'Annihilate Islam' Church sign pits two cathloic priests' opinions against each other

Church Sign displayed reads " Annihilate Islam "

Midland Texas-St Michael's chapel's Michael Banschbach explains his rationel for posting such a vulgur comment on his church's board:

Islam is a false religion. It cannot offer eternal life.

Although he claims he is not advocating violence against Muslims, he does say the sign "references a historical battle that pitted European Christians agains Islamic invaders". Battle of Lepanto? Significance?

Then we get a more rational approach from Father James Bridges of St. Stephens catholic church in response. When asked if the sign was appropriate he replied:

Oh, no, definately not. Nor would the mother of Jesus want us to annhilate anybody except satan himself, perhaps...of course we know..the people who live around us who are Muslim are very wonderful people and they're a very peaceful people.

Again, two extremely conflicting views, both "christian". What are your thoughts about the trend towards more right leaning churches? Have they distorted what you would call tolerant christians? Why is it padres likeJames Bridge seem so cool and the other guy just comes off like of dork?

www.liveleak.com...

ColoradoJens

The Battle of Lepanto:
Source -Wikipedia

The five-hour battle was fought at the northern edge of the Gulf of Patras, off western Greece, where the Ottoman forces sailing westwards from their naval station in Lepanto met the Holy League forces, which had come from Messina.[2] Victory gave the Holy League temporary control over the Mediterranean, protected Rome from invasion, and prevented the Ottomans from advancing into Europe. This last major naval battle fought solely between rowing vessels was one of history's most decisive, inasmuch as "after Lepanto the pendulum swung back the other way and the wealth began to flow from East to West, a pattern that continues to this day", as well "as a 'crucial turning point in the ongoing conflict between the Middle East and Europe, which has not yet completely been resolved.".[3]

I should have known this. I remember a good special on the History channel focusing on the "last major naval battle fought solely between rowing vessels" - and voila. Thanks ATS.

ColoradoJens

Hi CJ

The Pharisees had the Word of God, but their attitudes, sayings and teaching distorted it to such a degree Christ called them a 'brood of vipers'. It happens today; (Westboro Baptist & purveyors of the 'prosperity Gospel' ("believe and get rich & healthy"), etc., are obvious examples, but there are plenty of others).

Although I'm not a RC myself, James Bridges has said what most who truly follow Christ would say, (bar the comments about Mary, as non-RCs would focus on what Christ's attitude would be).

Any suggestion that those who truly follow Christ would engage in violence to destroy another religion is simply preposterous: it is the very opposite of Christ's way.

"My kingdom is not of this world," said Jesus. "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I wouldn't be handed over to the Jews. As it is, my kingdom does not have its origin here."

Gospel of John 18:36

I started a discussion of Western attitudes to Muslims here:
Why Muslims should be treated with more respect

While a number of contributors were unhappy about what some members of the Muslim community were doing/saying, it is certain that none of the posters who are practicing Christians would have advocated violence as a response!

Unfortunately it is far-out and hot-headed extremists - who are unrepresentative - who hit the headlines. And in this particular case it is clear that the act of posting these twisted comments was deliberately designed to stir trouble, which is the very opposite of Christian teaching.

Pursue peace with everyone

Hebrews 12:14a

Reply to Pause4thought

Thank you for those words! My sentiments exactly. I beleive that most people are more like the 2nd priest in religion - their ideas do not involve hate. The problem is that we now have 80million evangellicals who are trying to shout louder in the name of the lord and many want to tell me how to live my life and who to love and hate. Their voice is growing, and tolerance is shrinking. Thanks again, good thoughts.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Many thanks for raising this issue & for the level-headed response.

I find statements such as the one forming the basis of this thread embarrassing, frankly. The thing is I would come under the label of 'evangelical' insofar as I believe Christ's message and accept the Bible as inspired by God himself. Although 'evangel' is just Greek for Good News/Gospel it sounds foreign and odd to me, so I just call myself a Christian (or someone who follows Christ's teaching).

I'm on your wavelength when it comes to much of what passes for the evangelical movement, actually. I suspect what has happened in recent times is that the American fundamentalist movement and 'the Christian right' have largely become synonymous with 'evangelicals' in the minds of many - and there is indeed a large crossover, particularly in the States, I believe. Unfortunately it is the most vociferous and extreme protagonists of these movements that come to typify these streams in the minds of many. Yet I know/am acquainted with thousands of people who believe as I do yet who also cringe, as I do, when they see/hear money-oriented televangelists and political activists who supposedly represent them.

The truth is, "Christians" are not a homogenous group; in reality most of those who are sincere disciples are down-to-earth ordinary people trying to apply what Christ called 'the 2 greatest commandments' to their lives: Love the Lord your God & Love your Neighbour as yourself.

If there are those who claim to be Christian but whose words/deeds are typified by hate, they are what Christ called the 'tares' - weed-like church-goers who misrepresent his disciples. The 'wheat', as he called them, are your average Joes who follow Christ in sincerity & have no interest in material gain or 'holier-than-thou' pontifications which are based on twisting the Bible's plain teaching, summed up in those 2 great overriding principles.

I hope I've been able to contribute something that makes it a just little clearer that many who are given these labels actually shake their heads in shame when they hear such intolerant, provocative pronouncements, which are not Christian at all.

reply to post by pause4thought

I find statements such as the one forming the basis of this thread embarrassing, frankly. The thing is I would come under the label of 'evangelical' insofar as I believe Christ's message and accept the Bible as inspired by God himself. Although 'evangel' is just Greek for Good News/Gospel it sounds foreign and odd to me, so I just call myself a Christian (or someone who follows Christ's teaching).

Wiki-

Evangelicalism is a theological movement, tradition, and system of beliefs, most closely associated with Protestant Christianity, which identifies with the Gospel. Although evangelicalism has been defined in a number of ways,[1] most adherents consider belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again"), some expression of the gospel through evangelism, a high regard for Biblical authority, and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus to be key characteristics.[2]

Evangelism is the Christian practice of proselytisation. The intention of most evangelism is to effect eternal salvation to those who do not follow the Christian God; others believe it is to inform others about the Kingdom of God. Evangelism is done in obedience to the Great Commission, a command from Jesus to his disciples to proselytise, according to accounts in the New Testament. Christians who specialise in evangelism are known as evangelists, whether in they are in their home communities or acting as missionaries in the field. Some Christian traditions consider evangelists to be in a leadership position, and they may be found preaching to large meetings, and in governance roles. Christian groups who actively encourage evangelism are sometimes known as evangelistic or evangelist.

The communication of Christian faith to new geographical areas and cultures is often referred to as evangelisation, or specifically, world evangelisation.

Yes by no means is this a desription of all or even most Evangelicals. Regarding the "pastor" who posted the message - indeed his church is fundamentalist - not to be confused with evangelist. They have "broken" from the main and thus, in this sense, clearly DO NOT represent the ideas of the mainstream church. The fact is, by the definition of their charter (I believe I saw an LLC?) they will be listed as a christian church.
One of my original questions in the OP was: is this example one that is becomming more common place and why are the "true" defenders (like yourself) becoming less and less?

I suspect what has happened in recent times is that the American fundamentalist movement and 'the Christian right' have largely become synonymous with 'evangelicals' in the minds of many - and there is indeed a large crossover, particularly in the States, I believe. Unfortunately it is the most vociferous and extreme protagonists of these movements that come to typify these streams in the minds of many. Yet I know/am acquainted with thousands of people who believe as I do yet who also cringe, as I do, when they see/hear money-oriented televangelists and political activists who supposedly represent them.

You are correct. Sound bite world leads to sound bite phrases and the term is bandied about without scrutiny. James Dobson is an Evangellical and has direct influence on the current administration. He is really a fundamentalist, but he is accepted as an evangellical, as is falwell and the crew. I personally love the work of a one CREFLO A DOLLAR.

If there are those who claim to be Christian but whose words/deeds are typified by hate, they are what Christ called the 'tares' - weed-like church-goers who misrepresent his disciples. ex]
Yes, hypocrites who can moralize killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in the name of country and god. And there are more than I'd like - as a matter of fact the cabal sitting in whitehouse describes these moralist evangelicals who are of the 'tare' variety.

The 'wheat', as he called them, are your average Joes who follow Christ in sincerity & have no interest in material gain or 'holier-than-thou' pontifications which are based on twisting the Bible's plain teaching, summed up in those 2 great overriding principles

Again, I too believe a majority of christians are good people who do not want harm in others lives, as long as it doesn't conflict with their faith - this is transparent, obviously, but it is a point. All religions are the same in that fact - even buddhist monks are taking up guns (Monks with gus - here on ats somewhere) I see a transition in general sentiment towards a growing acceptance for bias and racism within the religious right and it is indeed disturbing - more wheat, less tares!
Thanks again for the discussion - good to do it without my fingers shaking in anger!
Edit -went back and still my quotes at the bottom are strange but my preview says it's ok...sorry about that. wt...still working on it.

ColoradoJens

[edit on 25-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]

[edit on 25-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]