Bombs Found Planted at New Mexico Churches

Crime SceneLAS CRUCES, N.M. — Police are searching for clues after bombs were found planted this month outside of three houses of worship in New Mexico.

On August 2, police responded to a call about an explosion at Calvary Baptist Church in Las Cruces, where reportedly a bomb had been wrapped in newspapers and placed into a mailbox that had been bolted to the wall. The force of the explosion ripped the mailbox from the building, throwing it approximately 150 feet.

“A house of worship should be a place of peace; making the act of violence especially troubling for us all,” wrote newly-installed pastor Kevin Glenn on Facebook following the incident. “Only our Lord is able to provide ultimate security to each of us through Jesus Christ. However, in our daily lives we must be wise and vigilant to do everything possible to provide an environment within which all can feel both welcome and secure.”

Earlier that morning, a bomb had also been detonated while a Roman Catholic congregation was in the middle of its 8 a.m. service. It had been placed in a garbage can near the front door of the facility. One witness told reporters that he heard a bang followed by the sound of shattering glass.

“I didn’t know if it was a shotgun blast; I didn’t know what. But it was very loud,” said John Anderson of Holy Cross Catholic Church.

Last week, a third bomb, which had not exploded, was discovered outside of the First Presbyterian Church by a groundskeeper. The device had been inserted inside the sprinkler box by the front door. Minister Norman Story told the Las Cruces Sun that he was informed by the groundskeeper that the device was in the shape of a pipe and a timing mechanism was attached.

The high school across the street was placed on lockdown and businesses were evacuated while the authorities detonated the device and ensured that the area was safe.

  • Connect with Christian News

“There’s a possibility all three [bombs] are related, but we have no evidence to directly connect them,” FBI Chief Division Counsel Stephan Marshall told reporters.

Police are currently looking for a subject of interest, who was seen in surveillance footage taken from Calvary Baptist. In the 20-second clip, a young man in plaid shorts and a blue t-shirt is seen carrying a bag as he walks near the building.

“Someone out there saw something. Someone out there knew something,” FBI assistant special agent Bryan Finnegan said during a news conference following the two explosions.

“And if this actor is listening, turn yourself in. Get this over with,” he continued. “We know you’re looking over your shoulder. We know you want to do the right thing and turn yourself in and to confess to this crime. Please do so as quickly as possible.”

The FBI is offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to an arrest, and the Las Cruces Crime Stoppers is offering $7,500.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Joshua Krug

    Judaism: forgive debts. Christianity: lend without expecting anything in return. Anyone?

    • Joshua Krug

      Both of these: do good to the stranger.

    • bowie1

      People do loan money between each other, usually on a smaller scale, and often from parents to their kids. Sometimes they give outright not asking for reimbursement. Church deacons also may assist widows and orphans financially if they happen to be in a tight spot at a certain moment.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    Who cares? I can’t imagine who would give out interest-free loans, but if some group is willing, what do we care?

    • Psk6565

      Do you know that free interest loans is only part of Sharia Law? If people give in to this, they will give in further. Islam sees this as submission if these things are granted to them and will seek to implement Sharia Law further. That means Kafirs, you, could possibly be killed for not being Muslims.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        What are you talking about? That doesn’t even make sense. People have individual agency. They can do whatever they want, as long as it’s legal. If person A wants to give person B a no-interest loan, he can. It’s just two people doing business how they see fit.

        Islam isn’t the Borg. It doesn’t seek out people doing business in accordance with Shari’a, jump on them, and scream “Ha! Now you’re Muslims!”

        “We are Muslim of Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

        What happened to this “religious freedom!” you guys are always screaming about? Does that only apply to you and not other people?

        • Psk6565

          You are arguing with your imagination. I never said anyone should be forced to do anything.

          Huh? If you are doing business according to Sharia Law, what are you?

          The Quran is 60% political. It is not a religion.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What are you? Doing business according to Sharia Law.

            I’m litigating a contract right now that requires us to use Tennessee law. It doesn’t make my client a Tennesseean.

          • Psk6565

            You are correct and I see your great point. There is a rich history though of Islam invading countries since Muhammad and seeking to have the inhabitants of those places to implement Sharia Law. It does not end with loans, but death for those who are Kafirs (Those who do not believe in Allah and his prophet Muhammad). They have been doing it for centuries.

          • Gene Schunek

            I see, Islam is the only religion that did this. Christians never invaded other countries and forced the inhabitants to become Christian or be put to death? Yes, Christians did exactly the same.

    • amostpolitedebate

      I think they get around the usury thing by adding a lot of fees to the process. In the end it probably works out to about the same thing.

  • sammy13

    Maybe RICH Muslims should open banks in Seattle. Think Saudis. No interest for Muslim loans? That is blatant discrimination against those following another faith.
    “[T]hey don’t want to pay interest,” he said. Neither do I.

    • amostpolitedebate

      Wrong. The city is offering Islam-COMPLIANT loans. There’s nothing saying that Christians couldn’t apply for one too.

    • James

      Islamic banks, or those offering Sharia-compliant loans, still make money. Using a house as an example- A Muslim person wants to buy a house. The bank sees that the house is worth 100,000. They offer to buy the house and sell it to the Muslim person for 125,000 with regular monthly payments (in sort of a rent-to-own deal). The difference from interest- the Muslim person cannot delay or miss a payment and they cannot refinance and provide the bank with less profit (like traditional mortgages do with interest). Which is the better deal?

  • Davy Buck

    Isn’t this government endorsement of religion? Where’s the ACLU? Oh, I know – they’re busy chasing down high school kids for praying at football games. Frauds.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Considering the government hasn’t actually DONE anything, the ACLU can’t really get angry, can they?

      • Davy Buck

        Considering the ACLU is always selective about their outrage, they likely WON’T get angry, will they?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Let’s find out if and when somebody does something actionable, hm?

          I don’t see much point in getting outraged over a reaction that hasn’t happened yet, to an action that hasn’t happened yet, the nature of which we don’t know anything about.

          • Davy Buck

            Sounds like you’re running interference for them. No need to wait for anything. They’ve provided ample examples in the past what they’re really about.

    • amostpolitedebate

      It’s only a violation of the first amendment if Christians are barred somehow from taking these loans. Likewise it’s perfectly OK for there to be “Christianity compliant loans” as long as access to them is equal.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      The only religion the ACLU is against in the Christian Faith. You don’t see them going after other religions. They are anti-Christian:(

  • Nidalap

    Ha! If this mayor had suggested making special concessions for a Christian group, the Freedom From Religion folks would have jumped on him almost instantly. Any word from them on this? No? And this was done for a religion that IS intent on making a theocracy!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Did he say he was making special concessions?

    • DNelson

      Is it a part of the Christian religion to not pay interest on a loan?

      • Angel Jabbins

        No, but it IS part of the Christian religion to believe that homosexuality is a sin and to exercise one’s conscience in accord with the Bible’s teachings. Yet, time and again, Christians are being told they must obey the state and not their conscience. If they chose to obey their conscience, they are fined heavily to the point of losing everything. Islam has zero tolerance of homosexuality (it warrants the death sentence), yet the state bends over backwards to appease and placate them. Would most Muslim bakeries bake the cake? Absolutely not! What hypocrisy!

        • DNelson

          “Yet, time and again, Christians are being told they must obey the state and not their conscience.”

          That is simply a lie. No one has been told that.

          “If they chose to obey their conscience, they are fined heavily to the point of losing everything.”

          That is another lie.

          “Would most Muslim bakeries bake the cake? Absolutely not!”

          The religious beliefs of the owner are of no consequence regarding anti-discrimination laws. A Muslim owner would face the same consequences as a Christian owner, as an atheist owner. Please lose this false persecution complex. It’s not all about Christians. Everyone is held to the same law.

          • jennylynn

            The difference is the gays are afraid to provoke the Muslims because they will just behead them. They know that Christians are commanded to love in truth and we do not have a killing mandate so we are easy prey. God sees all this and He will have the last word. Anyone who hurts Christians is poking God in the eye.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Amen.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Do you live on the moon? The Klein’s of Oregan had to close their business and were fined $135,000 for refusing to bake the cake. Baronelle Stutzman was sued by the State of Washington and two gays for not providing flowers for their wedding, though she served them previously many times. She lost her business and the state said the same sex couple could demand her home and life’s savings as damages. Completely destroyed financially.

            The Giffords, a couple who owns Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ As devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work, and raise their children.

            There are plenty of other stories out there. Just google it.

            Musilm owners will NOT face the same consequences. The reason: Gays will not go into their bakeries asking for a wedding cake in the first place. They know better. Christians are real easy targets.

            Here is an undercover video showing Muslim bakeries refusing to bake the cake:

            https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

            AND, gay bakeries have refused to bake a cake for a person asking for a pro-traditional marriage cake. Videos here:

            http://shoebat. com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/ (Caution: lots of F-bombs by angry baker and other toilet language)

            The homosexual activist in this third video says you can’t choose who you serve, as though he is taking a purely objective position. But when they ask for the reverse of the same message, all of a sudden the saying of “you can’t choose who you serve,” does not apply to the Christians.

            There is no ‘false persecution complex’….only in your mind.

          • DNelson

            “There are plenty of other stories out there. Just google it.”

            Owning a business is a choice. What products/services the business provides is s choice. No one is told they “must” violate their conscience.

            “Here is an undercover video showing Muslim bakeries refusing to bake the cake”

            The basis for the refusal was because of what the person wanted printed and written on the cake. It is within the legal bounds of the owner – Muslim or Chrisitan or other – to refuse to write certain words or put certain images on a cake.

            “AND, gay bakeries have refused to bake a cake for a person asking for a pro-traditional marriage cake.”

            Again, the issue was what was to be written on the cake. Bakers are free to refuse to put messages on cakes that they do not want to.

            “does not apply to the Christians.”

            Of course it does. The persecution complex is false.

          • Angel Jabbins

            ‘Owning a business is a choice and no one told them they had to violate their conscience.’

            That makes no sense at all. I provide you with evidence plain as the nose on your face… you just ignore it and repeat the same thing over and over. They obviously did choose to follow their conscience and look at the result in every single case. Punishment by the state.

            What the Muslim bakeries refused to do is what exactly the same. So you think the gays, who are suing the Christian bakeries, would have been pleased had the bakers just baked a cake and handed it over to them with nothing on it at all? Come on…you are being ridiculous here. They want a cake with wording and wedding symbolism on it. ‘Gary and Tom Tie the Knot’ Who would want a cake for a wedding with nothing at all on it? You are really reaching here to defend Muslims baker (whose book, BTW, calls for death of the infidel gays) Unbelievable!

            What is being written on the cake IS the issue!!! Duh! The Christian bakers (against their conscience) MUST put wording on a cake for a gay wedding or suffer punishment. Yet a gay baker can’t be expected to put pro-traditional marriage wording on a cake for an event. Talk about hypocritical!…. You take ‘the cake’!

            See, no matter what I say or what info I provide, your mind in set in concrete and you will try to explain it all away, no matter how ridiculous and devoid of common sense reasoning your arguments are.

          • DNelson

            “That makes no sense at all.”

            Saying someone “must” do something means the person has no choice. Since owning a business is a choice, and determining what products/services the business will offer is a choice, there is no “must”.

            “They obviously did choose to follow their conscience and look at the result in every single case. Punishment by the state.”

            Because they broke the law. Do you support NOT holding people accountable to the law?

            “What the Muslim bakeries refused to do is what exactly the same.”

            No, it was not. The examples of the Muslim bakeries included putting certain images and/or messages on a cake. The Muslims, like any other business owner including Christians, are free to turn down requests for particular images or messages.

            “‘Gary and Tom Tie the Knot'”

            No such request was made.

            Most wedding cakes do not have wording on them. Typically they just include decorative items (flowers, etc.,) and a topper. A bakery is not required to offer toppers of two people of the same gender.

            “You are really reaching here to defend Muslims baker”

            I’m merely stating how the law works. I would provide the same defense for a Christian baker or an atheist baker.

            “What is being written on the cake IS the issue!!! Duh! The Christian bakers (against their conscience) MUST put wording on a cake for a gay wedding or suffer punishment.”

            That is false.

            “See, no matter what I say or what info I provide, your mind in set in concrete and you will try to explain it all away, no matter how ridiculous and devoid of common sense reasoning your arguments are.”

            You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law is applied. Again, a business is not required to put a particular decoration or message on a product. The products they offer must be provided to all customers in a way which is consistent with anti-discrimination laws. That does not include messages.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Wording does indeed appear on some wedding cakes (as on my son’s wedding cake…his and his wife’s names and wedding date) and always appears on the wedding shower cakes. Also wedding symbols, such as a bride and groom kissing, etc are often on wedding cakes. I am sure the Muslim baker would have also refused to make a wedding cake with a decoration of two men kissing or holding hands, two grooms. But, even it there were no words, no wedding symbols…just flowers, if the same sex couple explained the cake was for their ‘wedding’, persons of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish faiths (all having the tenet that homosexuality is immoral and contrary to the will of God),…all of those bakers should have the right to say no because the constitution guarantees the FREE EXERCISE of religion. The state is, in effect, making it a hate crime to follow one’s religious beliefs. Just because I go into a business for myself, does not mean I have to park my religious beliefs and conscience at the door. The gay bakers felt they should be able to deny the cake with wording they did not agree with or approve of…yet they get a pass. Following your logic, those gay bakers should not have gone into the business in the first place if they were not prepared to serve EVERYONE…even those they disagree with. Yet they DID deny the service. Double standard…big time! Amazing you cannot see it.

          • DNelson

            “Wording does indeed appear on some wedding cakes”

            At the request of the client and the provider is free to decline wording that he/she does not want to put on the cake.

            “Also wedding symbols, such as a bride and groom kissing, etc are often on wedding cakes”

            At the request of the client and the provider is free to decline symbols that he/she does not want to put on the cake.

            “I am sure the Muslim baker would have also refused to make a wedding cake with a decoration of two men kissing or holding hands, two grooms.”

            No doubt. They would be free to do so, as any baker would be free to do.

            “all of those bakers should have the right to say no because the constitution guarantees the FREE EXERCISE of religion.”

            The courts have determined that anti-discrimination laws do not violate the protections the Constitution provides regarding exercise of religion, as they apply to all business owners regardless of religious belief, or no religious belief. You are certainly free to work to get those laws changed so that sexuality is not included. But, no, there is no “I want to choose to operate a business and choose to sell certain products, but I want to be able to decide who I do business with based upon my religious beliefs” right.

            “Just because I go into a business for myself, does not mean I have to park my religious beliefs and conscience at the door.”

            Of course you don’t. With that said, if you choose to operate a business, you do so with the understanding that you must do so in accordance with the law. If you believe that the law, as it exists, would result in your doing something that is against your religious beliefs, then you should not open a business.

            “Following your logic, those gay bakers should not have gone into the business in the first place if they were not prepared to serve EVERYONE…even those they disagree with.”

            Absolutely correct. However, the issue wasn’t the person, but the requested writing, which they are free to turn down as any baker is free to turn down. They would not, however, if told that the cake, with no particular wording or decoration, was for an event at their church to discuss the evils of homosexuality, be free to turn away the customers because of the customer’s religious beliefs. Nor should they be.

            In what way am I presenting a double standard?

          • Angel Jabbins

            “The courts have determined that anti-discrimination laws do not violate the protections the Constitution provides regarding exercise of religion, as they apply to all business owners regardless of religious belief, or no religious belief. You are certainly free to work to get those laws changed so that sexuality is not included.”

            ‘The courts determined’ ….the courts! Well, the courts are stacked and the courts dead wrong. What happened to democracy in this country? Even if I am still free to work to get the law changed, what good would that do when the courts are made up of elitist liberals who just overturn the laws the majority votes for. It has happened time and again. The ONLY way the homosexual agenda could have made the great strides it has so quickly is because the courts are ruling in their favor. …not because it was decided upon by the majority of the American people or even voted upon by the majority of our congressmen. Congress has been completely circumvented. Two justices on the Supreme Court were already performing gay marriages for friends BEFORE they cast their vote on gay marriage. They should have not have been allowed to sit on the court that was deciding this issue. That was blatant conflict of interest… but no matter. They are the ones in control now and they can do whatever they like. It is called oligarchy. That is what we have in this country now… rule by a powerful elite group of just a few people at the top, no longer a democracy. Since Courts rule the country, my ‘working to change the laws’ would be a wasted, fruitless effort.

            Our country is headed for judgment. Christians will be persecuted. We are seeing only the beginning of that. It will take a few years for the real impact to be felt nationwide. But it is coming. You can to call it ‘discrimination’ all you want, but it IS the exercise of religious convictions, no matter how you try to paint it. Watch and see. Today just loss of business and fines….tomorrow prison sentences.

          • DNelson

            “Well, the courts are stacked and the courts dead wrong.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

            “What happened to democracy in this country?”

            Nothing. It is still a part of our system. In fact, the anti-discrimination laws you so deride were put into place either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives. They can be changed in the same way.

            “Even if I am still free to work to get the law changed, what good would that do when the courts are made up of elitist liberals who just overturn the laws the majority votes for.”

            Removing anti-discrimination protections based on sexuality from laws could not be overturned in court, as there would be no law to overturn. The majority of States do not include sexuality in their anti-discrimination laws. There is no method for the court to rule that they must. In order for the court to rule, a case must come before the court. A case can’t come before the court unless a law is being challenged. If there is no law to be challenged, there can be no case before the court. So, yes, if you worked to have sexuality removed from inclusion in anti-discrimiation laws, and it was removed, you would accomplish what you want and it would not be subject to judicial review.

            “The ONLY way the homosexual agenda could have made the great strides it has so quickly is because the courts are ruling in their favor.”

            I don’t think that over 50 years would be considered quick, but that would be a matter of personal opinion. The single greatest factor in the changing attitudes and laws regarding homosexuals has been the willingness of homosexuals to come out of the closet. As more people have become aware that some their friends, neighbors, coworkers, and loved ones are gay, their desire to see those individuals treated equally under the law and to not be subject to discrimination has changed.

            “not because it was decided upon by the majority of the American people or even voted upon by the majority of our congressmen.”

            Again, anti-discrimination laws were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives – not the judiciary. Their existence is based upon the democratic process you say you support. Or do you support it only when it results in something you agree with?

            It is certainly true that the legality of same-gender marriage has moved forward, in most cases, based upon the judiciary. Those rulings, however, have come from judges appointed by both liberal and conservative Presidents. To suggest that those rulings have all come from “liberal” judges is simply wrong.

            You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the US is a pure democracy and thus any law voted upon by the people is valid based simply upon majority vote. That is not true. The US is a Constitutional Republic. As such, any law put into place is open to challenge in court as to the constitutionality of the law. Our system was set up that way specifically so that the majority would not be empowered to “vote away” the rights of the minority.

            Do you believe citizens should NOT have the ability to challenge laws in court and that the judiciary should NOT have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

            Do you believe that the court should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia?

            “Two justices on the Supreme Court were already performing gay marriages for friends BEFORE they cast their vote on gay marriage. They should have not have been allowed to sit on the court that was deciding this issue. That was blatant conflict of interest”

            That was not a “conflict of interest”. A conflict of interest is when the ruling would personally impact the member of the judiciary. For example: A case is before a judge regarding fining a oil company for an oil leak. The case involves a significant fine to the company. The judge owns stock in the company. It would be a conflict of interest for the judge to rule on the case because the outcome of the ruling could have an affect on the value of the stock the judge owns.

            A member of the SCOTUS having an opinion on the legality of something prior to hearing a case before it is not a reason for recusal. Scalia had made many public statements, prior to the case coming before the court, indicating his belief that same-gender marriage was not protected by the Constitution. Should he, then, have recused himself?

            “They are the ones in control now and they can do whatever they like.”

            They are only empowered to rule upon cases that are before them. Do you believe they should NOT be allowed to do so?

            “no longer a democracy.”

            We have never been a pure Democracy.

            “Our country is headed for judgment. Christians will be persecuted. We are seeing only the beginning of that. It will take a few years for the real impact to be felt nationwide. But it is coming. You can to call it ‘discrimination’ all you want, but it IS the exercise of religious convictions, no matter how you try to paint it. Watch and see. Today just loss of business and fines….tomorrow prison sentences.”

            Very similar to what was said by some when the Civil Rights Act was passed and when laws banning segregation and interracial marriage were struck down. Your fears are unfounded, Chicken Little.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I disagree with absolutely everything you just said. I am perfectly aware that we are supposed to have a republican form of government not a pure democracy. But we no longer have even that. We have rule by the courts…courts are legislating because the legislative branch is weak…. not doing the job our founders intended. In my state, gay marriage was voted upon in the dark of the night, on the eve of a holiday, and there were lots of deals behind closed doors and some arm-twisting to get votes to make it pass by a very small margin. The people of this state never had a say. The issue was never debated openly. Everything was behind closed doors. It was very passed quickly by a corrupt bunch of so-called legislators who care nothing about the people. It is an ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ mentality today in most state gov’ts today and most certainly at the federal level.

            I am glad you like living in an oligarchy. But don’t go defending it as the American way. The mess we have now was never what our founders intended. We are moving to totalitarianism.

            The Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with gay rights and you know it. No one is born gay. No scientific proof from genetics. So the ‘rights’ that have been created for LGBT people are special rights…not rights which are inherent due to the way someone was born…like skin color. Being gay is about behavior not something inborn. It is a choice no matter how people try to excuse it.

            You want to talk about discrimination, take a look at the plight of unborn babies who have no rights at all in this country….due simply to a Court ruling. If there were ever a group that needs their rights protected, it is the unborn. According to the Court, they are not ‘persons’, so they can be killed in the womb right up to delivery in some cases. Yet now we know that their organs are being sold to the highest bidder, even though that is supposed to be illegal in this country. Millions of babies are killed yearly…900 every day…37 babies every hour. The plight of the unborn is a true case of the denial of civil rights. Gays wanting to flaunt their lifestyle and force it on the rest of society as something good, moral, and healthy…not at all. It is all a matter of what is politically correct..not what is truly an inherent God-given right.

            You misunderstand if you think I am a chicken little, running around in fear. I am sounding the alarm for those who will hear that the judgment of God is coming soon. Time to get saved …come to Christ in repentance…before it too late. The growing hostility for Christians is a sign Jesus said to expect in the Last Days just before His return. I believe it will one day be on the level here as it is now overseas. Fear? Who likes persecution and pain? But the perfect love of God casts out all fear. God is faithful to see us through whatever is coming and we have a home waiting for us in eternity. It will all be worth whatever we have to go through. May He hasten the day!

            Thanks for the discussion!

          • DNelson

            “I disagree with absolutely everything you just said.”

            Really?

            So you disagree that anti-discrimination were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives? How were they put into place?

            You disagree that anti-discrimination laws can be changed by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives?

            You disagree that a law that doesn’t exist can’t be overturned by the courts?

            You disagree that as more people have become aware that some their friends, neighbors, coworkers, and loved ones are gay, their desire to see those individuals treated equally under the law and to not be subject to discrimination has changed?

            You disagree that the US is a Constitutional Republic? You disagree that the US is NOT a pure Democracy?

            “courts are legislating because the legislative branch is weak”

            The courts do not have the ability to legislate, nor have they.

            “I am glad you like living in an oligarchy.”

            I don’t live in a oligarchy. I live in the US. You seem to believe that if courts rule in ways you don’t like, that means that an oligarchy exists. How do you explain the Hobby Lobby ruling if the courts are “liberal and corrupt”?

            “We are moving to totalitarianism.”

            You would benefit from a better understanding of “totalitarianism” before attempting to use it again. The US is not moving to Totalitarianism.

            “The Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with gay rights”

            Agreed. Nor did I ever say it did.

            “No one is born gay.”

            In order to make that statement, you would have to have proof that no one is born gay. Since you apparently have such proof, do be a dear and share it with the many science teams that are working to uncover the basis for sexuality. No doubt they would be very grateful that you have come across the basis for sexuality and have been able to determine that it is not an innate trait.

            On the other hand, if you don’t actually have any proof to back up your claim, I’d suggest you stop lying….it is frowned about by the God you have chosen to believe in.

            “So the ‘rights’ that have been created for LGBT people are special rights…not rights which are inherent due to the way someone was born…like skin color.”

            So since religious belief is a choice, and certainly not a born trait, there is no reason that religious belief should be a included in anti-discrimination laws, right? And the ‘rights’ that have been created for people based on religious belief are special rights…not rights which are inherent due to the way someone was born…like skin color, correct?

            I’ll ask again: do you support the democratic process only when it results in something you agree with?

            Do you believe citizens should NOT have the ability to challenge laws in court and that the judiciary should NOT have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

            Do you believe that the court should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia?

            “I am sounding the alarm for those who will hear that the judgment of God is coming soon. Time to get saved …come to Christ in repentance…before it too late.”

            So when was the last generation that didn’t make that claim? Hmmmmm….there hasn’t been one since the founding of Christianity.

            Do you really believe, given all the things that mankind does that are contrary to what Jesus spoke about – abortion, murder, theft, letting people starve and die of preventable disease, war, adultery, divorce, etc., etc., that the thing that is really going to push God over the edge and finally try his patience so much that he feels the need to take action, is allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into a legal contract provided by the State? Seriously?

            “May He hasten the day!”

            If that is what you want, then you should be supporting these actions as you believe they will bring about the rapture sooner rather than later, yes?

          • Angel Jabbins

            I was going to leave this topic and move one. Will make one last reply since I came across your response.

            Freedom of religion is a civil right granted by our Founders in the Constitution. Done deal….So why even bring it up?

            What we were talking about was how you and others compare the plight of LGBT people to blacks and the Civil Rights movement. Blacks cannot change the color of their skin, ergo, it is wrong to treat them unfairly because of it…DNA decides color of skin…not the person.

            Every one is born with DNA of either a male or a female. There is no evidence of a gay gene…even though as you say “…science teams that are working to uncover the basis for sexuality.” Theirs is a futile quest because we, in fact, already know the basis for sexuality…our genes. Your DNA says you are either one or the other: male or female. Those scientists will be working a long, long time trying to find an imaginary gay or bi or trans gene. No such thing. Not one shred of evidence from science. Yet, the Court decides it is a matter of Civil Rights for gays to have the ‘right’ to marry when there is no scientific evidence to support that the lifestyle is not a choice. The institution of marriage is redefined based completely on bias, not on science and common sense.

            Yet when it comes to the unborn.. there is plenty of evidence from science to prove that a fetus is in fact a human being. There was scientific evidence available to the Court back in ’72. And now there has been an explosion of evidence with powerful sonograms to prove that human life begins at conception. Absolutely now doubt about it. But, even so, the Court has not reversed its decision on legalized killing in the womb and subsequent cases have been decided mostly in favor of keeping abortion legal. Why? Because the Court favors the whims and desires of women for their sexual freedom over the innate right to life granted by the constitution to babies.

            “Do you really believe, given all the things that mankind does that are contrary to what Jesus spoke about – abortion, murder, theft, letting people starve and die of preventable disease, war, adultery, divorce, etc., etc., that the thing that is really going to push God over the edge and finally try his patience so much that he feels the need to take action, is allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into a legal contract provided by the State? Seriously?”

            For the first time in the history of the world, marriage has been redefined. Yet God was the one who instituted marriage in the first place to be between a man and a woman. Marriage also mirrors His relationship with His church, which is called the Bride of Christ. If anything God has been very patient with mankind, but that patience will run out as the bible warns. He warned of and sent judgment for sin before…the flood and then the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            1 Peter 2: 3-9 “There shall come in the Last Days scoffers, walking after their own lusts who will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation’.For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

            “….you should be supporting these actions as you believe they will bring about the rapture sooner rather than later, yes?”

            I should be supporting things God hates? I cannot, will not do that.

            And, I do not believe in a ‘rapture’. Christians are saved from the eternal damnation of hell, but not saved from suffering in this world. I am not looking for an escape hatch called the ‘rapture’, but instead am fully expecting to go through some pretty hard things as the days grow more evil.

            That is it for me on this topic. Thanks again for the discussion.

          • DNelson

            “Freedom of religion is a civil right granted by our Founders in the Constitution.”

            Actually, the protections provided by the Constitution regarding Congress (and via the 14th amendment, the States) not being able to pass a law PROHIBITING the expression of religious belief, was passed by the 1st Congress. It was not granted by our Founders. The Constitution written and signed by the Founders contained no mention of religion.

            “Blacks cannot change the color of their skin, ergo, it is wrong to treat them unfairly because of it”

            Being treated equally under the law does not require that a trait be unchangeable. It requires only that a person be a citizen. Jews were subject to significant discrimination in our nation. Should we have tolerated that since people choose to be Jewish and it’s not an unchangeable trait?

            “Theirs is a futile quest because we, in fact, already know the basis for sexuality…our genes.”

            No definitive answer as to the basis for sexuality has been determined. If, however, you believe that you have such knowledge, then by all means, pass it along to the various researchers who are looking into this. They would no doubt be very grateful. If you believe that sexuality is genetic, then it is as innate as skin color.

            “Those scientists will be working a long, long time trying to find an imaginary gay or bi or trans gene. No such thing.”

            But you just said that sexuality is genetic. So there must be such a thing. To make the statement that there is no genetic basis for sexuality would require that you have knowledge as the function and impact of every gene in the human genome. Congratulations! Amazing work! Please pass that along to the numerous teams throughout the world that are working to determine the functioning of every gene in the human genome, they would be most grateful for your contribution.

            “Not one shred of evidence from science.”

            Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that points to sexuality being based upon genetic and epigenetic factors.

            “Yet, the Court decides it is a matter of Civil Rights for gays to have the ‘right’ to marry when there is no scientific evidence to support that the lifestyle is not a choice.”

            Citizens having access to a right offered by the State requires only citizenship – nothing else. If the State wishes to restrict the ability of citizens to access a right that is offered by the State – an entity which is sworn to protect the rights of each citizen and treat each citizen equally under the law – the State must provide rational, compelling, and legally valid arguments as to why such restrictions are necessary. In the case of restrictions that disallow two citizens to access a civil marriage license, the State was unable to provide any rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for the restriction.

            “For the first time in the history of the world, marriage has been redefined.”

            Not even close. Marriage, both religious and civil, has been redefined multiple times throughout history.

            “Yet God was the one who instituted marriage in the first place to be between a man and a woman.”

            Marriage existed long before the Christian version of God came along.

            “Marriage also mirrors His relationship with His church, which is called the Bride of Christ.”

            You are certainly free to view it that way, but civil marriage is a legal status offered by the State. It is not governed by the particular views of any religious belief.

            “If anything God has been very patient with mankind, but that patience will run out as the bible warns.”

            Well of all the horrendous things we do that God has been patient with, I find it very difficult to believe that allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into a legal contract with the State to be the one that is going to push him over the edge.

            “I should be supporting things God hates? I cannot, will not do that.”

            That you have chosen to believe that the Bible contains the things that God hates, does not mean he does. Unless you are God, Angel, you do not know for certain. It is simply what you have chosen to believe. Are you God, Angel?

            “And, I do not believe in a ‘rapture’. Christians are saved from the eternal damnation of hell, but not saved from suffering in this world.”

            There are certainly many, many Christians who disagree with you. But such is the nature of faith – it is open to interpretation and different beliefs. Which is one of the reasons it does not serve as a basis for our civil laws.

            Thanks for the discussion.

          • Angel Jabbins

            And BTW, did you hear all the f-bombs and toilet language used by the first gay baker to her potential customer? She argued angrily with him though he was trying to be civil and respectful to her. As she refused to bake the cake he requested. she called Christians ‘the most mother f—ing people in the world’. But no ‘hate crime’ there….

          • DNelson

            There is no excuse for inappropriate language. We should be able to discuss things in a civil manner. That would not, however, be a hate crime, as there was no crime committed.

          • Angel Jabbins

            But it does show the level of hatred and intolerance of gays towards Christians who are NOT hating anyone, but just trying to follow their conscience and what the Bible clearly teaches regarding homosexuality.

          • DNelson

            “But it does show the level of hatred and intolerance of gays towards Christians”

            So you believe that it is reasonable to use the actions/words of this one person and project that out to all gays regarding their views of Christians?

            In that case, it would be reasonable for me to conclude that when Curtis Knapp, pastor the New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kan., said, in regards to homosexuals, “Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them? No, I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.”, that shows the level of hatred and intolerance of Christians towards gays, yes?

          • Elie Challita

            Have Muslim bakeries been asked to provide these cakes? If yes, have they refused? And after they refused, did they publicize the personal information of their gay customers, putting the latter at risk of physical harm?
            Until they do that, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

          • jennylynn

            You are right. Read “Dangerous Relations The threat of homosexuality” by Bill Muehlenberg. they document thousands of these cases and what their true goal is and where it is leading. My only comfort is knowing that vengence is the LORDS. Judgement is already on them (gays for their lifestyle) and unless they turn from this evil it will be far worse than what they inflict on Christians who obey the LORD.

          • Elie Challita

            The Kleins were fined because they publicized the gay couple’s personal information such as their home address, and as a result the gay couple received a metric ton of death threats.
            Let me rephrase this for you: Your beloved bakers put an innocent couple at risk of bodily harm by random strangers. That’s the people you’re defending.

        • jennylynn

          It’s interesting how the homosexuals are the ones persecuting Christians who only love them with the truth that saves them. Islam will be welcomed here in America and will eventually bring the judgement on the homosexuals.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            A lot of Homosexuals support Islam. Islam is killing Homosexuals in the middle east. They don’t even say anything about the ones being killed. They don’t think it will happen here. I guess they think Obama will save them.

          • knight

            One should Google Pam Geller and Gays. One will find a list of attrocities done to Gays.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I will Google it . Thank you.

          • knight

            Real shame I just cannot post the link to save time.

            Should be something like this. Third one down if same as mine

            pamelageller dot com slash tag slash gay

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Thank you I’ll try that.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I did find a lot of stuff to read. Thank you very much.I’ll read some after work and some tomorrow.

          • knight

            You can find allot of discussion there.

            If you like to keep up with world events, links to news sites with what Muslims have done
            This site also has a counter of known attacks sine 9/11

            www dot thereligionofpeace dot com

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Thank you.Should be another good one for me.

        • Gene Schunek

          Oh for crying out loud! How is homosexuality germane to the topic? No matter what the topic, one or more members will go off topic with a comments concerning Obama or homosexuality.

  • amostpolitedebate

    Not seeing the outrage here.

    • Psk6565

      Have you read about Muhammad’s immigration to Medina and how he changed the whole society? Have you read how Islam has done the same in Iraq, Turkey, etc?

      • amostpolitedebate

        Nope! But I can’t fathom how doing so would make me mad about a city offering a new kind of loan so that an underserved minority can afford housing.

        • Psk6565

          So, you are not familiar at all with Islam. Maybe you should study about it before thinking there is nothing wrong with muslims demanding the government to change laws to obey Sharia Law.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Even if Muhammad’s immigration was worse than the holocaust I still can’t see how it would change my mind. Do you not realize that punishing someone based solely on what group they happen to be a part of is the very definition of bigotry?

            Look, I don’t care what someone’s ancestors may have done. If they have a clean criminal record, a decent job, and want to buy a house in my neighborhood I have no problem with the government providing a loan that charges fees instead of interest so that they can do so without violating their faith.

          • http://toptencatalog.com/ Delila Bright

            Good One

          • Moneyman

            Several of your points are correct. But read the article fully and do your research before you say too much. Sharia law prohibits any kind of fee or interest for borrowing money. In other words they want the ability to only pay what was borrowed back. In other words a free pass. Home ownership is not for everyone, a painful but sinmple truth.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And if some group is willing to make them that offer, so what?

          • Moneyman

            Exactly! So what!

            That is as long as it is not funded in any way shape or form by a governmental entity (local, county, state or federal). There are plenty of organizations that are formed to do this type of thing.

            Maybe even you Chaser might dip into your own pocket to make it happen.

          • DNelson

            That is not how it works. The interest expense is calculated up front and then added to the selling price. In that way, the person is paying back both principle and interest, but there is no separate interest charge. It is frequently done for auto loans.

          • Angel Jabbins

            “Do you not realize that punishing someone based solely on what group they happen to be a part of is the very definition of bigotry?
            Look, I don’t care what someone’s ancestors may have done.”

            I will remember that statement next time you or one of your cohorts here brings up all the evil done by ‘christians’ centuries ago. Seems you folks ALWAYS bringing up past mistakes of Christians..hmmm? Isn’t that bigotry also? You can give the Muslims a break…when Islam has a zero tolerance policy of homosexuality punishable by death… but Christians? Not so much..

          • Psk6565

            Perhaps you hate studying history, I understand that, but take some time to understand Sharia Law before you think it is peaceful.

          • chiefwarrantofficer

            Well, we have plenty of documentation that ‘christianity; is not peaceful right here in America. Almost 400 years of their disgraceful version of ‘history.’

          • Rebecca Anne Inkster

            So we can hold today’s Christians responsible for everything done in the name of Christ throughout history? Cool, when do we get to start trying and executing Christians for the murders of women during the witch trials, or the atrocities of the Inquisition, or the Crusades??

            Oops, it’s not so fun when you’re treated the same way you treat others, is it?

          • Psk6565

            You show you don’t know the life of Muhammad, The Quran, the Hadiths, or the Seerah. Learn about Islam before commenting on whether or not the violence in the name of Islam corresponds to its teachings.

            The inquisitions do not corresponds with the teachings of Christ.

          • Rebecca Anne Inkster

            Stop being so damn eager to cast the first stone.

          • Psk6565

            I ain’t judicially punishing anyone, so what does stoning have to do with my comments?

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            She is an anti-Christian Muslim. She hates Christians. she is trying to use the Bible that she rejects against Christians. Your comment was fine. Even the Jesus she believes in is not the Jesus of the Bible.

          • knight

            Always like Jay Smith comparing Jesus of the Bible and Jesus (Isa) of the Quran.

            Another good one by Jay Smith – 7 ways Christianity always wins.

            Both are found on YouTube. The last one you can learn how Muslims were praying to the wrong direction and heaps more.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I’ll check that one out thank you.

          • chiefwarrantofficer

            Perhaps you should study some American history and learn about how ‘christians’ slaughtered native americans & forced then into slavery in the west indies. How ‘christians’ violated every treaty signed with native americans.

        • knight

          Very easy, Islam is buying your vote.

          One should learn about Islam and how deadly a cult is. I can give you numerous accounts of attrocities of hundreds of millions killed, and history never lies although Islam tries to destroy.

          Just a couple things in history to Google destroyed by Islam. With Narlanda, one should dig deep to see India was probably the greatest Holocaust, where beheadings were done at 100,000 at a time that rivers run red.

          Ani, city of 1001 churches with 40 gates, said to be as big as Istanbul

          University of Narlanda.

  • Nidalap

    Heh. You’ll note how tolerant the anti-Christian commentators are just now. 🙂

    • amostpolitedebate

      How so?

    • Rebecca Anne Inkster

      As opposed to the bigots who can’t stand the idea of allowing Muslims to exist?

      • Michael Bowen

        who is not allowing muslims to exist ? what a load of BS . and how is not pandering to this cult of hate and bowing to their demands Bigoted ? how is saying they should pay interest like every one else Bigoted ? you are full of crap . muslims are raping children and murdering people all over the world and you have the gull to say we can’t stand the idea of them existing ? Really ? what ever meds you are on you need to stop if you are not on meds you should get on some because your mind is really twisted .

        • chiefwarrantofficer

          Yet you pander to another cult and do not see the differemce?

          • Michael Bowen

            what Cult do you think I pander to? I would like to know where you get that from , and what you have to back it

          • chiefwarrantofficer

            Some twisted version of ‘christianity’ since you are filled with bigotry and hatred that is reflected so strongly in your posts – those that still remain.

      • Nidalap

        Indeed! It’s a good thing there aren’t any Muslims who take that view! Imagine the chaos that could ensue…

  • Coach

    They’re going above and beyond to bow to islam. Makes sense, make a deal with Iran while lying to the family of Americans wrongfully imprisoned there, so what’s to stop a deal like this? A nation that will embrace 2 conflicting ideologies (gay marriage, islam) only further proves the following verse. John 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

    • Coach

      So needless to say, this isn’t a reason to get up in arms, of course it’s not fair that they do such a thing, but the world will not cater to the Truth that opposes it’s master the devil who’s judgement is certain. Isaiah14:13 For you have said in your heart:
      ‘I will ascend into heaven,
      I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
      I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
      On the farthest sides of the north;
      14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
      I will be like the Most High.’
      15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
      To the lowest depths of the Pit.
      Let it be our constant prayer for these lost people such as the Seattle mayor and these muslims he’s seeking to cater to, in addition to the many who though they agree that this nation is becoming increasingly sinful, they themselves do not have Jesus Christ. We don’t need the right politicians, etc, we need the gospel, which speaks of the wrath of God being poured out on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, being God himself, yet humbled himself to be rejected by His own and crucified, yet stands victorious over death. We will all be resurrected, true believers unto eternal life, unbelievers unto eternal damnation. 2 Timothy 2:23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

  • Dave_L

    Luther and the Reformers thought the Papacy and Islam were a manifestation of the Antichrist. Today both are forming a close bond and are gaining acceptance. Here’s an interesting tidbit;

    “Luther believed that “the wrath of God had brought Muhammad and the Pope into the world”…..”When the Greeks despised His Word, He took it away and gave them the Turk and Muhammad. To us Germans and to the Italians, he gave us the Pope and with him all sorts of horrible things.”

    Samuele Bacchiocchi, P. D. (n.d.). Islam and The Papacy in Prophecy.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Which bank is going to lend money interest free? Is this mayor going to propose the tax payers pay the interest through a government program? All he is doing is endorsing a religion, but because it’s not Christianity, it goes without much resistance.

    Those who oppose Christianity, those who are antichrist, have major problems with the government conforming, in any way, to Christian beliefs and practices, but make pathetic excuses when it comes to the government complying to or endorsing other religious beliefs.

    • DNelson

      So how this works is that the purchase price is adjusted upward to reflect what the cost of the interest expense would have been. They aren’t lending money for free. There is no endorsement of religion, anymore than providing tax exemptions for churches is an endorsement of religion.

      • FoJC_Forever

        So, they are still paying Interest, just not calling it Interest. Yeah, this makes sense to those who have no trouble lying. They might go for it, since they’re pagans like you.

        • DNelson

          It’s not interest. It is a fee. A loan with interest has different payoff amounts based on when the loan is paid off due to the variations in interest expense. This is not the same thing. There is no “lying”.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Interest is a fee charged by lenders to those who borrow money from them.

          • DNelson

            Regarding loans, fees and interest are not the same thing. For example, when securing a loan, I may have to pay a loan origination fee. That is not interest. Nor is interest, in regards to a loan, considered a fee.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Interest is an ongoing fee, paid each month. Your twisting of words is typical of those who live the Lie.

          • DNelson

            As regards loans, “interest charges” and “fees” are two different things. Your desire to make them the same thing, by lying, in order to support your unsupportable point, does not change the reality that they are separate things.

            You may find it beneficial to educate yourself regarding the terms that are used regarding lending, as your current knowledge is woefully inadequate.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Only in name. The effect is the same. The meaning of your words is measured by their application. Interest is a monthly fee charged for borrowing money. One time charges are initial fees for borrowing money.

            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

            Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

            Follow Jesus, find Understanding.

            Follow Jesus, Find Light.

          • DNelson

            “Only in name. ”

            It is what it is.

            “Interest is a monthly fee”

            It is not a fee. It is interest.

            “One time charges are initial fees for borrowing money.”

            PMI is a monthly fee. It is not interest nor is it a one-time charge.”

          • FoJC_Forever

            A fee is something a person pays. Interest is what people pay for the privilege of borrowing money from a financial institute.

          • DNelson

            I’m glad we agree that a fee is not the same thing as interest. While both are expenses, they are not the same thing.

          • FoJC_Forever

            We don’t agree. You must be dense.

          • DNelson

            You made the distinction above.

          • chiefwarrantofficer

            “Interest” is ONE of the ‘fees’ charged. Have you never actually looked at the closing papers for a mortgage” Still living in mom & dad’s basement?

          • FoJC_Forever

            I know.

            Yes.

            No.

            Still pretending to be a protector, I see.

          • chiefwarrantofficer

            No ‘pretending” but you are still lying, I see.

      • James

        Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the major difference is that with a Sharia-Loan the profit the bank earns cannot be renegotiated (unlike traditional mortgages which can be refinanced at lower rates). Additionally, it seems that there is no mechanism that would allow a borrower to delay a payment, unlike a traditional mortgage where the payment is delayed, but interest is applied to the balance. Correct?

        • DNelson

          I believe that would be correct, although my knowledge is not complete at that level of detail.

  • bowie1

    I seem to recall an article somewhere how they do it in their own community by owning part of the home they are loaning an interest free mortgage on, as an investment. Thereby they recover their costs when the house is sold at a future date. So, while technically it is not interest they do make something on the deal.

    • DNelson

      Typically what happens is that the interest expense is calculated and then tacked on to the selling price, so that the monthly payment, in essence, is paying both principal and interest, but interest isn’t being charged as a separate expense on the debt.

      It happens with auto loans frequently.

  • Rebecca Anne Inkster

    In reality, it’s just that he just isn’t willing to persecute them to make Christian bigots happy. Because allowing people who don’t worship how Christians do to exist is OF COURSE an attack on “Christian values” and promoting “Sharia Law”. Newsflash, Sharia law is when you try to force others to live by your own religion and attack them for not agreeing with it. The only people in the country promoting Sharia law are CHRISTIANS!!!

    Not having everyone do what you say is NOT persecution, trying to force people to live according to beliefs they don’t share is!

    Funny how Christians are the first people to ignore what Jesus actually taught, but then, he was a dark-skinned middle eastern Arab Jew who preached love and tolerance and against judging others and fed the hungry and healed the sick without resentment or humiliating them and preached against the rich and told people to pay their taxes. If he came back, Christians would murder him and do so with great enjoyment.

    Of course that’s assuming he ever existed, which there is not one shred of proof he did outside of a book of mythology…

    • Psk6565

      How is having people create loans based on Sharia Law, not “trying to force people to live according to” your beliefs?

  • Jarrfan

    Complete with Sharia Law? Does this guy even know what terror that is for the victims? The mutilation of women, the young girls never going to school, the killing of homosexuals, need I go on? This is a stupid, uninformed mayor…..

    • Psk6565

      Exactly, it doesn’t end with loans.

  • FoJC_Forever

    A mayor – a duly elected government official – is promoting a specific religious system, but a coaches religious expression is being complained about by the antichrist organization, FFRF. Lunacy.

    Sharia Law is not American Law (at least not yet), and no one in their right mind wants to trade our legal system for a Muslim legal system, in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately, there are multitudes of Americans not in their right mind, so this trend might continue.

    Islam is a pagan religion which teaches the worship of a demon prince. They call him “Allah”, but he is not the God who created the Universe and is the Savior and Judge of all mankind.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Amen

  • Michael Bowen

    Can you say LAW suit for not charging interest for some based on their religion while charging others . (discrimination anyone)this is not a Islamic or sharia law Country . and pandering is just what they demand and it will not end . if they don’t want to pay interest don’t take the loan period ,if they don’t like it LEAVE !!

  • vf6cruiser

    and so Sharia begins creeping in……..trying to make nice…….it won’t work and the muslims are laughing their butts off………..

  • Bikerbill

    How about those Rag Heads, under Shari law infidels have to pay them a Please Don’t Kill Me Tax yet they don’t want to pay someone to use their money. You folks in Seattle better grow a set.

  • So Good!

    Such is freedom of religion… it applies to muslims as well as christians!

  • spraynandprayn

    If the mayor wants to make Sharia compliant loans more available to his muslums how about puting them on a plane back to where they came from

  • Elie Challita

    Actually there are already provisions for Christians as well. Biblical investment firms allow you to manage your funds in a way that avoid investment in companies you disagree with, such as pharmaceutical companies producing morning after pills.

    The addition of a financial construct to these banks’ portfolios is not a concession to any kind of ideology, it is simply one more option offered to potential customers.

    • chiefwarrantofficer

      Ah, a voice of reason crying forlonely in a forest of ignorance and hatred and bigotry.