberty, I’d say that it is still a system of Government that would best foster our Liberty and our Devotion to God.


Quote

Now in fair balance, has Democracy caused damage to our faith, insofar as "free thinking" relates to it, yes. Free thinkers as you discribe have caused damage to the faith through humanism. In looking at the whole picture, would of those free thinkers never surfaced in a monarchy- well most of the original free thinkers were actually born under monarchs such as John Stuart Mill-Utilitarianism ,Friedrich Nietzsche just to name a two. I do know that the US has its share of free thinkers as well.




I think you missed the point I was making about them. I did not actually say Free Thinkers Damage the Faith, I said that some Atheists like Dan barker define Free Thinking in such a narrow way that its not actually Free Thought at all.


To make my point clearly, they claim that all Religious People are Irrational and incapable of independent thought, and Atheists and Agnostics are capable of both Rational Thought and Freethought. They further believe that all Free Thinkers operate within Humanism.

The point was that whenever we say “That is not a Real Democracy”, we come off as the Atheists who insist someone isn’t really being Rational if they are Religious.

Its purely self serving.

The way they define Free Thought precludes anyone ever being called a Free Thinker who believes in God, in exactly the same way that we define Democracy to preclude anyone who does not embrace Western Social Values.

I was making a point about how we use the term “Democracy” in a way that is itself inherently contradictory and that makes any Criticism of Democracy impossible since any Tiem Democracy fails its “not a real Democracy”, just as any Logical Argument for God will be deemed not really Logical by some Atheists simply because thy have decided A Priori that no Logical Argument for God can ever exist,.




Quote

Perhaps the need or function of our democratic system will no longer fit the people of America and when that time comes "The People" will change governments. And who knows maybe they choose a monarchy in its place, although most likely a more socialist regime.


Socialism is a Democratic Ideal in itself and the Natural Result of the progression of Democratic Thought. If it is wrong for a King to leave the Government to his Son, why is it not wrong for a man to leave his Company to his Son?

For us all to be Brothers, we must kill our Father.
\

Quote

That being said,I put worldly governments in their proper perspective . Kings rise to power and are deposed, Empires fade into the sunset in their due time, republics are built by and will be eventually be torn down by "the people". One Kingdom never dies!


But it should be noted, it is a Kingdom. God never instituted a Republic.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Other than spelling I made no errors.

Just because you want to pretend Democracy also involves “Democratic Institutions’ doesn’t mean it is so. It’s just a convenient modification of the Theory of Democracy designed to Rationalise the inherent inconsistency between the imagined outcome and the Reality we see before us.

The Truth Remains, the Tunisians Voted, in a Free and Fair Election, and Contrary to the Original Theory they did not vote in a Western Style Liberal Secular Republic but Voted for Shariah. To say this is not a Real Democracy because it did not follow the “Correct” pattern is simply ignoring the Reality of the situation to preserve an Ideal about what’s suppose to happen.

Why do you think these people would want to live in a Western Style Republic?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Straw men make good torches but bad arguments.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
The CIA lists Iran as a theocratic republic and the Vatican as ecclesiastical. Further, there a number of countries with theocratic aspects to their government such as Afghanistan or Yemen. None of this changes what a democracy is!

While there are those in the media, who wanted the Islamic World to become more democratic after the Arab Spring,I for one certainty was not surprised by the outcomes in the Middle East! Who is "WE"? I think "We" was a hopeful Administration (Obama) and certain Media forces. For those people who did protest, I not sure! I am guessing that most of those people who did protest, wanted a democratic process much like our own. Not exactly what we have, but something in that direction. I also am guessing that Islamic hardliners are taking advantage of the situation and trying to force a more Islamic government. BUT, I am guessing as the events are still unfolding. To make a judgement at this time is premature! At any rate, you really haven't made a good case against a true Democratic form of government! The only case you made was "We" may not be happy with the outcomes of the Arab Spring! Its still just too early to really tell how things will end up.

Last edited by Scotty; 10/29/11 09:17 PM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Stuart, Im use to being insulted. But this is nto a Strawman. You know what is? Calling somethign "Not a real Democracy" because they lack institutions that promote Western Social Values.

Of coruse Tunisia lacks Western Social Institutions, though, its not a Western Nation. Why assume that a Free Vote is less Demcoratic based on the Culture that excersises it though?

You never did answer that one.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Scotty-

Quote

The CIA lists Iran as a theocratic republic and the Vatican as ecclesiastical.



In this case its wrong. But I suspect the reason is because of how the word "Theocracy" has taken on a Negative meaning. In most peoples Minds, Theocracy is Dictatorship. Its the same problem I face when I tell peopel I am a Monarhcist.

Words don't always actually mean what peopel say they do. Look at the word "Fundamentalist". The way we se it its perfeclty reasonable to talk abotu Islamic Fundamentalists, but theres no such thing as Fundamentalism is a Protestant Christian Movement. Further, the idea of Fundamentalism beign bigoted and intolerant of others who do nto share the Fundamentalists beleifs is not True either.


Just look up the words origin. Theos means God, and Cracy means To Rule. Theocracy means "God Rules". It does nto mean Rule by Religious Leaders, and never has.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Theocracy


But the negative connotation and vauge idea of what it means is what overrides everything, much like hwo the positive feeligns and assumptionf o Freedom and specific (Largley Western) Values is lumped into "Democracy".


Quote

Further, there a number of countries with theocratic aspects to their government such as Afghanistan or Yemen. None of this changes what a democracy is!



Neither Aphganistan nor Yemen have Theocratic tendancies. Follow the Link I just supplied. The word is beign misused to mean "Dictatorial Govenrment run by Evil Scary Religious Leader shwo give you no Freedom".

And Democracy still doenst mean "A Free Government in which we have personal Liberty, Free Press and Assmebely, and Protection of the Minority". Democracy means we vote for our leaders ina n open election, it doesnt gurentee Liberty.


Quote

While there are those in the media, who wanted the Islamic World to become more democratic after the Arab Spring,I for one certainty was not surprised by the outcomes in the Middle East!



But I will ask again, why is Tunisia not a Democracy?

Why do we think "Democracy" must always entail Western Social Values?


Tunisia's peopel voted for what they wanted. Exaclty bwo is Votign for what you want not Democracy? And pelase spare me the rubbish that Im confusing a Democratic Election for Demcoracy, Democracy runs by Democratic Electiiosn not vaugely defined Institutions.


Quote

Who is "WE"? I think "We" was a hopeful Administration (Obama) and certain Media forces. For those people who did protest, I not sure! I am guessing that most of those people who did protest, wanted a democratic process much like our own. Not exactly what we have, but something in that direction. I also am guessing that Islamic hardliners are taking advantage of the situation and trying to force a more Islamic government.



And if this does turn out to be the vote of the majority?

Not that it matters, as in our Modern Western Democracies the Majority is often overruled then their Chidlren brainwashed to accept the new Order in Schools. Look at my Homeland, in the United Kingdom 75% or so oopposed Abortion, but it was still passed in 1967, and now mist Britons accept "A womans Right to choose" thanks to the Schools. In both the UK and US Gay Rights will eventually force universal acceptance and no tolerationwill be seen for Homophobic actiosn liek sayign you do not think its morally right.





Quote

BUT, I am guessing as the events are still unfolding. To make a judgement at this time is premature! At any rate, you really haven't made a good case against a true Democratic form of government!



Its impossible to make a good argument agaisnt a "True Democratic Form of Governemnt" to a True beleiver int he Religion of Democracy. How can I? Every Time the Imagined resukt of Democracy fails to Materialise, the exampel is sumerily dismissed as "Not a Real Democracy". The Palistinian Authority was freelye elcted, b ut because the Palistinians elected Hamas, its "Not a real Democracy', just a Democratic Proccess. Tunisia Voted for an Islamist Govenrment, thus they voted wrogn and its "Not a real democracy". Its fairly obviosu that my point that only Modrn Western Natiosn can be Democratic is already ebign proven. You won't accept anythign as a "True Democratic form fo Governemnt" unless said Government both emrbaces Western Values and Culture and actually doens't start killing peopel en masse.


If you weed out all the failures and only show the successes, then of coruse I can't argue agaisnt it.

It still doens't change the Fac tthat Tunisia had a Free and Fair Election, and that pretty well is the HEart fo Democracy.





Quote

The only case you made was "We" may not be happy with the outcomes of the Arab Spring! Its still just too early to really tell how things will end up.




The Arab Spring may still yeild a Democratic Outcome though, and its really rather silly to think that Demcorascy MUST ALWAYS entail Western Values. These peopel do not have Western Values, that doens't mean they can't let the Majority decide. But why assume the majority of a Non-Western Nation will vote for a Western Cultural Basis for their Laws?




Last edited by ZAROVE; 10/30/11 01:54 AM. Reason: Forgot the Link.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
Zarove, in my final comments, If you want to say that the term Democratic is relative term. That's your choice, I disagree! IT is a TERM the the West derived from the Greeks and modified into the democratic republic form of government that we know today. There are Western Values in the system of Democracy-because we created it. We didn't get the term Democracy from the Middle East, so our understanding of it could only be a "Western" understanding. Again I distinguish, what you just don't want to, the difference between a democratic election and a democratic gov. I do not understand how you examine a definition of a style of government and then say it is what the election method was. You would then have to say that Adolph Hitler's gov at every stage was a Democracy! Come ON!

Zarove, you not a ignorant guy, so that leads me to believe that you are lawyering this topic. I mean to say that this is not an academic exchange! Therefore I'm done here. WE both know the bottom line, you like Monarchies, I still chose Democracy.

Last edited by Scotty; 10/30/11 11:15 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
One more point for clarification. The west created our style of Democracy, not to confuse w/ the idea that the west created the whole idea of democracy by ourselves. The point is we are talking specifically about Western style of democracies.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Speaking technically, a theocracy is a state of which God or the gods, is the head; i.e., one that falls under divine rather than human rule, of which the Israelite commonwealth under the judges is perhaps the best example. In practice, every theocratic state mediates between God or the gods, and the people, through some sort of human agency. In the case of the Israelites, it was the charismatic rule of the judges and the nabi. In most other states called theocratic, it was usually an established caste of priests or clerics, which makes such states "hierocracies", rather than true theocracies. Under that definition, both Iran and the Vatican City are hierocracies, not theocracies.

Assuming one could find a true theocratic state (none exist to my knowledge), in theory they could be quite democratic, as rule through charismatic leaders such as the judges can only exist as long as it has popular support--popularity being seen as evidence of divine favor. Hence, judges ruled only so long as they were successful.

Hierocracies, on the other hand, are almost always tyrannical, since the priestly/clerical caste is always a small minority that uses its claim to divine mediation to impose its will upon the populace. Priests are seldom elected, but usually suborned either from within the caste itself, or the general population. Hierocracies may be beneficent or maleficent, but in no sense do they ever reflect popular will.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
I should also have mentioned those states in which the ruler is considered a god incarnate (e.g,, Egypt, the Hellenistic kingdoms, Rome in its dominate phase); and those in which the king subsumes the role of high priest. In both instances, the ruler purports to rule as representative of the Gods, but in fact, through his mediative position (either as a manifestation of the god himself, or as the god's chief priest) is ruling in the name and interests of his person. Neither is conducive to anything vaguely approaching representative government.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Scotty- Though you said you were done, I will say this.


Quote
Zarove, in my final comments, If you want to say that the term Democratic is relative term. That's your choice, I disagree!



But I didn't say it was Relative. I said Democratic Proccesses will not always Yeild Western Modern Culture.

That is hardly saying its Relative.


Quote

IT is a TERM the the West derived from the Greeks and modified into the democratic republic form of government that we know today. There are Western Values in the system of Democracy-because we created it. We didn't get the term Democracy from the Middle East, so our understanding of it could only be a "Western" understanding. Again I distinguish, what you just don't want to, the difference between a democratic election and a democratic gov.



In other words, Tunisia, in order to be a Democracy and thus win the Favour of the West, must completley abandon its own Native Culture and emrbace our own Cultural Values.

Is it any wonder they chose "Democratic Proccesses" over "Democracy" then?


I really do think peopel have fallen in Love withthe word "Democracy" and all too foten so associate it not only with the whoel Mythology of Liebration, but with Specific Western values tht ar themselves the Piculiar Accidents of History that were foudned on Western Cultura,l Development that they simply can't see that the Fundamental Assumptiosn they make regardign grantign peopel Free Choice are wrong. The Original Theory ws, and remains, tnat once a Nation si given a Chance to Vote it will automaticlaly develop the same sort of Culture as the West and always trend toward a Society like that of the West.


That Theory has proven wrong each Tim a Non-Western socity is Given Democracy. The way we avoid having to admit that Democracy doens't always lead to the Familiar Cultural Trends we expect it to thansk to the Culture we live in and projection fot hat onto the word Democracy is simply to redefine what Democracy is.

But this wa you also expect peopel to completley abandon who they are in order to live under a Cultural System that is alein to them, and somehow think they'd want this.

That's just absurd.

Quote

I do not understand how you examine a definition of a style of government and then say it is what the election method was.



It's mroe than that. If Tunisia has a Freely Elected President, Two Hosue Congress, and a Sperate Judiciary then how woudl that be Fundamntally diffeent than America?

Or, conversely, wny assume a Society with a Two House Congress and Elected President is not a Democracy like America just because the peopel of said Republci vote on havign different specific Laws?

It's nto just that they have an Election, its that they will also develop a Republican Model. (Though that model will likelybe Parlimentarian.) In that case, even the Form of Governemtn will eb IDentical tot hose we cfrfreely call Democracies.

I justthink we're avoidign the realisation that Demcoracy is not itself a Gurenteeor of Freedom and doens't lead automaticlaly to Western Values and Culture.


Quote

You would then have to say that Adolph Hitler's gov at every stage was a Democracy! Come ON!



It was a Populist Movement and Hitler was Elected. If you read the works of Rausseu or Paine you woudls ee that they theoriesed that men like Hitler coudl never happen.



Quote

Zarove, you not a ignorant guy, so that leads me to believe that you are lawyering this topic.



No, I just reject the daft nonsense that we have to protect the word Demcoracy and keep it pure to match an Ideological Bias. That sint Lawyerimng, thats beign Hoenst. No form of Governemnt, not Monarhcy, not Democracy, produces Freedom in its own Right, and its just abotu Time we realise tjhst Demcoracy is nto itself a Virtue on its own, nor does it produce anything beyind a "Demcoratic Eelection" and a "Democratic form fo Governemnt". It doesnt ennsure protection for Minorities, nor does it enshrine Human Rights into Law.

It certainly won't lead automaticlaly to Western Culture.



Quote
I mean to say that this is not an academic exchange! Therefore I'm done here. WE both know the bottom line, you like Monarchies, I still chose Democracy.



I think Monarchies are Natural and more Stable, btu freely admit they can be Tyrannical. However, you refuse to admit any Democracy can be Tyrannical.


Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Monarchies are stable? Do you read much history?

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Hitler was not duly elected ...

Hitler took advantage of Chaos and THUGS to take control of an out of control government.

Please read some history on Hitler before you make comments about it.

Some have also theorized that the strict German childrearing practices prior to WWI and WWII contributed to a people willing to do whatever waa commanded of them (like killing people in gas chambers)

Revisionist history to suit your argument.

By the way - every conflict(WAR) we have right now in the world is caused by Radical Muslims ... sorry I said it but someone had to.

We need to do psychological analyses on a people who subjugate women in the extreme - who would follow an insane religion that promotes Jihad - who teaches their children the world over in school "Death to America" - I'm sorry - it's complete madness and I will never condone any of it for any reason. They are NUTS - Sadistic, Hateful NUTS.

I pray for those Muslims who's religion is so screwed up they cannot see THE TRUTH. I pray for their souls. I pray for my enemies ... but I remember that they are enemies.

I don't think Jesus Christ wanted stupidity in people.

I admire the Coptic who refused to take off his Cross and got killed in Egypt ... I would refuse also and the rest be damned.
I'm not sure they could kill me unless they had a gun - I'm 6'6" and weight 240 lbs - and I am strong enough to defend myself.

That Coptic man is a true modern day martyr.

Unfortunately I'm Serbian so I think my Christianity would succumb to hatred of a murderous population and I would try to assist as many Jihadist's to achieve their idea of heaven as possible before they killed me or my family

Brothers and Sisters = Pray for my soul - it is the one area where I struggle - it may be genetic as I am Serbian - and the Slavs Saved all of Christendom from the murdering hordes of Muslims for Centuries.

Watch out for this Arab Spring - it may result in an Atomic Weapon taking out an entire large metropolitan city in the U.S.

You can talk about democracy all you want - it's easy to spot CRAZY.



Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Oops ...

I really do try to live my Christianity - I know my previous post is not very nice ...

Is Nice = Christian?

I just blurt things out sometimes -

I apologize ...

I really would like you to pray for me that I can find peace and the right thinking about the Arab / Radical Muslim problem.

I look at Kosovo for example.

Sure it's easy to pick on the Serbian's -

But do the research on Kosovo today - and the real atrocities happening under the KLA while UN forces let them have free reign.

The Christian churches and Christianity both are under seige!

It makes my blood boil just thinking about it.

What is the proper Byzantine Christian response to this?


Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5