Part 2
In order to focus matters I quote from a fatwa of an Islam Online:

"Sacrifice is not a pillar of Islam. ... Not only did the pagan Arabs sacrifice to a variety of gods in hopes of attaining protection or some favor or material gain, but so, too, did the Jews of that day seek to appease the One True God by blood sacrifice and burnt offerings. Even the Christian community felt Jesus to be the last sacrifice, the final lamb, so to say, in an otherwise valid tradition of animal sacrifice (where one's sins are absolved by the blood of another). Islam, however, broke away from this longstanding tradition of appeasing an 'angry God' and instead demanded personal[the believer's] sacrifice and submission as the only way to die before death and reach fana or 'extinction' in Allah."

The Christian with his/her sins is purified by the Perfect Sacrifice of Jesus, the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the ONE trinitarian God. For Islam this type of sacrifice is but a continuation of animal sacrifices and disavowed. Simply, such sacrifice is rejected, i.e., no one, in this case Jesus, can vicariously be sacrificed for the salvation of humankind. In Islam, it is the jihadist him/herself who, loving death more than life, sacrifices himself and/or others in the violent propagation of Islam's striving for supremacy. A believer who sacrifices his/her life in the violent propagation (i.e, sacrificing the life of non-believers) will after death go to paradise.

The great philosopher/theologian of Islam, al-Ghazali made it clear that Allah is beyond love and has no need to favor humans with laws of nature. Allah dictates nominalistically order and so is it (for the moment). Yes, Pope Francis, Islam has one God and so too does Christianity. Other than the sameness of numericity, differences abound. I hold that respect for the religion of another person is to be shown, but because of respect for the divinely created person him/herself and his search of God. Humans are religious, and that is good! But that does not make all forms of religiosity to be equal nor deserving respect in itself.

Above I have lightly touched upon differences between Islam and Christianity. Islam is NOT a religion of love, but of unbounded power. In other words, historically it stems from the empires of antiquity.

Part 1
As I begin my comment I just came from the German section of Gloria.tv and learned that Christians are in danger in Tripoli as armed groups have taken control. Groups of Hindus? No, they are Muslims!!! The ISIS fighters are demanding conversion or special dhimis tax. Are these fighters Buddhists? No, they are Muslims. Strange, no? Are THE acts of following Allah to be respected and praised just like the Christian acts of following God? I will come back to these facts below.

Emperor Aurelius installed (I believe 274 AD) above the other gods the Deus called the ONE "Sol Invictus", "invictus" because of unconquerable divine power. (By the way the celebration of his birth was Dec. 25, taken over by Christianity.) So, the emperor's religion had a supreme God >> other lesser gods. Does that make the emperor 1/2 a Catholic or Jew or Muslim? And POWER as in almighty is typifying of Allah as seemingly more or less so with "Sol Invictus". Well, the Romans believed that the gods communicate to humans, e.g., reading the entrails of birds or whatever --- and this is "speaking" of sorts. Christians and Muslims believe in communication from the divinity. If Emperor Aurelius had adopted Moses as a forerunner, would we not have an almost parellel to Islam? In other words, there are similarities between Christianity and Roman polytheism of the late Empire and even more between Rome and Islam (which I consider to be sole surviving empire of antiquity). If one looks hard enough one can develop a course of study called "Religious Studies" in which commonalities and differences between all religions are noted. Are not all religions re the commonalities to be praised and respected? Or is that too abstract? Let me turn to the ONE Allah of Islam, whose unicity excludes the Trinity in the ONE Deus of Christianity. Surely ONE' = ONE² in regards to being numerically "one", but not with regards to < ' > and < ² > which represent qualitative differences. (Aurelius had only ONE top deus, so why not have ONE³.) So the very numerical similarity between Islam and Christianity proves very little unless one looks deeper. And "deepe"r is to be seen in Allah features similiar to those of Sol Invicitus, i.e., power that imposes itself over others, viz., seeks to impose supremacy.

The -slm- of "Islam" has the meaning of submission to or subjugating according to the dictates of Allah (dictates formalized as Sharia -- and here we have a similarity to the Roman Empire with its Law). The believer internalizes the All-Power of Allah by learning submission to Allah's subjugating power. But submission to Allah, is submission to Allah's dictates, i.e., sharia law. Sharia law demands the realization of the suprmacy of Islam over all other religions. Accordingly, the intensely believing follower must seek to realize the supremacy of sharia or he is not submisive and, hence, is not a "good" Muslim. Let me bring this back to Aurelian's Sol Invictus. See Part 2

@a.t.m.:Danke für die Bemerkung. Sie ist gleichzeitig "korrekt" und "unkorrekt". Zuerstmal "unkorrekt": Ich habe die Funktion von "Conchita" als stellvertretend, d.h., symbolisch für den Seelenzustand Europas verstanden. Das ist zwar sexuell pansexual. Das Gegensymbol wäre "Papst Franziskus", egal welche Probleme ich mit seinem "päpstlichen" Verhalten habe. Deshalb die Benutzung von Anführungszeichen in beiden Fällen. Wenn es um die "Seele" Europas geht, dann bleibe ich mit meiner These, daß zwei konträre Vorstellungen im Spiel sind, eine Konträrität, die keine mitgeteilte IDENTITÄT besitzt, woran "Chonchita" und "Papst Franziskus" ebenbürtig teilnehmen könnten. Da sehe ich keine Schiziophrenie, sondern zwei sich widersprechende Identitäten. Deshalb meine Erwähnung vom Römischen Reich im 4ten Jahrhundert. Wenn "Conchita-ismus" gesellschaftliche Gültigigkeit erfolgreich beanspruchen kann, dann erleben wir eine "fundamental transformation" Europas (Obamas Worte bezüglich der Amerikischen Gesellschaft), bzw., eine kulturelle Revolution im fundamentalen moralischen Grund des Lebensinnes hier in Europa. Wir werden einen mächtigen Schritt vorwärts nach Pansexualismus machen, was logischerweise bedeuten muß, daß Dual(hetereo)sexualismus nur den Wert einer willkürlichen Preferenzwahl besitzen darf. Sexuell wird das Individuumm zum Atom, dessen einziges Wesen darin besteht, das frei zu wählen, was er sein WILL.

Nun "korrekt": Wenn es um den jetztigen Papst und und Teile des Episkopates, usw. geht, besteht ohneweiteres eine Schiziophrenie bezüglich der Sexualität und anderer dogmatischen Aspekte des trationellen Katholilzismus. Mir Rücksicht auf den Papst habe ich nur eine vorläufige Vorstellung von seiner Orthodoxie. Louie Verrecchio of "Harvesting the Fruits of Vat 2) ist der Meinung, daß vieles, was der Papst sagt und tut, macht eine materielle Heresie aus. Vlelleicht!? Hier will ich keine feste Stellung dazu nehmen. ich bin 75 und muß leider sagen, daß ich kaum die heutige Kirche, dogmatisch, pastoral und liturgisch, verstehe. Dauern leide ich unter einm Skandalismus, der kaum erträglich ist. Wir brauchen von seiten der Kirche eine Untersuchung und Verurteilung des alles ansteckenden Postmodernismus, wie früher des Modernismus.

Der Artikel ist in vielen Hinsichten sehr einsichtsreich, nur ein Fehlerchen! Und das wäre? Die Redaktion hat den Wirrwarr der heutingen europäischen Identität als eine Art "Schiziophrenie" gekennzeichnet. Diese geistige Krankheit setzt die ursprüngliche Einheit des Betroffenen voraus. "Conchita" und "Papst Franziscus" sind nicht zwei europäische Erscheinungsformen von einer und derselben zugrundlegenden Identität, sondern sind die zwei sich völlig auseinanderschließenden Konhärenten von zwei grundverschiedenen Identitäten. Was wir hier haben, sind die Gegener, nolense/volens, eines toternsten Kulturkampfes, wo letzten Endes nur eine Identität siegen, sogar existieren wird. Es geht hier um die normatative Seele der europäischen Identität, die als Vorbild für die SeelEN aller Europäer. Tief, tief im Hintergrund stehen zwei Vorstellungungen vom dem Seelenheil. Europa kann mit Goethes Faust verkündigen: Ach, ich hab' zwei Seelen in meiner Brust. Das ist nicht Schizioprhenie, sondern ein epischer Kampf zwischen Gut und Böse.

Wer sind auf sexueller Ebene die zwei feindseeligen Gladiatoren? Pansexualismus vs Dualsexualismus.

Pansexualismus = alle Arten der Sexualität, egal was (sogar Sex mit Tieren), sind gültige Ausdrucksformen von menschlichen Sexualität und müssen gesellschaftlich akezptiert werden als normatativ! Das anthropologische Grundfundament besteht darin, daß die persönliche und psychologische Identität von jedem Individuum nichts, absolut nichts mit der biologischen Struktur bzw.dem Geschlecht eines Individuums zu tun hat. --->>> "Gender Mainstreming" als korretive Gesellschaftsmaßnahme. (Von diesem Standpunkt ist "Conchita" stellvertredend für eine pansexuelle Seelenidentität Europas.)

Dualsexualismus = die natürliche bzw. Natur entsprechende Struktur der menschlichen Sexualität besteht aus zwei verschiedenen, jedoch einanderergänzenden Geschlechtern, deren sexuelle Einigung die Fortsetzung der menschlichen Art ergänzend hervorbringt. Dualsexualität ist strukturell normativ fürs Uberleben der Spezies als Teil der Natur. Anthrologisch ist die psycholosche und biologische Identität als ergänzend eine struktuelle Voraussetzung für die Identität des Individuums und der Gesellschaft als Ganzheit.

Was ich oben geschrieben habe, ist höchst abgekürzt. Hoffentlich ist es mir so gelungen, daß es klar wird, daß Europa nicht an einer "Identitätsschiziophrenie leidet. Was im Gang ist, hat Ähnlichkeiten mit der feindseligen (und gelegentlich zum Tode führenden) Auseinandersetzung zwischen Polytheismus und Monotheismus im Römischen Reiches des 4ten Jahrhunderts. Am Ende existierte eine der beiden Alternativen nicht mehr. Entweder siegt und überlebt in der letzten Instanz "Conchita-ismus" oder "Papst Franziscus-ismus". Die Kontrhenten streiten um bloße Existenz. Das ist viel ernsthafter als kulturelle Schiziophrenie.

.

Part
4. Obama's Christianity: For 20+ years Obama attended the church of Jeremiah Wreight whose view of America is summed up as: "God damn America!" Wreight has fused Leftism with religion (called Christiantiy) and treats America as evil, to summarize mildy. Importance of Wreight: The Pastor's general condemnation of America strengthens Obama's negativity towards the West and willingness to excuse Islam. Wreight made it clear to Obama that becoming a Christian in no way was contradictory to his feelings for Islam. (Then as now, the US mainstream press simply ignores or hides problematic aspect of Obama.)

5. The best theory not only explains the positive deeds and words of someone, but also the deeds and words not said. In this context I would like to suggest Barry Rubin's last book Silent Revoluton. How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance (Broadside Books, 2014). Rubin explains the three phases of the Left in America; Ist Left = communist influenced, The New (2nd) Left = the influence of "cultural Marxism" in America (which caused me problems), although Rubin takes a different route in describing the history of this phase and The Third Left which Rubin considers to be already dominant. (In my opinion the Third Left is but the 2nd Left having marched through all levels of culture (Gramsci) and now dominant--America today is not the America I knew during and after WW II until sometime in the 60s). Rubin sees Obama as a cadre outgrowth of the cultural change, not as the changer himself. The insights are profound and revealing. Why the designation of Third Left?

There was in America a sort of dialectical liberal/conservative tension within the boundries of which politics took place, e.g., Kennedy/Nixon, Johnson/Goldwater, Clinton/Bush 1 and, on a personal level, Rubin/Wessell. If Obama were a part of this healthy tension, various words and deeds would have been realized by him, and they have not been done so! The cultural revolution in America has brought forth a cadre Third Leftist as the current president. The chapter alone on Obama as a cadre Third Leftist is worth the price of the book. Read that chapter and one will see why Rubin's ability to explain why Obama does not do certain deeds nor utter certain words is revealing of an extraordinary interpretation

6. Obama is in MY opinion pro-Islamic, though not pro-violence. Islam-ism presents no problem to him. It thereby become a necessity to suppress any connection between Islam-ism, viz., "Islamic" and violence. He cannot acknowledge that a violent group of Islamists, however much on the fringe, can be truely part of meaning of "Islamic", i.e., without throwing aside the rationale for his foreign policy since his Cairo speech (and, speuclating with D'souza's ideas, without betraying his father).

I do hope my suggestions and brief comments are helpful for anyone wishing a better insight into the enigma which is Obama.

Part 1
I have followed the words and deeds of Pope Francies treating them as "dots" to be connected into a coherent "outline". Tentatively I think I have a vague, but revealing outline. Applying this method to Obama is more problematic. I will suggest immediately below a few sources or comments on Obama that might aid the Gloria.tv's viewer who is seeking to understand Obama. The autor of the entry above is shocked that Obama refers to the "Islamic State" is "not Islamic". I would have been shocked if Obama had announced that he is going to war (which he has no constitutional right to declare, only the Congress) against the Islamic State. I am pleasantly pleased that he refers to the groups as "terrorists". But then I have spent time with the theme Obama and know some people who comprehend the matter excellently. I will list below some sources and make some comments for the interested reader.

1. Video: Dinesh D'sousa, 2016:Obama's America. D'souza has attempted to construct Obama's psychology in his arduous coming to terms with his brilliant Kenyian father. O's father was typical of a certain liberation anti-colonialism as the Europe gave up its colonies. What I mean is that the father wanted more than state autonomy. but claimed (in a way similar to Lenin) that the West is only richt on the exploitation of Africans. The view of the West is that of an evil and destructive force that is rich because of exploitation. D'souza concludes that Obama overcamp his identity problem absorbing his father condemnation of Western life as evil. (I note that some of Obama's relatives in Africa are militant Islamists.) This gives an inside into Obama basic orientation

2. As a youngster Obama attened in Indonenesi Muslim schools and apparent had a positive experience. I suggest that Obama has a "good feeling" about Islam.

3. Barry Rubin (recently deceased) of the Jerusalem Post and PG Media and author of 50+ books on the mideast noted that at least by 2010 Obama had decided that the theologically Islamic Muslim Brotherhood was not violent (which it was not at that time as it is now in Egypt) and is the proper partner for the new Middle East order. Obama has done everything possible to keep the MB in power in Egypt (where he is not popular at all since the revoluton against the MB). Add to this the refusal of Obama to back the 2009 revollution in Iran against the Mullahs. To this date, Obama has expressed confidence that the Mullah-gov. can be a trust worthy partner re atomic weapons. Again Obama select a distinctly Islamic gov. as his partner for the new order. (The US military estimates the about 1/3rd of the American deaths in Irak were due to Iranian armaments and Hamas receives more advanced rockets from Iran for firing at Israel.) Yet Obama finds the Mullahs within the category of "Islamic" -- One common thread is the apparent non-violence of the "Islamic" unit.

It seems that three equal principles determine the "open mindedness" of St. Paul's High School, namely: diversity, inclusivity and equality. But this is not so as the principles lead St. Paul's HS into "selective" open-mindedness and that is phoney and suggests a deeper value hidden away.

"Diversity" entails apparent behaviorial patterns that exclude each other, particularly in terms of traditional Catholic teaching. "Diversity" existes in the traditional Church under such norms as Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, lay people. The "inclusivity" of these differrent expressions of the ONE common Catholicism does not demand "exclusion" of any fundamental doctrinal or moral teaching. The "equality" of each form demands the exclusion of that which offends the fundamentally communal faith and morals. In this framework a female, active lesbian, multi-married and divorced, pro-abortion and pro-poyligamous Anglican Bishop is excluded from the inclusivity that defines (fines = limits) the boundaries of the diversity that is open to the mind of a responsiblely acting head of a Catholic school. I think that most readers would agree to the exclusion of a lesbian Anglican Bishop from Catholic inclusivity as an act of perfectly equal treatment, stemming from the love of truth, i.e., the lesbian Bishop has earned the equality established by truth--and that means the exclusion falsity due to loyalty to truth. TRUTH is above and determinat of the three principles.

St. Paul's administration has sought to exclude exclusivity from the principles of diversity, inclusivity and equality with the result that St. Paul's either excludes the student sharing the communality of orthodox Faith (and this contradictions the "open-mindedness" claimed) OR forces a student faithful to the truth of Catholic morality to celebrate the immorality (< truth judgment) of behavior deemed sinful. And that is more than an offense against the dignity of truth, but a sinful affront to a student because it leaves him/hert in a moral contradiction (and that is the mental sickness of multiple or "diverse" personalities). The orthodox student can not receive the equality owed to a believer of truth, rather has his highest principle, truth, EXCLUDED from the diversity, inclusivity and equality of his scholarly life at a Catholic school.

I can only save St. Paul's from the charge of hypocritical "selectivity" if I assume that a non-orthodox-truth has substituted in the opened (sic) minds of those responsible such that they have substituted a differebt turth for the "TRUTH" that Catholicism offers. In effect I may be charging those responsible either with hipocracy or heresy. That is diversity I would not like to be accused of.

Islam (<<-slm- >> = "Unterwerfung") ist nicht gewalttätig, auch nicht friedlich. Warum? Islam existiert nicht. Was existiert, sind Menschen, die sich nach bestimmten notae religiös verhalten. Das Sein von Islam (wie des Katholizismus) besteht aus den definierenden essentia. Ich folge hier Raymond Ibrahim, einem amerikanischen Kopten. Wenn man sich mit den Quellen (wie Luther mit dem Christentum zu tun versuchte), die aus der Gründerzeit der Religion von "Muslimen" stammen, beschäftigt, wird man bald einen Kern-Islam feststellen, wofür der Sinn von "Unterwerfen" ausschlagebend für die hermeneutische Interpretation ist. Diese Zeit der Kernquellen ist ziemlich kämpferisch im Sinne der Analysis oben. Ich neige dazu, Islam als das letzte Reichsdenken der Antike zu betrachten. Das Römische Reich mit römischen Gesetz findet eine morphologische Ähnlichkeit mit der muslimischen Ummah und Sharia. Auf diese Weise ist mir die Gewaltägigkeit nicht fremd. Die Romer konnten extrem gewalttätig drom, gleichsam eine Überlebensnotwendigkeit in der Antike. Die Verfolgung von Christen von den Römern entseht notwendigweise, weil der Monotheismus von Christen die polytheistiche Grundlage Roms bedroht. Und das gilt auch für Islams nominalistische Auffassung von Gott.)

Frage: Sind Protestanten Christen? Sind Katholiken Christen? Anwort" JA! Leider ist alles damit nicht gesagt worden. Es gibt de facto verschiedene Formen vom Christsein wie es verschiedene Formen im Islam (vgl.. Shia und Sunni) gibt. Eine vollständige Analyse braucht ausreichende Differizierung. Nicht alle Muslime, sogar in ihrem persönlichen Glauben, sind gewalttätig. Was ist es, daß das Gemeinsame unter den kriergerischen Muslimen typifiziert? Ibrahim behaupt, daß die Nähe am Kern-Islam von Mohammed, angenommen, daß er je existiert (was Robert Spenser, ein Malikite (?), mit prima facie Argumentation bestrreitet), der Ursprung für die Erneugerung kriegerischer Verhaltensweisen (gleichsam die Antike nochmal) ist. Laut der dt. Forscherin Rita Beuer gibt es überall in mehrheitlichen muslimischen Ländern Verfolgerung von Christen. Das ist plausible mit Kern-Islam.

Begrifflich braucht der Forscher genügende Kategorien, um eine differenzierte Untersuchung durchzuführen. Ganz kurz kann ich vorläufig behaupten, daß Kern-Islam den Kern des obligatorischen Unterwerfens findet. ISIS ist ja extrem, aber in dem breiten Spekturm von Islam eine plausible Form.

This article deserves serious discussion. if time permits I will briefly indicate in a further comment a different method, i.e., gathering the Pope's deeds and words and then (here is where the method would differ) pasting them together (no camparison with previous Popes) in order to derive an outline of Pp Francis' probable theology. In the light of my pitiful attempt at this method I think it possible to explain that the comparative picture of the Pope is a function of the Pope's own theology. At the moment, I do, and with fear and trembling, accept the thesis to which Miles Christi leads his reader, i.e., having compared deeds and words of Pp Francis, one must conclude that they are at an essential variance with the traditional teachings as exemplified and previous popes and pre-Vat 2 theologians (e.g., St. Thomas or my favorite St. Anselm). Abstractly expressed: the thought/deed-world of Francis, called B, is logically incompatible with the thought/deed-world of pre-Vat 2, called A. In other words, A and B cannot be elements of the set called S (Same coherent lex orandi <-> lex credendi). The opposition between A and B is so essentially at variance that if A is true, B must be false and, of course, the reverse is true.

I see at least three ways of reacting to the A vs B antinomy:

1. Assuming the truth of A, then the bearer of B cannot be a true element of A, viz., a true Pope. Therefore (Pope) Francis is not a true and valid pope, i.e., he is an usurper. This option leaves the Seat of Peter as not presently occupied.
2. The papal bearer of B, Francis, has, indeed, been validly elected and is formally therefore a true and valid Pope and is as such the recipient of the guarantee given Catholicsm of continuity of doctrine, etc. This includes even Pope Francis. Since the bearer of B is in a formally heretical relation to A, then the Church's claim has been falsified. Church doctrine is no longer coherently consistent. A valid Pope would, of course, then be formally a heretic. This would mean that the Catholic Church of tradtion is false, i.e., not really the "cliff in the storm" (an image used in the Baroque period), just sand moved about by the storm of modernity.
3. One can follow Louie Verrecchio of the website Harvesting the Fruits of Vat 2 and claim that Pope Francis is materially heretical, not formally so. Verrecchio supports his thesis by arguing that the Pope has made no formally binding pronouncements. Comments to an atheistic journalist or the a Jesuit journal or in an airplane or even in a homily are not formal declarations, though materially heretical. This allows Verrecchio free of the necessity of declaring the the Seat of Peter is de facto empty or that the Catholic Church has been falsified. Verrecchio treats Pope Francis as materially errant, but not formally. This permits him to avoid alternative 1. and 2.

Perhaps the reader can suggest other possiblities. The ones noted above are, I think, plausible reactions to Pope Francis. That leaves me in fear and trembling.

One can argue plausibly, @Temperance, that Hitler had to go to war (1939) early (= his military was not sufficiently built up) and hence recklessly (despite the early victories << brilliant new strategy of German generals vs. WW I thinking of French generals) because he financed all with deficits, to be paid for by conquered lands or face the collapse of his government. That early start was militarily "reckless", it was "insanity" to continue the war after Stalingrad and/or Kursk plus the landing of the Allies in the West on June 6, 1944. But, Hitler did continue on. (As example of what that meant, during the 9 months after the Stauffenberg attempt on Hitler's life, July 20, 1944, more Germans, military and civilian, lost their lives than in all the previous years since 1939.) So being "crazy" and starting a massive war or continuing it to total destruction when defeat is obvious, these two predicates are not contradictory. Alas! I would suggest that it would be foolish to rule out a North Korean attack, having only the South as an enemy. It may be "crazy", but North Korea is avicious dictatorship in the grips of extreme poverty. And that can make war sound quite rational, even for "crazies", particularly if they worry about losing power.

@thelastconvert: My suspicion re Putin (who does do things in Russia that I find morally praiseworthy) is that he is covering up the miserable economic situation in Russia (I have made more than 15 trips there since 1993 and lived in a Stalin-style apartment) and constitutes at times a bothersome dictatorship. There is no free press in Russia, just a well-tuned propaganda machine. The Crimea, 1787 conquered by Potemkin, had been Russian longer than the USA has existed as a nation. It was never Ukrainian! Indeed, consult maps for the Ukrain and you will find none for 1000 years, only as a part of kingdom with Poland or with Lithuania or swallowed up by other powers. Never was the Crimea Urkainian. In 1844-46 the Empire of Russia lost some 500,000 citizens defending the Crimea against Turkey, England and France. So, I have sympathy for the Russians (and have suspicion of Putin's propagandistic use of them). With the fall of the USSR a treaty did give the Crimea to the Ukraine. Putin's taking it back is historically comprehensible, though treaty-wise unlawful.

Why is the Ukraine, partciularly the Eastern part so important? Oil!!! With the help of American firms oil-fracking in the east and west of the Ukraine was being planned. Putin holds power over West Europe because of oil and gas supplies. Let the West have other and cheaper sources of carbon energy and the dictatorship of Putin will collapse as oil prices decline. My tentative view of Putin is that he is fighting for the retention of power! More is involved, but retention of power is primary. There are other conflicts less evident. Western Ukrainians hold to the Church, Eastern more to Russian Orthodoxy -- one might remember that the Urkrainians (actually Western ones) welcomed the Wehrmacht in WW II as liberators and would have fought with the Germans, except that Hitler applied his vicious race-theory. Jews were No. 1 on the list of inferior "races", the Slaves were in place No. 2.My point is that there is, insofar as religion plays a role, tension between Western Catholic oriented and Eastern Orthodox oriented citizens. This tension favors a division of territory, perhaps. But it is there. Russia, by the way, recognizes 4 denominational Churches as "Russian", excluding Catholicism. This too has tensional reflection in the Urkain.

I apologize for my "essay". But the theme is "Gloria.TV NEWS and, well, I have been newsy. The spreading of Christianity in Western Europe would have been difficult without the Pax Romana, and that was a military empire. St. Paul would have had difficulties traveling about during the dissolving Roman Empire in the 4th or 5th Centuries or before Emperor Augustus. Since WW II a nation called America, until attacked by Japan in 1941, was given to isolationism and avoiding wars in Europe (WW I participation augmented American isolationism -- even after the rape of Nanking [minimally 200,000+ Chinese were butchered by Japanese soldiers] American voters showed a 70% disinclination to go to war). After WW II America and America alone blocked the conquest of Western Europe by the USSR and, alas, insufficiently in Asia, including Korea. This responsibly by default has altered American attitude to its effective satellites to be defended. I do not think it farfetched to speak of a Pax Americana. I find it fully legitimate to critize materially this or that policy of America--and Americans do that continually. What I cannot accept is a formal deprecation of America because of its hegemony, viz., pax. Whenever I have the impression that the criticism, despite appearing material, is really formal, I react energetically. Right or wrong, more than 56,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam (only a technicality kept me out of the war). No European nation has had such losses since WW II. It is no fun being the hegemon.

Final thought, one thrown about today in America: Background to a question: Obama has been slowly disengaging America from it hegemony (the American military will be reduced to no more soliders than before WW II and Obama is reluctant to engage ISIS to its destruction). Compare today's international secuirty with that at the end of Bush 2's presidency six years ago. Is the stability for peace (and justice) in the world of today better, the same or crumpling as the pax American recedes?

Just a point of information: The Korean War is not ended, it extends up to NOW! What? What was arrived at between the main combatants, US vs NK, was a semi-permanent truce holding to this day. The war is not over and that has implications. There are legal refinements here, but the truce aspect catches the meaning. Let the US military disappear from Korea and ONE partner of the truce is no longer there. That means that the truce would no longer be valid. North Korean in the past and now maintains to be THE one government of the ONE Korea. Let the Americans pull out, and Fr Park will soon see the South in a war with the North or, in the event of a defeat, exterminated in a North Korean prison. The So. Korean gov. is not fully independent in the matter (did not exist during the military altercations and came to be under the protection of America) as the truce is between the US and N. Korea. Weaken the deterrent power of the American military and the South is on its own, like the Czecks in 1938.

The Americans army lost some 36,000 soliders--dead, plus many times the number of wounded. The American army was, until recently was stationed between Seoul and the boarder to N. Korea. Why? The North Koreans could not attack and conquer the capital without overrunning the American Army. There was and is not doubt that the North Koreans could do it. Then why the American stationed in an exposed position? If North Korean forces run over the American Army, America is guaranteed to enter the war -- and that the North Koreans (you know, North Korea, one of the leading perseuctors of Christians) know. America has allowed itself to be used by the South for its protection. The American army, now much reduced in size, still has the same function. Let the North attack the South, and the South has the guarantee that America will be pulled into THEIR war of self-defense. There would be today no Fr. Parks in the ONE Korea under North Korean communist rule. The So. Koreans are, unlike Fr. Park, anti-communistic. If the Father does not hold to the law of the land, he as a citizen should be prosecuted and to the full. I, as an American who remembers the war and evaluations thereof in truely Catholic schools in the US, am insulted by the direct or indicrect support of the Communism of the North by a so-called Catholic priest. Based upon the limited news communicated by Gloria.tv, I can only express my unfriendly criticism of another "Catholic " betrayal -- and there are many of many kinds as Gloria.tv reports every day.

"The Church must make everyone feel at home," so the words of the onsignor in the spirit of Pp Francis. O.k., let us test the welcome mat. The head of Auschwitz, 1944, after having overseen the murder of thousands of Jews, had Dr. Mengle realize terrible medical experientments on children (many dying in horrible pain), and shot for random fun this or that prisioner feels lonesome and needs company. In this imaginary world, the Nazi MASS murderer takes a walk and goes to the home (at the back of the church) of Monsignor Galantino and Fr. Galantino welcomes him in, shares a fine dinner, great conversational talks, sharing of friendly secrets and, then, as final act of welcoming Fr. Galantino holds a special Mass celebrating the promotion of our Nazi Commander.

It this what the Italian Conference means by "making everyone feel at home?" Certainly the Commander is a person and is as such a member of the class "everyone" and the Italian Conference had justifed its welcoming re-integragion of "unconventional couples" as an application of a universal principle. By logical extention our Nazi murderer should be welcomed and should feel no "discrimmination". Heck, why should an ISIS fighter, having just behead a baby in name of God, be smeared with "discrimination". Should not the Italian Church invited "EVERYONE" with a big welchome?.The answer is an unequivocal NO! In no way would Fr. Galantino invite in, wine and dine, not discriminate against such person. (Or at least I hope so.!

If my analysis is correct, then it is clear that the welcoming of "unconventional couples" (which should by logical extension include the "unconventional coupling" called "homosexual marriage") as an application of a general or an unversal princple is NOT the real reason for Fr. Galantino's or the Conference's recommendations. The good Fatrher is an intellectual fraud. A universal princple allows of no exceptions. Fr. Galantino formulated his "welcoming" thesis as a universal principle. A ISIS beheader of infants belongs to the category of "everyone". Logically, Fr. Galantino and the Itialian Conference should make the beheader feel welcome. But they all would not do so because beheading a a sin. This means that the fraud Fr. Galatino, viz., fraudulent Italian Conference want, desire, persue "unconvential couples" to be welcome and the wanting is not based upon a universal principle. On the contrary, it derives from a change of concrete doctrinal belief. Only, the Father and his Italian Conference are intellectual frauds and will not admit the truth, rather hid behind a nice sounding general principle.

@Gregory, I do not know what you are talking about. I know of no wide-spread Christian use of mititary violence either to advance Christianity or to restrict other religions. Islamists have not only mistreated Christians, but Hindus, homosexuals, women and I can go on. I do not see that in Christianity. I see nominal Christians, really fallen away (and in Germany because of the taxing of Christians for their church the fallen away "renounce" Christianity), who have doubtful claim to the term, even admit it. The Christian Crusaders of the Middle Ages, at least some of them, did go to war for Christ and received in advance absolution. And with good reason as followers of Islam, having conquered with the sword the homeland of Christianity, were preventing pilgrimages to Jerusalem (and generally enslaving the female part of the pilgrims, the male part eliminated). Christians in Lebanon last century too fought as Christians. So it seems to me that the use of violence, military or otherwise, is a part of "true" religion. You, alas, simply refuse to accept the stated words of ISIS or the Saudis or the whatever you call those in Nigeria who kidnap girls or the Muslim Brotherhood (and it close connection to Nazism) or Hamas (with its desire to eliminate all Jews from this world). God is almighty. Allah is almighty. God loved the world. Allah communicate orders to the world. This is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam (I have not written ChristianS and Muslims per se). Prof. Bostom has traced the lethal anti-Jewism of Islam since Mohammed (who killed at one point 700 Jews of a tribe because they refused Islam--and took their women for, well, you know what for) to this very day. Bostom has shown the anti-Semmitic foundation in Islam's scriptual texts and has traced the historical developent of an often lethal anti-Semitism in "core" Islam. This does not mean that all Muslims follow core Islam or even know it that well. But the Imams of Iran do!!!

Conclusion: I admire the high standards that you use for "true" religion. But "'true' religion" is only one type of religion among untold numbers of religions. Not being "true", does not make a religion less a religion, i.e., from a theoretical standpoint. It must be understood in the terms of "religious studies" and theories developed to explain the data. You mention the "darkness that surounds ISIS as a religion". Your choice of the term "darkness" is excellent. At the same time, however, you just admitted that ISIS is a religion. That is the gist of what I claim. QED.

If you have time I suggest reading Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death. No book of a psychological nature have had more influence on me and perhaps could throw some light on the "darkness" in ISIS (and in a way in all of us, for there go I except for the grace of God).

@VRS, thank you for your response. In reality I have been reacting to you and to @Gregory. My The Random House Thesaurus, College Edition lists "evolution" as a synonym of "development". So your oppositional interpretation is wrong. You seem to be taking the term "evolution" from biological theory. Perhaps! I saw last night on German tv an examination of animal types on islands thousands of years separated from the mainland. It turns out that the very same species as those on the mainland do evolve features peculiar to their environment without at the same time changing their "core", i.e., they just developed certain modifications. So even in biological theories of evolution "evolution" does not just mean transformation of the "core".

You seek to defend you position re the violent conversion of the Saxons by the Franks with papal approval. (There was much more than violence. The Frankish monks truely did realized an internal conversion in the Saxsons and thereby augmented the number of Chrisitians. And Charles did renovate Europe in many ways. (After Vat II, we have a general dimunition of Christians in all of Europe and much of Latin America and heavily in the US [check out Michael Voris, "ChurchMiltants" for the appropiate lectures on the decline and fall [almost] of Cahtolicism in America, a decline inspired by Vat II and, in most cases ending with Catholics welcoming of abortion, homosexuality, remarriage and the HHS Mandate of Obama. How is that for slaughter of innocents]). Your defense is that it was the Pope and not Christ who approved. That is fine, I agree. Alas, it is a dodge, viz, a perfect vicious circle fending off any counter argumentation. I am not aware that Christ continuall googles message to this word re problems, e.g., stem-sell research. Your defense reminds me of a brilliant young Catholic Spanard who boldly asserted that no Catholic prelate has ever done a vile deed, because at the moment of the deed, he is not Catholic. Such a position makes impossible a rational understanding of Catholicism and it developmental evolution as a religion. If any barbarity or simply sinful act by the Pope is to be rejected per se because such an act, in your opinion, has not been expressed explicitly (or do you mean just implicitly) by Jesus the Christ, it would seem to me that you have quite inadvertenly taken a Protestant position of individual judgment over the Church. You have also made argument-and-counter-argument impossble.

@VRS, I must bring this all to a conclusion, alas my age can tire me out. I, and with great sorrow, find it impossible to dialogue with you because we have no common vocabulary. Remember that my reaction originally was to @Gregory and his contention that a "true" Muslim would not commit horrendous deeds. Since @Gregory seemed to me to associate "true" with religion per se, I found myself, from my "scientific" or "theorizing" point of view, in non-agreement. From this disagreement I have focused upon "religious studies" and its formal object, namely any actions felt to be religious. From that point of view, I find any use of "dignity" to be of a moral and not of a theoretical nature. At some point you entered the double faceted thrust of my thought. Below you have give a definition of religion proper to an evaluative Catholic point of view. I do not oppose your efforts here, just your vocabulary. I need a wider semantic use of "religion" in order to discuss with @Gregory his judgment about the islamic genuiness or not of act of ISIS. I believe that from within your vocabulary only the "one and true" view of the relationship between God and man counts as religion. You may restrict the term at your choice and it is valid. Only your restriction makes it impossible for me to theorize rationally with you on religion per se, a necessary factor in any discussion with @Gregory. I would suggest that our differences simply cannot enter into dialogue as we have no shared vocabularry. I will only have the narcisstic joy of triumphing with my thesaurus. Let there be peace God's peace between us.

@Gregory, you state that "no true Christian or Muslim" can accept the horrors of ISIS and you base this upon your understanding of the "dignity of religion". As I mentioned below to @VRS, the formal object of religious studies constitutes actions and beliefs carried out by religiously acting people. If you want a rational theory of "religion", you must start with the data and not exclude certain sacrifical horrors from religion. If you define a "true" Muslim as being "true" only insofar as he rejects allahu akkbar behavior, then you have defeated any counter argumentation with your perfectl vicious circle. Just this month the Saudi Muslims have chopped of a couple of dozen heads for religious reasons. Are the Saudis not "true" Muslims? When Saladin had the heads cut off of Johanniter knights and later those of the crusader army from Jerusalem, was Salidin not acting as a Muslim? I appreciate your moral sensitivity as to what should constitute a "true" believer, be he Christian or Muslim (or, perhaps, an Aztec or Inka?). But, with your use of the term "true" you have slipped into the rational analysis a cognitive judgment about the de facto acts of self-proclaiming Muslims who, purposely to the glory of Allah, realize so-called "horrible" deeds, horrible in you eyes and mine, but not in theirs. A rational study of religion per se does not allow the insertion of moral evaluations into the data of research. I have suggested the names of scholars who have examined Islam and concluded that Islam (as a codified range of beliefs and moral imperatives surounding "submission/subjugation") does permit and, indeed, encourage "jihad", not only of internal subjugation of the self to Allah, but the external subjugation of the non-Muslim world to Allah's sharia. What is islamically good or bad is a function of following Allah's commands. Or do you wish to disqualify the scholars I mentioned because they do not share your view of what a "true" Muslim must believe. A morally fine position, although scientifically useless.

"Death" (even painful and terrible), inflicting or receiving it, does play a wide role in religion. The Inkas and Aztecs are examples no less "horrible" than ISIS, yet "truely" religious in nature. The gods had demaned human sacrifice! Please do consider that Christianity affirms the role of "killing" in the very sacrificial act of Jesus the Christ, a horrendously painful killing that reconciles man with God. I have met some Muslims who find such an act as a profound insult to the, yes, dignity of Allah.The Divine being powerless to inflicted death is simply blasphemy for a "true" Muslim. Or, at least that is my opinion, obviously being one of those people that are "ignorant". What say you?

@VRS, religions do evolve, including Catholicism. Please consult Cardinal Newman's famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). Development per se does not mean "fundamental transformation". It can mean drawing out insights from previous insights based upon the deposit of faith. And such drawing out is a process of evolving. For instance, a theology of Mary as the Mother of God could not develop, viz., evolve until it was dogmatically ascertained that Jesus is God (Second Person incarnate). Arian Christians did not accept this. If Jesus is the location, like a boat with two captains, of a human soul and divine reality, then Mary cannot be the mother of God, only of the body of Jesus. Try reading Newman as the Cardinal details the principles of a valid evolution or development of doctrine.

Islam too has evolved and developed. Like Christianity (e.g., Catholicism and Protestantism) a large divide has evolved between Shia and Sunni. And it seems that such a divide can lead to violent conflict, just as it did for Christians in the 30-Years War in Europe (though that war included more than religious factors). Indeed, one reason some Muslims' kill other Muslims² or some others³, etc., is that clamants for the original deposit have evolved positions that exclude each other to such a degree that only forceful repression can save the day. If you do not think that Catholicism has ever used repressoin, including lethal suppression, in the course of its history, you need to study history. Just consider how the "Christian" Franks under Charlesmagne converted the pagan Saxons at the point of a sword (with the possible loss of a Saxon head) and you will have all the violence you need. It is to be noted that Frankish monks did enter into the conquered Saxons and with patient charity realized a conversion of the heart. But the baptism itself was under the threat of death. Yet more, Charles was backed by the Pope of that time. Islam is full of bloody conflicts, internal and external. What does this mean for an analysis of religion per se?

All acts of any type that are to be subsumed under religious behavior constitute the formal object of "religious study", a science focused upon the formal object, and not a moral system.

@VRS, the study of religion is the study of behavior carried by people who consider it to be religious. In a discipline such as "religous studies" the concept of "the dignity of religion" cannot be used to exclude from the study any religious behavior one might wish to judge as not worthy of dignity. The scientific "knowledge of religion" is amoral, i.e., is concerned with what happens religiously and with a theory to explain these happenings, not with their dignity. Judgments of dignity derive from moral principles and morality is a different area of study. What might be considered an act not worthy of "true" religion is the product of moral reflection, and is at such valid. However, such a moral(izing) judgment has nothing to do with "religion" per se and all its manifestations. This conceptual error underlies, I hold, the opinions uttered by @Gregory.

News Flash, News Flash, Sheikh Muhammed Munjaid, a Saudi cleric of importance, former diplomant to the US, has claimed that, according to Islamic law "Mickey Mouse should be killed!". Yes, the Disney cartoon figure, Mickey Mouse is so upsetting to a fundamental believer in Islam that, however one might do it, Mickey Mouse must be killed (perhaps by a mouse-trap?) You can read Michael Ledeen, "Save Mickey from the Terrorists", PJ Media, August 24, 12:18 PM. Rediculous? No! It certainly sounds silly that a Muslim should kill Mickey Mouse, especially because the cartoon figure is not real. But Disney and its workers are very real! To kill Mickey Mouse, as long as he is popular in the market, can only mean to terminate the creators, producers and distributors of the infidel Mickey Mouse (and do think of the Danish Mohammed cartons). Am I being extreme? Perhaps the Sheikh, certainly exuding the "peace that is Islam", is only joking? Or is the joke on those who find Islam to be a religion of peace? Cardinal Pietro Parolin and fans, please think about the fact that a religious Muslim cleric could find Mickey Mouse cartoons to be so objectionable to Islam that the silly view that Mickey Mouse should be killed could even be held as respectable. Think also that any real attempt to kill Mickey, means taking out the real people who create Mickey. Or is Saudi Islam not real Islam? If so, just where can one find "real" Islam?

A note or two more on Islam (with some reference to the position of Gregory below). Raymond Ibrahim has printed An Al-Qaeda Reader in which Ibrahim (mother language is Arabic and he possesses academic titles on Islam) has translated the writings of bin Laden and others of his group. Ibrahim goes on to show that the theses of those of Al-Quaeda can be and are substantiated by reference to the Koran, Hadiths or other standard Islam texts. The destruction of the Twin Towers was an act fully in accord with permissible islamic behavior. @Gregory or the Cardinal may not think that ISIS is "islamic". Alas, IS fighters think they are true followers of Islam,and they can cite scripture. Turn to Memri tv or Palestine Watch and you will find clip after clip of statements by believing Muslims that should give a non-Muslim qualms. I note that there are some fine thinking Muslims that resist the impetus of "core" Islam, but that means re-interpretaton and, to misquote Obama, a "fundamental transformation" of core Islam (= codified cogntive and behavioral features as paradigmatically obligatory).

According to Rita Beuer, a German researcher, in her book Im Namen Allahs. Christiliche Verfolgung (In the Name of Allah. Chritian Persecution) there is not one single Muslim majority nation in this world where Christians are not persecuted to one degree or another. Beuer shrinks back from considering the relation between the verbal acts of Muslims and the essential nature of Islam. A wise thing here and Germany as the political culture here sticks its head in the blessed sand of igorance and can arrest (it has been done so) critics of Islam.

Finally, an ISIS fighter (or whoever is the klling Muslim is) cries out Allahlu akkbar, usually translated as "God is greater or greatest". A ex-Muslim friend of mine translates it as "Allah is (the) greatest". The question arises as to what make Allah "great". Loving the world so much that He sacrifices his own Son? No!!!!!!!!!!!! "Greatness" refers to the power of Allah, not to God's "love". Beuer was wrong with the title of persecution "in the Name of Allah". No, persecution, including subjugating by terror, is the allahu akkbar power over life and is as such a direct manifestation of the power of Allah, who is not subject to any essential note that limits his power. The ISIS killers or any other "core" Muslim is subjugating,by force or terror, the infidel in accord with the paradigmatic examplary, the aboslute power of Allah. And power over death, indeed, inflicting a humiliating death, is a divine power cut off from the essential note of love. (It was the quoting of the last (?) emperor of Byzantium about the negative nature of Islam that got Pope Benedict into such trouble in Regensburg that the Church began kowtowing, excusing itself, in short, realized an islamic act of submission to Islam.) The ISIS fighter, like the Al-Qaeda fighter, like Saladin is glorifying Ahha by inflicting the humiliation of death or dying for it. Death, not love (of life), defines a fundamental islamic orientation.

In essence, with its cult of death, Islam (not every Muslim) is nihilistic, essentially the same as other nihilisms. In this regard, if one can read French, see Anna Gaifman, La Mort sera votre Dieu. Du nihilisme russe au terrorisme islamiste. Geifman, beginning life as a fully secularized Jew, was born in Russia (which has suffered so from nihilism, starting in the 19th Century and culminating in the Bolshevik revolution) and is a Jew, now living in Israel and, having regained her faith, is confronted by the anti-Semetic nihilism of islamic Hamas (which wants to kill all Jews, not just Israelis). She is uniquely qualified to write about Islamic nihilism, viz., cult of death. She has published a book in English, the title escapes me now.

P.S. For what it is worth, I am now writing the first draft of a study on the Marxist/Leninist doctrine of force, violence and terror. It does not take much to transfer my knowledge of Marxism to the nihilism now facing such a gentle and really sweet woman, but a Jew, Prof. Gaifman. If Cardinal Parolin or Gregory (whom I see as a victim of the obfuscating theses of that Prelate) or any other defender of Islam as "a religion of peace" finds my analysis to be false, please list your sources so that I am persue them. At least, may there be peace between us and let us keep are heads on!

Thoughts on Islam and Christianity:The VAST majority of Catholics refuse (or at least decline) to renounce sex (carried out in marriage), to have no children, to cloister themselves in a monastery, to hold to silence as the Trappists do or to sacrifice one's whole of life to serving (includes making Christ's mercey known) the poor, the disadvantaged, the wayward, the "bums" of society, etc. Some, a small minority of Catholics, do realize what the vast majority does not do. Yet, both the majority and minority ARE Catholics because they assoicate religiously together in certain ways (deeds and beliefs). If a Catholic eats alot (as it appears that a certain Pope does), drinks heavily (but not immorally), spends a life having fun and games (but remaining in moral bounds), said person is a Catholic, but extremely different from a Trappist monk. What is theoretically taking place? "ACTING" religiously in certain ways is grammatically "verbal" and the "ways" are adverbal. When we talk of "Catholicism" we have taken up the adverbal "ways of acting" and examined then nominally for their typifying features. We then take such features to be the essential notes of "Catholicism". But "Catholicism" itself does NOT exist. What exists are the activities of religiously associating people according to certain ways and beliefs. Much of the problems traditional Catholics have with Pope Francis is that he often appears not to be acting and speaking in accord with the "ways and beliefs" previously accepted as the constitutive, viz., essential features of WHAT it is that ontologically constitutes the defining notes of a Catholic's Catholicism. Catholics are not the same "thing" as Catholicism. What does this have to do with Catholicism and Islam? What I have said about Catholics can also be said about Muslims. Let me initiate, and no more, an explanation.

Certainly some Muslims help Christians and some Muslims murder them. Indeed some Muslims are killed by Muslims. Note that Islam, like Catholicism, does not act because it does not exist, believers exist and do act. To judge Catholicism and Islam is not to compare specific acts, rather to judge if the acts fall within the religious "-ism" concerned. The killing of some Muslims by other Muslims does fall under the ontological "essence" of Islam. (Let us not forget that "good" Catholics and "good" Protestants got into a hell of a war of mutual slaughtering call "The 30 Years War" [1618-1648]). Christians do on occasion kill Christians. In order to judge why, "Christianity" must be examined as an essential reality. To understand the behavior of Muslims (and it varies enormously) it is wise to examine "core" beliefs. Remember that "-slm" in Islam is usually translated as "submission/subjugation". A typifying "way of acting" for a Muslim (presuming s/he knows the "faith" is one of submission to Allah so as to subjugate the world to Ahhal producing the societal Umma ruled by the sharia. Ideally Christianity menas for its acting believer to act according to love, not according to subjugation. This is a radically fundamental difference!!! In this short space, I cannot begin to dissect the falsity of Cardinal Parolin's logic. I can only say that he has with his thesis endangered the well-being, indeed, the life of Christians, Yazidis, some Muslims, particulary Jews, homosexuals and many other "infidels".

I suggest that one read the following: Raymond Ibrahim (a Copt), Crucified Again (discussed are the repeated persecutions of Christian in accord with Islamic belief through out the entire history of Islam), Robert Spencer (a Malakite [?] Christian, A Religion of Peace. Why Christianity is and Islam is not, also his popular introduction A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (Spencer has written a dozen books on Islam), and Andrew Bostom (an erudite Jew), Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism. From Sacred Text to Solemn History. (Spencer has debated many, many, many times Muslims and non-Muslim defenders of Islam or excuse makers for Islam--all of whom repeat the false logic of the Cardinal). J'accuse the Cardinal of endangering the very life of Christians, and other infidels (includes "heretic" Muslims) by the omission of supplying information about Islam and excusing in a egregiously falsifying manner the problematic of the centuries long Islamic persecution of Christians and others and vile anti-Jewish core of Islam, ever since Mohammed destroyed without mercy Jewish tribes (stole their women for, well, sex slavery). ISIS acts according to the Scriptures and exists because my president, Pres. Obama, has consistently refused to acknowledge the problematicism of Islam, to the point of forbidding the FBI in its training manuals to mention islamic problems. Indeed, Spencer used to lecture to FBI trainees, no more as his views were forbidden my B. Hussein O.

Pardon this long comment. Relative to the matter much more space is needed. I do ask that the reader at least glance at the books mentioned, a tiny fraction of information available, yes, for the excuse making Cardinal. The prelate has objectively committed an act of ommision.