Jump to content

The Menace Of The Religious Left


Recommended Posts

The Menace of the Religious Left

 

 

 

by Murray N. Rothbard

 

A menace to America and even to the rest of the world, not only of our time but of the last few centuries, is the deadly threat of the "Religious Left," a left which began, in the Middle Ages and even earlier, as a hellish Christian heresy, and by now can only be considered "Christian" in the most remote and twisted sense. This menace, which reached its most influential early form in the views of the charismatic and highly influential late-twelfth century Calabrian Abbot, Joachim of Fiore, is "postmillennial": that is, it struggles to bring about, either immediately or as quickly as possible, a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth, a "perfect" and sinless world, a world which would be Communist, collectivist, and egalitarian, although that "equality" would be supposedly assured by the totalitarian rule of a cadre or vanguard of "saints," presided over by a self-proclaimed Messiah or proto-Messiah, whose reign would supply the pre-conditions for the eventual Second Advent of Jesus Christ. Private property would be stamped out, and all "heretics," that is, any dissenters from this messianic rule, would be slaughtered.

 

After Joachim, there came waves of these heretics, including the Amaurians, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, and the left-wing of the Czech Hussite Revolution. But before the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was able to contain this plague successfully. Say what you will about the Reformation, even Martin Luther came to acknowledge that he had opened Pandora's Box, that he had unleashed, perhaps forever, the furies and crazies of fanaticism and horror.

 

In 1520, young Thomas Muntzer, a Lutheran pastor in southern Germany, unleashed upon Western Europe the scourge of what came to be known as Anabaptism: the imposition by force and terror of an alleged Kingdom of God on Earth, with a cadre of rulers, headed by himself, communizing all persons and property and killing all "heretics" who might dissent from his rule. For a brief but frenzied fifteen-year period, there was a real danger of Germany and Holland falling sway to groups of Anabaptist fanatics. Fortunately, when Muntzer urged Luther to join him in this messianic crusade, arrived at by alleged divine revelation, Luther immediately saw the deadly danger; at the end, the Anabaptist movement was crushed by an alliance of Catholic and Lutheran princes.

 

Movements can be stamped out, but ideas, good or bad, often keep marching on, and the same was true of the idea of imposing a totalitarian Kingdom. In troubled times, the idea popped to the surface: among the Familists, the Diggers, the Ranters, and the Fifth Monarch Men during the English Civil War of the Seventeenth Century; and before and during the French Revolution. By the early and mid-nineteenth century, the main carrier of a Communist Kingdom was the burgeoning "socialist" or "Communist" movement in Europe. (In those days, before the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the two concepts were considered by all adherents to be identical.) What is little realized today is that at the time of the flourishing of Karl Marx as a socialist-Communist leader, at least half of the Communist movement was heretically Christian, the other half following Marx's atheized version of the search for an apocalyptic and secular Kingdom. The victory for Marx's atheist version was not preordained; it was touch and go, until Marx's superior organizing ability and the dispersals following the failed revolutions of 1848 led to the complete triumph of Marxian atheism within the socialist-Communist movement.

 

Indeed, the Marxist Communist utopia is virtually a replica of sixteenth-century Anabaptism: once again, private property is stamped out, all resources – and people – are owned in common by a cadre of "saints," a vanguard headed by a messianic leader, and all dissent to this collective organism is crushed. Marx's theoretical problem was that since he could not rely on God, Providence, or some mystical force to bring about the allegedly inevitable Kingdom, he had to seek out "material forces" – the class struggle, productive forces, the "dialectic" of history – to constitute the inevitable engine of social change.

 

But the idea of messianic, Christian Communism never disappeared, and during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries it showed up in various forms: as Christian Socialism, the Social Gospel, and other variants of left-wing Christians and Christian leftists. Perhaps most fascinating and most blatant was the widely beloved East German Stalinist Ernst Bloch, whose widely known three-volume The Principle of Hope was translated into English in the late 1980s. Early in his lengthy career, Bloch – in common with many other Marxists – wrote a laudatory study of Thomas Muntzer, whom he hailed as magical or "theurgic." The inner "truth" of things, wrote Bloch, will only be discovered after a "complete transformation of the universe, a grand apocalypse, the descent of the Messiah, a new heaven and a new earth." For Bloch, mystical ecstasies and the worship of Lenin and Stalin went hand in hand. Thus, Bloch's culminating work, The Principle of Hope, contains such remarkable assertions as: "Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem" ["Where Lenin is, there is Jerusalem"] and that "the Bolshevist fulfillment of Communism" is part of the "age-old fight for God."

 

How is all this seemingly bizarre stuff relevant to the present day? My contention is that, bizarre and weird and horrifying as all this may be, we are not dealing merely with erratic oddballs or with irrelevant history. My contention, ever since the Clintonian Democrat convention in New York in 1992, is that the Clintonian movement is not "centrist," or simply erratic, confused, or evasive, but that it is in essence a dedicated movement of the "Christian" or religious left. It is an attempt to impose, not immediately as in the case of Muntzer or Lenin, but over a period of years, and as quickly as politically possible, a Kingdom of God on Earth, at least in the United States. The horrifying New York convention had very definite religious and even messianic overtones. The Kingdom, of course, is not the orthodox Christian Kingdom: it is collectivist, egalitarian, multicultural, and "multi-gendered"; it deliberately overthrows and "transvalues" our entire structure of traditional or "bourgeois" Christian values and principles.

 

It might be thought that one crucial difference between the current left and the medieval or post-Reformation heretical Christian left is that the current movement of course trumpets the glories and even the superior morality of various sexual what used to be called "perversions," but are now worthy and even morally superior "alternative families" or "alternative lifestyles." But that isn't new either. The Anabaptists, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, and the rest were aggressive "antinomians," that is, claiming to be saintly, quasi-divine or even divine and therefore without sin, they believed in publicly demonstrating and even flaunting their alleged sinlessness by committing all manner of sins imaginable, including adultery, theft, and murder. The Clintonians have nothing on these older "Christian" movements.

 

The Clinton Inaugural was, of course, a horrifying display of a neopagan, multicultural, New Age religious left at work, a fact, which was only discerned by the liberal but highly perceptive New York humorist Fran Lebowitz, who struck a delightfully sour note, saying that even watching the Inaugural orgy of religious leftism on television had driven her to "a new planet of fury." Then, in the crucial early months of the Clinton administration, Michael Kelly wrote an insightful and quickly famous article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine (May 23, 1993), entitled "Saint Hillary," replete with a painting of Hillary on the front cover dressed as Joan of Arc, significantly wearing a sword but not a cross. After a lengthy and discerning interview with Hillary, the article, which was carefully neutral in tone but all the more effective, pointed out that Hillary thought of herself as leading the charge for "something on the order of a Reformation: the remaking of the American way of politics, government, indeed life." Hillary, the article explained, had set out "to make things right," to "make the world a better place," to install a "politics of virtue" or "politics of meaning."

 

Hillary was converted to her current grandiose stance, first by her hometown Methodist preacher, who introduced her to "alienation," the Social Gospel and Paul Tillich, and then to the admonition of that other trendy left Protestant theologian of our century, Reinhold Niebuhr, that we must never be reluctant to wield Power in the service of The Good. An admonition that the power-mad Hillary took to as a duck takes to water. Hillary's most recent guru, of course, is the socialistic pro-war (Gulf War that is) peacenik, Michael Lerner, editor of the pretentious glossy magazine Tikkun and notorious coiner of the phrase "the politics of meaning."

 

Armed with an all-encompassing ideology, and with what many interviewers have noted as her arrogance and complete self-assurance and self-righteousness, Hillary was now ready to wield total Power in the service of her own hellish conception of The Good.

 

It was reported that Hillary and her camp in the White House were furious at the Kelly article and its important revelations, and since then she has said not a word about the importance of remaking all of America by wielding State power. But the goal and the means are, unfortunately, still there.

 

And Slick Willie, too, Hillary's co-president and ideological puppet, underlying his continuing stream of lies, evasions, and tactical changes to front, is deeply committed to the very same goal. Considering his rotten character, does the Slick One's commitment to anything seem improbable? But consider two points. First, each and every one of his programs, regardless of attractiveness of label, whether it be "crime" or "welfare reform," is designed to increase the power of the State, that is, the federal government, and to diminish the liberties and the property rights of every American.

 

And finally, ponder this: Remember that weekend in August when Willie began his frantic and febrile, but unfortunately successful, drive to reverse his House defeat on the crime bill? He gave a speech in Maryland before the grandiosely named Full Gospel African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. What the media reported Clinton to proclaim was odious and blasphemous enough: that "God wants us to pass the crime bill," and that his, Clinton's "ministry" (?!) was devoted to that task. But he said something else in that speech, of far greater purport, that received almost no publicity. He said that the goal of his "ministry" was to bring about no less than the "Kingdom of God on Earth"! Yes, he said it, he actually said it! Now I have no idea how Clinton's "parishioners" reacted to this phrase, or what the almost uniformly secular media people thought they were hearing. Maybe they thought they were merely hearing a grandiloquent metaphor for improving society.

 

But we know what he said, and it is our business to inform America of its import before it is too late. We know that William Jefferson Blythe "Clinton" IV, that Monster in the White House, was at last revealing, perhaps in a typical moment of unguarded vainglory and exuberance, the cloven hoof, the face of pure evil, the unholy mission of himself and his Lady Macbeth. We know the truly diabolic nature of the Kingdom that the Clintons are trying to put over on an unsuspecting America.

 

And still the liberal media wonder: Why do so many people hate this charming and wonderful couple and with such intensity.

 

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles/www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp>. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

 

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute

All rights reserved.

 

Murray Rothbard Archives

 

 

 

 

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...l&title=The Menace of the Religious Left&topic=political_opinion

Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon11.html

Man, Economy, and State

http://www.mises.org/store/Man-Economy-and...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

Conceived in Liberty

http://www.mises.org/store/Conceived-in-Li...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

What Has Government Done to Our Money

http://www.mises.org/store/What-Has-Govern...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

For a New Liberty

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

The Case Against the Fed

http://www.mises.org/store/Case-Against-th...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

many other books and articles

http://www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp

The Rothbard-Rockwell Report

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/murray2.html

Murray Rothbard Archives

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-arch.html

 

 

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard140.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another lunatic raving of the extreme right wing.

 

You know..."If you're not with us, you must be a Stalin loving Commie"

 

"Liberal" being the modern word for "Commie".

 

These fuckers talk about Russia (China would be a better example) and Stalin and the Red menace and how the "Liberals" want to turn America into a communist state but they just don't know it cause their too stupid. Bla bla bla...

 

The author is long dead (1995) so that explains the tiredness of its theme.

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:twitch:

 

:lmao::funny: ILWYT

 

There's an organized liberal "religious left" as much as there is an organized "atheist conspiracy". Some people just LOVE drama and conspiracy theories. It gives them something to "fight". :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mongo..

 

Umm.. you even aware of what Lew Rockwell dot com and the people behind the name are?

 

I'm not sure that you are even aware of Rothbard and his life's work did and means, but "Right Wing Fanatics" is about as wrong as you can get..

 

Not sure that you read article in its completeness, nor gathered the message before you posted your above post.

 

I can't often find argument with you or your insightful postings. Until this one, and I again am not sure if you gathered what Rothbard said..

 

I'd invite you to take a good look over places like Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute

 

Read up on Libertarian politics, you may enjoy the visits.

 

k, left of Libertarianism, right side of the trigger, FL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mongo..

 

Umm.. you even aware of what Lew Rockwell dot com and the people behind the name are?

 

I'm not sure that you are even aware of Rothbard and his life's work did and means, but "Right Wing Fanatics" is about as wrong as you can get..

 

Not sure that you read article in its completeness, nor gathered the message before you posted your above post.

 

I can't often find argument with you or your insightful postings. Until this one, and I again am not sure if you gathered what Rothbard said..

 

I'd invite you to take a good look over places like Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute

 

Read up on Libertarian politics, you may enjoy the visits.

 

k, left of Libertarianism, right side of the trigger, FL

 

 

Nivek

 

I am compelled to consider your admonition and will read through it and other things better when I get a few minutes.

 

As well, the concept is valid. Yes it is possible to have a religious right.

 

That said, I find the underlying association of the Clintons to the religious right as pretty far fetched. I don't know the year it was written (yet) but it sounds like political vitrolic rather than an exposee on the possibility of religion screwing up the left as opposed the the right that we see today.

 

Libertarian. Hmm... I have to think more on that. I know several libertarian atheists. This guy sounds like an extreeme libertarian. Trust me I'll read more. Anyway, I find the neocon and libertarian views hard to separate. Enlighten me... seriously. To me, one believes in god and the other doesn't. Although libertarians are less in favour of the Patriot Act and less in favour of the war in Iraq.

 

That I didn't dig into this before posting was a good call on your part. Correct.

 

It is still a lot of mouth foaming about the Clintons. You disagree? Non?

 

Will catch up later,

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:twitch:

 

:lmao::funny: ILWYT

 

There's an organized liberal "religious left" as much as there is an organized "atheist conspiracy". Some people just LOVE drama and conspiracy theories. It gives them something to "fight". :rolleyes:

:grin:

 

Nivek, how does this person arrive at such thoughts from just a few things said? This, seems to me to be myth-building. It seems they have they taken what someone said as something they oppose and put their own bias into it.

 

Now I'm not too much into politics, so I'm really just going by the article. :shrug: I remember watching Clinton playing some Stevie Nicks at his party, but I don't remember anything that would suggest anything like that. I didn't like the man myself and was pissed when he won, but still. It is probably my own ignorance of politics though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a religious Left, but I don't think it is organized to the extent that the religious right is. Many in the religious left takes the Christian teachings about caring for the poor and creating peace to mean that they need to influence society to fund projects bringing these goals about. When I was a Christian, I thought that the teaching was for the church, not for the nation. I didn't mix up the two, as those on the both right and left did.

 

I think the article does go too far, in making it sound like the Clintons, all liberals, and the religious left are some vast united force tied to a Communist take over. I'm skeptical of theories like that; they do sound more neocon than libertarian. I have relatives that at one time were involved with the John Birch Society so I'm a little familiar with this line of thinking, and rejected it a long time ago as being too far out in left field (they'd be insulted that I said "left"). I have sympathies with the position of the social libertarians; as for those you might call financial libertarians I agree with some things, but draw the line when it falls into the "everybody who doesn't agree with us is a Commie" way of thinking. I visit Lew Rockwell's site sometimes, but pick and choose who I read for this reason. I have heard of Rothbard, but admit I haven't read any of his works.

 

I also might add, that I have always considered this country to lean harder to the right than to the left, thus if government became tyranical it would be in the form of fascism rather than communism. Present day governmental happenings seem to be bearing this out. In any case, the ideology behind these forces is what you have to look for, namely, is it authoritarian in nature? That's what I look at, more than whether you can label them left or right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another article from Rothbard..

 

If you good readers might consider this, "No politician has your *good* in their agenda". They simply morph and change into whatever their handlers tell them will get their asses elected and in to the power seats.

 

Once there a politician becomes a Goober, and then runs your life with every pronouncement and law, made, then crammed down your throat.

 

What I gather from Rothbard's articles is that there is as much a campaign from the American "left"

as there is/was from the "right".

 

AFAIC they are the Janus Party, same head talking, different face to the crowds being spoken to.

 

Neither of the Big Two Parties and the folks who continually elect their brand of bread and circuses in give a fuck about Freedom. It IS all about POWER and who wields which particular form of control for the duration.

 

I choose "None of the above" when I hold my nose voting. I'd much prefer the ballot and soap boxes. But I do have a goodly supply of cartridge boxes *when*.

 

Freedom is an earned thing, and as far as I am concerned we Americans have given ours to the Goobers for the scant promise of "protection" from boogeymen..

 

Rothbard poses his article with a theological bent, showing the history and background behind what is being sold to the electorate and "new and improved" with the various politcal "sells".

 

I do not read a "bashing of Candiate X" as much as I see a continual trend that started and is being used today.

 

kL

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

 

 

 

 

Saint Hillary and the Religious Left

by Murray N. Rothbard

 

 

For some time I have been hammering at the theme that the main cultural and political problem of our time is not "secular humanism." The problem with making secularism the central focus of opposition is that, by itself, secularism would totally lack the fanaticism, the demonic energy, the continuing and permanent drive to take over and remake the culture and the society, that has marked the left for two centuries. Logically, one would expect a secular humanist to be a passive skeptic, ready to adapt to almost any existing state of affairs; David Hume, for example, a philosophic disaster but quietly benign in social and political matters, would seem to be typical. Hardly a political and cultural menace.

 

No: the hallmark and the fanatical drive of the left for these past centuries has been in devoting tireless energy to bringing about, as rapidly as they can, their own egalitarian, collectivist version of a Kingdom of God on Earth. In short, this truly monstrous movement is what might be called "left-post-millennialist." It is messianic and post-millennialist because Man, not Christ or Providence, is supposed to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth (KGE), that is, in the Christian version, that Christ is only supposed to return to earth after Man has established the 1,000-year KGE. It is leftist because in this version, the KGE is egalitarian and collectivist, with private property stamped out, and the world being run by a cadre or vanguard of Saints.

 

During the 1820s, the Protestant churches in the Northern states of the U.S. were taken over by a wave of post-millennial fanatics determined to impose on local, state, and federal governments, and even throughout the world, their own version of a theocratic statist KGE. A "Yankee" ethnocultural group had originated in New England, and had migrated to settle the northern areas of New York and the Middle-Western states. The Yankees were driven by the fanatical conviction that they themselves could not achieve salvation unless they did their best to maximize everyone else's: which meant, among other features, to devote their energies to instituting the sinless society of the KGE.

 

These newly mainstream Yankee Protestant churches were always statist, but the major emphasis in the early decades was the stamping out of "sin," sin being broadly defined as virtually any form of enjoyment. By the later years of the nineteenth century, however, economic collectivism received increasing attention by these left millennialist Protestants, and strictly theological and Christological concerns gradually faded away, culminating in the explicitly socialistic Social Gospel movement in all the Protestant churches. While every one of the Yankee Protestant denominations was infected and dominated by left millennialism, this heresy prevailed almost totally in the Methodist Church.

 

SAINT HILLARY

 

Which brings us to our beloved First Couple. I have already mentioned that Slick Willie, in addressing a black Gospel church in Maryland on behalf of God's alleged commandment to pass his crime bill, revealingly told the assembled congregation that the goal of his "ministry" is to bring about "the Kingdom of God on earth." That should have sounded the fire alarm throughout the nation. Unfortunately, to an American public possessing little knowledge of history or theology, Clinton's remarkable statement went unreported.

 

But, as we all know, it is Hillary, not Slick Willie, who is the hard-core ideologue in the White House. Hillary's theological agenda was perceptively unveiled recently by the knowledgeable, if admiring and liberal, Kenneth L. Woodward, religion editor of Newsweek. (Kenneth L. Woodward, "Soulful Matters," Newsweek (Oct. 31, 1994) pp. 23–25) In a lengthy exclusive interview with Hillary, Woodward reports that our Lady Macbeth simply considers herself "an old-fashioned Methodist."

 

Hillary's pronouncement is not as absurd as it might first seem. Hillary Rodham was born in northern Illinois Yankee country, in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Her grandparents told stories about their Methodism in early-nineteenth-century England, not many generations removed from the founding of Methodism by John Wesley. Hillary's family were pious Methodists, and Hillary herself was inducted into the Social Gospel by the Rev. Donald Jones, the then youth minister at her Park Ridge First United Methodist Church. I am sure that we are all gratified to learn how Hillary got her start in the cause of "social reform"; as Woodward fondly puts it, the Rev. Jones "developed his privileged suburban students' social consciences by taking them to visit migrant workers' children."

 

The most important passage in Woodward's article is his explanation of the importance of Methodism within the American Protestant spectrum: "More than other Protestants, Methodists are still imbued with the turn-of-the-century social gospel, which holds that Christians have been commissioned to build the Kingdom of God on earth."

 

Only a few brush-strokes are needed to complete the picture. The Rev. Jones, a frequent visitor to the White House, but who seems at least to have a sense of humor and perspective that the arrogant and self-righteous Hillary totally lacks, puts it this way: Even today, says Rev. Jones, "when Hillary talks it sounds like it comes out of a Methodist Sunday-school lesson." And: "Hillary views the world through a Methodist lens. And we Methodists knew what's good for you."

 

Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary's drive to "reinvent" herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late-nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into "old-fashioned Methodism" liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly, and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.

 

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles/www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp>. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

 

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute

All rights reserved.

 

Murray Rothbard Archives

 

 

 

 

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...amp;title=Saint Hillary and the Religious Left&topic=political_opinion

Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon11.html

Man, Economy, and State

http://www.mises.org/store/Man-Economy-and...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

Conceived in Liberty

http://www.mises.org/store/Conceived-in-Li...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

What Has Government Done to Our Money

http://www.mises.org/store/What-Has-Govern...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

For a New Liberty

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

The Case Against the Fed

http://www.mises.org/store/Case-Against-th...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

many other books and articles

http://www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp

The Rothbard-Rockwell Report

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/murray2.html

Murray Rothbard Archives

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-arch.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Okay, Niv, I'll confess up front that I have not read through all these posts and articles. Politics are not my thing, but theology is. I know a person from another forum who is constantly harping on the commie thing. She thinks the ACLU (not sure I've got the accronym right; maybe you know what I mean) is full of commies. It might as well be written in stone; so sure is she of this. It helps make her point about Bible end time prophecies. Her conviction about this is beyond hillarious or even funny. She believes it like the devil were on her tail. So I know real people do think like this. I consider it not only pathetic but absolutely dangerous. She's the kind of person who rejoices the more vicious the wars and violence in the Middle East because she thinks it will hasten Christ's return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.