THE RISE OF AMERICAN FUNDAMENTALISM 1990-1993 to CURRENT TIMES

In 2014 it has become evident that the Christian Fundamentalist have in fact taken complete control of the Republican Party and the Tea Party faction within. As we can witness in so many Republican controlled states, the level of laws being passed that are meant to establish an American Theocracy. Consider the number anti-abortion, anti-gay laws that have passed in these states.  Also the lessening of the punishment for rape, accusing the rape victim for the crime, diminishing the role of women in society, and so on. These groups will never give up now that they have gained the power they has sought after for nearly 40 years. 

America is in a culture war today. We have several culture wars going on, the battle to make this a theocracy and the battle between the plutocrats (the 1% owners of all the wealth) and the 99% of the rest of America. The plutocrats have been able to manipulate the fundamentalists to become their conspirator by making capitalism and corporatism into a Christian fundamental value. 

The Rise of American Fundamentalism 1990-1993

Aug 22 2011 Published by Hrafnkell Haraldsson 

Having Reagan out of the White House did not slow the rise of fundamentalism, nor did the dissolution of the Moral Majority. In fact, the year 1991 marks the year the Religious Right finally completed its seizure of power of the Republican Party. John C. Green argues that “While the movement did back some extreme candidates with little success, it more commonly – and successfully – operated as part of a broader Republican condition, a pattern that reached full flower in the 1994 elections.”[1]

But, says TheocracyWatch.org:

“Journalists attended Christian Coalition and Republican Party events in the early nineties documenting the tactics of the newly formed organization. Reports appeared in newspapers around the country detailing the takeover of the local Republican Party committees and efforts by moderate Republicans to form competing entities.”

“Politically evangelicals (including fundamentalists) have displaced mainline Protestants as mainstays of the Republican Party.” Studies show that “This politicization of religious beliefs has been attributed to the greater legitimacy evangelicals accord to political cues from preachers.”[2] This was an ominous sign of a trend that would only continue as the decade wore on.

Studies argue that “some antipathy toward Christian fundamentalists might be a backlash in response to perceived religious intolerance”[3] but Dolce and Maio argue that “At present, there appears not to be much truth to these observations.”[4]

But, if antipathy was missing, a reaction was not. John C. Green points out that “the movement’s core agenda and political activity have produced intense counter-mobilization by opponents, particularly among religious liberals and the non-religious.”

There was good reason for this: the growing influence of religious extremists in the Republican Party was demonstrated in 1992 when the Republican Party of Washington State had banning witchcraft and yoga classes on their platform. Criminalizing witchcraft is so…medieval, but yes, they did it. And yes, yogaclasses, because they’re so “of the devil”.

Also in 1992, Pat Robertson said to the Denver Post, “We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians…” Randall Terry agreed, saying in April: “What it is coming down to is who runs the country. It’s us against them. It’s the good guys versus the bad guys. It’s the God-fearing people against the pagans, and some of the pagans are going to church.”[5]

By 1992 the contemporary fundamentalist is “less the ignorant hillbilly or cracker, and more a conservative suburban housewife who votes Republican”[6]But see experience of Jo Martin below for at least one exception. Says Jo Martin, who calls herself “an Episcopalian and fifth-generation Texan”, and a life-long Republican who hadn’t been active in politics “for many years until they happened to attend a local GOP meeting last spring”:

“The party apparatus had been taken over by religious activists intent on bringing ‘biblical principles’ to government: outlawing abortion, ostracizing homosexuals and teaching creationism in public schools, among other things. We honest to goodness felt like we had fallen through a time warp into a Nazi brown-shirt meeting,” Martin said.[7]

And not only in Texas: the San Jose Mercury News reported that year that,

“A group dedicated to making the Bible the law of the land has quietly positioned itself to take over the Republican Party’s power structure in Santa Clara County… A fund-raising letter for that slate, sent by the Santa Clara County chapter of the California Republican League, warned that the Coalition on Revival’s agenda includes ‘a call for the death penalty for abortion, adultery and unrepentant homosexuality.’”

The growing polarization of the American political landscape was evident at the party conventions in 1992: “Christian fundamentalists were viewed (and acted) as ideological partisans (i.e. conservative Republicans) doing battle with liberals, feminists, gays, Democrats, and environmentalists.”[8] This attitude was epitomized by Pat Buchanan’s delivery of a speech at the Republican National Convention in Houston that year enthusiastically endorsing the culture war.

One study showed “The principle effect of 1992 was to bind evangelicals to the Republican Party”[9] and unsurprisingly Dolce and Maio saw these elections “as a critical demarcation point.”[10]

“[P]artisanship and newer concerns associated with ideological and cultural issues began dividing the public” and “This restructuring had the result of giving antifundamentalist sentiment a distinction liberal, culturally progressivist, and partisan Democratic cast throughout the 1990s.”[11]

This move was often successful. According to William Martin Chavanne, in “1992, 1994 and, it appears, in 1996, they [the Religious Right] won about forty percent of the elections they were involved in.”

The 1992 presidential elections saw Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton face off against incumbent George H.W. Bush. Democratic centrist Bill Clinton won by a wide margin with 43 percent of the popular vote against Bush’s 37 percent. The Christian Right was blamed for the defeat in 1992[12] and in truth, many of them did turn away from Bush over his views on abortion according to exit polls. Even so, Bush did get 47 percent of the White protestant vote and 61 percent of the born-again or religious right, a group that at the time amounted to 17 percent of the vote.

The defeat did not deter fundamentalists from their ultimate goal of achieving complete control of the Republican Party per Pat Robertson and Randall  Terry: “What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing,” says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, “is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America.”[13]

If antipathy was iffy in 1992, by 1993 this was no longer true. A1993 Gallup poll showed that 25 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of born-again Christians and a Zogby Group poll showed nearly the same thing, with 24 percent of respondents having negative feelings towards fundamentalist Christians.[14]

Antipathy was certainly present on the Christian side. Randall Terry was not talking about loving his enemies or turning the other cheek in 1993 when the Operation Rescue founder told a congregation in August, “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good. … Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”[15]

America was forewarned, and we still not at the high-water mark.

READ ALL THE ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES:

The Antecedents of American Fundamentalism 1606-1925
The Rising Tide of American Fundamentalism in the 1940s and 50s
The Cresting Tide of American Fundamentalism in the 1960s
American Fundamentalism in the 70s – The Rise of the Moral Majority
The Rise of American Fundamentalism – The Year 1980
The Rise of American Fundamentalism – the Reagan Decade

---

[1] John C. Green, Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches From the Front, 1996:3-4

[2] Dolce and Maio 1999:32

[3] Ted G. Jelen, The Political Mobilization of Religious Beliefs New York: 1991; Robert Wuthnow The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II Princeton NJ: 1988

[4] Dolce and Maio, 1999:53

[5] Speech in Jackson, Mississippi, April 1992

[6] Dolce and Maio 1999:33

[7] “The GOP’s Religious War” by Joan Lowey of Scripps-Howard News Service

[8] Dolce and Maio 1999:48

[9] Lyman A. Kellstedt, JohnC. Green, James L. Gruth, and Corwin E. Smidt, “Religious Voting Blocs in the 1992 Election: The Year of the Evangelicals?” inReligion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, 1996:284

[10] Dolce and Maio 1999:50

[11] Dolce and Maio 1999:52

[12] John C. Green, “The Christian Right and the 1994 Elections: A View from the States,” PS: Political Science and Politics Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 5-8

[13] (“The Fifteen Percent Solution: How the Christian Right is Building From Below to Take Over From Above.” By Greg Goldin, published in The Nation (1993

[14] Dolce and Maio 1999:40

[15] At an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana; quoted by the Fort Wayne News Sentinel 1993-08-16

Is Jesus a Historical Fact?

I don't know if there was a "Historic Jesus;" but, if there was, I am pretty sure some of his followers made up stories about him.  Consider this, no record has ever found in the "Holy Lands" that mention a person by the name of Jesus. This is odd in as much as there are plenty of written records from that period by the Hebrews and Romans, but not one word about this person they feared and loathed so much as to put him to death in such a ceremonial procession as claimed by Christians.

Not one word written about the large number of people who gathered to listen to him. You would think that some sort of written record about the concern of the political powers about an insurrection brewing. His miracles are so profound that someone would have recorded them in some official record that would have survived all these years.

The Romans and Hebrews were very good at keeping records and even with so many being lost or destroyed over the centuries, the wealth of available documents that cover so many, even mundane, problems of the Roman Empire; but not one word about a man named Jesus or any statement about such a person doing what he is said to have done.

Even the authors of the original text of the "New Testament," which are missing, are unknown. Even the adoption of the gospels by the Catholic Church was centuries after this person supposedly lived and made all these profound statements. The very origins of Christianity as a distinct faith and of the practices of that faith are lacking, until the written records of Catholic church was organized much later.

If a "GOD" came to earth to form a new religion because the religion this GOD had created millenniums prior through Abraham was not working as planned, why not inscribe his new commandments in stone, as he did with Mosses? After all, Jesus is suppose to be GOD in a human form, except the Mormons claim he is a completely distinct and separate individual who is the actual biological son of this all powerful GOD. If God is so powerful, why didn't he just tell the Jews to get their shit together as he had commanded prior. Why impregnate a married, but virgin, girl so he can reappear to the people in order to give them new commandments about life?

From the time of his birth, which is well written about that day in the writings authored a century or more after this supposed immaculate conception and the birth that just so happens coincides with the births of many pagan and mythological Gods~, but nothing written for 30+ years after his birth about him. This is GOD growing up in a human body, from infancy, childhood and a young adult? Then suddenly he is on the scene making waves in society. Is it that he doesn't obtain the powers until he turns 30?

It is assumed that Jesus, being a faithful Jew, Israelite, attended Temple, participated in the Passover Seder celebrating when he, Jesus who is God, commanded Mosses to leave Egypt and prepare unleavened bread for their travels and put the mark of blood from a sheep over the door so that the Angel or Destroyer tasked with killing the first-born of Egypt would "pass over" them. Supposedly he attended Rabbinical School and it was stated he was an actual Rabbi who gave service in the temple. 

Even during his time, children and young adults would be required to attend Rabbinical School to learn the theology of their faith. Then suddenly at the age of 30 something happened that forced him to start a new religion that will be called Christian and he has handed down new laws and rules to be followed and if you don't then you will go to hell? A concept that before was not contemplated or part of the Jewish-Israelite religious doctrine. An he decided to have himself killed for the supposed sins of his children and/or brothers and sisters, even those who have not even been born on this planet and who could not have committed any sins yet; BTW what are the sins anyway? At that time there were only ten engraved in stone. But even those stones are not to be found. Even fragments of them as Mosses supposedly threw them at the idol and they shattered. He needed some anger management help.

So now this God/Jesus wants every living person to commit their life and possessions to this new representation of him, God, as Jesus the Christ, (the Messiah, a savior who will come to deliver God's chosen people) by them forsaking all their freedoms and independence as an individual. 

These new followers of this new representation of God must now commit to being a slave unto this Lord, (Lord is a term for a master over the peasantry who were enslaved to the owner of all the property for which they work on and for; a feudal superior: in medieval Europe, a powerful land- or property-owner, with authority over an area, castle, or community, e.g. the lord of a manor, landlord. Such power was granted by a grant deed of the property and the authority to control it issued by the monarch to the Lord). Now wouldn't you want to know why this all mighty and powerful entity needed to go through a physical childhood in order to then preach his demands upon the people of these new laws they  must follow to be saved in some fashion? 

If he can create the entire universe, all living things to include humans, why not just create an adult human body to occupy and immediately go about informing everyone about who he is and what they must do to return to that place in the sky that he resides after they die? After all he created Adam and Eve who were fully adult aged humans that didn't have to come from a physical birth from a female "human" and go through infancy to childhood to adulthood, right? If they did, who gave birth to them and who took care of them from birth to adulthood? That has never been answered. And if there were only two of them, then all the others after them were begat by incest. There is not other way. But if incest is wrong, then why use it, since he was so powerful and could create anything he wanted?

But one can say that when this new religion got organized, it spread by force with great violence and intimidation like a wildfire and much like a wildfire, destroying so much in its path.

http://phys.org/news165555744.html

~ The celebration of December 25th goes all the way back to ancient Babylon.

According to ancient Babylonian tradition, Semiramis (who eventually became known as the goddess Astarte/Asherah/Ashtoreth/Isis/Ishtar/Easter in other pagan religions) claimed that after the untimely death of her son/husband Nimrod (yes she was married to her own son), a full grown evergreen tree sprang up overnight from a dead tree stump. Semiramis claimed that Nimrod would visit that evergreen tree and leave gifts each year on the anniversary of his birth, which just happened to be on December 25th.

This is the true origin of the Christmas tree.

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

June 30th, 2009

Ken A Ham, Pres. & CEO of Creation Museum

Ken A. Ham President and Chief Executive Officer of Answer in Genesis stands with a mechanical Utahraptor at The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, in 2007. For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum, which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland," seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

_____________________________________________________________________________

For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.

"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."

The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of the Bible to life."

Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.

Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.

Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.

"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

"I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."

Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.

The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.

Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.

"I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.

Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.

"I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things that are inaccurately portrayed," he said.

"And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized -- that if you don't accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth and life, you're contributing to the ills of society and of the church."

Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.

"This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it's just as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of science," he said.

"It's not your old-time religion by any means."

(c) 2009 AFP

http://phys.org/news165555744.html

A letter to radio talk show host Dr. Laura:

A letter received by Dr. Laura the radio talk show host.

"Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan."

Natural abortions: a miscarriage of divine justice?

Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Sunday, December 11, 2011

The statistics for miscarriages are notoriously difficult to assess completely accurately. This is partly due to the fact that many miscarriages go unreported (those after 6 weeks of gestation, which are known as spontaneous clinical abortions). However, the greater reason is that early pregnancy losses – those that happen during the first 6 weeks of pregnancy, generally tend too happen without the mother even knowing.

So why am I writing about this? Well, because statistically, it means that anywhere up to 75% of all pregnancies, of all fertilised eggs, die. This is a staggering number of pregnancy losses (It is estimated that 3 out of 4 eggs that are fertilized do not fuse their DNA correctly, and therefore either do not attempt to implant or fail at implantation).

The reason for talking about this is twofold. Firstly, for people who critique abortion on religious grounds, it makes somewhat of a mockery of their arguments. Secondly, again from a religious perspective, it does make God look a little callous. Nay, brutal and unloving.

So let’s explore these issues.

God is supposedly omnipotent, all-powerful; and omnibenevolent, all-loving. We also hear very often how terrible clinical abortions are. Now I don’t want to investigate clinical abortions per se but I do want to look at the standards that Christians adopt when approaching abortion, and then when they evaluate their perfect God. The general approach, rightly or wrongly, is that abortion is the murder of human beings. If this is the case, then the death, at the hands of other humans, of any and every embryo from blastocyst onwards, is bad, abhorrent and so on.

Given this state of affairs and given this appraisal of the ethics of abortions, let us then look at the God scenario.

Let us assume that somewhere between 60% and 75% of human embryos are fertilised and subsequently die naturally. The numbers aren’t so relevant, though the sheer volume does make you stop and think a little harder. This raises these points:

1)      God has the ability to stop this from happening

2)      By allowing it passively, he is actually actively declaring that the deaths serve a greater good

3)      The manner in which these deaths serve a greater good is necessary for this greater good. In other words, there can be no other way that this greater good can eventualise which causes less suffering, otherwise god, as an all-loving being, would have chosen the alternative option.

4)      The vast majority of these deaths go unknown to anyone in the world. Thus the deaths can have nothing to do with humanity and our ‘journey’, begging the question as to exactly how they can serve a purpose.

5)      Since such deaths occur on such a scale, and no decent reason is forthcoming, then perhaps foetal life isn’t as sacrosanct as many claim.

The standard Christian response to issues such as these which fall into the category of the Problem of evil is to offer the ‘Omniscience Escape Clause’. This posits that we cannot know the mind of God, or would not understand the reasons as to why such evil must exist. This again begs the question as to what kind of reason could be beyond our comprehension, and what kind of reason could actually justify death on such a massive scale. Even if, by some appeal to our idiocy, we cannot understand through cognitive deficiency as to why these deaths must occur, then it would be appropriate for God to at least let us know that these deaths aren’t in vain; that they DO provide a mechanism for achieving a greater good. Some kind of revelation, one way or another, would be decent.

What we come to, as a conclusion to this scenario, is this: either God is not omnibenevolent; or God does not exist; or embryos are not so sacred and arguments over what defines personhood are called for; or that millions of foetal deaths a year, unknown to humanity, are necessary for a greater good.

Of all those options, the last one is by far the most improbable, and yet the one adhered to by most, if not all, Christians.

To read more by Jonathan Pearce, visit is great blog at: http://atipplingphilosopher.yolasite.com/

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Author: John Eastburn Boswell (March 20, 1947 – December 24, 1994) was a prominent historian and a professor at Yale University. Many of Boswell's studies focused on the issue of homosexuality and religion, specifically homosexuality and Christianity.

This is a very short digest of his book:

The Marriage of Likeness : Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

The Fall of Foolish Faith

Victor StengerPhysicist, PhD, bestselling author

From a talk on March 4, 2012 at the CFI Meeting, "Moving Secularism Forward," Orlando.

I want to talk about a particular group of secularists -- scientists -- and their interaction with religion. Most scientists prefer to stay out of any conflicts with religion. They don't want to endanger their sources of research funding and generally just don't want to be bothered. They have better things to do, or at least they think they do.

I want to urge those of you who are not scientists to try to convince those who are to stop pussyfooting around with religion and confront the reality of what it is and always has been -- a blight on humanity that has hindered our progress for millennia and now threatens our very existence.

Scientists have to help the rest of the secular community to work toward reducing the influence of religion to the point where it has negligible effect on society. I don't believe this is impossible. Astrology and the reading of sheep entrails are no longer used to decide on courses of events, such as going to war. Why can't we expect the same for the imagined dialogues with an ancient tribal sky god that at least one recent president has used to justify his actions?

Let's look at some of the places where scientists have been slow to recognize the negative impact that religion is having on important scientific matters. Since the 1850s, human population has exploded causing an unsustainable exploitation of Earth's resources. This growth cannot continue indefinitely. Only by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and leveling population can we expect to survive.

Rather than helping, religion hinders these efforts by discouraging birth control and other absolutely essential measures needed to achieve these goals.

Already, three million people die every year from the pollution caused by fossil fuels and biomass. And this will only increase if we continue on the present path.

However, a livable future is not out of our reach. Liquid thorium nuclear reactors could provide the world with all the energy it needs for a thousand years, safely, with minimal environmental impact, and no application to nuclear weapons. If they had thorium reactors, there would have been no Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima disasters. The only reason uranium and plutonium are used in nuclear reactors is you can build bombs with them. You can't build bombs with thorium.

Solar power would already be economically competitive with oil, if the economy were to properly price oil to include the costs of its damage to the environment, human health, and the military needed to defend sources and transport. Imagine a world without oil. I can.

So why don't we move in these directions already clearly marked out by science? Because since the late nineteenth century we have lived in a plutocracy in which petroleum and other fossil energies dominate almost every sector of our economy by virtue of the enormous wealth they bring to their producers and distributers.

Now, what does this have to do with religion? Since prehistoric times religion has served as the handmaiden to those in power, helping them to maintain that power. Tribal chiefs, kings, and emperors always had shamans and priests at their sides to assure their subjects that they led by divine right.

In America today, petro-dollars fuel a giant Christian propaganda machine that works to undermine the efforts of scientists to find solutions to the problems that face us with overpopulation, pollution, and climate change. They use techniques that were pioneered 30 years ago by the tobacco industry to suppress the evidence that smoking causes cancer and heart disease. And these techniques exploit the antiscience that is inherent in religious belief.

A new technique that in recent years has been added to the arsenal of global warming denialism is to frame climate change as a theological issue. Global warming deniers say that God would never allow life on Earth to be destroyed. After all, he gave humans dominion over the planet. Besides, the world is coming to an end soon anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Republican politicians are in the forefront of the battle over climate change. John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois, has said that climate change is a myth because God told Noah he would never again destroy Earth by flood. All the current Republican presidential candidates have either always said climate change was a hoax or have backed off previous statements in which they agreed that warming is taking place.

The Cornwall Alliance for The Stewardship of Creation has issued what it calls "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." The statement asserts that Earth and its ecosystems are "robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying the glory of God." The statement denies that Earth and its ecosystems are the "fragile and unstable products of chance," and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of what they call "minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." The Cornwall statement claims that there is no convincing scientific evidence that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are causing dangerous global warming. It also denies that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and claims that reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures

Approximately 500 people, including a large number of non-expert scientists and other academics, endorsed this statement. This is not simply the view of a small fringe group but that of the large majority of Evangelical Christians, who wield far more influence than their actual numbers justify.

While the petrocrats use science in every aspect of their businesses, they hypocritically exploit the antiscience that is inherent in religion in order to undermine any scientific findings that threaten their power and fortunes.

Most scientists do not realize that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. This is not because they have thought about it. It is because they prefer not to think about it.

Fundamentalists know science and religion are incompatible, since science disputes so much of what is in the Bible, which they take as the literal word of God. To them, science is simply wrong and must be Christianized. A well-funded effort exists to do just that, while most scientists sit on the sidelines because they prefer not to get involved.

But science and religion have always been at war, and always will be. One of yesterday's speakers said that he did not like to use the word "religion" but rather called it a "belief system." Well, there are different kinds of belief systems. Science is a belief system based on reason and evidence. Religion is a belief system based on bullshit.

Moderate Christians claim they support science, but they still hold to beliefs that have no empirical basis. Moderates will tell you that they accept evolution, but then they insist it is still guided by God. This is not Darwinian evolution. This is intelligent design. There is no guidance, divine or otherwise, in Darwinian evolution.

A recent phenomenon is the joining of forces between the climate change deniers and evolution deniers, who have no link other than a common motivation based on religion. Several legislatures have passed bills requiring teachers to present "all sides" of the evidence on evolution and global warming. Now, that would be no problem if the arguments on all sides were presented accurately and honestly. But we know that's unlikely to happen, since the only purpose of these bills is to create the illusion of scientific controversy on topics where, in truth, a strong consensus within the scientific community exists. It's like demanding equal time for flat-earth geology.

Christopher Hitchens once said that he was not just opposed to organized religion, but also to religious belief. Religion would not be such a negative force in society if it were just about going to church socials and celebrating rites of passage. However, the magical thinking that becomes deeply ingrained whenever faith rules over facts warps all areas of life. It instills superficial beliefs which, having been adopted without reason, cannot be displaced by reason. Magical thinking ignores evidence and favors whatever opinion is the most convenient or socially acceptable. While scientists also tend to follow the crowd, at least they can be convinced to change their minds when the data warrant it.

Magical beliefs are not just limited to religion, but extend to economics, politics, and health. It's not that the public lacks information. Today we're all inundated with information, especially on the Internet. However, much of that data is untrustworthy and it takes a trained thinker to filter out the good from the bad. Magical thinking and blind faith are the worst conceivable mental system we can apply under these circumstances. They allow the most outrageous lies and stupidities to be accepted as facts.

Nowhere is this more evident than in America today where the large majority of the public hold on to a whole set of religious and pseudoscientific beliefs despite the total lack of evidence to support these beliefs, and indeed, in the face of strong evidence that denies them. This is the folly of faith and demonstrates why it must be fought. Relying on blind faith is no way to run a world.

As I have noted, religious believers are being manipulated to work against their own best interests in health and economic well-being in order to cast doubt on well-established scientific findings. This would not be possible except for the diametrically opposed world-views of science and religion.

Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of the opposing assumptions they make concerning what we can know about the world. Every human alive is aware of a world that seems to exist outside the body, the world of sensory experience we call the natural. Science is the systematic study of the observations made of the natural world with our senses and scientific instruments. The knowledge gained in this manner has proved effective when applied to human needs.

By contrast, all major religions, including Buddhism, teach that humans possess an additional "inner" sense that allows us to access a realm lying beyond the visible world--a divine, transcendent reality we call the supernatural. If it does not involve the transcendent, it is not religion. Religion is a set of practices intended to communicate with that invisible world and use its forces to affect things here on Earth.

The working hypothesis of science is that careful observation is our only reliable source of knowledge about the world. Natural theology accepts empirical science and views it as a means to learn about God's creation. But religion, in general, goes much further than science in giving credence to other claimed sources of knowledge such as scriptures, revelation, and spiritual experiences.

No doubt, science has its limits. However, the fact that science is limited doesn't mean that religion or any alternative system of thought can or does provide insight into what lies beyond those limits. For example, science cannot yet show precisely how the universe originated naturally, although many plausible scenarios exist. But the fact that science does not--at present--have a definitive answer to this question does not mean that ancient creation myths such as those in Genesis have any substance, any chance of eventually being verified.

The scientific community in general goes along with the notion that science has nothing to say about the supernatural because the methods of science, as they are currently practiced, exclude supernatural causes. I strongly disagree with this position. If we truly possess an inner sense telling us about an unobservable reality that matters to us and influences our lives, then we should be able to observe the effects of that reality by scientific means.

If someone's inner sense were to warn of an impending earthquake unpredicted by science, which then occurred on schedule, we would have evidence for an extrasensory source of knowledge.So far we see no evidence that the feelings people experience when they perceive themselves to be in touch with the supernatural correspond to anything outside their heads, and we have no reason to rely on those feelings when they occur. However, if such evidence or reason should show up, then scientists will have to consider it whether they like it or not.

We cannot sweep under the rug the many serious problems brought about by the scientific revolution and the exponential burst in humanity's ability to exploit Earth's resources made possible by the accompanying technology. There would be no problems with overpopulation, pollution, global warming, or the threat of nuclear holocaust if science had not made them possible. The growing distrust of science found now in America can be at least partially understood by observing the disgraceful examples of scientists employed by oil, food, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies who have contributed to the unnecessary deaths of millions by allowing products to be marketed that these scientists knew full well were unsafe.

But does anyone want to return to the prescientific age when human life was nasty, brutish, and short? Even fire was once a new technology, and through the ages a lot of people have died in fires. But we don't stop lighting them. Unsafe products are more than overshadowed by drugs, foods, medical knowledge, and technologies, which have made all our lives immeasurably better than those of humans in the not-too-distant past. At least in developed countries, women now rarely die in childbirth and most children grow to adulthood. This was not the case even just a few generations ago. Unlike our ancestors, most of us lead long, fulfilling lives largely free of pain and drudgery. The aged are so numerous that they are becoming a social problem. All this is the result of scientific developments.

We can only solve the problems brought about by the misuse of science by adhering to the scientific method, and by more rational behavior on the part of scientists, politicians, corporations, and citizens in all walks of life. Religion, as it is currently practiced with its continued focus on closed thinking and ancient mythology, is not doing anything to support the goal of a better, safer world. In fact, religion actively and vigorously opposes that goal.

Religion has destroyed our trust by its repeated failure. Using the empirical method, science has eliminated smallpox, flown men to the moon, and discovered DNA. If science didn't work, we wouldn't do it. Relying on faith, religion has brought us inquisitions, holy wars, and intolerance. Religion doesn't work, but we still do it.

Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings.

Science is not going to change its commitment to the truth. And religion is not going to change its commitment to nonsense. And that is why I call upon scientists and all thinking people to focus their attention on reducing the influence of religion in the world, with the goal of the eventual fall of foolish faith. The future depends on it.

The bible and quran command segregation, murder, violence, blood-shed, atrocities, and Holy Wars to be waged forever

~What the Bible says about Holy War

1. The Lord is a man of war. Exodus 15:3
2. The LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. Exodus 17:16, Deuteronomy 25:19
3. And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people … So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. Numbers 21:34-35
4. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites … And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones … And they burnt all their cities….And Moses was wroth with the officers … And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
5.        And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Deuteronomy 2:33-34

6.       And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2, 7:16

7.       If thou shalt hear say … Certain men … saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known … Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:12-15

8.       When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it … And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women … shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. … But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them … as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Deuteronomy 20:10-17

9.       And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

10.     So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

11.     For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses. Joshua 11:20

12.     Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

13.     Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Psalm 2:8-9

14.     He teacheth my hands to war. Psalm 18:34

15.     That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same. Psalm 68:23

16.     Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: Psalm 144:1

17.     Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

18.     He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

~What the Quran says about Holy War

1. Slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out … if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 2:191
2. Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you. 2:216
3. Fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. 4:74
4. Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. 4:76
5. They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.4:89
6. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant. 4:91
7. The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. 5:33
8. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 8:12
9. When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless manoeuvring for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end. Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw. 8:15-17 
10. And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. 8:59-60
11. Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence. 8:65
12. It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. 8:67
13. Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 9:5
14. If they … assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief … Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them. 9:12-14
15. O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end. 9:73
16. Believers … shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. 9:111
17. O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.9:123
18. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks. 47:4 

~The bible says to Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Ignorance is bliss. Christians should not practice free inquiry nor socialize with non Christians:

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Judge other religions for not following Christ:

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Everyone will have to worship Jesus — whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

 

~What does the Qur’an say:

They (people of the book, meaning Jews and Christians) disbelieve in Allah and confound truth with falsehood (3:70-3:71). Christians lie when they talk about the son of God (18:4-5).

Jesus taught them compassion and mercy in the Gospels, but Christians turned to monasticism…many of them are evil-livers (57:27).

Fight against them, kill, convert, or subdue them and (only if it is beneficial to Islam) force them to pay a tax that Muslims do not have to pay (9:29-35). If they refuse to pay, kill them. (Other option is slavery).

Non-Muslims are condemned to hell/cursed/doomed/bad/evil/turned into swine or apes, etc. (2:61, 4:48, 4:50, 4:116, 4:47-52, 4:55, 4:157, 4:160, 5:12-5:13, 5:37, 5:51, 5:53, 5:59-60, 5:72-73, 5:79, 9:29-35, 18:52, 33:26, 59:14, 98:1).

Jews will face Allah’s wrath because they made friendships with those who disbelieve (5:80).

Must convert to Allah only, or else be doomed (2:62-65, 3:85). Note that 3:85 refers explicitly to the Islamic religion as the “Surrender.” Jews are wrong-doers who will face a painful doom unless they believe in Allah (4:160-161).

He who ascribes partners to Allah is lost, as if a bird has snatched him out of the air and taken him away (22:31)

Mohammad (Allah) says Jews look ugly and they are foolish (62:5). Jews are greedy (2:91), and are evil-livers (5:59).

Allah will mock Christians when they burn in Hell, asking them Where are your partners now? (40:73).

Priests and Rabbis do “evil work” (5:63). Many Jews guilty of evil conduct (5:81). Jews act like Christians when they are around Christians (5:82).

Some of them (people of the scripture) are believers, but most of them are evil-livers (3:110), wretchedness is upon them because they disbelieved, slew the prophets wrongfully, were rebellious and transgressed (3:112).

Muslims won’t get hurt fighting them (the people of the book), who will turn and flee and afterwards will not be helped (3:111)

The Jews and Christians flung the scripture behind their backs and gained evil (3:187)

Christians and Jews who disbelieve scripture are the worst creatures in Allah’s sight (98:6) and will receive hell-fire.

Idolaters are unclean (9:28). Turn away from idolaters (6:106). Don’t pray for idolaters (9:113). Let the idolaters kill their own children (6:137)