Until the Church steps forward and deems Islam as the Cult of Muhammadism as She did for centuries, this will only grow worse.

No amount of "Murican Militarism" can beat this heretical political sect:

http://www.mikechurch.com/latest/catholicism-2/madness-manchester-lets-hug-hope-not-hate-muslims-awesome/

And

http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/vlarchive/pdf/lf352_st_john_bosco_leaflet.pdf

PS: If you like the article, Mike Church has a network and show built on and that preaches the Truth.... you can listen here:

http://www.mikechurch.com/mobile-landing-page/?djpplayer=playlivestream

So, what is the proposed solution? How is the OP, or the person cited by the OP, proposing the Roman Catholic Church defeat Islam? He seems that he would be dismissive of the "self-sacrificial, love your enemies" approach, so I'm curious what he is actually proposing.

I absolutely agree that we should always be willing to "take up our cross", but what does he actually think that looks like in this situation?

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Because it is not just the 2%. There is a large contingent that may never build a bomb or lift a weapon to assault a nonbeliever, but they at the very least approve of those that do. Just look at the polls, even in western areas, regarding cartoons of mohammed, sharia law, and violence.

Before you throw me in with the anti-Islam crazies, I also know and have worked with many muslims who are opposed to all the types above and they angrily talk about those that commit those atrocities or support those who do. The Muslims that I'm thinking of are as Americanized and assimilated as you or me. How do you deal with the group above, without either infringing upon the rights of the assimilated ones? At best it is difficult, and at worst you'd simply be expanding the group of the first.

---

Sure, there is a spectrum of views on extremism within Islam and that some moderates will marginalize the danger of that extremism. I used the 30 million / 2% number only because it is what the article listed. But yeah. . . . what do we do? Does it include removing people from our country or changing who we permit into our country based on faith or politics? What criteria does the OP propose?

What does the OP proposes that we or the Holy Roman Catholic Church do to defeat Islam? And what does 'defeat Islam' mean? And on what grounds specifically does he/she wish to 'defeat Islam'?

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

So, what is the proposed solution?

---

---

Yes, but the OP seems to be implying something more. Perhaps I'm inferring something not implied though. And prayer is certainly not only limited to the Roman Catholic Church. So, I'm curious as to what only the Roman Catholic Church can do to "fight" Islam.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Because it is not just the 2%. There is a large contingent that may never build a bomb or lift a weapon to assault a nonbeliever, but they at the very least approve of those that do. Just look at the polls, even in western areas, regarding cartoons of mohammed, sharia law, and violence.

Before you throw me in with the anti-Islam crazies, I also know and have worked with many muslims who are opposed to all the types above and they angrily talk about those that commit those atrocities or support those who do. The Muslims that I'm thinking of are as Americanized and assimilated as you or me. How do you deal with the group above, without either infringing upon the rights of the assimilated ones? At best it is difficult, and at worst you'd simply be expanding the group of the first.

---

Sure, there is a spectrum of views on extremism within Islam and that some moderates will marginalize the danger of that extremism. I used the 30 million / 2% number only because it is what the article listed. But yeah. . . . what do we do? Does it include removing people from our country or changing who we permit into our country based on faith or politics? What criteria does the OP propose?

What does the OP proposes that we or the Holy Roman Catholic Church do to defeat Islam? And what does 'defeat Islam' mean? And on what grounds specifically does he/she wish to 'defeat Islam'?

---

The longer we go without a definitive answer and kick the can down the road, the greater the likelihood (in my opinion anyways) the solution will be the genocide or elimination of one group or the other.

I think the solution would have to come from the moderate muslims to control their own. And before some of you claim that "there aren't any", who do you think is often tipping off the authorities to the extremists? For every attack that goes through, I've read there are a significant number that are nipped in the bud by informants or family or former friends turning them in. Granted, all it takes is one attack slipping through to sow chaos, but it could be much worse.

As we've seen in another thread discussing the rise of white nationalism (or simply white pride), stigmatization of muslims will only worsen the problem and cause others who are initially opposed to terrorists grow apathetic or even sympathetic. People who treat others like enemies soon find that they have more enemies.

RetiredAg said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

So, what is the proposed solution?

---

---

Yes, but the OP seems to be implying something more. Perhaps I'm inferring something not implied though. And prayer is certainly not only limited to the Roman Catholic Church. So, I'm curious as to what only the Roman Catholic Church can do to "fight" Islam.

---

It's in his first sentence..."Until the Church steps forward and deems Islam as the Cult of Muhammadism..."

I don't know, but that is the proposed solution.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I don't know, but that is the proposed solution.

---

Then it's not really much of a "proposed solution" if nobody can discern what it actually means.

It is proposed. It means stepping forward and deeming Islam as the Cult of Muhammadism (which it is). As opposed to deeming it a "peaceful, rich, reverent, respectable, rewarding, positive, endearing, compassionate, powerful, fervent, red-white and green awesome" religion.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

It is proposed. It means stepping forward and deeming Islam as the Cult of Muhammadism (which it is). As opposed to deeming it a "peaceful, rich, reverent, respectable, rewarding, positive, endearing, compassionate, powerful, fervent, red-white and green awesome" religion.

---

Again, if nobody can discern what that actually looks like, then it's not much of a proposal. I am curious if he had something concrete in mind. It seems you are unable to clarify it, so I'll just wait on the OP to provide some clarification as to what "deeming Islam as the cult of Muhammadism" will actually look like and accomplish.

Thanks for the effort though.

Anodyne said:

---

The Holy Roman Catholic Church hasn't existed since Vatican 2. What you have now is an egalitarian, ecumenical, relativist religion.

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

So, what is the proposed solution?

---

---

And this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2015/11/isis-liberal-democracy-and-the-holy-catholic-church-a-call-to-arms.html

747Ag said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

So, what is the proposed solution?

---

---

And this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2015/11/isis-liberal-democracy-and-the-holy-catholic-church-a-call-to-arms.html

---

Thanks for sharing this.

Onward Christian Soldiers?

Yeah, right

747Ag said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

So, what is the proposed solution?

---

---

And this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2015/11/isis-liberal-democracy-and-the-holy-catholic-church-a-call-to-arms.html

---

Love the bad Catholic blog.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The traditional view of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is that the Church alone is the repository for the fullness of truth.

A soft stance of ecumenism and religious syncretism is an abdication of this belief.

Regardless of one's views on the role of the pope of Rome, it should be no challenge whatsoever for the acknowledged leader of the Roman Church to simply say that he believes that Islam is not true, because it is not Catholic. And further, it follows that people who are following Islam would benefit far more by following the truth. There's nothing hateful about that.

---

Absolutely agree that there should be no challenge to any Christian leader to say that Islam is not true. I wasn't quite sure if the OP was wanting more. Perhaps it's from perusing the politics board too often and seeing constant calls for a new Crusade or to "eradicate" Islam, but I wasn't sure if the OP was hinting at more.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would get up in arms over the pope saying that he believes that Islam is not Truth. Now, if the pope condemns Islam as a religion of violence, rape, and hate and suggests, as Mr. Church does, that moderate Muslims aren't true Muslims because they reject violence, rape, and hate. . . . . I think some people may take issue.

If the 3rd to last paragraph is any indication of how the OP feels, then what does that say about 'defeat' of Islam? It seems to me to have a hint of "Convert, or be eradicated". . . .which is why I had hoped the OP would explain further.

Anodyne, you are dead on.

Here is an outline (remember: Nothing is impossible with God):
1. The Church must return to Her orthodoxy and Her belief/teaching and preaching of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - it is part of the problem that there is Religious plurality in the Church, Europe and the US and thus Islam has been put on a false plane as peaceful and just as "True" as Catholicism/Christianity - She is the Church Christ founded and it is why Muslims target Her in the past and will in the future
2. Part of that return must be a near total repudiation and abdication of Vat2 - Vat3 would work for that purpose.
3. Then with the world converting back to the Faith, the Church - from the Chair of Peter, the Pontiff - must call Islam the most demonic cult on the planet and call for prayer and conversion of all Muslims and must keep up the straight talk and call to conversion (not "convergence" as we see today).
4. With this fervent Return to Order, all Muslims who will not officially sign an "Oath against Islam" must be returned to the Mid-east. However, because of the Muslim teaching to lie to kill - Taqiyya - then all must be deported.
5. No Mosque in the US or other Catholic/Christian Countries - they are the HQ for Terrorist planning and organizing.
6. Also, no more Military engagements in the Mid-East.... only those in which are necessary to protect Holy sights if taken-over by the Muslims.
7. At that point, Christian/Catholic countries will put in place border measures to keep Muslims out and arm themselves in case of defense or offense (A New Crusade of sorts) is warranted.

She, the Holy Roman Church as guided by Her Groom, Christ, is the only way to defeat this Heresy as She has been for al of History.

FYI - there is no such thing as a "moderate muslim".... you are either Muslim - ready to kill if someone will not convert - as muhammad and the koran mandates - or you are practicing some "Protestant" form of Islam.

So, it is easy to Pray for their Conversion & simultaneously keep them out of your country and not allow them in because they want your annihilation...... Convert or Die - That is thier driving force as taught by their Leader and by their "holy" book.

PSS: Happy Feast of the Acsension!

That is it.

_89

Quote:

---

5. At that point, Christian/Catholic countries will put in place border measures to keep Muslims out and arm themselves in case of defense or offense (A New Crusade of sorts) is warranted.

---

Well, considering the prior Crusades were anti-Christ, I can't imagine how any Christian would think a new one would ever be warranted.

Also, what does "Christian" countries have to do w/ the US?

Quote:

---

FYI - there is no such thing as a "moderate muslim".... you are either Muslim - ready to kill if someone will not convert - as muhammad and the koran mandates - or you are practicing some "Protestant" form of Islam.

---

I think this thread may be helpful to you: https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2832026/replies

I agree, though, that all things that don't look like Christ must be repudiated, but speaking the truth without love is pointless.

Quote:

---

FYI - there is no such thing as a "moderate muslim".... you are either Muslim - ready to kill if someone will not convert - as muhammad and the koran mandates - or you are practicing some "Protestant" form of Islam.

---

Two Thoughts:

First:
That is going to create a hell of a lot more enemies then now. Muslims who would otherwise be against their co-religionists murdering, terrorizing would likely join them. Why? Because you've essentially told them that they are not muslims if they are not killing and have treated them as your enemies.

People who treat people like enemies generally find that they have more enemies. Granted, love and hugs aren't going to solve the terrorist problem (some people need killing), but discretion is necessary.

Secondly:
That is an appropriate metaphor to use, considering the RCCs violent history, wars of conversions/conquest, and oppression of religious minorities all in the name of Roman Catholicism. Not to say that protestants have not been violent, but I don't recall any sort of equivalency to the RCC leadership directing armies, crusades, and inquisitions. Alert me when the head of the southern baptist convention is mobilizing the baptists for war.

Quote:

---

Prior crusades were Anti-Christian

---

Yep, that's exactly why hundreds-of-thousands of Western and Eastern Catholics went on Crusade knowing that they would likely not ever go back to their homelands as they would be Martyred.

Besides your non sequitur of the false history of the Crusades, Islam still wants you and I to convert or die if not.

I just want folks to convert to the True Faith... no death.

That is the difference.

Solo...

Problem with your argument in #2 is that the Holy Roman Church does not Teach death, only conversion.

You and I could go on all day with the History and "mis-history" of the actions of the "men" in the Church, but Christ and His Church truly preach peace.

Islam, opposite.

texag_89 said:

---

Quote:

---

Prior crusades were Anti-Christian

---

Yep, that's exactly why hundreds-of-thousands of Western and Eastern Catholics went on Crusade knowing that they would likely not ever go back to their homelands as they would be Martyred.

Besides your non sequitur of the false history of the Crusades, Islam still wants you and I to convert or die if not.

I just want folks to convert to the True Faith... no death.

That is the difference.

---

The fact that hundreds of thousands went on Crusade doesn't sanctify them or make them any less repulsive to the picture of God revealed to us through Christ. A new Crusade, w/ flesh and blood weapons, is never warranted, especially given that our true enemy isn't a flesh and blood enemy. Islam isn't the enemy. Evil is the enemy. You could "eradicate" all Muslims from the world and it won't make a dent on Satan.

And if I am ever in the situation where I'm to convert or die, then I'll die and consider it a blessing to be able to do so.

Quote:

---

but Christ and His Church truly preach peace.

---

Which makes calls for a new, murderous Crusade to be anti-Christ. As was pointed out by craigernaught, this belongs on the politics board.

This is not a "political" subject and even if so, up until the Egalitarians in France and the US, those were never separate in all of Christendom.

The Religious Pluralaity that has developed from that false-seperation has lead to Islam being put on the same plane as Christianity, and thus the isues of today.

It is one of the ultimate cuases.