tonie Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 A bit of fun: Here: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/of-course-the-government-should-force-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/ If it can happen in Denmark, it can happen here, and Coeur d'Alene may be only the snot from the camel's nose blown between the tent flaps, but it's one more in a coming cascade of impositions by the feverishly brutal against the faithful. The Socialists in Copenhagen compel the Lutherans to perform SSMs. Does anybody honestly believe that is where they'll stop? Just at the "official" state Church? If they intended to stop anywhere, they'd have stopped at having only those states that voted SSM into law have SSM. To quote Bob: Let's start with any example where a minister in the US was compelled by the government to perform a marriage he didn't want to do. Have any?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) A bit of fun: Here: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/of-course-the-government-should-force-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/ If it can happen in Denmark, it can happen here, and Coeur d'Alene may be only the snot from the camel's nose blown between the tent flaps, but it's one more in a coming cascade of impositions by the feverishly brutal against the faithful. The Socialists in Copenhagen compel the Lutherans to perform SSMs. Does anybody honestly believe that is where they'll stop? Just at the "official" state Church? If they intended to stop anywhere, they'd have stopped at having only those states that voted SSM into law have SSM.Alarming that one is now considered a "wingnut" if he champions First Amendment freedoms, that the word "constitution" is put in scare quotes in a sentence that asserts it only "allegedly" protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech. And you say there's no cause for concern, Bob? Give it a decade or so and let's see what happens before you demand a retraction. Edited to add: Taking a closer look at the link, I now realize the piece was written as satire. I erroneously took it literally. I guess it resembles today's reality so closely, the tongue-in-cheek nature of it was not readily apparent to me. Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
tonie Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 A bit of fun: Here: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/of-course-the-government-should-force-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/ If it can happen in Denmark, it can happen here, and Coeur d'Alene may be only the snot from the camel's nose blown between the tent flaps, but it's one more in a coming cascade of impositions by the feverishly brutal against the faithful. The Socialists in Copenhagen compel the Lutherans to perform SSMs. Does anybody honestly believe that is where they'll stop? Just at the "official" state Church? If they intended to stop anywhere, they'd have stopped at having only those states that voted SSM into law have SSM. Is there still a LDS Temple in Denmark? Have LDS Priesthood holders been forced to perform same sex weddings? I think the we both know the answe is NO. I also think we both know that the Denmark laws applied specifically and only to the State Religion, i.e. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion. Me thinks "utter hyperbolic nonsense" is an appropriate description. It is sad how some are so quick to accept, without question, what you are doing. What is the State Religion of the United States?
Storm Rider Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Is there still a LDS Temple in Denmark? Have LDS Priesthood holders been forced to perform same sex weddings? I think the we both know the answe is NO. I also think we both know that the Denmark laws applied specifically and only to the State Religion, i.e. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion. Me thinks "utter hyperbolic nonsense" is an appropriate description. It is sad how some are so quick to accept, without question, what you are doing. What is the State Religion of the United States? Well, if you ask the mayor of Houston it would appear that religion is nothing but a figment of people's imaginations. It is nice to know that according to you Denmark is an ideal, perfectly correlated country for our legal system and that if they don't force all churches to tow the line then it obviously would never happen here. All I know is that it does not matter what my religion is I am forced to serve anyone and everyone - as long as they fit a special class of preferred beings with the preferred lifestyle - regardless if I have cake shop, run a photography business on the side, have a wedding hall, you name the business and religion somehow magically disappears because we have a special class of preferred customers that everyone must kowtow. Odd, that does not exist in the Middle East where everyone is supposed to be crazy....according to those enlightened few in the US government. 3
USU78 Posted October 22, 2014 Author Posted October 22, 2014 Alarming that one is now considered a "wingnut" if he champions First Amendment freedoms, that the word "constitution" is put in scare quotes in a sentence that asserts it only "allegedly" protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech. And you say there's no cause for concern, Bob? Give it a decade or so and let's see what happens before you demand a retraction. Uh, Scott? The quoted stuff is spoofiness. And it's the Socialist Homophiles that're being spoofed.
USU78 Posted October 22, 2014 Author Posted October 22, 2014 Is there still a LDS Temple in Denmark? Have LDS Priesthood holders been forced to perform same sex weddings? I think the we both know the answe is NO. I also think we both know that the Denmark laws applied specifically and only to the State Religion, i.e. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion. Me thinks "utter hyperbolic nonsense" is an appropriate description. It is sad how some are so quick to accept, without question, what you are doing. What is the State Religion of the United States? Dang. You really don't read for comprehension much, tonie, and I'm worried about you. To the evangelical antireligionist, there is no stopping point. The only stopping point is in the Holy of Holies. Address the lack of restraint in homophile advocacy, and maybe we can have a discussion: and, no, I don't engage with Bob, even by proxy, so don't go there.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Uh, Scott? The quoted stuff is spoofiness. And it's the Socialist Homophiles that're being spoofed.I recognized that and went back into my post and acknowledged it. But apparently not before you caught me on my naivete. I am duly embarrassed. Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Damien the Leper Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 We keep hearing assurances that the Coeur d'Alene Hitching Post case means only that, if you run a wedding mill as a for-profit enterprise, that then and only then will you be compelled by government to perform homosexual "weddings" against your will. As recently as earlier this year, fully 1/3 of the US thinks ministers of religion should be compelled by government to perform homosexual "weddings." As recently as a year ago June a terrifying SCOTUS decision stated that the only reason for opposing homosexual "weddings" was bigotry, and that, in that august body's opinion, no one could have a cognizable free-exercise right to oppose them. Just what is the legal basis for relying upon the government not to compel LDS priesthood authorities, be they local or general, to conduct homosexual weddings and/or sealings against their will?CFR for your statistics.It's not "weddings" but weddings...whether you like it or not. And God approves of them despite what the LDS church says. It's very simple.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 From USU, this bears repeating: If they intended to stop anywhere, they'd have stopped at having only those states that voted SSM into law have SSM.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 CFR for your statistics.It's not "weddings" but weddings...whether you like it or not. And God approves of them despite what the LDS church says. It's very simple.No He does not. It's very simple. 2
USU78 Posted October 22, 2014 Author Posted October 22, 2014 CFR for your statistics.It's not "weddings" but weddings...whether you like it or not. And God approves of them despite what the LDS church says. It's very simple. See posting, above, and no, no amount of Socialist tinkering with human institutions can make something that ain't into something that is a wedding.
california boy Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Well, if you ask the mayor of Houston it would appear that religion is nothing but a figment of people's imaginations. It is nice to know that according to you Denmark is an ideal, perfectly correlated country for our legal system and that if they don't force all churches to tow the line then it obviously would never happen here. All I know is that it does not matter what my religion is I am forced to serve anyone and everyone - as long as they fit a special class of preferred beings with the preferred lifestyle - regardless if I have cake shop, run a photography business on the side, have a wedding hall, you name the business and religion somehow magically disappears because we have a special class of preferred customers that everyone must kowtow. Odd, that does not exist in the Middle East where everyone is supposed to be crazy....according to those enlightened few in the US government. Well then your beef is with the civil rights laws of the 60's not gay marriage. Many of these court cases where business establishments have refused service gays were in states where gay marriage was not even legal yet. And the laws they were sued under were discrimination laws not gay marriage laws. It is not just a special class of preferred beings, but rather any of your customers that you refuse service to based on discriminating against any group. For example, an all black company could be sued if they refused to service white people. So if you don't want to bake cakes or take photos for all of your customers, then you have three choices. 1. Don't serve the public as a business. Do it as a nonprofit club or for a church where you can't charge a dime for your services. Or 2. Join Scott and USU in repealing the 1960's civil rights laws. Discriminate!!!Discriminate!!!Discriminate!!! Or 3. move to the Middle East. Of course the down side of that is they behead both gays and Christians. 1
USU78 Posted October 22, 2014 Author Posted October 22, 2014 What is it about the Socialists that they cannot take a simple proposition like the OP in this here thread and attempt to turn it on its head. I put out there a request for reassurances that our Temples will be left alone by the government, and too man simply come back with something to the effect of: "Do you have any evidence that they have gone after the Temples?" Fact is, they did go after the Temples in the 1880s-1890s. Congress with the Poland Act, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act, and the SCOTUS in Reynolds v US and Late Corporation v US demonstrate a pattern that could and probably will be followed. At the end of that pogrom we had seizure of the Temples, disenfranchisement of Church members, and disincorporation of the Church. We already see the signs, and we need not go any farther than the vicious antireligionist dictum in SCOTUS' DOMA decision. 1
USU78 Posted October 22, 2014 Author Posted October 22, 2014 Or 3. move to the Middle East. Of course the down side of that is they behead both gays and Christians. If you don't like it here, why don't you go back where you came from? Is that about it? If we don't care for the monstrosity that homophile advocacy hath wrought and continues to wreak, then we can be happily disenfranchised, the Church disincorprated, and the Temples converted to government buildings . . .
Daniel2 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 A political subdivision of a constituent state has already threatened criminal action up in Couer d'Alene.Perhaps you missed it.Everyone missed it, because as already detailed in my previous post, no such threat ever existed.
Daniel2 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 It still seems that after repeated request, NO ONE has provided examples of government forcing religions to perform marriages. Will anyone demonstrate why the current handwringing about the Priesthood and ssm is rational or even based in some precedent.As for the Hitching Post it has not been determined whether or not the religious exemption applies; if it does apply case closed infavor of the Hitching post, if it does not apply, then there is no concern regarding LDS Priesthood, because the Hitching Post is a business bound to follow the law.I agree with your first paragraph.By now, the questions you raise in your second have definitively been put to rest; the business owners in Idaho were engaged in non-religious, for-profit commerce and charged money for non-religious civil ceremonies, and we're not operating as an exempt religious body.
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 We're still wiggling away from the question in the OP, let me bring us back to it.Given the thread that shows California requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions, could the same reasoning be brought by our representative government to require churches (LDS and otherwise) to solemnize gay marriages in the future, under the cover of civil rights?Would you (those commenting here) support, oppose or remain neutral if that were to occur?How would you justify this in light of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment?What assurances can be given that the right of churches to define marriage as they see fit will not be countermanded by government regulation?...and please don't deflect by calling this scare mongering. The U.S. government has made decisions from LDS polygamy to Catholics paying for abortion services, that have restricted the 1st amendment in a very real way. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 We're still wiggling away from the question in the OP, let me bring us back to it.Given the thread that shows California requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions, could the same reasoning be brought by our representative government to require churches (LDS and otherwise) to solemnize gay marriages in the future, under the cover of civil rights?Would you (those commenting here) support, oppose or remain neutral if that were to occur?How would you justify this in light of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment?What assurances can be given that the right of churches to define marriage as they see fit will not be countermanded by government regulation?...and please don't deflect by calling this scare mongering. The U.S. government has made decisions from LDS polygamy to Catholics paying for abortion services, that have restricted the 1st amendment in a very real way.For those wondering what KevinG is referring to, see this link. 2
Pahoran Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) "Move along folks, nothing to see here." Here’s the thing, folks…. The entire Idaho story is fabricated and false spin designed to engender exactly the kind of hysteria that it has been doing, among conservatives. And here's the substantive proof: [New Quote] _________________________________________________________________ Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/10/caught-ya-far-rights-latest-marriage-victim-edited-website-to-make-more-solid-legal-case.html by Jeremy Hooper Back in May, I wrote about a place called The Hitching Post, a Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, business that marries couples for profit. At the time, I opined about how the ordained minister who owns the business has every right to not perform same-sex marriages, if he so chooses. However, if he is going to make that choice, then he is going to lose that right to run a for-profit, "all comers welcome" business that says it marries opposite-sex couples in civil ceremonies, regardless of faith. And in May, when that business owner, Donald Knapp, first started going to the press with this vow, that's exactly what his business claimed to do. These are the screen caps I used in my initial post: [images will not transfer to MD&D; for actual screen cap image, please visit the link to see the screen caps] [SOURCE] But get this. In the wake of marriage equality coming to Idaho, the Alliance Defending Freedom is attempting to turn Mr. Knapp and his business into the latest "victims" of the marriage equality push. The ADF is championing a lawsuit against the city of Coeur d'Alene, and to make the case, all involved are claiming that the business is made up of "ordained ministers" who are being told "to act contrary to their faith." They are making it sound like this is an instance of a pastor being forced to perform a religious ceremony in a church, which is a fear they would love to play up as a reality. Several other conservative groups and outlets have run with that spin. Now here's where it gets interesting. In order to make this case of supposed religious persecution, someone has gone into the very website that I used as basis for my spring commentary and changed the text so that all the mentions of civil weddings no longer appear. Here is how the very same screens that I showed you above look today: [image will not transfer to MD&D; for actual screen cap image, please visit the link to see the screen cap] "Ordained ministers" who perform a "traditional, religious ceremony"? And only "for couples who desire a traditional wedding ceremony"? This is revisionist history of the highest order! Now that this business needs to make a case for "religious persecution," they are pretending like they didn't operate in the way that they totally used to operate. They are pretending like civil ceremonies and ceremonies outside of their own deeply held faith were never on the table so that they can make it seem like they have always been convicted in and committed to one specific kind of religious wedding. They have up and changed the rules that they themselves had laid out (i.e. no church, no faith, no problem) so that they can now make the case that they and their far-right spinmeisters are itching to make (i.e. only church, always church; we're the victims). And I caught ya. *UPDATE: The revisionist history is recent, too. According to Google Cache, the "civil wedding" option was still very much intact on October 9: [image will not transfer to MD&D; for actual screen cap image, please visit the link to see the screen cap] [Google Cache] [End of Article] _________________________________________________________________________ And further proof showing that the story is contrived and false: [New Quote] __________________________________________________________________________ Legal hitch at Hitching Post http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:00 am | Updated: 12:39 am, Tue Oct 21, 2014. Legal hitch at Hitching Post MAUREEN DOLAN/mdolan@cdapress.com | 47 comments City officials in Coeur d'Alene say they have not received any formal complaints that the Hitching Post wedding chapel has violated the city's anti-discrimination ordinance by refusing to solemnize same-sex marriages. A lawsuit filed in federal court Friday on behalf of Don and Lynn Knapp, ordained ministers and owners of the Hitching Post, claims the couple's constitutional rights to religious freedom are being violated by the city, through the city's anti-discrimination ordinance, because it compels them to officiate over gay marriages. The law, adopted in 2013, prohibits sexual orientation and gender identity to be used as a basis for discrimination in housing, employment and other public accommodations. News of the lawsuit sparked national headlines over the weekend, primarily from conservative media, claiming that the city is threatening to arrest the Knapps. "We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind," said city spokesman Keith Erickson. But if a complaint is received, Erickson said it would be handled the way all such complaints are. "The city will look into it and take whatever action is necessary," he said. In response to the lawsuit, the city released a copy of a letter City Attorney Mike Gridley sent Monday to David A. Cortman, senior legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based, conservative Christian "legal ministry." The ADF is representing the Knapps in their lawsuit. In the letter, Gridley confirmed the details of a telephone conversation he says he had Monday with Cortman. Gridley wrote that his office has responded in the past to questions from the Knapps about their business - registered as a for-profit limited liability company with the Idaho Secretary of State's office. He admitted that the Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status. Violation of the anti-discrimination law is a misdemeanor with a fine as steep as $1,000, and as long as six months in jail. Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance. "Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote. Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion. In addition to exempting those groups, Gridley wrote that the anti-discrimination ordinance states that it "shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion." When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman. [End of Article] __________________________________________________________________________ Folks…. This issue is a total non-issue, legally. Religions and ministers have NEVER BEEN FORCED TO MARRY ANYONE against their will----and they NEVER WILL BE. Ministers have never been forced to marry members not of their Faith. Ministers have never been forced to marry interracial marriages. Ministers have never been forced to marry divorced individuals. Ministers have never been forced to marry individuals of their own faith that don’t live up to the tenants of their Faith. Ministers have never been forced to marry atheists. Ministers have never been forced to marry a-n-y-o-n-e. And this Idaho story is a fabrication, designed to spread fear and angst that simply will not exist. And the above articles substantively demonstrate that is the truth. Religious liberty and equal civil rights for LGBT couples, interracial couples, atheist couples, and mixed religion-couples CAN and DO and WILL CONTINUE to peacefully co-exist. Question: If it's a "fabrication," why are the [snip scripturally authentic term that is too politically incorrect for an ostensibly Mormon message board] rejoicing so gleefully that the Hitching Post people are scrambling so hard to redefine (or perhaps just clarify) their position? If it's a "fabrication," why does your [snip scripturally authentic term that is too politically incorrect for an ostensibly Mormon message board] source quote the Coeur D'Alene official as saying that "The Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status?" So are they, or are they not, in violation of the city ordinance by refusing to perform same-sex "weddings?" And are there, or are there not, substantial legal repercussions for so refusing? I'm grateful, Daniel, that you've finally decided to substantially address the issue instead of merely browbeating those who dare to mention it. But it turns out that what you have produced is mere spin. You could call it [snip newly coined portmanteau that is automatically considered insulting.] Now: I note with some amusement that your fellow homosexualists have, until now, responded by arguing that the Hitching Post is vulnerable because they charge fees for performing weddings, and besides, they're not really a "religion." As an aside, a religion is a system of belief and/or practice, not an institution. I suspect what the posters are trying to say is that the Hitching Post is not a church; but I digress. Such an argument would seem to imply that only those churches that don't charge fees for services, such as weddings, are authentically religious. I admit that it would give a certain satisfaction if one of the unintended consequences of the homosexualist agitation is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ends up being defined as the only authentic religion of significant size in America these days. And given the fanatical anti-Mormonism of the reprobate lobby, it would also be a rather delicious irony. But I'm afraid we can't have that. Little store-front parachurch "ministries" have been a significant component of American Protestant religiosity for many years now. If there genuinely exists a "high wall of separation between Church and State," as some so breathlessly recite every single time a church expresses a position in the public square -- but only if it's one of which they disapprove -- then it cannot be incumbent upon the state to make up ad-hoc rules to decide what is and isn't a church. If there are to be such rules, they need to be publicly accessible and widely accepted. And they can't rest upon whether or not a church charges for services -- such as weddings -- because most of them do exactly that. Regards, Pahoran Edited October 23, 2014 by Pahoran 2
Pahoran Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Give credit where it is due then. These "cracks in the damn" came mostly from the Civil Rights movement when businesses were prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. This is your villain who started destroying the damn: I think it's called the "Law of Unintended Consequences." Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 You are acting as if discrimination laws are a new thing. They have been around since the 60's, There were plenty of for profit businesses that were sued for not accommodating blacks. What do you expect to happen? Do you really think that those laws only apply to part of America? Or do the discrimination laws apply to all minorities. Of course any minority has the right to sue any for profit business that will not serve them. What do you think the laws that were passed were intended to do?? The only way to stop these lawsuits is to roll back time, strike down the accommodation laws and be glad you live in a country where you can discriminate against any minority you want. Now that is such a more Christian way of life don't you think?? It is no less "Christian" -- and arguably more so -- than coercing people into actively supporting actions they don't agree with. DISCRIMINATE!!! DISCRIMINATE!! DISCRIMINATE!!! Is that any worse than the homosexualist battle cry? COERCE!!! COERCE!!! COERCE!!! Regards, Pahoran 3
Ares Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Pahoran: remove insults like Sodomite and Propagayda from your remarks.California Boy: stop the ALL CAPS Dramatics.People reporting these things: Push the report button once, not 17 times.Thank you for your cooperation.
tonie Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Dang. You really don't read for comprehension much, tonie, and I'm worried about you.To the evangelical antireligionist, there is no stopping point. The only stopping point is in the Holy of Holies.Address the lack of restraint in homophile advocacy, and maybe we can have a discussion: and, no, I don't engage with Bob, even by proxy, so don't go there.You do not post for discussion, do you?Please explain why Denmark Government telling the Government run religion how to operate should be a concern? ESPECIALLY since Denmark did not tell all the NONGovernment religions how to operate.You continue to monger fear. Denmark HAS NOT mandated Same sex marriage be performed by the Church in Denmark.Denmark HAS NOT mandated LDS Priesthood to perform same sex marriages.Denmark HAS NOT mandated same sex sealing in the LDS Temple in Denmark.DEnmark HAS NOT mandated any religion other than the Official State run religion to perform same sex marriages.Since Denmark ONLY mandated THE STATE RUN religion, then you reliance on Denmark is terribly misguided if not a complete lack of comprehension of the situation.
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I'm bumping this so the questions don't get lost in the heat and smoke... We're still wiggling away from the question in the OP, let me bring us back to it.Given the thread that shows California requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions, could the same reasoning be brought by our representative government to require churches (LDS and otherwise) to solemnize gay marriages in the future, under the cover of civil rights?1. Would you (those commenting here) support, oppose or remain neutral if that were to occur?2. How would you justify this in light of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment?3. What assurances can be given that the right of churches to define marriage as they see fit will not be countermanded by government regulation?...and please don't deflect by calling this scare mongering. The U.S. government has made decisions from LDS polygamy to Catholics paying for abortion services, that have restricted the 1st amendment in a very real way. http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/ Edited October 22, 2014 by KevinG
california boy Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 If you don't like it here, why don't you go back where you came from? Is that about it? If we don't care for the monstrosity that homophile advocacy hath wrought and continues to wreak, then we can be happily disenfranchised, the Church disincorprated, and the Temples converted to government buildings . . .If you would have read stormriders comment, you would have found this paragraph that he wrote. Odd, that does not exist in the Middle East where everyone is supposed to be crazy....according to those enlightened few in the US government. The third option came from his own suggestion that perhaps the Middle East is less crazy.
Recommended Posts