Avaaz – EU: Sanction Syrian Oil Now!.
Sign the petition to stop the bloodshed in Syria!
* * *
Dear friends,
For months, Syria’s brutal President Assad has paid henchmen to wage war on his own people. Governments across the world have condemned these atrocities, but key European leaders could cut off the cash flow that finances this bloodbath.
Germany, France and Italy are the three main importers of Syrian oil. If they move to impose immediate EU sanctions, Assad’s slaughter funds will dry up. Assad has ignored political appeals for him to rein in his assault, and EU leaders have discussed ramping up sanctions, but only a massive global outcry will push them to act urgently.
We have no time to lose — every day dozens of Syrians are shot, tortured or disappeared simply for calling for basic democratic rights. The EU can stop funding the crackdown now. Click below to sign the petition to EU heads of state to immediately adopt oil sanctions on Syria:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_blood_for_oil/97.php?cl_tta_sign=925d418d3ca1247c256dada60f74a335
We have all watched and read about the horrific violence in Syria — much of the coverage coming from Avaaz-supported citizen journalists who are risking their lives to report on Assad’s crackdown. And now we have a chance to turn our horror into action. Experts say EU oil sanctions will seriously disrupt cash flow to Assad’s cruel army without significant negative consequences to either the European economy or the Syrian people.
Almost all Syria’s exported oil is purchased and refined by Germany, France and Italy, but these governments have yet to use their key trade relationship with Assad as leverage to protect the Syrian people. Still, they have denounced the violence, and newspapers report that some EU leaders are already pushing for oil sanctions. Let’s demand that they ramp up the pressure and push through oil sanctions immediately and cut the engine of Assad’s murderous regime.
Join in the call to cut off the cash to Syrian forces now. Click below to sign the petition for EU oil sanctions and forward to everyone:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_blood_for_oil/97.php?cl_tta_sign=925d418d3ca1247c256dada60f74a335
Avaaz members have played a crucial role in supporting Syrians in their demands for freedom, democracy and human rights. Much of the footage and information shown around the world is funded by small donations from Avaaz members worldwide. Let’s build the momentum for lasting change as the violence against the Syrian people escalates and insist the EU take immediate action now.
With hope,
Stephanie, Pascal, Morgan, Alice, Ricken, Wissam and the rest of the Avaaz team
Danut,
I would be careful to respond to this appeal, for three reasons:
1. If you perform a Google search for Avaaz, you see complaints that they do not secure the IDs of the signatories, so as a result one may get a lot of spam.
2. As I looked at the issues they promote, I see lots of trouble in the Arab world, but the hottest of all, the Israeli/Palestinian issue, does not appear at all. Maybe I did not search enough, however, if this is true, it makes you believe this may be a Mossad front-end. They are known for such tricks.
3. As much as I dislike the hard crackdown in Syria, there is something else to consider. In the West we get excited by democracy movements in the Arab world, but it is highly probable that they are in fact hiding an extreme Islamic agenda. If these movements win, Christians will be persecuted more than ever before in this countries. Iraq was a dictatorship under Saddam, but Christians were free to worship and enjoyed absolute equal rights. Under the present “democracy” the Christian community in Iraq was virtually destroyed. The same may be true in Syria, where under Assad Christians enjoy full freedom. What do we know about Assad’s opponents? Is it possible that they are fanatics ready to purge Syria of infidels?
I find it interesting that Americans become passionate to change regimes that are Christian-friendly (Iraq, Egypt, Syria) while extending friendship and collaborations to the ones that persecute Christians (such as Saudi Arabia).
By: Mihai Oara on 11 August 2011
at 9:57 pm
Dear Mihai,
Here is my quick response:
1. I am less concerned about spam. Google has quite a good filter for it.
2. Avaaz deals very strongly with the Palestinian problem. Do a search on my blog and you will see the appeal for Palestinian statehood.
3. On this point allow me to have a very different view. I have a major problem with Christians concern merely about their petty freedom, while the whole world may as well go to hell. If a dictatorial regime is friendly to Christians, but unfriendly to basic human freedoms and especially, like in the case of Assad, is a criminal regime, killing thousands with impunity, then I do not want that freedom with such a price. I have a major problem with Christians siding with the criminal Assad, while thousands of Syrians are killed. That is not what I read in the Sermon on the mount. I am sorry, my friend.
By: DanutM on 11 August 2011
at 10:56 pm
Danut,
I believe you very well covered the first two points.
On the last one I agree partially. Of course we should not encourage brutal regimes for the only reason that they are favorable to Christians. The real question is what are we replacing them with.
Jeane Kirkpatrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick) made a distinction between a dictatorship and a totalitarian state. A dictator holds to power and refuses to share it with anybody else. Yes, it is not a democracy, but people can live in peace, doing business, raising children or worshiping. Dictatorships create resentments, because various groups want to either share in the power or simple take it for themselves. In that sense, in most of human history we had dictatorships rather than democracies. King David, Constantine and Stephan the Great were dictators, because they did not call for national assemblies to decide the destiny of their nations. If you tried to replace them you may have ended in prison or worse.
Totalitarian states are driven by one religion and ideology, which they press on all citizens. Communism was totalitarian, Fascism was totalitarian and some Islamic states are totalitarian. In such states you have to subscribe to the official faith and show enthusiasm. Dictatorship limits your access to power while totalitarianism crushes your person.
Coming back to Syria, my fear is that we’ll replace a dictator with a totalitarian state. Today in Syria you may believe in Mohamed or Jesus. However, if some Islamic movement comes to power, things may change.
To be honest, I do not know who are the rebels. Maybe they are democrats that believe in Thomas Jefferson and Western liberalism. Maybe they are fanatics who will introduce Sharia law.
All I’m saying is that we should not have a knee-jerk reaction to support any rebellion in the name of freedom. The Bolsheviks fought against the Tsar’s absolute power and replace it with a totalitarian state. During the Tsar you could be a Marxist and you went to prison for three months if you spread some manifestos on the street. When the Bolsheviks took power, you had to believe like them and if you protested they shut you AND your family.
By: Mihai Oara on 11 August 2011
at 11:52 pm
Mihai, I agree with you on the necessary distinction between dictatorship and totalitarianism. Even so, however, I am not ready to accept dictators, even benevolent one, including David for that matter, because this manner of leadership denies the fundamental divinely given condition of humanity: freedom.
Of course, freedom needs to be balanced by responsibility, but this is a discussion for another post.
Like you, I do not know who are the rebels and I doubt there is unity among them. They are just fed up with this cruiminal who controlled with an iron fist, and a KGB trained secret police Syria and Lebanon for decades. Almost anything is better than that.
Where this will lead? Only God knows. In what I am concerned, I am still on the side of the rebellion. I simply cannot bring myself to side with the strong man. My gospel calls me to side with the weak. On that ground I stand, as brother Luther would say.
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 12:09 am
There is a human reaction perfectly understandable to anarchy (see also the UK recent riots), one of worrying about the consequences of such actions.
Although order is preferred to anarchy, justice cannot be overridden when trying to stop the latter.
Divine justice as ilustrated by Christian values requires on one hand caution in trusting in people (such as lone leaders) to bring it down on Earth and on the other hand the humility of living with our eyes on ours and our neighbours’ the daily needs. (with the stress on -daily-)
Planning with the needs of a society cast against the needs of its weaker individuals is a lot less than Jesus taught people during His time here.
By: sam on 12 August 2011
at 12:56 am
Sunt de-acord cu ingrijorarea d-lui oara pt crestini.
Crestinii au fost cu Assad; poate acum dupa crimele comise nu mai sunt. Soarta lor -ca-n Egipt- va fi mai rea si nu mai buna intr-o eventuala dictatura islamica. Dar basic human rights?
Da’ ce, le-a adus undeva vreo revolutie islamica?
By: Doru Radu on 12 August 2011
at 1:19 pm
Domnule Radu, de ce vorbiti mereu de autocratiile musulmanilor? De ce nu ne spuneti cite ceva si despre ‘frumoasele’ dictaturi singeroase create de crestini de-a lungul secolelor? Ma tem ca aici ne veti spoune ca aceia n-au fosr cretini autentici, argument care (desigur, cum s-ar putea altfel? doar n-o sa ramineti chiar faca argument) nu se aplica si islamicilor.
Ceva este absolut strimb in modul in care judecati si, din pacate, nu reusiti nicium sa vedeti asta. Dar, vorba ceia, si dvs. aveti Duhul Domnului. N-o sa ma obosesc eu sa incerc a va convinge. O poate face el (sau ea? ca doar e totuna, divinitate n-are nici sex nixi gen) desigur, daca nu credeti ca stapiniti deja adevarul absolut in aceasta chestiune. In ce ma priveste, nu cred asta.
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 1:31 pm
Domnul Manastireanu:
Este (ca sa fiu elegant) dezolant de regretabil sa aducem argumente din trecutul pe care nu l-au trait nici macar stramosii stramosilor nostri. Cea mai ridicola chestie e cind ii aud pe crestini ca-si cer iertare pe cruciade si se intimideaza in fata musulmanilor pe chestia asta. Dupa parerea mea un crestin nici macar n-ar trebui sa accepte o astfel de discutie. Iertaciunea asta ar parea duhovniceasca de-ar fi macar sustinuta de dovezi istorice. E mai usor sa-ti ceri iertare pt pacatele parintilor decit pt ale tale; ma refer la mine. O pocainta care nu ma imlica pe mine e-o pura tarnicie.
Aveti dreptate nu cred ca aia sunt crestini autentici; doar sunt evanghelic si cred in nasterea din nou si nu in crestinizare = colectivizare. De ce nu se aplica la musulmani? Pt ca teologia lor e diferita; aici chiar nu-i vina mea… Uitindu-ma la Egipt, post Mubarak: unde sunt adeptii dialogului, d-le Manastireanu? De ce nu cer ei libertate pt multi-milenara populatie crestina din Egipt? Sau, ce-a ramas din infratirea din zilele revolutiei?
Democratiile islamice? Iranul are pese 30 ani de asa zisa democratie… Cum arata ea?
Avem multe motive sa ne fie rusine -ca evanghelici- dar atrocitatile facute de asa zisele tari crestine de-a lungul istoriei nu fac parte dintre aceste motive.
By: Doru Radu on 12 August 2011
at 2:49 pm
Fiecare cu convingerea lui, nu-i asa? Unii cu convingeri ‘ridicole’, altii cu convingeri fixe si inradacinate in iluziile propriilor ideologii.
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 2:53 pm
Am uitat sa va multumesc pt raspuns.
Eu n-am zis ca dvs aveti convingeri ridicole. In primul rind nici nu stiu ce credeti. Pe blog apareti ca o “gazda” care face loc informatiilor cu care nu pare a fi de-acord cu tot ce prublica. O faceti doar informativ. Nu stiu exact ce credeti. Pot presupune.
“@altii cu convingeri fixe si inradacinate in iluziile propriilor ideologii.”
Nu cred ca invadarea Europei din sec 8 de catre musulmani a fsot o iluzia ideologica a mea. Dvs. stiti mai multe decit mine. Regreta ei asta sau sunt mindri de ispravile lor? Si-au cerut vreodata iertare pt ocuparea Constantinopolului? Si-au cerut vreodata iertarept secole de inrobire a tarilor romane? Pt pirjolirea Europei? Trebuie sa facem la fel? Nu! Dar astea-s non-issues; nici n-ar trebui acceptate ca suiecte.
By: Doru Radu on 12 August 2011
at 3:12 pm
Aici nu e vorba de ce regreta sau ar trebui msa regrete ei. De ar trebui sa ne impiedice asta pe noi in recunoasterea greselilor trecutului? De cind este aceasta un tirg penibil de genul tit for tat?
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 3:52 pm
De cind s-au schimbat blogurile nu mai poti scrie comentarii lungi; nu-i paguba pt dvs da-i enervant pt mien. Ei omoara, persecut zilnic crestini cu mindire si-i aburesc pt unii dintre dvs sa mearga la masa dialogului cerindu-si iertare pt pacate de sute de ani. E-o batjocura strigatoare la cer. Mi-e usor sa-mi cer iertare pt cruciade decit sa-mi cer iertar de la dvs pt ca uneori nu m-am adresat cum se cuvenea. O fac acuma.
PS- si mai greu e sa-mi cer iertare de la nevasta.
PS- fara insulte la adresa cuiva: Prostii! in lumea asta ticaloasa sa te vezi vinovat de pacate milenare si sa nu te impaci cu fratele cu care te-nchini -cica- duminica de duminica. Prostie imbracata in stralucire fatarnica.
By: Doru Radu on 12 August 2011
at 3:16 pm
Cum zice Cristos? ‘pe cele recente sa le faceti, si pe cele vechi sa le uitati’ sau ‘pe acestea sa le faceti, si pe celalalte sa nu le lasati nefacute’?
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 3:54 pm
Unde-o fi zis Mintuitorul sa ne cerem iertare pt pacatele stramosilor habar n-am.
Dar chestia asta seamana cu protestul pres. Iranian pt portretizarea persanilor in razboiul de la Termopile, parca. Or fi fost si istoricii greci evanghelici fundamentalisti islamofobi.
Fata de problemele -si vinovatia- care confrunta crestinatatea actuala intr-adevar cererea de iertare pt secolele trecute era o prioritate. Chiar nu vedeti ca se joaca abil cu noi -musulmanii- precum pisica cu soarecele?
Lumea are probleme mai mari si actuale. Si la urma urmei, cind ne legam de pacatele istorice ale cultelor istorice ne afurisiti drept sectari. Atrocitatile respective nu-s problema noastra. De-ar fi sa ne luam de pacatele Romei nu credtei c-ar avea lucruri mai recente, chestii fratricide, pt pocainta? Felicitari musulmanilor! V-au invaluit inr-o perdea de fum.
PS- din eleganta nu pomenim pacatele istorice ale altora…
By: Doru Radu on 12 August 2011
at 4:36 pm
Credeti-ma ca mi-a fi mai usor sa spal picioarele pline de praf ale unui Taliban care-a omorit americani si sa-l omenesc la mine-acasa (dupa ce-am trimis copiii si sotia la vecini) ca sa ma ierte pt cruciada decit sa-mi cer iertare de la unii co-evanghelici pe care i-am vorbit de rau pe ascuns. (Unul din textele concludente pt mine e acela cind Iacov a trebuit sa dea fata cu Esau dupa 20 ani…)
Oi fi eu cel mai slab?
Poate.
1-Dar am vazut ortodocsi pe care i-am admirat pt spiritualitate, dar cind era vorba de pocaiti ori Luther, ii urau ca pe Statana…
2-Si cunosc evanghelici care-au facut puscarie si si-au ieratat tortionarii dar nu-si pot ierta fratii care i-au indepartat de la amvoane sau din comitetele caselor de rugaciune.
3-Ba mi-am cerut si eu iertare pe-un blog penti pt ofensele aduse de-a lungul anilor de mine si confrati apartinatorilor acestei confesiuni. N-a fost greu; pe vaisamar nu l-am vazut niciodata in realitate si nici pe anonimii ce comentau acolo!
4-Am fsot si eu oripilat (vorba dvs) cind am vazut ca crestinii sirbi nu-i iarta pe catolicii croati pt atrocitatile din WWII sau evanghelici romani pe unguri pt atrocitatile din Ardealul ocupat dupa diktat… Bine ca ne-am cearut iertare de la musulmani pt cruciade… asta astepta Dumnezeu nerabdator!
De ce e mai usor astfel?
E mai greu sa te uiti in ochii cuiva ce te-a ranit recent si sa-l ierti din toata inima, sau sa-ti lasi darul la altar si sa te milogesti de iertare de unul care ar trebui el sa-ti ceara iertare tie decit…. sa-i ceri iertare crestinului Berlusconi pt ca Burebista a-ncercat oprirea ascensiunii lui Caesar (daca memoria nu ma insala).
In privinta crestinului Berlsconi avem acceasi parere, sper. Macar aici.
S-aveti un weekend placut!
PS- sa nu pledam totusi pt un crestinism picat din luna sau de pe Marte!
By: Doru Radu on 12 August 2011
at 6:50 pm
Fiecare dintre noi trebuie sa ne urmam constiinta, hopefully luminata de Duhul Domnului. Eu imi voi cere ietrare de ce ma socotesc eu vinovat, iar dvs. de ale dvs. In felul acesta lumea cu siguranta nu va deveni mai rea ci mai buna. Cum se pun toate astea laolalta si ce fac altii cu asta, e treaba lor si a lui Dumnezeu.
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 7:00 pm
Nu am putut citi tot dialogul intre DM si DR cu privire la crestinii care au facut ragagii in istorie. Trebuie insa stiut ca politica s-a folosit de Crestinism ca sa isi promoveze interesele si nu stiu daca Crestinismul este de blamat acolo sau mai degraba politica. Nu trebuie insa uitat binele care l-a facut Crestinismul si in ce priveste colectivitatea si individul. Nu cred ca toate spoielile cu cereri de iertate duca la ceva mai ales ca s-a ajuns la exagerari care punea in chetinue pina si la requonquista si am auzit comentarii care mergeau pina acolo incit Crestinii ar trebui sa isi ceara iertare pentru requonquista fara sa se puna in cauza cum a ajuns Islamul pina acolo si prin cite brutatilati au trecut popoarele pe care le-au cucerit. Nu mai departe de istoria romana si cuceririle Otomane daca e vorba sa ne amintim de ce au facut Musulmanii, Se stie ca Islamizarea Africii s-a facut si se face tot cu sabia. Nu pot sa compar cele doua religii si sa pun in chirca Crestinisumului aceleai atrocitati. Iar intrebarea ce regimuri vor lua locul dupa revolutiile arabe mi se pare absolut legitima. Poate ar fi bine de citit de exemplu Imobilul Yacoubian, sau de vizionant filmul ca sa se vada ca gruparea Les frères musulmans nu e de loc inocenta.
By: maria on 12 August 2011
at 7:45 pm
De acord, Maria, ca nu putem compara, bucata cu bucata, cele doua religii. Niic nu crebuie. Noi suntem convinsi ca Cristos este singura cale. De aceea suntem crestini.
Ce stpun eu insa este ca noi avem a ne cai pentru ale noastre pacate (reale, nu imaginare), iar musulmanii de ale lor (daca au chef; si asta nu e treaba mea, ci a lor cu Allah).
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 8:29 pm
Nu putem compara nici bucata cu bucata nici ca ansamblu si faptul ca suntem impotriva unui dictator nu exclude intrebarea ce va fi dupa si nu cred de loc ca solutia ar fi un stat Islamist nu este asta Iranul?
Imi amintesc o discutie cu un medic care a calatorit in zona si care imi spunea anul trecut ca fusese in una din fostele state ale USSR, Uzbekistan se pare si apoi in Afganisatan. Imi spunea: “Maria am avut impresia ca ma intorc in istorie cu patru secole in urma.” Nu cred ca bunastarea materiala face fericirea dar nu cred ca obligatia de a trai in mizeir este o virtute.
By: maria on 12 August 2011
at 8:53 pm
De acord, Maria. Intrebarea ‘ce va fi dupa?’ este legitima.
A folosi insa aceasta intrebare pentru a justifica status quo-ul autocratic, asa cum fac unii, mi se pare o enormitate.
Ce va fi dupa nu este responsabilitatea noastra, ci a celor care s-au revoltat.
Ce-mi doresc eu este sa vad tot mai multa rezistenta non-violenta la distatura de orice culoare si, desigur, mai multa luciditate si privire in perspectiva. Dar aceasta pare sa fie pura utopie.
By: DanutM on 12 August 2011
at 9:08 pm
Nu uita ca in istorie adesea dictarurile au fost inlocuite de dictaturi sub alta forma
By: maria on 12 August 2011
at 11:18 pm
La guerre est inhérente à l’Islam. Elle est inscrite dans sa doctrine……Elle est cohérente à la conception même de Dar al ahrb, le monde entier ayant la vocation d’être islamisé par la conquête arabe. La preuve de ceci n’est pas seulement théologique, elle est historique ; à peine la religion musulmane a-t-elle était prêchée, aussitôt et comme conséquence immédiate, la conquête militaire commence. De 632 à 651, en vingt ans après la mort du Prophète c’est une fulgurante guerre de conquête, invasion à l’ouest de l’Egypte et de la Cyrénaique, au centre de reste de l’Arabie, à l’este de l’Arménie, de la Syrie, de la Perse. Dans le siècle qui suit, la totalité de l’Afrique du Nord et de l’Espagne, et à l’Est jusqu’à l’Inde et au Turkestan. Tout cela non par la vertu et la sainteté mais par la guerre.
Pendant trois cents ans, le christianisme s’est étendu lui, par la prédication, la bonté, l’exemple, la moralité, l’encouragement aux pauvres. Et quand l’Empire devient chrétien la guerre est mal tolérée par les chrétiens, elle reste quoique mené par un Empereur chrétien douteuse et mal jugé. Elle est souvent condamnée. On accusera les chrétiens de miner intérieurement la force politique et la puissance militaire de l’Empire.
Dans l’Islam, au contraire, elle était toujours juste et constituait un devoir sacré. Cette guerre destiné à convertir les infidèles est juste et légitime, parce que, répète –t- on dans la pensée musulmane, l’Islam est la seule religion conforme de façon à la Nature. Si l’homme restait naturel il serrait forcement musulman. J
By: maria on 16 August 2011
at 10:13 pm
@”Cette guerre destiné à convertir les infidèles est juste et légitime, parce que, répète –t- on dans la pensée musulmane, l’Islam est la seule religion conforme de façon à la Nature. Si l’homme restait naturel il serrait forcement musulman. ”
Je suis d’accord. Par ecrir on francais on evite d’ettre accuser d’islamophoby… mai on anglais, c’est different.
By: Doru Radu on 17 August 2011
at 3:23 pm
I don’t get it. Citatul face o comparatie intre Chrestinism si Islam aratind tocmai faptul ca Islamul s-a raspindit prin forta si nu printr-o schimbare a inimi.
By: maria on 17 August 2011
at 8:57 pm
Domnul Doru Radu s-ar bucura sa te angajeze in campania lui islamofoba, inspirata din stirile ‘crestine’ de la Fox News.
By: DanutM on 17 August 2011
at 9:40 pm
Nu am apucat sa scriu inainte de a-l trimte ca citatul de mai sus este din Jacques Ellul care a publicat cartea La subversion du Christianisme, unde face o analysa a Chrestinismului, in 1984. Din unele din reactiile dumneavostra domnule DR ma faceti sa cred ca aveti ca sursa de informatii pe Rush L care nu este nici istoric, nici analist ci entretainer.
By: maria on 17 August 2011
at 9:02 pm
Nu-l ascult pe Rush. Sunt de-acord cu citatul dvs [@"Citatul face o comparatie intre Chrestinism si Islam aratind tocmai faptul ca Islamul s-a raspindit prin forta si nu printr-o schimbare a inimi"].
. … daca-l scriam eu, era etichetat islamofob, citatul. Pas de probleme, toti suntem subiectivi. Sa fiti cu totii fericiti. Inclusiv cei de la Fox news care nu-s mai putin subiectivi decit BBC.
Intr-una dintre cele mai hazlii replici primite de mine pe acest blog am fost acuzat ca insult “boborul” englez cind am indraznit a critica BBC… M-am amuzat ca de acuzatiile de pe vremuri ale radio Moscova. Dar pt ca nu sunt perfect nu ma supar pe nimeni… Spre deosebire de altii, incerc sa judec cu capul propriu chiar daca sunt banuit ca ma iau dupa oficinile dusmanoase. Sper ca nu v-am suparat d-na Maria. Sunt mai de moda veche si am invatat sa ma port cu manusi cu doamnele.
By: Doru Radu on 17 August 2011
at 11:05 pm
Danut, in ce ma priveste mor si traiesc pentru Chrestinism atita vreme cit il reprezinta pe Christos. Cit despre fox news ai pus bine ghilimelele. Prefer sa il am pe Ellul prezentind Chrestinismul si nu fox news.
By: maria on 17 August 2011
at 10:06 pm
Revin ca sa precizez ca ce am vrut sa dovedesc prin postarea citatului din Jacques Ellul este ca, Crestinismul nu s-a raspindit prin puterea sabiei ci prin accea a dragostei si propavaduirii chiar daca unii vor sa faca din Edictul de la Milano un edict care face din Chrestinism o religie de stat. Edictul de la Milano este un edict de tolaranta, un fel de laicité à l’Empire Romaine. Crestinizarea Frantei nu s-a facut prin botezul sau ca urmare a botezului lui Clovis. La botezul lui Clovis existau deja 50 de dioceze in Franta si una dintre cele mai cunoscute era cea de la Lyon. Acuzatiile care ii se aduc Chrestinismului sunt uneori false sau cel putin exagerate.
By: maria on 17 August 2011
at 11:12 pm
Nu m-ati suparat Domnule Radu. Cred ca eu am inteles gresit ce vroiati sa spuneti. Ma bucur ca nu sunteti un fidel al lui Rush L. nu vad cum pot fi si crestin si fidel programelor lui. Nu cred insa ca putem compara Fox News cu BBC.
Cit despre subiect, pentru ca ne-am indepartat de la subiectul articolului, cred ca Occidentul ar putea face mai mult dar nu este in interesele lui.
By: maria on 18 August 2011
at 3:51 pm