The Shotgun Blog
« Ian Davey for leader of the Liberal Party! |
| Iran is not a terrorist sponsor? »
Friday, June 09, 2006
Canadian Muslim teacher Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin says there is an influx of extremist Saudi Arabian dictates in Canada:
Amiruddin says Khalid used to come to his mosque to
pray, sometimes in the company of Zakaria Amara and Fahim Ahmad, two of
the alleged ringleaders.
“They would enter into the mosque to pray, and they would pray in a
very aggressive manner, and they would come in military fatigues and
military touques and stuff. It looked to me that they were watching a
lot of those Chechnyan jihad videos online and stuff.”
Amiruddin is a teacher of Sufism, a traditional brand of Islam that
rejects the ideology of jihad. Amiruddin says the group was seduced by
hardline propaganda financed by the Saudi government and promoting a
strict, Wahhabi brand of Islam.
He says the Saudis have flooded Canada with free Qur’ans, laced with jihadist commentary.
“In the back of these Qur’ans that are being published in Saudi
Arabia, you have basically essays on the need for offensive jihad and
the legitimacy of offensive jihad and things like that. Very alarming
stuff,” he said.
Amiruddin said many mainstream Muslim organizations in Canada are
really part of the problem, standing by as extremist propaganda spreads
in the mosques.
He cites the Al-Rahman centre in Mississauga, Ont., which he links to the Al-Maghrib Institute,
which runs a popular educational website. It’s nominally run out of
Ottawa, but Amiruddin says it’s really a Saudi operation. (CBC)
I refer readers back to this article on Saudia Arabian textbooks after the intolerance was removed…. The Al-Maghrib Institute lists three Canadian student tribes - Qabeelat Ansar (Ottawa), Qabeelat Asad (Montreal) and Qabeelat Majd (Toronto). A Wikipedia article states that the majority of its instructors have degrees from the Islamic University of Madinah based in Saudi Arabia whose objective is spreading the teachings of Islam world-wide. The websites for the Canadian student tribes are currently down.
What Sayyid is saying pieces together but I am unable to verify the Al-Rahman - Saudi connection. Help appreciated. (c/p)
Posted by Darcey on June 9, 2006 in Religion | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spreading Wahhabi:
I was once a vigorous atheist myself, Halfwise, I take it that now you are a Cat-holic? 8>}
God does not fill his days, as He is not in time.
He is the Alpha and Omega. He is Light and time stands still at the speed of light, matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Time is a function of mortality having meaning only because of the birth and death of our own corporeal bodies.
I wish, Conrad, that VX gas, weaponized bio-agents, and fission weapons had never been invented. Then there might be enough time for the beautiful humanitarian implementation of Plan A.
The Japanese were an extremely martial culture who worshiped their Emperor as god and fought so ferociously in the Pacific War that very few were ever taken prisoner. They had a penchant for head chopping and slaved any society that they conquered. This, in the mid 20th century.
They had to be nuked, crushed, humiliated, stripped of their religion, and forced to implement democracy and the rule of law in their society.
I was baptized and raised in the United Church of Canada, I experienced a number of different 'churches' because my Mother was a sought after organist.
I became a real born again Christian in my early twenties and studied the bible voraciously for a number of years.
My theology is Premillenial Dispensationalism. Fundamental Baptist viewpoint with certain discoveries of my own: When the Lord Jesus was born on this earth and the angels declared "peace on earth goodwill to all men" they meant not peace between all men, but that God offered all men peace in His son. It was peace between God and men, not men and men.
If God had wanted all men united, He wouldn't have forcefully split them asunder at Babel.
A man cannot convert others to Christianity, God offers His grace through His son Jesus, but only Jesus saves. Men cannot be talked into a position of faith. Neither can a man be born as a baby into Christianity. He must believe, repent, and be baptised as an adult.
Many are called but few are chosen. I believe in predestiny. We are not created to live on this earth for our own lives, but for His purpose.
I am not insulted, but grieved, by blasphemy such as 'The Divenchy Code'. They did much worse to my Saviour when He walked this world.
The Gospels are part of the Old Testament. All of the people in them are Jews and none are Christians. When Jesus said, "love thine enemies," He was talking as the 'King of the Jews', to Jews. For Jews, everyone who wasn't a Jew was the enemy. He was preparing them to live in peace with the Gentiles.
The Holy Spirit did not descend until after Christ's ascention. The New Testament begins with the Book of Acts. Until Christ was crucified, he was offering the Jews the Kingdom at that time. Had the Jews accepted, there would have been no church.
I think we are nearing the end of the church dispensation. The true church has been slaughtered and persecuted for nearly two millenium. Soon the destroyer will rule for seven years. He will be born in Bet'Lechem of the tribe of Judah. The sacrifices will be reinstated in Solomon's Temple.
Since the Dome of the Rock stands there today, that means no more Islam, if the prophesy is to be fulfilled.
All flesh is grass.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-11 11:21:25 PM
Given the tone of your disappointment in your church, I've scoured around the internet and found something you may be interested in.
It's available at amazon.com for $11.95.
The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, written by Leon J. Podles.
I have not read this book, so can offer no insight other than it may answer a few of your questions.
My late father-in-law, an ordained minister, lived long enough that he could not recognize the Anglican Church of his youth when he moved to the interior of B.C. That particular branch has been hijacked by feminists and gay rights activists and the older parishioners feel they are trapped and have nowhere else to turn.
You write about the true church being slaughtered and persecuted for two millenium.
Absolutely true that it is on the front lines of an ongoing war with the Muhammedans for 1400 years now. Only the Orthodox church can track apostolic succession and does on three websites I have found – the ancients papacies of Constantinople, Alexandria and the Coptic Church (Antioch). A fourth, Jerusalem obviously still exists and Rome fell away from the main body in 1054 AD.
You are quite free to follow the tenet of a sect started in 1606 in Amsterdam by John Smyth.
I will continue to follow what I consider the true church, which can trace its origin to Pentecost, which according to the Julian Calendar, we celebrated Sunday.
You are also quite free to ignore nearly 2000 year of tradition, the lives and sometimes painful deaths of the people in the early times and conclusions of the obviously most intelligent people of their times who got together and codified the Christian religion as we practise it today.
Conrad bemoans the fact the Roman church has dropped the sacrament of confession ... we continue to uphold the practise the way it has been handed down to us for nearly 2000 years.
One point on baptism, a sacrament your sect seems to place some importance on:
In the Jewish faith to which Christianity owes its foundation, a male child was circumsized at eight days old and was then considered to be a Jew.
In the Orthodox faith, baptism replaced circumsision and is done at eight days old and with the descent of the Holy Spirit, the child becomes part of Christianity. It was thus practised from Pentecost. The New Testament examples of adult baptism pertained only those who had not been previously baptised and therefore were not part of the new covenant.
We could get into the role of John the Baptist here and how he foretold the coming of Jesus, but we'll leave that for another time.
A couple of passages you may consider studying to put baptism into an Orthodox context and as has been practised for nearly 2000 years.
1) Luke 18:16 “Let the children come to me! Don't try to stop them. People who are like these children belong to God's kingdom.''
2) Eph 4:5 “We have only one Lord, one faith, one baptism.''
According to Jewish, then early Christian practise of baptism a child must become part of the religion at eight days. If only one baptism is allowed, according to Esphesians, I'm not sure how this Baptist line of reasoning can square itself.
If a child cannot be baptized until it reaches adulthood, how is the soul accounted for in the event of a child's death? If it is not taken in as part of the church at eight days old, to whom does the child's soul belong?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-12 12:24:21 AM
Interesting discussion of the Eastern Orthodox Church compared and contrasted with the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, all being denominations of one Christian faith. Adult baptism, apart from the guiding example of Jesus Christ, is perfectly valid and, indeed, the most striking example is of Vladmir of All the Russias being baptised as Christian on behalf of all the people over whom he ruled who were thereafter regarded as having become baptised Christians. Any believing Christian may baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit and the party, whether adult or infant, who are the celebrants in the baptism.
I would like to move the discussion back to Islam and the issue of "moderate" Islam. There is no such thing. Doctrinally, large passages of the Moslem holy book, which Mohammed compiled over 23 years, are regarded by Moslems, scholars and laymen, to have been "abrogated", that is, cancelled, by later passages, according to expediency and the circumstances of the changing times in which Mohammed lived. Therefore, when Moslems speak to non-Moslems of passages in their Koran which encourage peace they fail to mention that these passages (125 of them) are regarded as cancelled out, made null and void, by later passages urging continuous war against all non-believers until all the world is moslem. This unwillingness to admit that the, to Western minds, more tolerant passages are no longer relevant is an accepted tactic of Islam as part of officially sanctioned deceit and dissimulation ("Al-Taqqiye"). These later verses and passages, which cancel out earlier ones, have been in place for over 1,300 years of Islam's 1,400 years.
None of this accords well with our Western, Judaeo-Christian concept of belief or even a secular notion of truth.
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-06-12 6:13:39 AM
Set you free, I mentioned the Baptist viewpoint by way of a reference for those who understand it. I am not a Baptist.
I am glad you comfort yourself with the myth of Catholicism tracing back to Peter. Catholicism bears NO relation to biblical Christianity, is entirely pagan, and really traces the first pope to Constantine in the year 313 AD.
It is cold comfort to pretend legitimacy when Catholicism gets all the doctrinal points wrong and points to pagan practices and beliefs instead.
As an example, it is forbidden to pray to statues.
Idolatry is not Christian. Yet every Catholic 'church' has statues and the practice of praying to them.
This is also just one example where Catholicism and Islam both agree to be wrong when compared to the word of God.
Another is Muslims and Catholics being born into their religion instead of being born again. Or course, over the course of life, as the individual becomes disillusioned with the pagan aspects they often give up religion altogether, having been told they were born into the only true religion they believe all religion to be false and become atheists.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-12 8:53:58 AM
As pointed out in my previous post, being born again through the waters of baptism is a replacement for circumsision under the New Covenant. In the example you give, adults can be baptised if they were not previously baptized, since the passage quoted explicitly states there can be only one baptism.
I, for one, am unwilling to take a chance of leaving my children up for grabs to anybody. Best of have my child be joined to the church at eight days old than let him drift off without anchor and hope he sees the light and comes back some day. There are so may predators out there who would gladly enslave my child.
On to Islam. The Eastern Othodox know all too well the true nature of Muhammedans, a word which has somehow been filtered out of our vocabulary and our education system.
Their battles, the subsequent Crusades and the attempt by the Roman church to grant power onto itself at Florence over the nations growing weary of centuries of fighting Mohammedans is well-chronicled.
The Roman church had attempted to take this position of prominence over its five brother churches by various means. One such incident was the forged document by which the Empereor Constantine allegedly directed Rome to be ruler over all five ancient churches.
There are plenty more examples of less-than-humble actions in which Rome tried to wield earthly power over a bottom-up organization which dealt with spiritual matters and whose original spheres of influence had been set up along geographic considerations.
That the western world is finally waking up to what has been going on for 1400 years is an encouraging sign.
There's no question Islam is a Satanic cult and Salman Rushdie had it right when he wrote Satanic Verses a couple of decades back (or was it that long ago).
Satanic deception has been chronicled as far back as the Garden of Eden and it was the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Islam portrays itself as an intellectual alternative (knowledge?) to what it portrays as unscientific mythologies, yet which was the understanding of human beings with no less intelligence than today's human beings over thousands of years.
Honesty and peace are fundamental Christian values. Deception and murder is the way Islam shows its true face. If there is only one God, then which understanding of God is the correct one?
Islam, like all political movements and like Satan in the Garden of Eden, need to show a friendly face so they can ensnare the weak an unsuspecting into slavery. Those under the power of the deceiver have willingly made themselves slaves to him and have agreed to a lifetime of slavery. If they leave, they will be killed.
If it were easy to recognize the deceiver, then nobody could be deceived. The deceivers prey on the weak of the earth, who can be thrown off the truth they fundamentally know in their hearts to be right. They do this by creating doubts and preying of people's fears.
The shield of truth cannot be penetrated, but it is up to each individual to search it out for themselves and to strengthen it so that recognizing the deceivers comes as second-nature.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-12 9:17:30 AM
Re: Eric Margolis.
There were some out there who wondered how Margolis would react to the death of Al-Zarqawi.
He sure didn't let us down.
Turns out Al-Zarqawi has given terrorism a bad name. Even the good terrorists did not like him.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-12 10:40:56 AM
I'm not going to let you go. : - )
Several years ago my wife wanted to learn about computers and took some courses. As is her habit she got after me to help her.
Being a calm and pleasant fellow, SHE would provoke me into anger when SHE couldn't understand my crystal clear explanations and demonstrations of all aspects of everything.
I recall her working on setting up "Macros" (the cluster of computer commands linked into a series needed to perform a task with just two key strokes). During this period of study and experimentation she came up with the concept of "Alt T" which she explained was "everything terrible" which she felt described me and my "ability" to explain and instruct regarding computers.
So, let's say that Catholicism is "Alt T" so we can just go back to the matter at hand, the Muslims.
Now let's also say that you are THE guy with the responsibility to decide, Plan A. or Plan B.
What is your decision, right now?
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-12 11:17:45 AM
Wow, what a bunch of feeble minded bible thumping automotans you guys are. I reccomend you watch the Davinci code, specifically the part about the divination of a Jewish carpenter into the son of God simply to appease the Roman population who would never worship a Jew, hey maybe Dan Brown is an unassimilated Muslim and therfore wants to blow us all up.
Posted by: Constantine | 2006-06-12 1:31:01 PM
From today's Globe & Mail:
"Fatima Houda-Pepin, the Moroccan-born MNA for the riding of La Piniere, on the south shore of Montreal, was one of the brave Muslim women who campaigned against the introduction of sharia-based family tribunals in Ontario.
"Ms. Houda-Pepin, a forceful opponent of radical Islam, didn't mince words when she spoke to a reporter from Le Devoir, a few days after the discovery of an alleged terrorist plot in Southern Ontario. She didn't beat around the bush to designate the "root cause" of Islamist terrorism. It is due, she says, "to the hateful propaganda" that is spreading within the Muslim community "under the cover of religion."
"Muslims, she says, are exposed to "extremely violent" speeches against the "infidels" -- meaning "non-Muslims and dissident Muslims" -- in mosques and various religious circles. "We'll have problems," she says, "as long as we let this kind of indoctrination go on."
"...these extremist religious views are largely an "imported product," financed by foreign religious groups. "You have people coming here as imams, who've been trained and paid to promote a kind of Islam that has nothing to do with Canadian realities. This has been going on for 25 years."
"Ms. Houda-Pepin can't understand why Canada doesn't use the Criminal Code against the preachers who are spreading hateful propaganda. "We promptly act against [supremacist] skinheads, but when the same kind of ideology is part of religious speech, we don't touch it."
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-06-12 5:43:27 PM
First to Set you free. Baptism does not make you born again. Being born again means to die to the old worldly life, a decision only an adult can make.
Show me in the bible where a link is made between circumcision and baptism.
Repent, believe, and be baptised.
Have babies repented and believed? Don't you care what the Word of God says?
Oh, right, Catholic tradition trumps the Word of God every time. Silly me.
Just don't claim to be Christian and we'll get along.
Baptism is the outward public declaration of an individual's commitment to be the Bride of Christ, dying to the life of a worldly individual and joining to become one with the body of Christ, just as marriage is the outward public declaration of a commitment an adult has made for themselves, dying to the life of a single individual and joining to become one from two.
Children and babes know nothing of commitment neither have they repented of their sins and chosen service to the Lord.
Circumcision has nothing to do with baptism. I suppose you think females were circumcised or cannot be baptised? Get ye a concordance and study the subject rather than spouting off your Catholic dogma.
Have you nothing to say about the idolatry in the Catholic 'church'?
Mother Teresa bowed down and prayed to a statue of Mary five times a day.
Teresa, her alias, was one of the foremost promoters of having Mary formally recognized as co-redeemer with Christ in the Catholic 'church'.
Now Teresa is on the 'fast track' to 'sainthood'.
Boy is she going to get a nasty surprise at the resurrection!
Conrad, I would choose Plan B now, after a very intense, truthful and open public discussion of exactly WHO Mohammed was, the history of Islam, and it's treatment of Muslims and infidels alike.
How can people follow this guy and the religion he conjured up?
Then we should be told how many acts of terrorism have actually occurred during the 20th century and into the present.
Lay everything out and prosecute ANYONE who lies in support of this odious ideology for treason.
NO lying about Jihad or what it means.
NO pretending there can be moderates in this brutal bloody extreme ideology.
NO pretending it is an Abrahamic religion when there is NO Jewish connection.
So, Vitruvius, the Globe and Mail thinks she's a Muslim.
I don't think Mohammed would. He was an extremely violent man. Or haven't you read about him, Vitruvius? If you take Mohammed out of Islam, out of the Koran, you will find there is NOTHING left.
Why hasn't she come out and told us what Jihad is all about?
Jihad is a VERY big part of Islam. At least it will be until Islam has either conquered the earth or been eradicated.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-12 6:09:16 PM
I recall 'Set you free' was referring to Baptism replacing circumscision.
Now, that is pure mixing apples and oranges.
First, the Jewish circumscision is about the covenant between the almighty and the Jewish people. It was about being circumscized of body and mind, thus soul.
Baptism correlates (but is not the same) to the mikvah of spiritual cleanliness. Jews bathed in water for spiritual cleanliness, often. Christians, but once.
Jews circumscize on the eighth day, because it is commanded. Christians baptise on the eighth day, because they want to replace Judaism. Fact remains, Christianity never replaced Judaism, and there is no circumscision of the body and mind, thus soul, when water is dabbled on the forehead.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-12 6:23:09 PM
Lady, Christianity was never meant to replace Judaism.
You are correct that it is apples and oranges.
His promises to the Abraham and the Jews will be fulfilled. The fulfillment will not go to Christians or any group claiming to be Christians. The fulfillment will go to the Jews.
While some Jews are Christians, Christians are not Jews.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-12 7:08:56 PM
How we each live our lives among those we see and touch tells a lot more about our Faith than all of our knowledge of facts or history or beliefs. We all share a rich culture of belief and language and form of freedom in our nations.
The differences are minor, and much smaller than the differences within ourselves today versus say thirty years ago (perhaps a lot fewer years).
I thank Vitruvius for the information about the lady public office holder from Ontario who is beginning to provide the courage and leadership which MUST come forth now.
If we actually are Christians or religious believers of any type we should actually pray to God for strength for the Muslim people who are living in North America so that they will have the courage and confidence to ensure that their own children understand the potential for happiness which Canada or America offers to them.
I should practice what I preach. I had to interact with perhaps three Arab descent men today and I didn't think to extend the extra effort to greet them in (my feeble attempt at) their language, to just reassure them that they are welcome in America. I have to return to that one business office again tomorrow, so I'll make a point to remember.
It is nice "speaking" with you folks, but I really don't have much more to say.
This is a big issue, but it certainly isn't bigger than Canada or America, or even bigger than any one of us as honorable men.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-12 7:59:20 PM
I wish you well, Conrad. I think you realize the critical component of the problem we face when you write that "If we actually are Christians or religious believers of any type we should actually pray to God for strength for the Muslim people who are living in North America so that they will have the courage and confidence to ensure that their own children understand the potential for happiness which Canada or America offers to them."
I think you know by now that my metaphysical problem with deities does not in fact prevent me from having a pretty traditional moral perspective. My entire argument in this thread has been that it seems to me that for any person P to demand that some person X cannot be a moderate member of group Y just because some extremest Z says that, implies that person P is immoral. In the vernacular, I will not stand idly by while some moderate muslim is attacked by an extremist muslim, christian, or any other extremist.
I close now and look forward to discussing issues like this with you again. Just let me note that on your comment, "How we each live our lives among those we see and touch tells a lot more about our Faith than all of our knowledge of facts or history or beliefs", I agree with you, and I think your statement is valid independent of theology. It's an ethical call, not a metaphysical one.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-06-12 11:17:29 PM
I commend you for taking on the holy warriors with as much civility as you did, albeit each in your own way. You obviously have more patience than I do.
That said, it's a battle worth joining. There are practical, as well as principled reasons for challenging those extremists who would condemn an entire religion. And there's something absurd and dangerous about people who condemn moderate Muslims for not speaking out against extremis and then, when they do, suggest that they're either lying (as is the nature of their faith) or not really Muslims.
And while we're throwing around quotations, a few words from Yeats seems appropriate:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
As Speller would say, No doubt.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-12 11:27:50 PM
Did Yeats mean that "the best lack all conviction" in the sense that Voltaire meant when he noted that "the best is the enemy of the good"?
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-06-12 11:48:19 PM
I doubt it.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-13 12:04:04 AM
That's what I thought. Yeats was a bit of ditz, wasn't he.
But here's a great quote from James Clerk Maxwell, the father of electrical engineering. When Maxwell was told on his arrival at Cambridge University that there would be a compulsory 6 a.m. church service, he said, "Aye, I suppose I could stay up that late."
Mr. Maxwell had convictions, sometimes intense. Perhaps others have been less fortunate, as we would have been had Mr. Maxwell not been so fortunate.
Hey, don't worry about it TrueWest, I've come to expect nothing less from your shtick.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-06-13 12:19:32 AM
Yeats a ditz? If you like. The quote was actually apropos your exchange, some ways back, regarding doubt.
As for my schtick, I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about. But feel free to expand on that idea.
As for Maxwell, he's a stranger to me. However, thanks to the magic of the internet, I see he would have been 175 this year. Sounds like an interesting fellow.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-13 12:34:32 AM
Baptism at eight days old is the replacement of circumsision as a sign of the covenant.
Jesus was circumsised at eight days old. He was born in Bethlehem, preached at the temple of Jerusalem when he was 12 year old and after his death his followers also preached at the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
Most of his early followers were Jewish and it was not until after his death and resurrection that a decision was made that since the Jews of the Temple had rejected his message, it would be offered to all.
The Pharisees considered themselves worthy of entry to heaven because of their outwardly strict adherence to the Law. The Sadduces did not believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the afterlife.
The forerunner of Christ, John the Baptist, started to preach “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand.' Unlike that the Muhammadans claim, this was not an announcement than Muhammad would be the final prophet.
At hand meant within a forseeable time frame.
“I baptize you with water, but after me One mightier than I is coming,'' he told those who he baptized. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.''
That last sentence proves the lies of the Muhammadans, who deny the existence of the Holy Sprit as unprovable. Yet, they claim John the Baptist prophesized Muhammad. How is this logically possible?
The Holy Spirit contitutes all Truth (John 16:13, 14:26, 15:26). He is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17).
Therefore, the Spirit is the Truth, even though Muhammadans deny this.
Jesus received the Sprit at baptism and after his resurrection, in Matthew 28:18-19 said: “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth! Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.''
Not circumsize them ... baptize them ... the new covenant.
All nations, that is all people. And, since children were part of nations, they too were baptized. Historical records clearly indicate that understanding.
No new revalation or understanding could possibly have come 1609 years later to a person in Amsterdam. To say, as John Smyth said in Article 14: That baptism is the external sign of the remission of sins, of dying and of being made alive, and therefore does not belong to infants seems bizarre.
Without being part of the covenant through circumsision, then baptism, on what authority do parents then have to teach their children right from wrong.
I'm not sure what world Smyth lived in or if he even had children, but to say children are incapable of committing sins or making decisions that are not in their own best interest is just plain naive. I can just see the predators smacking their lips right now.
Free will does not just magically show up one day in an adult ... it's there from the day a child is born. What a tragic misunderstanding of basic human psychology this is.
It's like saying a child is incapable of getting sick, so he should never see a doctor until he's an adult. Or since a child is incapable of appreciating the outcome of his education until he is an adult, then he should not go to school.
A child is also a human being, subject to forces beyond his control. People for thousands of years have known that, people today know that. Why did John Smyth not know that?
It's just perplexing to me.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-13 1:31:36 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.