>> ^Samaelsmith:

>> ^Pprt:
Strange that everyone is ignoring the first video I referenced, as if what they were chanting has no bearing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
They are chanting a traditional song about Muhamad's massacre on Khaibar, the Jewish settlement that he raided in 628~9. Ten thousand Jews were killed and Muhamad ordered the leader be tortured before he appropriated the widow. As a matter of course, he helped himself to the coffers.
Since Wikepedia is liked by the liberal persuasion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar
You can contest the translation if you wish, but please pay attention to a word the lady uses: Shahada.
Listen for the same words in these clips http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

I won't question the translation but I would like a clarification of what you think shahada means. All I can find is that it is a religious declaration saying basically "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his messenger."


Correct. The Shahada is a declaration of Islamic faith. If you repeat it three times you're considered a Muslim.

Its meaning has been twisted to represent being the act of "martyrdom" (read suicide bombing) by hardline Islamists. I used the quotes because a martyr is someone who would lay down his/her life for a cause. A martyr doesn't intend to take someone else's life.

Someone who has done the Shahada in the latter sense is called a Shahid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid

Good on you for looking into it, Samaelsmith!

>> ^Pprt:

^Fair enough.
Enjoy this next video of "peaceful humanitarian aid workers" that hope for martyrdom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc6vqsQoCY0
Very enjoyable, I especially liked the bit from about 0:00 onwards where nothing much happened.



Lucky the text was there otherwise I never would have spotted the terrorists do a terrorist attack with their terrorist ship terrorist maneuvering it terrorist right underneath the israeli commandos as they were attempting a peaceful absail into the mediterranian sea terrorist terrorist.

Got any more videos?

PS Just took a look at your profile and I do belive, although I'm not a qualified doctor, that you are a twat, so don't bother about more terrorist YT clips. Thank you.

^Fair enough.

Enjoy this next video of "peaceful humanitarian aid workers" that hope for martyrdom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc6vqsQoCY0

Don't talk about how "spot on" something is if you have no idea about it. If you really want to know something about the church's history regarding blacks, study this web site: http://www.blacklds.org/history

The government of the United States also has a history of racism and discrimination toward black people, but current members of government aren't accused of being racist just because their organization has a history of racist members. Members of U.S. government are welcome to cite examples from the Civil Rights movement in discussions of civil liberties, although they are part of the very entity that opposed that movement in the past. I don't see this as hypocrisy. I see this as progression.

I do not seek to justify the racist statements made by leaders of the church, but to explain that neither Joseph Smith nor the doctrines of the church were racist in any way, and that the church has long since left behind those policies. There is here an important distinction between policy and doctrine.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was one of the first religions to baptize and ordain black people. Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Abel, a black man, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership position holding the High Priesthood, in 1936. Joseph Smith opposed slavery, but is often misunderstood on this subject. Like many religionists of his day, in 1936 he believed that slavery was a curse upon the seed of Canaan, but he did not use this as a justification for slavery. He stated that God would abolish slavery in his own time. In 1944, he ran for president on an anti-slavery platform. http://www.blacklds.org/Aprilma

In March 1842, Joseph Smith wrote the following in a letter on the subject of slavery, "I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?"

In January 1843, on the "situation of the negro," Joseph Smith said:

"They came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on." http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#boil

While Joseph Smith was acting as mayor, "a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child."

"The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery."

Concerning the ban on blacks from the priesthood, it would appear that following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, certain members claimed that Smith believed that blacks were not entitled to the priesthood, although the overwhelming flood of evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was not racist, that he was anti-slavery, and that he believed that blacks were entitled to all of the same blessings of the church as other members.

An account of how the priesthood ban on blacks falsely came into being:

1879, Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, pg. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had "masters". This affidavit says that Smoot, "W.W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them" (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

But Coltrin says the ban was to be universally applied to all blacks. In L. John Nuttal’s Journal (pages 290-293) we find, "Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met. Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood." According to Coltrin, "…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.’" Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that "the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood." President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy "was allowed to remain". The other element that makes Coltrin’s story suspect is the claim that Joseph didn’t know Abel was black. Anyone who has looked at a picture of Abel has easily identified him as a black man.

From the Council meeting minutes of 4 June 1879 (Bennion papers as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Maas, Signature Books, pg. 101, note 29.)

Five days after Coltrin related his account: "Brother Joseph F. Smith said he thought brother Coltrin’s memory was incorrect as to Brother Abel being dropped from the quorum of the Seventies, to which he belonged, as brother Abel had in his possession, (which also he had shown brother J. F. S.) his certificate as a Seventy, given to him in 1841, and signed by Elder Joseph Young,Sen., and A.P. Rockwood, and a still a later one given in this city. Brother Abel’s account of the persons who washed and anointed him in the Kirtland Temple also disagreed with the statement of Brother Coltrin, whilst he stated that brother Coltrin ordained him a Seventy. Brother Abel also states that the Prophet Joseph told him that he was entitled to the priesthood."

Because this policy was never explained, many members of the church sought to explain the ban, and they turned out to be very misguided.

President David O. Mckay said in 1954 that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the Negro...it is a practice, not a doctrine, and the doctrine some day will be changed."

In 1988, Elder Dallin Oaks, the man originally quoted in this rant, said "It is not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons...some people put reasons to [the ban], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated on by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be uneccessary risk-taking...The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent."

In 1981, Elder Bruce R Mckonkie said, "Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

I admire anyone who got through all of that. The same kind of misunderstandings occur on the topic of Native Americans.

I think that the church's past of racism is shameful and sad, but I feel strongly that it has no bearing on the current state of affairs. Many individual members of the church may be racist, but it is not a racist church.

Even though I neither value the cross as a symbol nor agree that it should be used, I will defend it by saying that the cross is not mocked by Christians. It is the symbol of a martyrdom. Call me crazy, but I think that there is a big difference between mockery and reverence.

Rick Steves also spoke at the Commonwealth Club about his trip to Iran. That is on Fora TV.

Here is a clip of it:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Rick-Steves-Martyrdom-and-the-American-Empire

And the full video:
http://fora.tv/2009/01/26/Rick_Steves_A_Perspective_on_Iran

full documentary:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Rick-Steves-travel-show-in-Iran-aired-Jan-2009

***************

Rick Steves also spoke at the Commonwealth Club about his trip to Iran. That is on Fora TV.

Here is a clip of it:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Rick-Steves-Martyrdom-and-the-American-Empire

And the full video:
http://fora.tv/2009/01/26/Rick_Steves_A_Perspective_on_Iran

>> ^dannym3141:
Why are we living in a world where nazi'ism - something which millions of people fought and died to prevent - is seen as a belief and allowed to even occur? Why weren't the police beating the shit out of the neo-nazis?
I couldn't give a shit about bleeding heart politically correct 'people are free to practice what they wish'. Fuck em and the horse they rode in on. I'm proud of being open minded and accepting of different viewpoints (even if i mouth off at things for my own amusement a lot of the time), but even i wish death on all of those bald cunts.
Edit:
To answer my first question, probably because you'd rather have them visible than underground and hidden. Keep your friends close, etc.
Go anarchists.


Aside from that, the only viable way to stop a movement like that with violence is by creating a highly invasive police state. That is bad for both the citizenry and the government--it requires massive expenditures of resources that could have been used for other things.

If you don't or can't have a police state, then all you'll be doing is creating martyrs. Remember the four M's: Martyrdom Makes Movements Massive.

(Case in point: Rome's ineffective persecution of Christians.)

Wow, all of this over little ol' me? Pshaw. What's funny, no one cares if I was or was not the sockpuppet in question. No one asked. Before any real proof surfaced (only dag or lucky know the truth), the irons were slapped on me and people were asking for my head on a spit.

I told DFT publicly I was keitholbermann. That was all the proof some needed, I suppose, though I'm not sure volumtuspsoyus even read that. He asked if I was KO and I replied 'It was a shitty social experiment. You failed."

I also shot JFK. I was also this guy: http://www.videosift.com/member/Karambo

I spammed all of you with this http://canada.videosift.com/talk/Jewelry-Shop and this: http://brain.videosift.com/talk/Replica-watches

I'm not sure why volumpypumpous was hobbled. I don't think I agree with his ad hoc martyrdom. It's pretty silly, but so is this. I wonder why the legion of douche didn't Siftquisition me. I'm still waiting for my swift and just trial, or else I believe the cuffs should come off.

Did anyone else think this movie was a sort of 'passion play' response to Mel Gibson's "The Passion?" Seemed like a martyrdom story to me..

BTW, did anyone else think that the original film, Aronofsky's "The Wrestler," was a sort of 'passion play' response to Mel Gibson's "The Passion?"

Seemed like a martyrdom story to me..

>> ^burdturgler:
This is a quite unfair.
First off, gay people appropriated the word "gay".
Beyond this ridiculous semantic argument .. I personally know of priests who had their fingernails ripped out because they would not renounce Christ. They were tortured for days and eventually were murdered and thrown into a shallow grave. This is recently .. within the last 10 years .. I'm not talking about the martyrdom that has taken place for millennia. Whether you share their belief's or not, these were good, honest people who went to dangerous areas all over the world, sacrificing themselves to minister to others.
It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.
Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.
I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?
I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.



I think it is important to note that Christians have been at times, historically--and as you pointed out--recently been assaulted, bashed, lynched, discriminated against, subject to hate crimes and murdered for their religious orientation. No one said that such heinous acts didn't happen to christians, or pretty much every other religion group at one point or another in their history. However, these real crimes are not mentioned in the discussion that this videos author is presenting.

I don't believe that this video is attempting to win a "I've been hurt worse" argument as you have suggested, as such an argument would have to take history in to account (as well as the very real possibility that the majority of crimes against gays in the U.S. are committed by Christians..). The video's author has instead focused on returning the use of words to their definitions so that their meanings are not diluted into obscurity. What would someone say in a call to 911 when their friend is being a assaulted or having their brains bashed in when the meaning of both words was reduced to mean "insult" or even less? Would police rush to the scene of a reported name calling? Should new words that actually have mean something be invented to replace the words we have once their meaning is reduced to nothing?

Now I don't think that words like "attack", "bashing" or "assault" should belong to Gays or any other single group. They should be used when the events they describe actually happen. But the language that the church groups have been using that is cited in this video is misleading. It makes a parody on the meaning of those words. I don't think this should be taken as an attack insult against the Christian groups per se, but against the action they took by misusing (and abusing) language.

Were the offended Christians wronged? Maybe. They have every right to keep tally of insults against them if they feel offended. But over most of what is listed in the "top ten" in this video, one could also expect that a Christian might follow one of their more famous doctrines and turn the other cheek. Instead these few assemble their league of CATL to use very militant words to push politics, not community or understanding as the bible recommends. Christ stood for better than that.

>> ^burdturgler:
This is a quite unfair.
First off, gay people appropriated the word "gay".
Beyond this ridiculous semantic argument .. I personally know of priests who had their fingernails ripped out because they would not renounce Christ. They were tortured for days and eventually were murdered and thrown into a shallow grave. This is recently .. within the last 10 years .. I'm not talking about the martyrdom that has taken place for millennia. Whether you share their belief's or not, these were good, honest people who went to dangerous areas all over the world, sacrificing themselves to minister to others.
It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.
Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.
I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?
I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.


Right. Whatever. Gays get way more shit than Christians.

This is a quite unfair.

First off, gay people appropriated the word "gay".

Beyond this ridiculous semantic argument .. I personally know of priests who had their fingernails ripped out because they would not renounce Christ. They were tortured for days and eventually were murdered and thrown into a shallow grave. This is recently .. within the last 10 years .. I'm not talking about the martyrdom that has taken place for millennia. Whether you share their belief's or not, these were good, honest people who went to dangerous areas all over the world, sacrificing themselves to minister to others.

It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.

Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.

I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?

I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.

A bannable offence is a bannable offence no matter how funny I find it. Berti knew what he was doing, martyrdom next. Yay for the ban, I'm sure he'll be back.