More Christian bigotry!

“It would in fact have been a sensible and proportionate accommodation, recognising that religious organisations have a distinct identity and ethos that very often brings a valuable contribution to the wider common good of society.”

victorisnotamused wrote:ah well now we see sense, however removing the tax free status would be difficult since they operate as charities...
and even if you did so having a secular "replacement" would be, as these things tend to be, far more costly than what would be recovered in taxes...

and given the record of secular "childrens homes" in the abuse stakes, probably no improvement there either.....

I cant say as I have an answer here....I was merely pointing out that phil would impose these rules and close them with NO thought as to the fate of the kids they serve....thought for others does not enter the equation....

A children's home dedicated to helping the forgotten or abused children of the world learn and grow in God's service and blessings.

illinois christian children's homes,oblong children's christian home's mission it to glorify God by discipling neglected and troubled children and their families.

victorisnotamused wrote:seems like you are up to didges tricks.....

I dont give a toss about american activities....

This is britain....

now there have been plenty of scandles involving "secular" childrens homes here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haut_de_la_Garenne

is just one....

victorisnotamused wrote:seems like you are up to didges tricks.....

I dont give a toss about american activities....

This is britain....

now there have been plenty of scandles involving "secular" childrens homes here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haut_de_la_Garenne

is just one....

veya_victaous wrote:I have no problem with this Letting Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor  have his way is no different than allowing Sharia law. And it creates a precedent allowing for Mosques to Legal exert the religious ethos on their followers too.

“It would in fact have been a sensible and proportionate accommodation, recognising that religious organisations have a distinct identity and ethos that very often brings a valuable contribution to the wider common good of society.”

Completely disagree with that quote
If they Can't keep their Bigoted Outdated and ILLEGAL Ethos to themselves then they have no place in perform a Public Duty in a Modern Secular society. If needed remove tax free status and fund the secular alternative. it will be better more efficient and really too many of these religious Adoption agencies have been fronts for paedophile rings.. Religions should be banned from operating them in any capacity.

Philagain wrote:Predictable that the druid prick would choose to troll this thread, rather than to provide any debating input.

What a sad old man, fuck off and die you stupid C**N!

gerber wrote:Rags, I entirely agree.  This has been flagged for years.  Ignored for years so as not to upset the relative few of the gay community that demand equal rights for them and fail to recognise the consequences.

This is not gay bashing but supporting the rights of the Catholic Church.

The children are the victims here not the gay activists.

Eilzel wrote:What is sad is that any adoption agency would rather see a child left without any parents at all than to put them in the care of a loving gay couple. That says alot about the warped mentality of SOME religious groups.

^Vic I also have to echo Ben and Veya's thoughts (though I wouldn't swear haha), we cannot just isolate Britain as though we are a special case in the whole world on the matter, we aren't.

Eilzel wrote:What is sad is that any adoption agency would rather see a child left without any parents at all than to put them in the care of a loving gay couple. That says alot about the warped mentality of SOME religious groups.

^Vic I also have to echo Ben and Veya's thoughts (though I wouldn't swear haha), we cannot just isolate Britain as though we are a special case in the whole world on the matter, we aren't.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Eilzel wrote:What is sad is that any adoption agency would rather see a child left without any parents at all than to put them in the care of a loving gay couple. That says alot about the warped mentality of SOME religious groups.

^Vic I also have to echo Ben and Veya's thoughts (though I wouldn't swear haha), we cannot just isolate Britain as though we are a special case in the whole world on the matter, we aren't.

My point about "not giving a toss" is in relation to both didge and veya's trick of looking at the american condition/experience/situation and considering it to be representative of ours.

for instance veya looked at google and came up with 2 american refernces and used that to back his point about secular childrens homes being better in the abuse stakes than church run ones, making a straw man to avoid the point that HERE (NOT AMERICA) they have no better record in that matter....

More over the OP is talking about the catholic church HERE...NOT in america ....... the two are different fish, having the same disease admittedly, but still very different....

dare I say it more of the lefty nonsense showing through....

follow these kinds of arguments and we end up with a "one size fits all" world....with NO room for regional let alone national identity or culture....
moreover its no wonder the world is currently fooked....if that how the politicos think no wonder us and the yanks are constantly at war....

I have a small hint.......one size does NOT fit all......

Eilzel wrote:What is sad is that any adoption agency would rather see a child left without any parents at all than to put them in the care of a loving gay couple. That says alot about the warped mentality of SOME religious groups.

^Vic I also have to echo Ben and Veya's thoughts (though I wouldn't swear haha), we cannot just isolate Britain as though we are a special case in the whole world on the matter, we aren't.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

My point about "not giving a toss" is in relation to both didge and veya's trick of looking at the american condition/experience/situation and considering it to be representative of ours.

for instance veya looked at google and came up with 2 american refernces and used that to back his point about secular childrens homes being better in the abuse stakes than church run ones, making a straw man to avoid the point that HERE (NOT AMERICA) they have no better record in that matter....

More over the OP is talking about the catholic church HERE...NOT in america ....... the two are different fish, having the same disease admittedly, but still very different....

dare I say it more of the lefty nonsense showing through....

follow these kinds of arguments and we end up with a "one size fits all" world....with NO room for regional let alone national identity or culture....

you miss the point and as ever introduce irrelevent arguments....

Veya was using the american situation to intimate that secular childrens homes do not have the abuse problems that church run ones do....
NOW...the MAY be true in america.....It is NOT true in britain.....
ergo such a comparison is a straw man....  ONE size does NOT fit all.
the catholic church in america is NOT quite the same fish as the catholic church here....
and so on...

I may as well argue that we should import american values such as their gun culture since we are the same...which is rubbish (actually they should import our gun laws, but hey ho).

THAT is the point I'm making.....
moreover its no wonder the world is currently fooked....if that how the politicos think no wonder us and the yanks are constantly at war....

I have a small hint.......one size does NOT fit all......

What trick, that is an absurd observation , when both countries have similar cultures, plus the fact we are indeed one biological race are we not Victor.
What you are trying to claim has no logic or any science behind it and the debate is about secular places, the only difference between a nation may be in its culture but little else when we we similar belief systems, so basically you are as per usual try to claim something that just does not make any sense.


You are also obsessed with political leanings whilst at the same time not having the first clue what they are, you just associate anyone left of you as left wing, failing to recognize you share some left wing views yourself and some far right ones at that

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



What trick, that is an absurd observation , when both countries have similar cultures, plus the fact we are indeed one biological race are we not Victor.
What you are trying to claim has no logic or any science behind it and the debate is about secular places, the only difference between a nation may be in its culture but little else when we we similar belief systems, so basically you are as per usual try to claim something that just does not make any sense.


You are also obsessed with political leanings whilst at the same time not having the first clue what they are, you just associate anyone left of you as left wing, failing to recognize you share some left wing views yourself and some far right ones at that

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry that again is pure balderdash, both the cultures are very similar and again the Catholic church in each country is headed up by the Catholic Church in the Vatican, run by the Catholic Church in the Vatican, thus them being all the same, no matter which country, as they all take their orders from the Vatican.

Again you are arguing along a racial argument, as if there is something unique to British people compare to Americans, which would be even more absurd, when a huge amount of them descend from the British Isles.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry that again is pure balderdash, both the cultures are very similar and again the Catholic church in each country is headed up by the Catholic Church in the Vatican, run by the Catholic Church in the Vatican, thus them being all the same, no matter which country, as they all take their orders from the Vatican.

Again you are arguing along a racial argument, as if there is something unique to British people compare to Americans, which would be even more absurd, when a huge amount of them descend from the British Isles.

so you are saying that abuse in secular childrens homes DOES NOT EXIST in the uk??

yes or no?

Tesstacious wrote:Just curious - what's the Muslim take on all this?  Do they prohibit same sex adoptions?

Tesstacious wrote:Just curious - what's the Muslim take on all this?  Do they prohibit same sex adoptions?

Tesstacious wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:Just curious - what's the Muslim take on all this?  Do they prohibit same sex adoptions?

Since no-one's answering me I asked Mr Google:

"Legal recognition of same-sex marriage

In the late  20th  and early  21st  centuries, there has been a growing movement in a number of countries to regard marriage as a right which should be extended to gay and lesbian couples. Legal recognition of a marital union opens up a wide range of entitlements, including social security, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to heterosexual unions excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits. (While opposite-sex unmarried couples without other legal impediments have the option of marrying in law and so gaining access to these rights, that option is unavailable to same-sex couples.) Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.

Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, arguing that extending marriage to homosexual couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage in various traditions, and does not fulfill any procreational role. In countries with monogamous marriages only, some opponents also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will re-open the door to the legalization of polyamorous marriage, or other forms they find objectionable. They also feel that same-sex couples should not be allowed to have or adopt children, and that same-sex marriage would make those adoptions easier; they hold that same-sex households are not an adequate environment for children to be raised in."

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/same_sex_marriage_and_marriage_i.htm

Philagain wrote:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has defended Catholic adoption agencies that discriminate against same-sex couples.

The former head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said the Equality Act had “unnecessarily” forced many of the agencies to close in recent years.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote: “Because of our conviction that children are better placed in a home with a man and a woman, a father and mother, the agencies were unable to offer a service to same-sex couples.

“It would in fact have been a sensible and proportionate accommodation, recognising that religious organisations have a distinct identity and ethos that very often brings a valuable contribution to the wider common good of society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also spoke of how he unsuccessfully urged the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to provide an opt-out in the Equality Act, allowing for the agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.

“In spite of the fact that I, as Archbishop of Westminster then, appealed to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for an exemption from this law, it was not forthcoming and the result has been a sad loss for the Church and society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor added: “How extraordinary that a law, in the name of tolerance, should become so intolerant to a charity that aims only to do good and foster the most vulnerable children.”

He concluded: “We do indeed need in our pluralist society to strike a much fairer balance which recognises the importance of religion and belief and allows a more open and mature accommodation of differences while ensuring that the law protects everyone equally and prevents harm.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also expressed support for The Telegraph’s editorial praising Baroness Hale, the UK’s most senior female judge.

She suggested last week that Christians who oppose serving gay couples need to have more “religious freedom”.

Baroness Hale was one of the five Supreme Court justices to reject the appeal of Christian B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who lost a long-running court dispute after refusing to serve gay couple Martin Hall and Steven Preddy.

In a speech she said “the pendulum has swung too far one way”.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/24/cardinal-murphy-oconnor-defends-anti-gay-adoption-agencies/


Well you can't change the statute books of both Britain and the EU as a whole.

Why not try to change them and see how far you get.   

The Puzzler wrote:

Philagain wrote:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has defended Catholic adoption agencies that discriminate against same-sex couples.

The former head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said the Equality Act had “unnecessarily” forced many of the agencies to close in recent years.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote: “Because of our conviction that children are better placed in a home with a man and a woman, a father and mother, the agencies were unable to offer a service to same-sex couples.

“It would in fact have been a sensible and proportionate accommodation, recognising that religious organisations have a distinct identity and ethos that very often brings a valuable contribution to the wider common good of society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also spoke of how he unsuccessfully urged the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to provide an opt-out in the Equality Act, allowing for the agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.

“In spite of the fact that I, as Archbishop of Westminster then, appealed to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for an exemption from this law, it was not forthcoming and the result has been a sad loss for the Church and society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor added: “How extraordinary that a law, in the name of tolerance, should become so intolerant to a charity that aims only to do good and foster the most vulnerable children.”

He concluded: “We do indeed need in our pluralist society to strike a much fairer balance which recognises the importance of religion and belief and allows a more open and mature accommodation of differences while ensuring that the law protects everyone equally and prevents harm.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also expressed support for The Telegraph’s editorial praising Baroness Hale, the UK’s most senior female judge.

She suggested last week that Christians who oppose serving gay couples need to have more “religious freedom”.

Baroness Hale was one of the five Supreme Court justices to reject the appeal of Christian B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who lost a long-running court dispute after refusing to serve gay couple Martin Hall and Steven Preddy.

In a speech she said “the pendulum has swung too far one way”.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/24/cardinal-murphy-oconnor-defends-anti-gay-adoption-agencies/


Well you can't change the statute books of both Britain and the EU as a whole.

Why not try to change them and see how far you get.   

A very very mild form of bigotry compared to our Islamic pals, who favour stoning or hanging, or dashing gays off mountains(yes, that's in the Quran). Like comparing the infamous B&B couple with the Muslim patrols in East London, who've reemerged in the news lately - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/gay-couple-targeted-in-homophobic-attack-by-teenage-gang-on-east-london-street-9558423.html

The Puzzler wrote:

Philagain wrote:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has defended Catholic adoption agencies that discriminate against same-sex couples.

The former head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said the Equality Act had “unnecessarily” forced many of the agencies to close in recent years.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote: “Because of our conviction that children are better placed in a home with a man and a woman, a father and mother, the agencies were unable to offer a service to same-sex couples.

“It would in fact have been a sensible and proportionate accommodation, recognising that religious organisations have a distinct identity and ethos that very often brings a valuable contribution to the wider common good of society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also spoke of how he unsuccessfully urged the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to provide an opt-out in the Equality Act, allowing for the agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.

“In spite of the fact that I, as Archbishop of Westminster then, appealed to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for an exemption from this law, it was not forthcoming and the result has been a sad loss for the Church and society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor added: “How extraordinary that a law, in the name of tolerance, should become so intolerant to a charity that aims only to do good and foster the most vulnerable children.”

He concluded: “We do indeed need in our pluralist society to strike a much fairer balance which recognises the importance of religion and belief and allows a more open and mature accommodation of differences while ensuring that the law protects everyone equally and prevents harm.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also expressed support for The Telegraph’s editorial praising Baroness Hale, the UK’s most senior female judge.

She suggested last week that Christians who oppose serving gay couples need to have more “religious freedom”.

Baroness Hale was one of the five Supreme Court justices to reject the appeal of Christian B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who lost a long-running court dispute after refusing to serve gay couple Martin Hall and Steven Preddy.

In a speech she said “the pendulum has swung too far one way”.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/24/cardinal-murphy-oconnor-defends-anti-gay-adoption-agencies/


Well you can't change the statute books of both Britain and the EU as a whole.

Why not try to change them and see how far you get.   

A very very mild form of bigotry compared to our Islamic pals, who favour stoning or hanging, or dashing gays off mountains(yes, that's in the Quran). Like comparing the infamous B&B couple with the Muslim patrols in East London, who've reemerged in the news lately - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/gay-couple-targeted-in-homophobic-attack-by-teenage-gang-on-east-london-street-9558423.html

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

so you are saying that abuse in secular childrens homes DOES NOT EXIST in the uk??

yes or no?

Did I claim that or did you?

Are you deliberately missing the point.....????
VEYA made a statement that implied that since abuse in secular homes appeared not to happen in the USA the same applies to britain....

which is demonstrably not the case.....

nothing illogical... you cannot take what happens in one country and apply it as an accurate measure in another....since as is easily shown by the above it aint so.



My point is on your illogical view points

I am sure abuse exists in many areas, not matter whether religious, because people who abuse will try to gain an areas where they can. Where it has been rife has been in religious orders, this maybe changing.

Again stating the UK, is a false misleading usage of a problem that exists all around the world, you look again very much through black and white or singular and that has no scientific bases what so ever

victorisnotamused wrote:

Are you deliberately missing the point.....????
VEYA made a statement that implied that since abuse in secular homes appeared not to happen in the USA the same applies to britain....

which is demonstrably not the case.....

nothing illogical... you cannot take what happens in one country and apply it as an accurate measure in another....since as is easily shown by the above it aint so.

Philagain wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
A very very mild form of bigotry compared to our Islamic pals, who favour stoning or hanging, or dashing gays off mountains(yes, that's in the Quran). Like comparing the infamous B&B couple with the Muslim patrols in East London, who've reemerged in the news lately - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/gay-couple-targeted-in-homophobic-attack-by-teenage-gang-on-east-london-street-9558423.html

This thread has nothing to do with Islam.
It's getting extremely boring the way that you far right try to hijack most threads and turn them into yet another boring Islam thread.
Racist imbeciles.

The Puzzler wrote:

Philagain wrote:

This thread has nothing to do with Islam.
It's getting extremely boring the way that you far right try to hijack most threads and turn them into yet another boring Islam thread.
Racist imbeciles.

Let me get this straight, the lad who called someone else a 'stupid coon' in this very thread is calling ME a racist imbecile? Really?!  

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

Are you deliberately missing the point.....????
VEYA made a statement that implied that since abuse in secular homes appeared not to happen in the USA the same applies to britain....

which is demonstrably not the case.....

nothing illogical... you cannot take what happens in one country and apply it as an accurate measure in another....since as is easily shown by the above it aint so.

Your view point is illogical on Britain and America as again you are going off what you believe on a non-existence biological racial grounds.

Straw man alert...I made NO such claim.... nowhere have I mentioned race etc..

If he has shown it is rare, clearly it is rare here, unless you can show it is endemic?
Can you?

veyta said he coulnt find ANY sound evidence of it in the usa
whereas ther have been a number of cases here....hardly endemic, but thats NOT the same as non existance...

didge I give up on your stupidity this time.......

what part of ............................. it doesnt matter if looking at one country shows no prevelace of an act, when there is evidence that it is present in another,
americas apparent lack of abuse in childrens homes does not provide an answer to the fact it HAS occured here.........can you not grasp?

You see this is why your argument is utterly flawed because you can make similar comparisons to countries with similar cultures  

Philagain wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
Let me get this straight, the lad who called someone else a 'stupid coon' in this very thread is calling ME a racist imbecile? Really?!  

Is the druid black?

The word was miss spelt, due to the fact that the correct spelling isn't allowed on here.

Philagain wrote:Predictable that the druid prick would choose to troll this thread, rather than to provide any debating input.

What a sad old man, fuck off and die you stupid C**T!

Philagain wrote:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has defended Catholic adoption agencies that discriminate against same-sex couples.

The former head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said the Equality Act had “unnecessarily” forced many of the agencies to close in recent years.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote: “Because of our conviction that children are better placed in a home with a man and a woman, a father and mother, the agencies were unable to offer a service to same-sex couples.

“It would in fact have been a sensible and proportionate accommodation, recognising that religious organisations have a distinct identity and ethos that very often brings a valuable contribution to the wider common good of society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also spoke of how he unsuccessfully urged the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to provide an opt-out in the Equality Act, allowing for the agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.

“In spite of the fact that I, as Archbishop of Westminster then, appealed to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for an exemption from this law, it was not forthcoming and the result has been a sad loss for the Church and society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor added: “How extraordinary that a law, in the name of tolerance, should become so intolerant to a charity that aims only to do good and foster the most vulnerable children.”

He concluded: “We do indeed need in our pluralist society to strike a much fairer balance which recognises the importance of religion and belief and allows a more open and mature accommodation of differences while ensuring that the law protects everyone equally and prevents harm.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also expressed support for The Telegraph’s editorial praising Baroness Hale, the UK’s most senior female judge.

She suggested last week that Christians who oppose serving gay couples need to have more “religious freedom”.

Baroness Hale was one of the five Supreme Court justices to reject the appeal of Christian B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who lost a long-running court dispute after refusing to serve gay couple Martin Hall and Steven Preddy.

In a speech she said “the pendulum has swung too far one way”.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/24/cardinal-murphy-oconnor-defends-anti-gay-adoption-agencies/


Well you can't change the statute books of both Britain and the EU as a whole.

Why not try to change them and see how far you get.   

Philagain wrote:I hope that admin is taking note of this continuing abuse because if i was doing abuse as much as the druid is i'd be in the basement by now.

(Some of it is homophobic as well)

Philagain wrote:

Philagain wrote:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has defended Catholic adoption agencies that discriminate against same-sex couples.

The former head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said the Equality Act had “unnecessarily” forced many of the agencies to close in recent years.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote: “Because of our conviction that children are better placed in a home with a man and a woman, a father and mother, the agencies were unable to offer a service to same-sex couples.

“It would in fact have been a sensible and proportionate accommodation, recognising that religious organisations have a distinct identity and ethos that very often brings a valuable contribution to the wider common good of society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also spoke of how he unsuccessfully urged the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to provide an opt-out in the Equality Act, allowing for the agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.

“In spite of the fact that I, as Archbishop of Westminster then, appealed to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for an exemption from this law, it was not forthcoming and the result has been a sad loss for the Church and society.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor added: “How extraordinary that a law, in the name of tolerance, should become so intolerant to a charity that aims only to do good and foster the most vulnerable children.”

He concluded: “We do indeed need in our pluralist society to strike a much fairer balance which recognises the importance of religion and belief and allows a more open and mature accommodation of differences while ensuring that the law protects everyone equally and prevents harm.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor also expressed support for The Telegraph’s editorial praising Baroness Hale, the UK’s most senior female judge.

She suggested last week that Christians who oppose serving gay couples need to have more “religious freedom”.

Baroness Hale was one of the five Supreme Court justices to reject the appeal of Christian B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who lost a long-running court dispute after refusing to serve gay couple Martin Hall and Steven Preddy.

In a speech she said “the pendulum has swung too far one way”.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/24/cardinal-murphy-oconnor-defends-anti-gay-adoption-agencies/


Well you can't change the statute books of both Britain and the EU as a whole.

Why not try to change them and see how far you get.   

Philagain wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
A very very mild form of bigotry compared to our Islamic pals, who favour stoning or hanging, or dashing gays off mountains(yes, that's in the Quran). Like comparing the infamous B&B couple with the Muslim patrols in East London, who've reemerged in the news lately - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/gay-couple-targeted-in-homophobic-attack-by-teenage-gang-on-east-london-street-9558423.html

This thread has nothing to do with Islam.
It's getting extremely boring the way that you far right try to hijack most threads and turn them into yet another boring Islam thread.
Racist imbeciles.