The Three Terrorist Religions

Christianity QA » Islam Christianity » The Three Terrorist Religions

Islam Christianity

Question:

Depends on who you talk to. I don’t believe that I worship the same God as the Jews. Really? Jesus was a jew. How do you fit that in?

Ask someone Jewish about him. He was an ethnic Jew, but not many Jews consider Him Messiah. They don’t believe His message. And the Jews were commanded to release their slaves after a certain period. Before the civil war, it was pretty common for slaves to be released after a time, to buy their own freedom, etc.

How common? This argument really doesn’t work well without numbers. Some whites sold themselves into slavery for contracted time periods, usually to pay off debts.

It was called "indentured servanthood" and it’s not the same thing. They weren’t OWNED. There were large numbers of free blacks even in the south. This was true enough. Louisiana had more freedoms for blacks than just about anywhere else, mostly because a whole bunch of the population was mixed. The first black millionaire lived in Memphis, and that was before the war, for example. So the christians who had slaves often followed the same principles more or less.

Sometimes. There were quite a few that used Christianity as a defense for the traditional slavery of the South – the kind that wasn’t so good. Such as the Southern Baptists (of which I am one). They’ve finally apologized for it quite a few years later. William R. James

The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

<snip It would be helpful if this "many Jewish Americans" came with an actual number. Otherwise your argument bears little weight. The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

Please…, it seams to me , that you all are saying about : Because the desire of " son of daddy little mr. bush jr : desire you discuss about, and turn all world VERY CONFUSED, mixing all , to the WAR of bush jr, against the war could have a special sense, but… please stop about racisms x wars subject, to improove only ALL SCIENCES based on peace : to: WORLD DEVELOPMENT of our own efforts : like those GREAT WORKERS: " ants … going to a real unique stream and same direction of construction: and *not* WAR, but technologies using; -And as also only ANIMALS need war to negociate the life of everybody " As with higher intelligence and clever actions of negociations: all could be reached in the world, for all people, at the quite same time; and as there are too many great resources, and food, and money… THAT ARE OFTEN LOST : only because: UNREASONABILITIES, as mr bush jr is doing, by himself ignorance only. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Depends on who you talk to. I don’t believe that I worship the same God as the Jews. Really? Jesus was a jew. How do you fit that in? And the Jews were commanded to release their slaves after a certain period. Before the civil war, it was pretty common for slaves to be released after a time, to buy their own freedom, etc. Some whites sold themselves into slavery for contracted time periods, usually to pay off debts. There were large numbers of free blacks even in the south. The first black millionaire lived in Memphis, and that was before the war, for example. So the christians who had slaves often followed the same principles more or less. William R. James

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please…, it seams to me , that you all are saying about : Because the desire of " son of daddy little mr. bush jr : desire you discuss about, and turn all world VERY CONFUSED, mixing all , to the WAR of bush jr, against the war could have a special sense, but… please stop about racisms x wars subject, to improove only ALL SCIENCES based on peace : to: WORLD DEVELOPMENT of our own efforts : like those GREAT WORKERS: " ants … going to a real unique stream and same direction of construction: and *not* WAR, but technologies using; -And as also only ANIMALS need war to negociate the life of everybody " As with higher intelligence and clever actions of negociations: all could be reached in the world, for all people, at the quite same time; and as there are too many great resources, and food, and money… THAT ARE OFTEN LOST : only because: UNREASONABILITIES, as mr bush jr is doing, by himself ignorance only.

"REPLY TO ZIONISM" — Why many Americans of Jewish faith are opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine — by Lessing J. Rosenwald, Life Magazine, 6/28/43, p. 11. In LIFE’s article of May 31 His Majesty, Ibn Saud, gave expression to the Arabs’ viewpoint of the Jewish problem in Palestine. Great numbers of Americans of Jewish faith do not consider the establishment of a National Jewish State in Palestine, or elsewhere, to be a part of a constructive or desirable solution of the post-war Jewish problems. In the United States this opinion is held by an organization known as the American Council for Judaism, Inc., while in England an organization maintaining a similar viewpoint is known as the Jewish Fellowship. It is doubtful if the Palestine question will be settled on the basis of complicated historical claims to the land; practical consider- ations will undoubtedly play the leading role. Those of Jewish faith who oppose the creation of a National Jewish State hold that it embraces the very racist theories and nationalistic philosophies that have become so prevalent in recent years, that have caused untold suffering to the world, and particularly to the Jews. Those who hold this view contend that race and nationality long ago became obsolete as realities in Jewish history; that they remain now only as a reaction to discrimin- ation and persecution. Exception is taken to those doctrines related to the efforts to establish a Jewish political state which stress the racialism, the nationalism, and the homelessness of the Jews as Jews. The Jews of the world share common traditions and ethical concepts which find their derivations in the same religious source. Under normal conditions they share no universal craving for either Jewish statehood, or even for Palestine itself. Between the years 1920 and the rise of Hitlerism, 1933, the Jewish population increase in Palestine (immigration less emigration) was negligible. The truth of history is that for centuries Jews have considered themselves nationals of those countries in which they have lived. Whenever free to do so, they have assumed, and will again assume, full responsibilities of citizenship. Those countries in which the Jews have lived have been their homes; those lands their homelands. They have been successful in integrating their lives into their environments; they have maintained their dis- tinctiveness only in the field of religion. As a result of the bigotry, sadism and ambition for world conquest of the Axis powers, millions of Jews who had homes in and were nationals of other lands have been violently deported and made victims of inde- scribable barbarism. No other group has been so brutally attacked, and for one reason only–on the false claims that there are racial barriers or nationalistic impulses that separate Jews from other men. Likewise, millions of non-Jews have been torn from their homes, but for entirely different reasons. Repatriation of this uprooted humanity to their own homelands, with the status and dignity of men endowed by God with inalienable rights, is one of the primary objectives being sought for the peace which will follow this war. The problem of the Jew is part of the total human problem. It must be solved as such, and it must be solved in those places where it exists. In attempting to reach a solution of these problems it is likely that many people of all faiths may not be repatriated. Many, through necessity, or from their own choice, will seek to locate in other lands. It will be imperative to find adequate areas in the less densely populated portions of the globe where men can start life anew, under conditions where they can carve out their own destinies as free men, with the assurance that their new homelands will provide for them "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." In fact, this has been contem- plated in the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms. Unquestionably Palestine has contributed in a tangible way to the alleviation of the present catastrophe in Jewish life by providing refuge for some of Europe’s Jews. It has been clearly demonstrated that practical colonizing can be done, schools and universities built, scientific agriculture intensified, and culture developed. These achievements have been wrought by the hard-working settlers, who have been aided in their endeavors by Jews all over the world, Zionists and non-Zionists alike. This development has occurred largely under the British Mandate, and has proven beneficial both to Jewish settlers and to the Arabs. Under proper auspices Palestine is capable of ab- sorbing even more settlers, to the advantage of themselves and their Mohammedan neighbors. In discussing the settlement of Jews in Palestine the term "Jewish Homeland" is frequently used. This phraseology has been a bone of contention since its inception. The official Zionist platform demands that a Jewish body "be vested with control of immigration into Palestine, and with the necessary authority for upbuilding the country, including the development of unoccupied and uncultivated lands, and that *Pale- stine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth* integrated in the struc- ture of the new democratic world." A "homeland" does not necessarily carry with it the implication of independent statehood. Certainly there is no historical or organic relationship between Judaism as a world religion and national statehood. Palestine has been, and still is, a "homeland" for those who have settled there in the real sense that, comparatively, the settlers have been enjoying the security and the contentment that one properly associates with the word "home." The demands for a National Jewish State today exceed by far anything that was comtemplated under the Balfour Declaration of 26 years ago. The success which has attended the efforts of the settlers under British Mandate does not necessarily indicate that such results would have been secured in the past, or are they likely to accrue in the future under a "Jewish Commonwealth." It must be recognized that the number of settlers that Palestine can accommodate is limited, and that this limitation will prevent Palestine *alone* from offering any adequate relief when the whole resettlement problem is considered. For centuries Palestine has been a Holy Land to three great religions –Mohammedan, Christian and Jewish. Shrines sacred to each of them are located there. It appears obvious that any arrangement which sets up a National State under any one of the three religions is bound to create turmoil and strife between it and the other two. How is it possible to set up an autonomous religious state under the conditions that prevail? The setting up of a National Jewish State in Palestine may be extremely hazardous to the present Jewish population, might undo the splendid accomplishments of generations of Jewish settlers and probably would hinder proper Jewish settlement in the future, when it is most needed. A National Jewish State carries with it, also, dangers to Jews now living outside of Palestine and particularly to those located in central European countries. Should such a State ever prevail, both Palestine and Jewish residents of these European countries would be between the upper and nether millstones. Migration pressures would militate against both. On the one hand, Palestine may be called upon to accept more Jews and at a faster rate than the land can possibly accommodate. Confusion and suffering would inevitably result, with the probability that such a Jewish State itself would be forced to stop or limit immigration. On the other hand, pressures may be placed upon these Central European Jews to force them, against their will, to migrate to Palestine. Being unable to do so, they would be left in a deplorable condition, without status, without assistance and without hope. Many Americans of Jewish faith oppose the establishment of a National Jewish State upon still another consideration. Such a State would always be a small nation and could never hope to be a decisive force in the diplomacies of the world. It would forever be in one bloc or another. Jewish citizens of other nations of the world would forever be embarrassed either by its decisions or by its neutrality upon issues of world politics. Men of Jewish faith in some nation or group of nations of the world would be, of a necessity, either opposed to or called upon to defend secular, political action. The result must inevitably be that here in America, or for Jews elsewhere, the question of dual allegiances will be raised by men who, in critical times, lack discrimination and understanding. This would be particularly unfortunate in America, where the Jew has found a security greater than has ever been known in all the long history of Israel. The only sure way to avoid such a misunderstanding is to avoid the creation of … read more »

Response:

And those people are probably better off… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts. There are no more sacrifices in Christianity – and never were. And what is wrong with a nice feast? These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it. Christianity never condoned nor excused slavery in the Bible. It was a fact of life at different periods of time, and slavery has taken different forms in different times. Slavery has also been different throughout the world. Judaism promoted releasing slaves. Not that it was right, mind you. KJV Genesis 9:27 27. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. KJV Genesis 9:27 27. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. KJV Genesis 14:14 14. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. KJV Genesis 20:14 14. And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife. KJV Genesis 20:17 17. So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. KJV Malachi 1:6 6. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? KJV Matthew 10:24 24. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. KJV John 13:16 16. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. KJV Romans 14:4 4. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. KJV 1 Corinthians 7:20-22 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. KJV Ephesians 6:5 5. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; KJV Colossians 3:22 22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: KJV Colossians 4:1 1. Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. KJV 1 Timothy 6:1 1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. KJV Titus 2:9 9. Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; KJV 1 Peter 2:18 18. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. No, that’s just stupid people. The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought were Christians (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo) and Muslims (Algebra). These 3 religions preached genocide. They have committed it in the past. There are many cases reported where a tribe killed another tribe and the aggressors said they were ordered by "God" or they were motivated by their religious principles and beliefs. It was men, not the principles in Christianity, and those men were wrong. The books of these three religions are manuals of Terrorism. Should they not be prohibited because they teach hatred and violence towards others and they also encourage all forms of terrorism? Have you ever read the Bible? If you have, then you know that this could never be true. These 3 religions are responsible of most wars in history. They were and are still the initiators of most wars, violence, hatred and fanaticism. It is fallen, sinful man that was using a guise of religion. It was not a Christian. Tell that to the Caananites. OK, that was the jews, but christians worship the same spook. :) William R. James

Depends on who you talk to. I don’t believe that I worship the same God as the Jews. And the Jews were commanded to release their slaves after a certain period. The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

Depends on who you talk to. I don’t believe that I worship the same God as the Jews.

Really? Jesus was a jew. How do you fit that in? And the Jews were commanded to release their slaves after a certain period.

Before the civil war, it was pretty common for slaves to be released after a time, to buy their own freedom, etc. Some whites sold themselves into slavery for contracted time periods, usually to pay off debts. There were large numbers of free blacks even in the south. The first black millionaire lived in Memphis, and that was before the war, for example. So the christians who had slaves often followed the same principles more or less. William R. James

Response:

<snip IMPLICATIONS For a man to own children or other adults as his property is profoundly wrong. Slavery was and is a moral evil. The Bible is therefore wrong on one of the most fundamental matters of human morality. In the light of the Bibles attitude to slavery, claims that the Bibles moral teaching is special, or contain the "infallible Word of God" flounder. Far from being the "infallible Word of God", on this fundamental matter of morality the Bible actually falls well short of the ideal of its time. Moreover most Christians argue that Jesus was the "Son of God". But how could he be the "Son of God" when he failed to say a single word against the evil of slavery? And how could he be the "Son of God" when mere men, both before him and contemporary with him, did condemn slavery?

Just because the Bible does not make a judgement call on the matter of slavery (which, unfortunately, everyone lumps slavery of the 1800s in with the slavery of the NT period, which was, by far, more free and humane a situation) does not disqualify its message or statements concerning slavery. This is not to condone it. Christians were the ones that were anti-slavery and pro-slavery in the beginning. Jesus’ issue was never with slavery, because to speak against it would have been to compromise His situation – He would have been arrested for REALLY inciting an uprising, and have been justifiably breaking the law rather than the trumped-up charges that were laid against Him leading to His crucifixion. Upon what basis do you state that slavery is wrong, however? According to who? The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

Hindu History Holocaust of Hindus During the Muslim Occupation of India This page is dedicated to the memory of those men, women and children who were killed or were captured or converted by force to Islam over a period of eleven centuries in India and for fourteen centuries in other parts of the globe. These men, women and children cannot be recalled for standing witness to what was done to them by the swordsmen of Islam. Hence we are going to rely on Muslim historians, in India and abroad, who have written hundreds of glowing accounts of the devastation caused by the progress of Islamic armies across the world (and in India). As our focus is India, we are going to look only at what happened in India during the Islamic invasion and the following struggle for independence from Islamic rule that was waged by the Hindus. A pronounced feature of these Muslim histories is a description – in smaller or greater detail but always with considerable pride – of how the Hindus were slaughtered en masse or converted by force, how hundreds of thousands of Hindu men and women and children were captured as booty and sold into slavery, how Hindu temples and monasteries were razed to the ground or burnt down, and how images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses were destroyed or desecrated. Hampi the capital of Vijaynagar the last Hindu kingdom of the South was ruthlessly pillaged for six months and was nearly reduced to rubble in the year 1565, when the allied Muslim Bahamani armies overran Vijaynagar after the battle of Talikota. Commandments of Allah (Quran) and precedents set by the Prophet (Sunnah) are frequently cited by the authors in support of what the swordsmen and demolition squads of Islam did with extraordinary zeal, not only in the midst of war but also, and more thoroughly, after Islamic rule had been firmly established. Almost all medieval Muslim historians credit their heroes with desecration of Hindu idols and/or destruction of Hindu temples. The picture that emerges has the following components, depending upon whether the iconoclast was in a hurry on account of Hindu resistance or did his work at leisure after a decisive victory: 1. The idols were mutilated or smashed or burnt or melted down if they were made of precious metals; 2. Sculptures in relief on walls and pillars were disfigured or scraped away or torn down; 3. Idols of stone and inferior metals or their pieces were taken away, sometimes by cartloads, to be thrown down before the main mosque in (a) the metropolis of the ruling Muslim sultan and (b) The holy cities of Islam, particularly Mecca, Medina and Baghdad; 4. There were instances of idols being turned into lavatory seats or handed over to butchers to be used as weights while selling meat; 5. Brahmin priests and other holy men in and around the temple were molested or murdered; 6. Sacred vessels and scriptures used in worship were defiled and scattered or burnt: 7. Temples were damaged or despoiled or demolished or burnt down or converted into mosques with some structural alterations or entire mosques were raised on the same sites mostly with temple materials; 8. Cows were slaughtered on the temple sites so that Hindus could not use them again. This essay is to enable us to remember the sacrifice of those who attained Veergati (Martyrdom) when faced against these forces of darkness that represented religious bigotry that traumatized and tormented India for Eleven Hundred years and other parts of our globe for Fourteen Hundred years. India has survived as a wounded civilization to tell the story of this chilling horror. A horror that seems too cruel to be true. The unfortunate part is that it was true and this would become true once more in the future, if the forces of malevolence again get the upper hand in India or in any part of the world. This essay has been compiled from the writings of a cross section of Historians comprising Sir Jadunath Sarkar , Rizwan Salim, Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup, Arun Shourie, R.C. Mazumdar and a few others. An image of Surya in the Konark Temple in Orissa with its arms knocked off There are innumerable such desecrated images Epigraphic Evidence of the Construction of Masjids by destroying Hindu temples There are many mosques all over India which are known to local tradition and the Archaeological Survey of India as built on the site of and, quite frequently, from the materials of, demolished Hindu temples. Most of them carry inscriptions invoking Allah and the Prophet, quoting the Quran and giving details of when, how and by whom they were constructed. The inscriptions have been deciphered and connected to their historical context by learned Muslim calligraphers. They have been published by the Archaeological Survey of India in its Epigraphica Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement. The following few inscriptions have been selected in order to show that: (1) destruction of Hindu temples continued throughout the period of Muslim domination; (2) it covered all parts of India – east, west, north, and south; and (3) all Muslim dynasties, imperial and provincial, participated in the "pious performance". 1. Qu’wat al-Islam Masjid, Qutub Minar, Delhi: "This fort was conquered and the Jami Masjid built in the year 587 A.H (Hejira Era) by the Amir Qutub-ud-din Aibak the slave of the Sultan, Shahabuddin Ghori. According to the Epigraphica Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement (1909-10, pp.3-4): "The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Delhiwals had been spent were used in the (construction of) the mosque…" The year 587 H. corresponds to 1192 A.D. "Delhiwal was a high-denomination coin current at that time in Delhi. 2. Masjid at Manvi in the Raichur District of Karnataka by Firuz Shah Bahmani: "Praise be to Allah that by the decree of the Parvardigar, a mosque has been converted out of a temple as a Sign of religion in the reign of…the Sultan who is the asylum of Faith Firuz Shah Bahmani who is the cause of exuberant spring in the garden of religion" (1962, pp.56-57). The inscription mentions the year 1406-07 A.D. as the time of construction. 3. Jami Masjid at Malan, Palanpur Taluka, Banaskantha District of Gujarat by Khan-i-Azam Ulugh Khan: "The Jami Masjid was built by Khan-i-Azam Ulugh Khan…who suppressed the wretched infidels. He eradicated the idolatrous houses and mine of infidelity, along with the idols…with the edge of the sword, and made ready this edifice… he made its walls and doors out of the idols; the back of every stone became the place for prostration of the believer" (1963, pp.26-29). The date of construction is mentioned as 1462 A.D. in the reign of Mahmud Shah I (Begada) of Gujarat. 4. Hammam Darwaza Masjid at Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh in the reign of Akbar, the Great Mughal: "Thanks that by the guidance of the everlasting and living (Allah), this house of infidelity became the niche of prayer. As a reward for that, the Generous Lord constructed an abode for the builder in paradise" (1969, P 375). Its chronogram yields the year 1567 A.D. in the reign Akbar, the Great Mughal. A local historian, Fasih-ud-Din, tells us that the temple had been built earlier by Diwan Chaman Das, an official of the Mughal Government. 5. Jami Masjid at Ghoda in the Poona District of Maharashtra by Mir Muhammad Zaman: "O Allah! O Muhammad! O Ali! When Mir Muhammad Zaman made up his mind, he opened the door of prosperity on himself by his own hand. He demolished thirty three idol temples (and) by divine grace laid the foundation of a building in this abode of perdition" (1933-34, p.24). The inscription is dated 1586 A.D. when the Poona region was ruled by the Nizam Shahi sultans of Ahmadnagar. 6. Gachinala Masjid at Cumbum in the Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh by Muhammad Shah: "He is Allah, may he be glorified…During the august rule of…Muhammad Shah, there was a well-established idol-house in Kuhmum…Muhammad Salih who prospers in the rectitude of the affairs of the Faith…razed to the ground, the edifice of the idol-house and broke the idols in a manly fashion. He constructed on its site a suitable mosque, towering above the buildings of all" (1959-60, pp.64-66). The date of construction is mentioned as 1729-30 A.D. in the reign of the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah. Though sites of demolished Hindu temples were mostly used for building mosques and Idgahs; temple materials were often used in other Muslim monuments as well. Archaeologists have discovered such materials, architectural as well as sculptural, in quite a few forts, palaces, maqbaras, Sufi khanqahs, madrasas, etc. In Srinagar, Kashmir, temple materials can be seen in long stretches of the stone embankments on both sides of the Jhelum. The inscriptions on the walls of the Gopi Talav, a stepped well at Surat, tell us that the well was constructed by Haidar Quli, the Mughal governor of Gujarat, in 1718 A.D. in the reign of Farrukh Siyar. One of them says that its bricks were taken from an idol temple". The other informs us that Hiaider Quli Khan, during whose period tyranny has become extinct, laid waste several idol temples in order to make this strong building firm…” (1933-34. pp.37-44). THE TEMPLE OF KHANDOBA AT JEJURI This was one of the many temples that had been destroyed and converted into a Mosque by the Muslim aggressors. Shivaji Maharaj reconverted it into a temple. Even today, the temple structure displays a mix of Hindu and Muslim architecture. But in spite of the trying circumstances of religious bigotry of the Muslim aggressors in which he operated, Shivaji Maharaj never disrespected the Muslim faith. Whenever a copy of the holy Koran fell into the hands of Maratha troops, Shivaji Maharaj had given strict instructions to treat it with utmost respect and hand it over to the local Maulavis (Muslim priests). Literary Evidence Literary evidence of Islamic iconoclasm vis-a-vis Hindu places of worship is far more extensive. It covers a … read more »

Response:

Most Christians accept the moral authority of the Bible. The preface to the New International Bible sums up this attitude very well: "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world". So how does the Bible’s moral authority stand up to scrutiny? SLAVERY: A MORAL QUESTION FOR OUR TIME At the tail end of the 20th century slavery, the ownership of one person by another, is alive and kicking. Reports in liberal newspapers have highlighted places where slavery is still practised. It is a practice that has been around for thousands of years. It is without doubt one of the most profound moral issues of the last few thousand years. A slave could be bought, sold and inherited. Slavery degraded a person to mere property and it sometimes denied people even the most basic of rights. Slavery per se, was and is, a profound moral evil that deserves clear condemnation. Furthermore, the way slavery operated was and is a further moral evil. Slave owners were almost always men; women and children frequently their property. Slaves were frequently mistreated. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY So what does the Old Testament have to say about slavery? The book of Leviticus (25:44) commands that Israelites must not be sold as slaves but : "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy slaves" So far from saying one must not engage in the practice of slavery this command, which is a direct command from God (25:1), allows it. Note slaves are to be drawn from other races i.e. people are to be treated differently according to their race. Leviticus also states "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" (25:45). Exodus (22: 1-4) also contains a direct command from God : "In case a man should steal a bull or sheep and he does slaughter or sell it, he is to compensate with five of the herd for the bull ….he is to make compensation without fail. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the things he stole". The passage advocates slavery as a punishment for property crime. Exodus (21:1-6) allows Hebrew slaves to go free after the sixth year (but not his wife and children if the wife was originally the property of the slave owner). In contrast the pagan Laws of Hammurabi (in the second millennium BC) allow the release of slaves after the third year (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J Prichard, 1950, p170). There is also a direct command from God : "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21). Passages in the Old Testament allow that slaves and other "property" can be plundered from other tribes. Other passages however command the killing of slaves as part of genocide. In a direct command from God the Israelites are told : "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites as the Lord your God has commanded you" Deuteronomy (20:16-17). Similarly in Deuteronomy 7:1-5 the Hittites and other groups are to suffer genocide by command of God "you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy." Ironically the Hittite civilisation was rather elevated for its time. Hans Guterbock, Professor of Hittitology at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago writes of the Hittites "the most outstanding achievement of the Hittite civilisation lay in the fields of legislation and the administration of justice. The Hittites rarely resorted to the death penalty or to bodily mutilation, both of which were characteristic of other civilisations of the ancient Middle East. Furthermore, Hittite justice rested in the main on the principle of restitution rather than on retribution or vengeance." (Encarta CD ROM Encyclopedia 1994). Deuteronomy 13:12-16 commands that where a town has "been led astray" into worshiping other gods then "you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock." So slaves, if they were unfortunate enough to be owned by someone in one of these towns, were marked down by command of God for slaughter (together with all the children and animals). Before moving on it is important to state that there was nothing compelling God to give such morally reprehensible advice. It might be argued that what is in Leviticus and Exodus is not God’s view at all. If this is the case, why did God allow such disgraceful teaching to be in his book in the first place (he is, let us not forget, supposed to be all powerful). THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY There is not a single condemnation of slavery by Jesus in the entire gospels. Yet it is inconceivable that Jesus was unaware of slavery and the moral issue since "Jesus lived in a world where slavery was common. There seem to have been slave revolts in Palestine and Jordan in Jesus’ youth. There were innumerable slaves of the Emperor and the Roman state; the Jerusalem temple owned slaves; the High Priests owned slaves (one of them lost an ear in Jesus’ arrest); all of the rich and many of the middle classes owned slaves." Yet "Jesus never attacked the practice. He took the state of affairs for granted" Professor Morton Smith, Columbia University, What The Bible Says 1989 p143. What of the attitude of Paul ? He wrote : "Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to Christian masters must not despise them, for they are their brothers." (1 Timothy 6:1-2). Paul’s reference to "Christian masters" immediately reveals that early Christians owned slaves. But far from condemning the practice amongst fellow Christians and in the wider world, Paul does the opposite by arguing that slave masters, be they Christians or non-Christians, must be given respect by their slaves. It is striking just how emphatic Paul is about this, particularly in his use of words such as "must" and "all". Paul’s letter to Titus tells slaves in no uncertain terms that : "Slaves are to submit to their masters and please them in all things. They must not answer them back or steal from them. Instead, they must show that they are always good and faithful, so as to bring credit to the teaching about God our Saviour in all they do." 2: 9-10. In Colossians (3:22-4:1) Paul clearly tells Christian slave masters to be "fair and just in the way you treat your slaves". Yet there is no condemnation of slavery. A slave may become a "brother" in the faith, but he or she is still nevertheless a slave, still a piece of property. Rather than condemn slave owning by Christians, Paul tells the slaves they own to "obey your human masters in all things" (the NEB translates this as "give entire obedience"). This is a quite staggering thing to command a person to do and beggars belief. Far from encouraging a slave to challenge his status he does the very opposite : "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as though you were working for the Lord". Working hard as a slave has thus become a religious duty. Paul then writes that if they work hard as a slave they will be rewarded in the next world. He thus helps to underpin slavery. Paul repeats these commands in his letter to the Ephesians. The first letter from Peter (1 Peter 2:18-19) tells slaves to: "submit to your masters and show them complete respect, not only to those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. God will bless you for this, if you endure the pain of undeserved suffering because you are conscious of his will." The biblical writer is unequivocal in demanding respect for slave owners. COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE John Stott, a popular evangelical author admits "Scripture regulates but nowhere condemns slavery" (Issues facing Christians Today 1984 p195). Richard Holloway, the Bishop of Edinburgh speaking to the Sunday Times about the Bible was blunter when he stated "We have recently abandoned the text’s tyranny over women as we abandoned its justification of slavery" (11-10-98). Professor JL Holden, former Principal of Cuddesdon Theological College writes of Paul "He voices no hint of objection to slavery in itself, and in this respect falls below the humane ideals of Stoics of his time like Seneca" (Ethics and the NT 1973 p25). Don Cupitt, Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, states (in a book he wrote before he became a heretic) : "slavery is commanded in the Old Testament, accepted in the New, and coexisted with Christianity for eighteen centuries." (Crisis of Moral Authority 1972 SCM Press p90). Robin Fox, Reader in Ancient History at Oxford writes "As for slavery: Christian slaves should abide in their social position, according to Paul, and ’serve the more.’ A slave’s obedience to his master was a religious duty " (The Unauthorised Version 1991 p401). The writer Chapman Cohen (1868-1954) noted in his essay Christianity and Ethics (1945) "In all the recorded utterances of the Gospel Jesus, there is not a single condemnation of slavery as an institution. In the Pagan world the question of the legitimacy of slavery was already beginning to excite interest; slaves themselves were exhibiting symptoms of unrest….. Further, we find St Paul commanding slaves to be obedient to their masters, in fear and trembling, whether they be good or bad, and to count them as "worthy of all honour" whether the masters be believers or unbelievers; while to bear unmerited … read more »

Response:

As do virtually all human societies. These 3 religions command the barbarism of stoning and amputation.

I don’t think stoning was ever a christian method. Burning at the stake, drowning, and a few others, yes… These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts.

That’s humans. We are a meat eating species, after all. You do possess canine teeth, do you not? These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it.

OK, but the jews haven’t owned slaves in a very VERY long time. These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist.

And ohers don’t? Are you kidding? These 3 religions preached genocide. They have committed it in the past. There are many cases reported where a tribe killed another tribe and the aggressors said they were ordered by "God" or they were motivated by their religious principles and beliefs.

True. But again, it’s common and predates all three. The books of these three religions are manuals of Terrorism. Should they not be prohibited because they teach hatred and violence towards others and they also encourage all forms of terrorism?

Prohibit books? You want to burn them too? These 3 religions are responsible of most wars in history. They were and are still the initiators of most wars, violence, hatred and fanaticism.

No, they each just used their superstitions as an excuse. Most wars have had little to do with any religion other than the rhetoric. It is up to you to decide which among these three religions is the most terrorist.

For that, you need to define the time period. Since you said "is", the answer is clearly Islam. But any of the three are at the top of the list depending on the time period you pick. William R. James

Response:

NT? Some prefer Linux. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts. There are no more sacrifices in Christianity – and never were. And what is wrong with a nice feast? These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it. Christianity never condoned nor excused slavery in the Bible. It was a fact of life at different periods of time, and slavery has taken different forms in different times. Slavery has also been different throughout the world. Judaism promoted releasing slaves. Not that it was right, mind you.

KJV Genesis 9:27 27. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. KJV Genesis 9:27 27. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. KJV Genesis 14:14 14. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. KJV Genesis 20:14 14. And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife. KJV Genesis 20:17 17. So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. KJV Malachi 1:6 6. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? KJV Matthew 10:24 24. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. KJV John 13:16 16. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. KJV Romans 14:4 4. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. KJV 1 Corinthians 7:20-22 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. KJV Ephesians 6:5 5. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; KJV Colossians 3:22 22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: KJV Colossians 4:1 1. Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. KJV 1 Timothy 6:1 1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. KJV Titus 2:9 9. Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; KJV 1 Peter 2:18 18. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. No, that’s just stupid people. The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought were Christians (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo) and Muslims (Algebra). These 3 religions preached genocide. They have committed it in the past. There are many cases reported where a tribe killed another tribe and the aggressors said they were ordered by "God" or they were motivated by their religious principles and beliefs. It was men, not the principles in Christianity, and those men were wrong. The books of these three religions are manuals of Terrorism. Should they not be prohibited because they teach hatred and violence towards others and they also encourage all forms of terrorism? Have you ever read the Bible? If you have, then you know that this could never be true. These 3 religions are responsible of most wars in history. They were and are still the initiators of most wars, violence, hatred and fanaticism. It is fallen, sinful man that was using a guise of religion. It was not a Christian.

Tell that to the Caananites. OK, that was the jews, but christians worship the same spook. :) William R. James

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts. There are no more sacrifices in Christianity – and never were. And what is wrong with a nice feast? It is wrong if it is by cruelty towards animals. The Last Supper consisted of bread and wine – not animal by-products.

And nothing in the Bible condemns eating meet – it actually promotes eating together. The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The three religions that originate in the Middle East are the three terrorist religions. They are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These three religions teach hatred of those who are different from them or do not agree with their principles. These 3 religions incite violence towards others. These 3 religions command the barbarism of stoning and amputation. Show me where Christianity does this – and don’t go spewing the OT at me. Christianity uses the OT laws, but through NT eyes. These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts. There are no more sacrifices in Christianity – and never were. And what is wrong with a nice feast? It is wrong if it is by cruelty towards animals.

Define cruelty. I’m just thinking along the same lines as what occurs every day. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it. Christianity never condoned nor excused slavery in the Bible. It was a fact of life at different periods of time, and slavery has taken different forms in different times. Slavery has also been different throughout the world. Judaism promoted releasing slaves. Not that it was right, mind you. These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. No, that’s just stupid people. The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought were Christians (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo) and Muslims (Algebra). Some christians and muslims like to defend christianity and islam by saying that there were scientific progress in christian and islamic countries. There were scientific progress not because of those two religions but despite their opposition and repression. Thanks to the courage of those scientists, at the peril of their lives, they have made scientific progress.

Not so. Newton was never persecuted because of his theories. I can’t think of any that were since him. Islam, under Mohammed, was EXTREMELY about learning; they had no written record, and always held "the people of the book" in a certain honor. They were extreme promoters of science, wanting to explore those things within the Quran. Check your Western Civ textbook. Those scientists were christians or muslims, not because they have chosen to be so but because since their birth their parents have put them in these religions. They just grew up in these religions. But their thoughts were different from the teachings of these religions. Those scientists have to face tough opposition from the fundamentalists of those religions. Despite this they have persevere to make their discoveries public.

Name one statement in the Bible that is anti-exploring and anti-seeking science. Even today we find christians and muslims opposed to social and scientific research, development and progress.

Even today we find close-minded evolutionists that think that God cannot exist, and dogmatically refuse to even consider the possibility that there is an eternal purpose. The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. No, that’s just stupid people. The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought were Christians (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo) and Muslims (Algebra). What?!? In the largest Christian denomination, which is the Catholic Church, are women allowed to be priests? If that’s not sexism, then we should redefine the meaning of this word…

Other than church leadership, name one instance Biblically that Christianity denies women anything. Now, unless you were joking, I believe you should rephrase your sentence to "The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought *despite the fact that they* were Christians…". Poor Galileo, how proud of the Christian thought he must have been after getting heavily persecuted by the Inquisition and put under house arrest until his death.

Who said that those that placed him there were Christian? Not any worth talking to. So even though I certainly wouldn’t agree with the simplistic notion from the original post that those religions are all "terrorists", let’s not distort historical facts when trying to prove a point: it just turns out to be silly. CA

No distortion – just perspective. The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

The three religions that originate in the Middle East are the three terrorist religions. They are Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Protestantism had a history of abusing people, of promoting the slave trade, of giving us the greed and poverty of an industrial ‘revolution’, to a degree, and much that we take for granted in the destruction of Christendom. Judaism historically, in its ‘diaspora’, sought to undermine any number of regimes, and was considered a threat to many crowns, often Catholic. But the old history isn’t reflected in the new situation of socialist Israel, where whatever designs some might have are crushed under the oppresive forces massed against them, hoping to drive them into the sea. Judaism, in that way, isn’t terroristic. The state was founded partly in that way. And they did elect Begin. But that’s history, now. Islam, however, is in the news. Protestantism, as a group of ‘true believers’, is almost gone. The ‘mainstream’ of that is simply secular, perhaps even ‘atheistic’. Judaism is under assault. And part of that comes from Islam, which itself is militant. That is, in 2003, Islam is a threat to world peace, not Protestanism, not Judaism. There are other equally dangerous conflicts, between Muslim and Hindu, between atheistic socialism, with its own armed insurgencies, and the free west, also basically atheistic in its leadership, at least. Also between Islam and Catholicism in various places – or Islam and most anyone else, for that matter. These 3 religions command the barbarism of stoning and amputation.

Don’t know the last Southern Baptist who was ‘amputated’. Don’t know of the Israelis stoning, anyone. I know they’ve been stoned. That just leaves Islam – and Communism/socialism. These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts.

You mean chicken wings this Sunday? Like that? These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it.

They have. And the rest of the world did, too. Islam persists, as you say. But there are a lot of reports, unsavory reports, of goings on in Israel, too. If so, they need to stop it. The reports are more frequent in the Communist countries, though. And they, too, openly practice slavery. Red China supplies the ‘middle class’ goods to the world, and high end designs to the wealthy. Large western retail chains are stocked with goods suspected of being the product of slave labor (but you never know). These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist.

I think you mean Communism. Seen any documentaries on the fabled land of North Korea, lately? It is up to you to decide which among these three religions is the most terrorist. I agree 100% except for the last line. Why do we need to decide which one is worst? That’s like asking if Hitler or Stalin was the worst dictator.

Stalin, obviously. He killed far more people. He had the bigger army. He had superior weapons. He occupied more countries, and suppressed more people, for an entire ‘cold war’, if you look at it in future terms. Or who is the biggest serial killer?

It’s different. That term tends to apply to diabolical satanist types, killing in the tens or hundreds, at most, and not at once, as with Columbine. Mass murderer might be better applied to the ‘war criminal’. But what ‘war’ prompted Stalin to his acts of mass murder? Once you start ranking them, you let people think that Hitler was nicer than Stalin, and then some idiot will claim that Hitler was a nice guy because he was trying to stop a greater evil.

Hitler was a nice guy when he wanted to be, and even a public menace when he didn’t. Speer describes the rudeness he showed, ocassionally, to try and browbeat a concession. He’d go from patting frauleins on the head, holding flowers, to some screaming maniac at the head of a modern German army. Must be much like any dictator. Must be like Stalin, or to the far lesser extent, ole Saddam, himself, of today. They like to wrap themselves in the mantle of deity. Look at ’supreme leader’ in North Korea. 1984 doesn’t begin to describe the situation in that nationwide prison camp. Talk about your Stockholm Syndrome. It’s on a country-wide scale. Had to be similar under Hitler, Stalin (and of course Stalin was defending against the hun, but then Hitler could point to what Stalin had done in the 30s and call him the same). Hussein has billboards of himself, everywhere, from what you see on tv. Sooner or later someone is going to respond to this post by saying that the Crusades were the lesser of two evils and therefore morally good.

What was the other evil – invasion by Islam? I think the Crusaders were on a crusade to liberate Jerusalem. They briefly succeeded, overextended their supply lines, and eventually were unable to hold. Peace. * When one finds nothing more to say to God, * but just knows He is there — * that, in itself, is the best of prayers. [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]

Response:

It is wrong if it is by cruelty towards animals. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it. Christianity never condoned nor excused slavery in the Bible. It was a fact of life at different periods of time, and slavery has taken different forms in different times. Slavery has also been different throughout the world. Judaism promoted releasing slaves. Not that it was right, mind you. These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. No, that’s just stupid people. The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought were Christians (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo) and Muslims (Algebra).

Some christians and muslims like to defend christianity and islam by saying that there were scientific progress in christian and islamic countries. There were scientific progress not because of those two religions but despite their opposition and repression. Thanks to the courage of those scientists, at the peril of their lives, they have made scientific progress. Those scientists were christians or muslims, not because they have chosen to be so but because since their birth their parents have put them in these religions. They just grew up in these religions. But their thoughts were different from the teachings of these religions. Those scientists have to face tough opposition from the fundamentalists of those religions. Despite this they have persevere to make their discoveries public. Even today we find christians and muslims opposed to social and scientific research, development and progress. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts. There are no more sacrifices in Christianity – and never were. And what is wrong with a nice feast? It is wrong if it is by cruelty towards animals.

The Last Supper consisted of bread and wine – not animal by-products. — That would be hilarious if Bush won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. That would be fuunnnnnnnnnnay! Tim (Skidmark) Brown

Response:

I think that the people who are trying to frame Scott Peterson murdered Laci Peterson. The USELESS MEDIA is clearly aiding and abeting the preposterous campaign to create the false impression that Scott Peterson made his wife disappear, while he was on a fishing trip. A Miscarriage of Justice Celebrity trials can turn into media lynchings. Last year a Connecticut jury convicted Michael Skakel of killing his neighbor Martha Moxley twenty-seven years ago, even though the prosecution had no fingerprints, no DNA, and no witness. The author, a former New York City prosecutor, argues that his cousin’s indictment was triggered by an inflamed media, and that an innocent man is now in prison. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY The tragedy of Martha Moxley’s death, twenty-seven years ago, has been compounded by the conviction of an innocent man. I know Michael Skakel, my first cousin, as well as one person can know another. He helped me to get sober, in 1983. We attended hundreds of alchoholism-recovery meetings together. In that context and others we have shared our deepest feelings. For fifteen years we skied, fished, hiked, and traveled together, often with my wife and children. During that time I sometimes spent as many as two or three weekends a month in his company. Like nearly everyone else who knows him well, I love Michael. If he were guilty, I would have testified against him. He is not. Until recently I visited him in prison. The two of us had been estranged for several years. Beginning in 1998, stress from the public focus of Michael as a murder suspect began to affect his personality. He lashed out at the Kennedy family, which he believed was partly responsible for his predicament, and refused to speak to me. On the two days I attended his court proceedings last year in Norwalk Connecticut, he was cold and distant. Many people asked me why I would publicly defend him – a cause unlikely to enhance my own credibility. I support him not out of misguided family loyalty but because I am certain he is innocent. The Skakels did not discuss the Moxley case amongst themselves, and mostly didn’t read press reports about it – the first because of family culture and legal advice, the second because most of the press coverage was biased, inaccurate, and painful. "We never talked about it," Michael’s sister, Julie, recently told me. "Through all the years we never discussed this. We never compared notes." Michael’s conviction shocked his six siblings into talking about the case with one another, and with me. For the first time, they shared their memories of the night when Martha Moxley was killed. In preparing this article I spoke to each of them; to other witnesses, to Michael’s lawyers; and to investigators. I read police and press reports about the case and put together the story for myself. MARTHA MOXLEY Just after noon on Halloween, 1975, Martha Moxley, age fifteen, was found lying face down on her family property in the Belle Haven section of Greenwich, Connecticut. Her blue jeans and underpants were pulled down. Although strong evidence suggests that the attack was a sexual assault, the police concluded that Martha had not been raped. Her body had been dragged across the grass on a zigzag path from the Moxley driveway to the side of the lawn and hidden below the drooping boughs of a pine tree. She had been struck several times in the head with a Toney Penna golf club – so ferociously that the club had shattered into multiple pieces – and then stabbed in the neck with the broken shaft. The club’s handle and part of the shaft had vanished. Martha was last seen the night before, at the home of the Moxley’s neighbor Rushton Skakel, my mother’s brother and the father of six boys and a girl. The Skakel family residence contained many golf clubs, including a set of Toney Pennas that had belonged to Rushton’s wife, Anne Reynolds Skakel, who died of cancer two years before. The Skakels played chip and putt in their yard, and were known for leaving sports equipment scattered around the property. Rushton kept golf glubs at each door, and would carry one on his daily walk in order to ward off the numerous dogs in Belle Haven. KEN LITTLETON In 1975 Kenneth Wayne Littleton Jr. was a burly twenty-three-year-old graduate of Williams College, where he’d played rugby; he taught science and coached football at the Brunswick School, in Greenwich. Rushton Skakel had hired Littleton as a live-in tutor and companion to care for his motherless children. Littleton had begun work for the Skakels and visited their home the previous week, and moved in on the day of the murder. Under police questioning the following day Littleton claimed that after arriving home from dinner he had gone to the master bedroom, on the second floor, where heremained until morning. He said he had neither heard nor seen anything suspicious. Two weeks later, on November 14, Littleton admitted that he had not stayed upstairs but had gone downstairs to watch TV and had seen Tom and Michael Skakel outside with Martha Moxley. He would later deny ever having seen Martha. On December 10 Littleton again changed his story, now saying that from 9:15 to 9:30 he had left the house and walked around the property to look for the Skakel boys. Littleton told the police that he saw no one during his search. On April 2, 1976, Mildred Ix, Helen’s mother and a confidante of Rushton’s, told police that "girlie magazined were found in Mr. Littleton’s room," and that he was in the habit of visiting the Skakel gazebo in the nude. She urged them to look again at Littleton. When detectives questioned him later that month, he changed his story for the third time, saying that on the evening of October 30 he had come down to thew first floor after watching TV upstairs. When he entered the kitchen, the Skakels’ elderly nanny, Margaret Sweeney, asked him to check the driveway, where she’d heard "a fracas caused by the kids." Littleton now said that he went to the area and saw no one, but heard rustling noices coming from the Bushes. Police records kept by Jack Solomon show that Littleton now recalled leaving the Skakel house at 10:30 P.M. -an hour later than he’d earlier claimed. Police examiners gave Littleton three lie-detector tests on October 18, 1976. Each test indicated that Littleton was lying when he denied killing Martha Moxley or knowing the location of the missing golf-club pieces. The police confronted Littleton with his test results and asked him to submit to a sodium-pentothal examination. When Littleton refused, the police began looking more closely. They found that his behavior had changed "markedly" since Martha’s death. In April of 1976 Rushton Skakel had fired Littleton after the police visited the Skakel home and reported that Littleton had wrapped his car around a tree in a drunken accident and then abandoned it. Littleton moved to Nantucket, where he traded his preppy clothes for a white outfit with a shark’s-tooth necklace framed by an unbuttoned shirt. Walking around town, he would look at himself in store windows, fixing his hair and flexing his muscles. People who had known him previously told the police that he was "bizarre and obnoxious" and had changed for the worse. That summer the Nantucket police arrested Littleton on charges of burglarizing several gift shops. In July, Littleton knocked down a woman employee of the Nantucket Police Department after she casually bumped his dancing partner. That month a Nantucket tourist awoke to find Littleton lying naked on top of her. He had broken in through her bedroom window. Littleton was then living with a woman who told police that he sometimes "forced himself on her sexually" and often erupted in fits of violence, smashing things in her apartment. When the Greenwich police learned of Littleton’s arrest, they persuaded Nantucket prosecutors to offer to reduce Littletone’s felony charges to misdemeanor if he would submit to a sodium-amytal interview about the Moxley murder. Littleton refused and pleaded guilty to the felony – a plea that ended his teaching and coaching career. In May of 1977 the Nantucket court gave him a suspended sentence and placed him on probation. In explaining his crime spree to the judge, Littleton said. "When I drink, I flip out." Jack Solomon, of the Fairfield County state attorney’s office, and the Greenwich detective Stephen Carroll were convinced that Littleton had murdered Martha Moxley. But they lacked the hard evidence they needed for an effective prosecution. The many other plausible suspects would give potential defense attorneys ample opportunity to introduce reasonable doubt, which would prevent a jury from convicting Littleton. The common thinking was that only a confession would result in a conviction. Solomon and Browne resisted the temptation to arrest a suspect in the murder just to appease public demand that they solve it. And so the Moxley case murder investigation petered out and became a "cold file." In 1982 Littleton moved to Florida, where he lived as a street person and was arrested for a variety of crimes, including trespassing, disorderly conduct, drunk driving, public intoxication, and shoplifting. In one incident he climbed a sixteen-story structure and gave President John F. Kennedy’s ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ speech. When he was arrested, he told the police that he was a "Kenny Kennedy," the black sheep of the Kennedy family. That year Littleton met Mary Baker, who was also an alcoholic and was in recovery. They moved to Canada and married in Ottawa on April 27, 1983. In a 1991 interview with the Connecticut police conducted in Ottawa – an interview that has never been published – Baker described Littleton as "going nuts" in February of 1984 after he started talking about the Moxley murder. He called Martha’s father, David Moxley, Baker said, and asked for money to undergo sodium-pentothal testing, offering to give Moxley copies of the tapes. Littleton said he … read more »

Response:

Bull, it is not the three Middle East religions thart creates violece and hatred, but not adhearing to the teachings of the Proprets that does the devils work.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The three religions that originate in the Middle East are the three terrorist religions. They are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These three religions teach hatred of those who are different from them or do not agree with their principles. These 3 religions incite violence towards others. These 3 religions command the barbarism of stoning and amputation. These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts. These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it. These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. These 3 religions preached genocide. They have committed it in the past. There are many cases reported where a tribe killed another tribe and the aggressors said they were ordered by "God" or they were motivated by their religious principles and beliefs. The books of these three religions are manuals of Terrorism. Should they not be prohibited because they teach hatred and violence towards others and they also encourage all forms of terrorism? These 3 religions are responsible of most wars in history. They were and are still the initiators of most wars, violence, hatred and fanaticism. It is up to you to decide which among these three religions is the most terrorist.

Response:

These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. No, that’s just stupid people. The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought were Christians (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo) and Muslims (Algebra).

What?!? In the largest Christian denomination, which is the Catholic Church, are women allowed to be priests? If that’s not sexism, then we should redefine the meaning of this word… Now, unless you were joking, I believe you should rephrase your sentence to "The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought *despite the fact that they* were Christians…". Poor Galileo, how proud of the Christian thought he must have been after getting heavily persecuted by the Inquisition and put under house arrest until his death. So even though I certainly wouldn’t agree with the simplistic notion from the original post that those religions are all "terrorists", let’s not distort historical facts when trying to prove a point: it just turns out to be silly. CA

Response:

Show me where Christianity does this – and don’t go spewing the OT at me. Christianity uses the OT laws, but through NT eyes. These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts.

There are no more sacrifices in Christianity – and never were. And what is wrong with a nice feast? These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it.

Christianity never condoned nor excused slavery in the Bible. It was a fact of life at different periods of time, and slavery has taken different forms in different times. Slavery has also been different throughout the world. Judaism promoted releasing slaves. Not that it was right, mind you. These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist.

No, that’s just stupid people. The greatest academics that produced most of the modern scientific thought were Christians (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo) and Muslims (Algebra). These 3 religions preached genocide. They have committed it in the past. There are many cases reported where a tribe killed another tribe and the aggressors said they were ordered by "God" or they were motivated by their religious principles and beliefs.

It was men, not the principles in Christianity, and those men were wrong. The books of these three religions are manuals of Terrorism. Should they not be prohibited because they teach hatred and violence towards others and they also encourage all forms of terrorism?

Have you ever read the Bible? If you have, then you know that this could never be true. These 3 religions are responsible of most wars in history. They were and are still the initiators of most wars, violence, hatred and fanaticism.

It is fallen, sinful man that was using a guise of religion. It was not a Christian. It is up to you to decide which among these three religions is the most terrorist.

Hmmm…bad evidence, bad arguments… How about an alternative ending? The Boog-man Seven7s

Response:

I agree 100% except for the last line. Why do we need to decide which one is worst? That’s like asking if Hitler or Stalin was the worst dictator. Or who is the biggest serial killer? Once you start ranking them, you let people think that Hitler was nicer than Stalin, and then some idiot will claim that Hitler was a nice guy because he was trying to stop a greater evil. Sooner or later someone is going to respond to this post by saying that the Crusades were the lesser of two evils and therefore morally good. I’d bet on it.

Response:

The three religions that originate in the Middle East are the three terrorist religions. They are Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

+ Just those three?

Response:

Or just get out of all three now.

Response:

The three religions that originate in the Middle East are the three terrorist religions. They are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These three religions teach hatred of those who are different from them or do not agree with their principles. These 3 religions incite violence towards others. These 3 religions command the barbarism of stoning and amputation. These 3 religions encourage cruelty towards animals. They encourage the sacrificing of animals for offerings and other religious and social rites. They encourage the killing of animals for feasts. These 3 religions had encouraged and supported slavery. They have practiced it and one is still practicing it. These 3 religions encourage sexism. They are intolerant and against scientific progress and critical analysis. These 3 religions are obscurantist. These 3 religions preached genocide. They have committed it in the past. There are many cases reported where a tribe killed another tribe and the aggressors said they were ordered by "God" or they were motivated by their religious principles and beliefs. The books of these three religions are manuals of Terrorism. Should they not be prohibited because they teach hatred and violence towards others and they also encourage all forms of terrorism? These 3 religions are responsible of most wars in history. They were and are still the initiators of most wars, violence, hatred and fanaticism. It is up to you to decide which among these three religions is the most terrorist.

Response:

Address: http://christianityqa.com/islam-christianity/the-three-terrorist-religions-1167212.html

Christianity QA

Questions & Answers about Christianity