Christo-fascism
Fellow US Christians (and other interested parties), please allow me to offer this bit of perspective.
Whether we can fully appreciate it or not, it is unmistakably arrogant, malicious and inflammatory for a Western, non-practitioner of Islam to use any derivation of the term "Islam" (e.g. "Islamo-fascist" and "Islamic Terrorist") in an attempt to designate America's enemy in the so-called War on Terror—and unless you are a follower of Islam any assumed right to rebut this point goes a long way toward substantiating my assertion. I can make this assertion as a non-Muslim in humble 'others-interest,' because it is a self-critique, but for a non-adherent of Islam to try to defend the practice of constructing such labels is an act of self-absorption predicated on the hegemonic idea that we have the unassailable right to characterize anyone else however we see fit. If that's not arrogance, then the word has lost all meaning! All one can do as a non-follower of Islam, is take a moment, consider the possibility and pay attention to how Muslims themselves perceive what we do.
In last Saturday's New Hampshire Republican debate and again in Thursday's South Carolina rematch, most candidates sought to treat Ron Paul like he was the crazy uncle at the dinner table, belittling him for pointing out that Islamic discontent with America doesn't ferment in a vacuum. Though reactionary in instances, it has cause, and perhaps, justification. (Note I said discontent, not terrorism, has justification.) Why do so many refuse even to consider such a rationale? All it asks of us is to put ourselves in the place of the majority people of the Middle East? Why is Arab and/or Muslim humanity so hard for us to concede?What brought all this to mind for me was the exchange in last weekend's debate in response to Huckabee's characterization of the Bush administration's policies as "arrogant" and evincing "a bunker mentality." The conversation reminded me of a Seinfeld sketch of Kramer arguing with himself, "I'm not arrogant; you are! No you're arrogant, not me! But let's not forget those good-for-nothing Islamic terrorists! They're the transcendent bogeymen of the 21st century!"
How dare we freely associate the hatefulness of terrorists such as Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden with the faith of over 1 billion peace-loving people who walk in the way of submission to Allah? With all the indisputable, documented atrocities perpetrated by the Western world over the last two millennia in the name of Christianity—up to and including the war on the Middle East—have we ever once dubbed the proponents or perpetrators of the Crusades, Colonial Expansion, the Inquisition, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Jim Crow, the Holocaust, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or South African Apartheid "Christian Terrorists"?
No! Emphatically no. And we never will. Why? Because we believe that such historical "excesses" (isn't that such an wonderfully disingenuous term), though unapologetically supported by Christians of that time and place, do not reflect the beauty of the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith. And since those in power continue to be predominately of Christian heritage, we get to tell our story however we want to remember it.
It wouldn't be arrogance that we won't afford Muslims the same right to define themselves—would it?
Send an Email to us here!
Melvin,
ReplyDeleteYou are very brave to write this. Don't be surprised if you are called every name in the book for it, hopefully not here on this blog. I however agree whole-heartedly with what you are saying. To hate all Muslims just because of the Islamic-terrorists would be the same as hating all Americans just because of the Christo-fascists that you described. It really makes us the same as what we accuse them of being. And you are so right in asking the question to fellow Americans: why can't we consider the reasons why they hate us so? I recently had this conversation with a friend of mine who is an ex-SDA, now attending the Nazarene church. She is adamant that Christians are good, Muslims are evil and that we are being persecuted by them. I think she even believes that they are the anti-Christ. Is this some mainstream Christian dogma that one must buy into in order to fit in with them? I don't get it.
I do know one thing. Muslims haven't always been so extreme. In Spanish history the Muslims ruled Spain from 711 until 1492 AD. During the first several centuries of their rule they allowed the Jews and later the Christians to live and practice their faiths peacefully in Muslim territory. The town of Toledo (south of Madrid) has examples of Cathedrals, Mosques and Synagogues all from the same time period in which members of these three religions worshipped. It wasn't until the Re-conquest of Spain in which the Christian kings decided to unite and wage war on the Muslims and push them out of their land. In 1492 the Christians won, the last Muslim rulers were defeated in Granada, and in that same year the Christians also expelled the Jews from Spain. The Christians are the ones who started the practices of religious supremacy and intolerance of other religions (among these three religions). I think this is very telling.
I am not going to call anyone names, and I am definitely not going to throw out judgmental generalizations like Melvin did. I will say this - I sense that both Melvin and "tjl" may be guilty of Historical Revisionism. It tends to follow progressive ideologies. TJL, stating that Christians started it all is bordering on ignorance. Any cursory research will show that Muhammad started Islam in lands that were all historically either Christian, Jewish, or animist (pagan/idol worshiping). In a very short amount of time(630-732 AD), by conquest/crusade, they either forcefully converted, murdered, or levied taxes against those that they did not covert or execute(called dhimmis - typically persecuted and repressed) the lands extending from Persia to Spain. And that was only the first conquest.
ReplyDeleteThe second conquest occurred during the middle ages (1400-1600s) and resulted in the brutality of the Ottoman Empire leading to the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire in WWI. (The Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1924 when the secular nation of Turkey was born).
What is largely unnoticed and unmentioned here is the brutality and genocidal activities that Islam perpetrated on the peoples of the far East, specifically India between 1000-1525. By many records (though admittedly disputed), 80 million Hindus were slaughtered by the Muslim conquests. In fact, one such record reports that the entire Hindu population in what is now Afghanistan was exterminated, with one sultan, name Teimur, killing 100,000 Hindus in a single day!
Regardless, I WILL DEFINITELY ADMIT that peoples under the guise or flag of Christianity have done terrible things, the Crusades being a brutal example. Sure the Conquistadors were "Christian", but their goal was not conversions, but gold and land. They used religion in the same way that Mohammad used it when he began his conquests in the 600s. It was all about control and keeping power.
Lastly, I still find it reprehensible that there has been no mention of the crimes committed against Christians by Muslims. What about the Lost Boys of Sudan? How about some acknowledgment of America taking these terribly scarred young men into our nation? What about Sudan today? And Melvin, what is wrong with calling something what it is? This is terrorism perpetrated by Muslims. It wasn't Buddhists in those planes on 9/11. It wasn't Hindus blowing up embassies in Africa. It was not followers of Shintoism blowing up trains in Spain. I can assure you if Christians started committing similar acts, they would be labeled as such.
Finally (really this time!), the term "Islamofascist" is stupid in my opinion. Islamic terrorist is acceptable. That is not a label, its a definition. It is truth. What is even more truthful, and important, is that Jesus loves every last one of them just as much as you and I. Therefore we should not hate Muslims or denigrate their faith. But to ignore the reality of what is going on today is either foolish or blindness, and to blame this all on the West and Christianity is preposterous, and on a progressive blog is not entirely courageous, though I respect the opinion and appreciate the point of view.
I wonder if I will be viewed the same?
Well said. You are brave, and I commend you for speaking truth.
ReplyDeletePeace, Jeff
Word! That's an amazing post. If I didn't know it was you, Melvin, I'd say it was Cornel West! :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for sticking your neck out for the "other." One of favor rhetorical devices of those who love to capitalize (interesting metaphor, capitalize) on people's fears is the practice of pitting the best of my religion, tradition, ethnicity, gender or whatever, against the worst of yours! I always come out the winner in that case. How convenient. The hunger always tells the story of the hunt. I also couldn't help but notice that your critic in the thread goes by the alias, armed2win. Says a lot.
Ryan, don't be so quick to judge.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, my Google name "Armed2Win" is based on Paul's admonition to all Christ's followers found in Ephesians 6:1-18 to put on the full Armor of God. Its not for battling others (not flesh and blood enemies), but the enemy of all humanity - the devil who desires more than anything to destroy us all (spiritual realm). Only by being covered in the "Wardrobe of the King" - His Armor detailed below, can we hope to obtain victory over Satan in the daily battle against temptation, selfishness and our tendencies to fail.
"10 A final word: Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on all of God's armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies of the devil. 12 For we* are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, put on every piece of God's armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. 14 Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God's righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared. *16 In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil. *17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray in the Spirit at all times and on every occasion. Stay alert and be persistent in your prayers for all believers everywhere.*"
I pray we will all live in that Armor... That is the basis of the alias.
In regards to my brief history of the Middle East, they were directed at "tjl's" false assertions that Christians have started everything. I took a well researched truth and disproved a false accusation - not to denigrate anyone's faith. You conveniently overlooked that I said:
"What is even more truthful, and important, is that Jesus loves every last one of them just as much as you and I. Therefore we should not hate Muslims or denigrate their faith."
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. God's blessings to all, and PRAISE GOD for His MERCY and GRACE!
The next issue that needs to be addressed, at least for the moment is the issue of the Holocaust. History justly records this as one of the most horrendous acts against of humanities brutality against humanity. Personally, I am so incensed by it, that I have never been able to completely watch a movie centering on it's themes due to the deep emotion it creates within me. However, I am not the focus here. The focus for this will be on what Melvin questioned:
ReplyDelete"With all the indisputable, documented atrocities perpetrated by the Western world over the last two millennia in the name of Christianity—up to and including the war on the Middle East—have we ever once dubbed the proponents or perpetrators of the Crusades, Colonial Expansion, the Inquisition, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Jim Crow, the Holocaust, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or South African Apartheid "Christian Terrorists"?"
My focus will be his association of the Holocaust with Christianity, a subtle association that is without merit, as it overlooks many things.
First, Hitler was NOT a Christian - not even in name. Hitler had utterly rejected Christianity. In fact, Hitler boasted in his hatred of Christianity and made countless anti-Christian statements. Here are a few of many quotes found in the book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944:
___________________________
1. "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
2. "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
____________________________
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, I would like to discuss what Christianity DID do to counteract Hitler and the Nazi regime. Much has been said about what it didn't do, namely the Catholic church. However, there is ample evidence that many individual members and people within both Catholicism and Protestantism that stood up and acted.
___________________________
1. Anyone here forget Corey ten Boom and "The Hiding Place"?
2. Anyone here forget that it was Christians who hid Anne Frank?
3. "Some four thousand Protestant ministers, led by Karl Barth and Hans Asmussen, formed the Confessing Church, which at Barmen in 1934 declared that no human Fuhrer could stand above the Word of God. The Confessing Church lost its properties, its seminary was suppressed, its journals were prohibited, and when war came the members of its clergy of military age and not in prison were assigned to positions of greatest danger, while the older leaders were sent to concentration camps. Among them was Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran pastor who after more than half a year in solitary confinement was brought to trial under Hitler's law against "treacherous attacks upon state and party." His refusal to capitulate and his persistent resistance to Nazism made him the symbolic figure of the Protestant opposition until the downfall of the Nazis." ~The Horizon History of Christianity by Roland H. Bainton, p.390.
4. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian Pastor, worked with members of the military resistance in the July 20th bombing of the Wolf's Lair. He also was involved in the setting up of a free government should Nazism fall.
5. See When Light Pierced the Darkness: Christian Rescue of the Jews in Occupied Poland by Nechama Tec (herself rescued by Christians)
____________________________
These are just a few examples of the work that Christians played in rescuing Jews from the hands of a regime that was not run by Christians, but headed by a man very likely to have been possessed by Satan himself. Literary evidence has pointed to the fact that Hitler hated Christianity and Christians for its/their worship of Jesus, who happened to be Jewish.
In closing, I will acknowledge that it is a terrible shame that the U.S. and her Christian citizens did not step up to the plate sooner to get involved in condemning Hitler and working to stop the Holocaust. Christianity as a whole, here in the States, was rather apathetic. However, that was not the case in Germany, Poland, Holland, France and Italy, and there are many documented cases to prove so.
God's blessings and Shalom...
Armed2Win,
ReplyDeleteDid I say that the Christians "started everything"? Please forgive me if that's what you understood. I am certainly no historian, just a xenophile Spanish professor who has spent a lot of time in Spain and has thoroughly studied Spanish history. And the history is what it is and I stated it because it's my right to share and participate in this blog as I see fit. You can make your points and I can make mine. I'll forgive you for calling me ignorant because I'm not a know-it-all and don't pretend to be.
TJL, thanks for responding. In all fairness, I apologize for the reference to ignorance. I wasn't calling you ignorant. I was referring to your statement "The Christians are the ones who started the practices of religious supremacy and intolerance of other religions (among these three religions). I think this is very telling." as bordering on ignorance. That easily could be interpreted as me calling you ignorant. (I am ignorant of many things, but that does not make me an ignorant person. Big difference... Regardless, I probably should not have said that - I will admit that wholeheartedly. So, please forgive me!
ReplyDeleteIn reference to what Melvin wrote and how you responded, I felt it necessary to set a few things straight regarding the role of Christianity as that of aggressor. There is a startling and insidious trend within religious and secular progressionism (they often mirror each other) to ignore history in deference to the current plight of people groups. This often exhibits itself in broad generalizations and emotion-based reasoning - but that is for another discussion!
So far, I have not commented on how "Christian" Spain responded to both Muslims and Jews - I wanted to study up on that, as I was somewhat ignorant of that period and it's facts. Isabella and her cohorts were unapologetically brutal and vicious in the name of the Church. There is no excuse for what they did to both Muslims and Jews. They were even cruel to Jews who converted to Christianity to escape their brutality. There is no excuse for any Inquisition.
There is also absolutely no excuse for the slave trade, Trans-Atlantic or otherwise. None. Zero. Zip. There is no excuse for the way my ancestors (Native Americans) were treated. None. Zero. Zip. But please note, that it was Christians who formed the bulk of the Abolitionist movement, both here at home and abroad. Christians were actively involved in the Underground Railroad. Christians fought to eliminate the slave trade. In reality, it was a Christian who ended it in America. I find it interesting that both you and Melvin conveniently ignored that truth, or at least failed to mention it to provide some balance!
I often wonder at progressive Christianity. Those that espouse that philosophy are such strong proponents of inclusion, acceptance and non-judgmentalism (very good things to espouse). Yet they tend to judge, marginalize and often attack with vitriol the very Christians they call brethren, specifically Conservative Christians and Evangelical Christians. Thankfully, I rarely see that here, and I don't sense it with you or Melvin.
Regardless, is it any wonder that we are still languishing here on Planet Earth?
I think what makes us progressive is the fact that we are willing to self-analyze and even self-criticize when necessary. Melvin's article wasn't meant to "provide a balance" it was meant to present another perspective that most Conservative and/or Evangelical Christians aren't willing to look at. And I applaud him for having the guts to write what he did. Does everyone have to agree with it 100%? Of course not, just respect his opinion and appreciate the fact that we have this forum where such ideas can be expressed. I don't think that any of us would continue to call ourselves Christians if we believed that Christians were all bad and had never done anything good in the world. That is not what we are trying to imply when we analyze or criticize current and historical Christian thought or practices. Again I state that we are just trying to provide a different persepective and again,I think that's what being progressive is all about.
ReplyDeleteArmed2win, I sense that you are a sincere person, and a genuine Christian who is awaiting Christ's return. But much of what you say in your posts makes me feel that you are trying to be the voice of reason with all of us "wacky liberals"---not that everyone here is politically on the left but you have to admit that you are one of the few vocal conservatives posting. It reminds me of being back with my youth group, more years ago than I care to admit, when the Sabbath School teacher would let us kids run the program. We felt so liberated...to a degree, we came up with the topics to study, we lead out with the discussions, but when things got a little too one-sided or "out-of-hand", the teacher would be right there to interject what he felt we needed and reign us back in. Once we tried to discuss the no jewelry policy. But when we all started agreeing that it was riduculous that small ear studs or cheapy beaded bracelets were considered idolatry but the diamond studded watches, fancy BMW's and extravagant vacation homes that some SDA's had were not, we got shut down with the whole "yes, but those things serve a purpose" speech. "Jewelry serves no purpose but to draw attention...blah...blah...blah." I tell this story not to get off track and start debating jewelry wearing or material posessions but to say that I appreciate your comments and contributions and would like to continue reading them. But you might want to be aware that your need to contradict what we are saying or "provide a balance" may make some people react to you negatively because the impression given is that you view what we are saying as wrong or unbalanced. Most of the articles I have read on this blog are in line with what I expected Progressive SDA thought to be, and some even more bold and exciting(like Melvin's Christo-fascism)and that's why I'm here.
Maybe we could agree on these points, points that I feel are at least somewhat consistent with the author's intent:
ReplyDelete1. Some Christians, Muslims, other "believers," and atheists have done notably GOOD things.
2. Some Christians, Muslims, other "believers," and atheists have done notably BAD things.
3. When some Muslims have done "bad" things, many people have labeled them as "Islamic-terrorists."
4. When some Christians have done "bad" things, the word terrorist is not usually used.
Example, we didn't call militants in N Ireland "Protestant-terrorists" and "Catholic-terrorists." At least I didn't hear it. So we should be less prone to attach someone's religion with their "bad" actions. (this is actually my main point)
5. Just because we admit Christians have done bad things, doesn't mean we agree with Hitchens that God is Not Great. We are just owning part of human history. Christians are quick to point out their good and slow to point out their bad. The author is partially taking on this inconsistency. Ryan spoke well of this aspect.
6. Just because atheist governments have done terrible things doesn't mean Christian governments haven't also done bad things.
7. Stating any one of these items does not mean the speaker does not also believe the other items on the list. If a person states one of these things, we should not presume that they do not believe the others simply because the speaker didn't state them all in the same sentence or article.
8. Making lists to prove any given item in the list does not negate the truth of the other items.
Melvin, I appreciate your final thoughts, but what surprises me and disappoints me is that you attacked my character, not my arguments against your posts or anyone's support of your posts.
ReplyDeleteMelvin, you have levied a partially veiled accusation at me that is without merit. My friend, I have never once - not once attacked anyone's character. I never attacked yours! What I have done is challenged yours and others point of view with facts that are available in history books throughout the world. And prefacing it with your interpretation, "CC" is not to hypocritically make me feel better. It is a genuine feeling of being able to have a Christian centered debate/discussion with a Christian attitude. I don't at all despise or loath one person here. I do disagree with opinions and reasoning with some things, and therefor do my best to express a point of view somewhat lacking in representation. And I try to do that with grace and love! What's wrong with mentally checking yourself?
Also, I stated earlier that the term islamofascist was a ridiculous term. Equating that term with Christianity, though, is a stretch. Just because a bunch of Christians or so-called Christians like to use this word does not make it a Christian phenomenon. I have heard a number of conservative secularists use this word.
Lastly, you speak about "CC" and grace. Your comment, armed2win, i have been tempted to jump all over you as it sometimes feels you have done to others, but i resist the urge for now ;-). That seems to be your equivalent of "CC" prefaced in a wink ;-). Is this any different than what you accuse me of? And if I jumped all over other people, I doubt any of my posts would have been published. And if I did, please show me where I did and I will do my best to rectify it.
Remember, challenging someone's views is not jumping all over them. If that were the case, I have been tackled time and time again!
God bless.
thank you, everyone, for all of the terrific conversation around my last two posts. this is the reason i write. i believe that it is only in real conversation--as opposed to the percussive dynamic of trying to score points on one another--that we make room for the spirit to do her transformative work.
ReplyDeletei find blogging to be such a wonderful publishing tool and almost an equally awful communication tool. so much is posted without the benefit of thoughtful revision. one never knows how knowledgeable another is about blogger etiquette. comments are easily misunderstood of mischaracterized. but i'm grateful that we are all braving the potential negatives for the sake of the good that can be.
armed2win, i have been tempted to jump all over you as it sometimes feels you have done to others, but i resist the urge for now ;-).
nonetheless, there is a concern that rises out of our conversation around "Christo-fascism" and "The Irony of Evangelicalism" that i've been trying to figure out how best to articulate, because I would love for us to bat it around a little.
i've always been suspicious of folks who preface or conclude their comments with a Christian Correct qualifier like, "i say this in love." i am convinced love sounds and acts a certain way. so at best the qualifier is unnecessary, but more often than not, it's just plain disingenuous. for example, beyond the fact that the term is a misnomer, i don't see how one could ever use "islamofascism" in love. love is gracious. there's no grace in such language.
on the same note, i also have a hard time understanding how we can condescend to each other and in the same breath wish one another the 'peace of God' or some other CC platitude. these things seem incongruous to me. i struggle to find such verbal and behavioral incongruity any more reflective of God than are suicide bombings, but i wonder if we've just become so accustomed to it that we don't see it as problematic.
and before anyone does so, please don't be quick to excused or minimized the "incongruity" to which i'm referring as if it were mere "hypocrisy." in a small yet significant way hypocrisy is a bit more honest. at least hypocrisy connotes that those who are recognizing it (in themselves or others) see it as wrong, whereas we seem to justify our spiritual incongruities. in fact, we often refuse to see them as such. for example, we often act like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just an idealistic suggestion that we aren't really expected to embody. indeed, everyone is entitled to embody their faith however they see fit, but i wonder what it costs to embody a christianity that is blatantly other than the way of jesus.
i should probably unpack this more, yet i will leave it at that in hopes you get the idea. i write about it because i believe i'm hearing some such incongruence even in our conversation here (i could definitely be wrong and hope i am). i truly believe we have to practice honest conversation about issues like this, leaving ourselves open to the possibility of being influenced by the other. the destiny of God's beloved world is dependent upon it. still sometimes it sounds like we are totally invalidating one another in the way we go after one another's ideas, which i beg us not to do. i've seen this in my faith tradition all my life, and it troubles me (i believe for just reason).
does anyone else see this propensity to justify our spiritual incongruities as perhaps at the heart of what i'm facetiously dubbing the christo-fascism phenomenon?
in all honesty, what sparked these final thoughts in me was the less than generous conversation about mitt romney's faith tradition on the "irony of evangelicalism" thread.
ReplyDeleteI was very interesting to read these comments as well as the text above.Actually we human beings in general are biased, as result we can easily sense the weaknesses of as terrible then those which are held on us.The matter of conflicts between religions or tribes it is for hopless people,especially those whom we call fundamentalists.Im a confirmed christian catholic but under my experience as a christian I have just understood that there no best or the right religion. So it is upon the individual convition,it is not a matter of religious that can take someone to heaven. In general many religious are living under hypocracy, that´s why in the Bible the matter of hypocracy is always underlined.My expectation was that those who are commiting themselves in the issue of serving God could be impartial in the fending the truth or the well being of all people in the world, but when I came to live with them I just experienced unexpected reality things like corruption, descrimination, and so on what is more when they come out they criticize the corruption of politicians, and i never heard shout of any group of people against the corruption which is lived in religious world. Actually it is very sad,we cannot misunderstand the values of our faith there is nobody who is the best in this world, let us work united for better world.
ReplyDeleteby FABRINO
mozambicanlife@hotmail.com
It was very interesting to read these comments as well as the text above.Actually we as human beings in general are biased, as result we can easily sense the weaknesses of others as terrible than those which are held on us.The matter of conflicts between religions or tribes it is for the hopless people,especially those whom we called fundamentalists and those who do not understand the reality human beings.Im a confirmed christian catholic but under my experience as a christian I have just understood that there no best or the right religion. So it is upon the individual convition,it is not a matter of being religious that can take someone to heaven everyone has priority of being in heaven as long as he has a convition of respecting the the values of human life as well as human dignity. In general many religious are living under hypocracy, that´s why in the Bible or scriptures the matter of hypocracy is always underlined.My expectation was that those who are commiting themselves in the issue of serving God could be impartial in defending the truth or the well being of all people in the world, but when I came to live with them I just experienced unexpected realities things like corruption, descrimination, and so on what is more when they come out they criticize the corruption of politicians, and i never heard shout of any group of people against the corruption which is lived in religious world. Actually it is very sad,we cannot misunderstand the values of our faith there is nobody who is the best in this world, let us work united for better world and harmony of humanity.
ReplyDeleteby FABRINO
mozambicanlife@hotmail.com