Simple solution: never give your passport to someone else. apply early for extremely popular events. take responsibilty for your own decision making.

I am not too crazy about tax dollars being spent in this manner. "The Council on American-Islamic Relations raised the issue after a northern Virginia mosque reported that 17 people missed their flight to Saudi Arabia when their passports were temporarily seized. The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol bought replacement tickets for those passengers, the mosque said."

It is very simple. When people stop following a book that encourages retaliation against others (the Koran), and start being loving people as Christ was, realizing that He is the only way to heaven, and therefore stop committing terrorist acts, then they wont be suspect and their passports wont be seized. With Obama overseas now promoting this false religion and trying to kiss their rear ends in order to foster more trade and a better economy, Muslims are getting more vocal about what they want our country to be. One woman was quoted as saying that the Koran should be the main source of law in this country. Of course it wont happen, and Americans need to stand up and show their support for out country being founded as a Christian nation. That way we will get more blessed. Thanks.

The only thing "simple," Clay, is your simplistic world view.

I thought we had demonstrated that ours is not ... and never has been ... a "Christian Nation."

More to the point, it is even less a Christian world. Our President is hardly "kissing rear ends." He is doing what every President before him has tried to do. He is working (on your behalf) to strengthen ties with potential customers for American goods and services. Moreover, he did his damnedest to convince the people of the largest Islamic country in the world that Americans don't hate them. Either in the interest of world peace or in the spirit of your Jesus, would you do the same?

There is nothing wrong with letting people know we dont hate them. There is also nothing wrong with telling people how to get to heaven. That will always be more important than economics.

It's not the president's job to tell people how to get heaven Clay. We have the Catholic church for that.

Anonymous,

I think Clay might suggest an alternate route. One that doesn't involve beer on bingo night.

Clay this country was never founded as a Christian nation. In this case the people in qurestion are US citizens and have rights in this country. Saying our president is out kissing rear end is hardly loving people as Christ did. Didn't he say to love your enemies? Why is it you only seem to focus on selected pieces of the Christian message?

As I said in another blog, Christ did more than to love His enemies. He also pointed out that people like the saduccees and pharisees and hypocrites were doing wrong along with loving them. To not do so is to not teach them properly, and that doesnt show true love. If Christ obviously wants our country to be a Christian nation and our president to represent that, then He obviously doesnt want us to be afraid to point out that the president has a cross covered before giving a speech yet he celebrates Ramadan. What type of Christian are we to not point that out and pray for the president? Not one that reflects Christ. When someone cant point out that it is wrong for people to say that the Koran should be the main law book of our land, that person is not a Christian, and neither are those who complain about him pointing it out. God bless.

Clay,

That's a big "if."

Until your Jesus shows up at the White House, it isn't obvious to me. As has been said to you MANY times before, Clay, the President is the President of all Americans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, non-believers, etc. The fact that his staff had a crucifix shrouded when he spoke at Georgetown University may have offended you, but it pleased me (I'd much rather he had spoken in a hall in which sectarian symbols didn't exist in the first place). The President didn't "celebrate" Ramadan ... because he is not Muslim. He issued a proclamation acknowledging the holiday out of respect for the millions of Muslim American citizens. The President is the leader of a nation with a diverse culture, with protections both for -- and from -- religion. You are free to worship as you see fit, Clay. Neither I nor anyone else, including the President, is obligated to join you. Get over it. Your "witnessing" is tedious; your deafness is profound.

By the way, Clay, I am still waiting for your response to my question as to whether churches should serve food, given that gluttony (like drunkenness) is a sin. As I said before, your response will speak to your integrity. Your silence already does.

Food is necessary for human survival, alcohol isnt. If we have trouble with both, we can only cut out one. Nevertheless, there are a lot of overweight people at my church and if they cut out dinners there it wouldnt bother me. To be honest, I havent seen anyone make a glutton of themselves at one of the dinners. People tend to not want others to know what they eat I suppose. Should we cut out the dinners? I suppose you could ask the pastor and see what he says. It is a lot easier to cut out alcohol because it isnt necessary to begin with. Plus, if someone drinks more than two beers, they start to get intoxicated, even most men. Many do get somewhat intoxicated at church functions. I honestly havent seen anyone eat until they cant get, up, got sick, etc at any church dinner. So I am all for keeping the dinners but leaving out unneccessary alcohol. As far as me being deaf, I am totally aware of all the arguments made against someone when they make an effort to witness. The deafness comes from the ears it often falls upon. The bible tells us to keep on working for God because there is a daily battle. Do you think any of the soldiers in Afhganistan wants to tell his buddies, "I'm taking off today to relax and see you guys later"? It is the same way with us Christians. Thanks.

So what Catholic church was this Clay, and what was the date? And what were you doing in a Catholic church?

I'm very skeptical Clay. Give me some reason to believe that you didn't make all of this up.

Nobody gets drunk on two beers Clay.

Good waffle (you shold pardon the pun) on the church-dinner question, Clay. So ... just a little gluttony is OK by you. Besides, Clay likes to eat and doesn't care to tipple, so... guess who gets to make the rules!

Two beers make few men a "drunkard," Clay. Men have been enjoying alcohol for millennia, for its flavor and -- yes -- for the relaxation it imparts to the imbiber. Are you equating the pleasant feeling a responsible drinker may derive from two beers with "drunkeness"? Kinda harsh.

As to your deafness, I was referring to the fact that you have been told countless times that

-Ours is not a "Christian Nation."
-President Obama is not a Muslim.
-The President has no religious (Christian or otherwise) function.

None is so deaf as he who will not hear.

What I said was, "if someone drinks more than two beers, they start to get intoxicated." I also didnt say that gluttony was ok. What I said was, "there are a lot of overweight people at my church and if they cut out dinners there it doesnt bother me" and that I hadnt seen anyone be a glutton there. Now that involves the eyes and not ears. The church was one of the largest churches in Md and I dont see the point in saying where it was. I was there dropping something off. Any president has the function of upholding the Christian principles that our nation was founded on. God bless.

The point is so that those of us who do not believe you can verify that there was a church sponsored dinner in the hall and that beer was served.

We all know that decent Catholic folk serve beer. That is not what is being questioned. What is being questioned is the honesty of your testimony, which has been altered a bit since first you posted.

If you were just dropping something off how did you become an expert on what was going on?

And what "Christian principles" are these, Clay? I assume they include slavery, which is a principle of long Biblical standing and clearly permitted under the (original) Constitution.

Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" (meaning slaves) would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another" (meaning fugitive slaves) were to be returned to their owners.

Or perhaps you are referring to more benign "principles," such as equality under the law, due process, and representational government (although I am hard-pressed to think of scriptural mandates for those).

If you believe the President has any obligation to subscribe to any specific religion. I think you'll be disappointed if you read Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Constitution. Even more importantly, the President is prohibited by the First Amendment from favoring any religion in matters of public policy.

You may be more comfortable with a President who spouts Christian platitudes (or, in the case of your buddy, Mr Romney, Christian platitudes filtered through Mormon mythology), but the Constitution was not designed for your comfort, Clay.

As to gluttony at church suppers, if food is essential to support life, then perhaps churches should reduce their up-to-now copious buffets to a simple (but life-sustaining) gruel and water. Wouldn't want anyone deriving pleasure from eating, would we? Carnal delights are an invitation to Satan, is they not? And why place temptation in front of a potential glutton (just as that abhorrent beer tap was seducing those sweet old ladies at Zion Lutheran)?

What was altered about it? Thanks.

Hi Clay. At the start of the month you were saying that you saw a crab feast where beer was on tap and that some of the guys felt “pretty good.” You didn't say that anyone was drunk, you only said “Probably some of those there do have drinking problems. Is church a place for them to drink? It sends a wrong message.”

As other posters here challenged your foolishness your claims escalated to “the men I saw at the Catholic church were kind of falling all over one another....”

Your next stage of exaggeration was that “the men I saw were intoxicated enough to bump into me without noticing.”

Your story keeps getting bigger like a fisherman talking about the one that got away.

I guess anything is possible, maybe you just forgot about them falling all over one another and bumping into you for a week or so. But I would still like to know what church and what date so that I can verify the accuracy of your witness.

You always claim what a good witness you are. Here's your chance to prove it.

With quotes like, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" by John Adams, it sure seems that we have drifted away from what the founders of our constitution wanted. It is comforting to me to know that I am in line with the men who wrote it.

Clay,

Huh?

Feeling pretty good, falling over on one another from side to side, bumping into me without noticing, and probably some with drinking problems are all very consistent with one another. If I didnt want to get into all the details in the first post it was because I didnt want to make the church look any worse than it was. It is respect for Christian brothers and sisters. You're insistance upon every detail is absurd. It isnt your nor anyone else's business what church it was. If I told you, you would still say that probably no one was drunk even though you werent there and no one in the church is going to tell you there was with a phone call. It also happened last summer. So what is your point? Who are you to verify such a statement? Please pray about it. Thanks.

Because you have lied about the Catholic church consistently for a very long time on this blog Mr. Clay. Usually your lies are made to attack the church in general. But this time you made a comment about an actual place where you claim to have witnessed drunken Catholics stumbling over one another and bumping into you, all while you supposedly dropped something off.

If you don't want to support your allegations with verifiable facts then I completely understand. You have none.

Who am I to ask?

I'm the person who reads your posts and asks you to back them up. Another poster didn't have a problem mentioning a sour-beef-and-dumplings dinner at Zion Lutheran church. He didn't mention the date, but I suspect if we asked he wouldn't whine about being too holier than thou to answer.

Get over yourself Clay.

Wednesday, October 27.

And also I havent lied about the Catholic church. If I believe that Christ doesnt come down into the communion bread and wine, that is my opinion, based on what He and others say in scripture. If I dont think we should pray to mortal humans, that is my opinion, based on scripture. It is not a lie. How could I possibly know for sure that such things are true to begin with, and then to lie about it? Basically my opinion is that if scripture wanted us to follow such procedures, Christ would have told us, which He didnt. When He said to "take this, this is my body" etc it was symbolic. No one kept every crumb from the supper. If you want to believe that it is the actual body of Christ, you are entitled to your opinion. That doesnt make either of us a liar. God bless.

You are absolutely correct, Clay. A differnce of opinion (especially in matters as personal as religious faith) does not make either of the people holding those opinions "liars." Nor does it make either of them adherants of a church that has been taken over by Satan. Just two differing approaches to questions some take very seriously. Approaches requiring mutual respect.

Just remember though, when I read Christ say, "no one comes to the Father except through Me" I dont take it as something to have an opinion on. Thanks.

Ah. So, everyone's entitled to his/her own "opinion" on such matters ... except yours fact. I see.

That's right Clay, how could you "possibly know for sure that such things are true to begin with...?"

You don't.

You can't know about the real presence of Christ at communion because you have never experienced it, I have, like you say "I was there. No one from these blogs was. Why say it didn't happen (Clay 11/11/2010)?”

You can't know if the saints intercede for us, but I can because it's happened to me. Like you say "I was there. No one from these blogs was. Why say it didn't happen (Clay 11/11/2010)?”

You can't know if wanted infants to be baptized. Hey, you weren't there! “No one from these blogs was. Why say it didn't happen (Clay 11/11/2010)?”

I dont doubt that Christ was at the communion, but not necessarily in the cup and bread. If you asked a saint to intercede, it is possible that God did it anyway as He would have without you asking for someone else to intercede. You can baptize infants all you want, all it does is get them wet. When I saw the guys at the church I saw them. Remember, if you do ask someone to intercede and a kid's brain tumor is healed, I may not believe that the saint made the difference but I wont complain about it. God bless.

So, Clay ... when the saints (or whoever) cure the child's brain tumor, what do you say to the mom whose child is not cured? That she isn't good enough? That she didn't pray hard enough. That she doesn't believe strongly enough? That she identifies with the wrong little sect of Christianity and therefore had her entreaties ignored?

Yeah ... miracles are wonderful. The niggardly way they are doled out seems kinda cruel, though, don't you think?

Clay what seems to elude you is you have views on scripture that are your own. No one is suggesting you change them. No one is suggesting your way is wrong. If it brings you comfort and closer to God great. What is questioned is why you insist on attacking other churches namely the Catholic Church. Why you feel it necessary to look up the misintrepretations of others know to have anti-Catholic bias. The truth is you have no idea if anyone was drunk that is a presumption you are making. even if they were unless you yourself are without sin, which I kind of doubt, you shouldn't be throwing stones.

My point is that a church shouldnt encourage the institutionalization of sin. Alcohol causes a lot of problems. Yes, we have sin in all churches because we are all sinners. If it seems that I have an anti-Catholic bias, I believe it is because I am trying to help Catholics. Look at the mess homosexual priests has caused. I get on here and say hooray that the church doesnt want an editorial in a school newspaper that shows support for homosexuality or whatever and there are more comments here against what I and the church have said than there are in support of what this school has done. Another thing about Catholics is that they are too quiet. For gosh sakes, stick up for what is right. Catholics are vocal about abortion. Perhaps one of the reasons they dont want to say too much about homosexuality is because they fear possibly offending their own priest. If they had been more vocal to begin with, maybe they wouldnt have to worry so much about that problem. Lets be nice and lets be quiet, and satan runs amok. And of course the whole layered system of authority. I get on here and try to help and it isnt seen as trying to help. It is seen as trying to make things worse. It isnt an attempt to do that. Thanks.

Clay does your pastor know that you get on this blog on a daily basis and insult other people's religions?

Does he know that you interject your two cents and tell Rabbi's to find Jesus while they are politely discussing their own faith?

What church do you go to Clay and what is your pastors name? I want to send him your posts so he'll know what kind of damned fool you are making of your self.

Sorry we Catholics are so quiet Clay. I'll crank it up a few notches for you.

Clay,

It would appear that evangelical Protestant congregations have had their share of problems with closeted pastors. Note that I didn't say "Gay pastors." The problem isn't homosexuality, but -- rather -- the lying, deceit, and self-loathing that the closet imposes. The problems in the Church are caused by the closet, not by homosexuality. The denial of what is natural and good. Such potential for love and positive models squandered.

I havent attended a church that has had a pastor accused of it yet. Thanks.

So what church do you attend Clay?

Perhaps it's only a matter of time, Clay.

I am curious as to how you would react, though, if a pastor you greatly respected and admired were to tell you (and his congregation) that, after years of private struggle and turmoil, he could no longer deny this particular gift from god. With all of his pastoral skills and Biblical scholarship intact, would this one act of honesty (hardly a sin) transform him overnight into man who could no longer be your pastor? Does your Christian love not extend that far?

Stop dodging the question Clay.

Clay does your pastor know that you get on this blog on a daily basis and insult other people's religions?

Does he know that you interject your two cents and tell Rabbi's to find Jesus while they are politely discussing their own faith?

I am inquisitive about this because I find it hard to believe that any pastor (outside of the Westboro Baptists) would condone your behavior here.

In today's news...

http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/newtonnews/headlines/Pastor_comes_out_to_church_105227769.html

Oh...and Clay, two important points:

Far and away,in the cases in which a pastor has left his closeted existence, it has not been a matter of "accusation" as your comment presumes. Rather, it has (typically) been the pastor who (with both joy and at great peril) announces his decision to be honest and free to his congregation.

Secondly, you would be wise to separate the child-abuse scandals (largely -- but not entirely -- in the news with regard to the Catholic church) from the issue of homosexuality. No one approves of sexual abuse of children by anyone. Homosexuality does not create child abuse. In fact, most such abuse is heterosexual in nature. Gay priests (and pastors) are not, by definition, child abusers.

Clay is a past master at dodging difficult questions (i.e., questions that require original thought or that threaten his fragile world view).

Yes my pastor knows that I witness to people here, on the street, etc. I find it hard to believe that pastors dont want members of their congregation to be bold in witnessing. When I asked my pastor about the Catholic church, he said that the problem is that the church considers their traditions to be as important as scripture. He doesnt give out tracts. I help another pastor do that. Thanks.

I didn't ask if he knew that you “witness.” Most people would assume that means some pleasant man asking people to accept Christ as their savior and to be born again. I doubt that many would guess that means berating other people's religions and promoting hatred and contempt as a new religion. So rather than making up a new question and pretending you have answered how about you “witness” the truth.

Answer the questions I really asked Clay:

“Clay does your pastor know that you get on this blog on a daily basis and insult other people's religions?”

Does he know that you interject your two cents and tell Rabbi's to find Jesus while they are politely discussing their own faith?”

[“Another thing about Catholics is that they are too quiet. For gosh sakes, stick up for what is right.”
(Clay | November 18, 2010 6:43 PM)] O.K., if you insist!

As long as we're providing Clay with an opportunty to respond to questions he's avoided thusfar ...

I am curious as to how you (Clay) would react, though, if a pastor you greatly respected and admired were to tell you (and his congregation) that, after years of private struggle and turmoil, he could no longer deny this particular gift from god. With all of his pastoral skills and Biblical scholarship intact, would this one act of honesty (hardly a sin) transform him overnight into man who could no longer be your pastor? Does your Christian love not extend that far?

Yes, my pastor knows that I get on here. I dont believe that he considers it to be insulting other religions though. He considers it to be witnessing as I do. Why is it insulting to tell two Jewish men that they need to know Christ in order to get to heaven when that is the command he gives us?? Let me ask you another question. If you consider the commands to harm others in the Quran to be not what God wants us to do, why are you against the Chick tract about the Muslim faith? And as far as the question about the pastor goes. First of all why would this man say that he can no longer deny this urge? I assume that you are saying that the pastor would therefore be saying that he doesnt intend to give it up? Why would a pastor say that if he didnt intend to be disobedient? What type of example would that be setting for the congregation? It is no different than someone saying that they realize that they are a thief and that they cant help stealing things and that please forgive them if they have to steal a cd player from one of the cars in the lot on occasion. It isnt want God wants a pastor to do, and neither is homosexuality. Could he still be pastor? Of course, if he makes an honest effort to give up the problem. After so many years or whatever if he is still seen with some guy doing whatever, I would think that the church body would ask him to step down. What amazes me is that you cant see this on your own. I think the reason for that is because you want God to accept something that He has already said He wont. It doesnt work that way. Thanks.

Clay, in case you hadn't noticed, the reason I "cant [sic] see this on [my] own" is that I don't give a rat's hindquarters for what you, your god, or your bible says about my homosexuality. I'm just here "witnessing," so that other readers of this blog can learn "the truth and the way." You're welcome.

It was inappropriate to throw your two cents in while the Rabbi's were discussing issues involved in their own faith. It isn't that it was insulting, it is that it was rude. As you can see they have not returned to this blog.

I did not see a tract “Chick tract about the Muslim faith.” I only saw a tract where your Chick bigot portrayed Muslim's as child and wife beaters. It had nothing at all to do with the Muslim faith.

I assume your answer to BankStreet was meant to say, no, your christian love does not extend that far.

You still have not answered my questions.

Clay you avoided directly answering Dana's question. Does he know you insult other Christian denominations as well as non-Christian religions. I don't ever recall Christ using or suggestion to the disciples that they do such things.

Here's an interesting link on witnessing you should read.

http://www.sumnerwemp.com/witnessing/witnessing_for_christ.htm

Pay careful attention to what it says about defining doctrines and denouncing the sins of the world.

Well Clay I'm going to take a nice hot bath with Teresa of Avila and read the Interior Castle. Then I'm going to pray to Joan of Arc to help prepare me for battle.

Prayer to St. Joan of Arc the crossdressing maiden who slept with girls:

“In the face of your enemies, in the face of harassment, ridicule, and doubt, you held firm in your faith. Even in your abandonment, alone and without friends, you held firm in your faith. Even as you faced your own mortality, you held firm in your faith. I pray that I may be as bold in my beliefs as you, St. Joan. I ask that you ride alongside me in my own battles. Help me be mindful that what is worthwhile can be won when I persist. Help me hold firm in my faith. Help me believe in my ability to act well and wisely.

Help me defeat the bigots and throw them out of my country just as you kicked the English out of France. Help me kick some fundie #ss

Amen.”

Then I'm going to have a Cognac. After a walk around the neighborhood.

I'll be back.