Sudan detains 10 women for wearing miniskirts and trousers to church

Sudanese authorities have detained 10 Christian students on a charge of indecent dressing, a criminal offense, after they wore miniskirts and trousers to church.

The young women were arrested last month in front of the Evangelical Baptist Church in the war-torn Nuba Mountains region in South Kordofan.

The girls, ages 17 to 23, had attended a ceremony at the church.

Police charged 12 women under Sudan’s 1991 Criminal Act, but two were released. The rest are to appear in court in coming days. If convicted, each will face 40 lashes.

“Sudan must drop the charges and release these women immediately,” Sarah Jackson, Amnesty International’s East Africa Deputy Director said on Sunday (July 12). “A hem-line is not a crime.”

Jackson said authorities imposed the charges in a discriminatory and inappropriate way and violated the women’s rights.

The 17-year-old student’s case has been transferred to the juvenile court. The rest of the women have court dates this week.

The Sudanese government is now trying two Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church pastors. The pastors face a possible death penalty conviction on charges of spying.

Yat Michael Rout was arrested last December after he delivered a sermon in a church in Omdurman area, while Peter Yein Reith was arrested weeks later after he raised the arrest issue with Sudan authorities.

Islamic law is strictly imposed in Sudan, and its government has increased persecution of Christians.

Advertisements

75 thoughts on “Sudan detains 10 women for wearing miniskirts and trousers to church

  1. And what does the Bible say about standards of morality in the church versus standards of morality outside the church Bryan?

    “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” 1 Cor. 5:12.

    “Verse 12. – For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? To pass sentence on heathens is no concern of mine; it is no part of my office. The phrase “them that are without” was originally a Jewish phrase. To the Jews all men were outsiders (chitsonin) except themselves. The phrase was adopted by Christians, but in a less contemptuous sense (1 Thessalonians 4:12; Colossians 4:5). We find a description of “those that were without” – “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise” – in Ephesians 2:12. Do not ye judge them that are within! An appeal to their own practice and to common sense. Christian rules can, of course, only apply to Christian communities.” Pulpit Commentary

    In another place Paul says:

    “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becomes saints;” Eph. 5:3

    So the question that arises out of this, is what happens when the woman is the sexual harasser by what s/he wears whilst in church or whilst claiming to be a christian?

    Like

      • Bryan,

        The story said that the women had attended a ceremony at the church. What did the church do about it? Knowing that both the Bible and the state support chastity and modesty? Why didn’t the pastors do anything about it, knowing damn well that both the Bible and that particular society had rules and regulations governing modesty and chastity, and that a woman in that society could be punished for immodest attire?.

        Bigoted world I live in? How about impure world you, Stu, and Kerry live in? The New Testament makes it clear that godly women are to be chaste and modest (1 Tim. 2:8-10 1 Peter 3:1-4 for example).

        But no! Everyone who wants to live according to Scripture is branded a bigot, and a legalist by those who have rejected the Word of God in favour of their sins, (in this case the provocation to sin).

        Jesus made it clear what awaits women dressing provocatively:

        “Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that temptations to sin will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!” Luke 17:1. (the text applies equally to male and females that tempt others equally)

        So as a bigoted person living in my twisted little world, pray tell me how DO I HELP SAVE THE WOMEN from incurring the divine punishment for being agents of temptation? Is it not by having a dress standard for Christians? Is it not by speaking about it and warning women not to become agents of evil?

        Jesus also said that a man that looks lustfully on a woman has already committed adultery in his heart.

        So as a bigoted person living in my twisted little world, pray tell me how DO I HELP MEN OVERCOME this temptation, when it manifests itself in the Church? Do men and women have a right to feel safe from sexual harassment in the house of God? Think about it Bryan.

        The apostle Paul was often heard saying that “all things are permissible to me, not all things are useful to me”. He then explained that in the church we have people struggling with sin at varying levels, and that sometimes we have to sacrifice things that might be legal and permissible for us, in order to help a “weaker” struggling brother or sister.

        If I live in my own twisted bigoted world, how is it you have not understood that when a woman dresses in a “sexy” outfit, she is arousing men’s thoughts to sexual activity (whether she likes to admit this or not, whether she does this deliberately or not)? How is it that you ignore the Scriptural principles set down by Paul in this sort of cases?

        Nay! It is not I that is living in his twisted, bigoted world! It is the pastors that know what the Scripture says but ignore it to fill church pews! It is your libertine world that has to deal with Senate Inquiries into Sexualisation of Children (which has discussed such issues as legality of selling G-strings for little girls).

        Like

      • So davinci, in your misogynist mind you think it’s all women’s fault.. And men are the poor victims of the temptresses.

        If anyone is rejecting the word of God it is yourself.

        Where does it say in the Bible that women should not wear slacks? NOWHERE

        You ignored completely what Kerry said so I’ll repeat it here.

        One must remember, that in biblical times, clothing for males and females was different only in styles and details, not in kind. Men did not wear trousers, and women did not adorn themselves with skirts and blouses. While it undoubtedly is true that God wants some sexual distinction apparent in men’s and women’s garments, it is not legitimate to say that all women’s “pants” are wrong, or, for that matter, that Scottish “kilts” are sinful for the men of that culture.

        A woman can be feminine in a modest pant-suit (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-10), and men can still be masculine in a robe-like garment (as in some Near Eastern countries today).

        Like

      • Hey davinci, More from Deuteronomy, chapter 22

        DO YOU FOLLOW THESE COMMANDS??

        When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

        9 “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

        11 “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

        12 “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

        OR DO YOU ONLY FOLLOW THE COMMANDS THAT SUIT YOU?

        Like

      • Bryan,

        9 “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

        Instead of parroting “Ivory Tower” theology you need to get out more and use your journalistic training to investigate what gardeners and agriculturalists have known for years.

        Some plants do not grow well together.

        For example potatoes and squash/cucumbers/tomatoes/celery.
        For example celery and carrots/parsnip.
        For example Beetroot and garlic/onion/broccoli.

        Other plants are susceptible to common pests, fungal infections and parasites.

        For example corn and tomatoes. If your tomatoes get infected, it will not take down the corn crop.

        This law is actually based in reality rather than theology.

        Like

      • OK davinci and what about the ones you ignored:

        11 “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

        12 “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

        Do you follow these or not? It’s not a difficult question old mate.

        Like

      • Bryan, regarding Deut. 22:11

        “11 “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.”

        Early writers, like Maimonides, state that the prohibition was a case of the general law (Leviticus 20:23) against imitating Canaanite customs. Maimonides wrote that: “the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials, while they held in their hand a seal of mineral. This you will find written in their books” (Maimonides in Moreh 3:37).

        Tell me Bryan, are the Canaanites still around? Does wearing wool and linen still make a political statement to everyone that I encourage union between Canaanite idolaters and those believing in God?

        Another explanation why this law was given is that because linen was a product of agriculture (specifically Egyptian agriculture) and wool was a product of pastoralism (specifically Hebrew pastoralism), this intermixing between linen and wool was seen as symbol of intermixing of Jew and Egyptian, a believer in Jehovah and a believer in idolatry.

        Still another explanation commonly given is that linen was seen as symbol of Cain’s offering (produce of the ground), whilst wool was seen as a symbol of Abel’s offering (sheep). Thus the intermixing of wool and linen symbolised the intermixing of an acceptable/unacceptable offering to God.

        Is this still the case today? Does wearing wool/linen combinations still sends the message that one supports heathen/godly union? I doubt it. And even Jewish Rabbis would be hard pressed to do so. Hence there is no reason to keep this law.

        Unlike this, what women wear outside and inside the church still sends a message either for evil or for good. So to put Deut. 22:11 side by side with Biblical regulations against modesty is a wrong application of scriptures.

        Like

      • Hence there is no reason to keep this law.

        Oh I see. Your legalism stops at whatever you think is not appropriate for you. Does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you davinci/Hassan?

        Like

    • Davinci:

      “…what happens when the woman is the sexual harasser by what s/he wears…”

      Maybe you could put this on the agenda at your next Klan meeting. Not strictly race related, I know, but I’m sure that organisation must have some views on what women wear.

      Like

      • Too right Bryan, and as long as they have to stand up to this garbage, women will have as much support from me as they want.

        Like

      • Stu

        “Maybe you could put this on the agenda at your next Klan meeting. Not strictly race related, I know, but I’m sure that organisation must have some views on what women wear.”

        Except I have never advocated that Christianity should be imposed by force. Especially on unbelievers. If you think I did, then show me where I have said so.

        Your comment however shows how your kind endeavours to legitimatise perversity and introduce it into Christianity. That is by misrepresenting the position of your enemies, and rely on people like Bryan who don’t think for themselves to support whatever perversity is the flavour of the day.

        Like

      • Bryan you haven’t taken a leaf out of Stu’s page have you? Can you point out where I have had some sympathy with the KKK? Date and quote please!

        Like

      • Sure.

        At 2015/07/09 at 17:27 you wrote:
        After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.

        Like

      • “Except I have never advocated that Christianity should be imposed by force.”

        You implicitly supported the Sudanese authorities use of force in the arrests when you wrote:

        ”…that a woman in that society could be punished for immodest attire…” and

        “…why didn’t the pastors do anything about it…”

        If you support the state interfering in a private place of worship and arresting women based on your interpretation of scripture, then you are advocating the use force to impose your religious views on the people in that church.

        Your sympathy for the KKK only reinforces the suggestion that you would support the use of force to impose your views.

        Like

      • Bryan
        You are deliberately quoting me out of context in regards to my sympathies for the KKK. Have another look at everything I said after my alleged sympathy for KKK.

        Or are you taking a leaf out of Stu’s playbook and deliberately falsifying people’s statements to prove hypocrisy?

        Like

      • After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.

        How is it possible to quote that out of context?
        It is an obvious racist statement.

        Like

      • “Or are you taking a leaf out of Stu’s playbook and deliberately falsifying people’s statements to prove hypocrisy?”

        You were quoted verbatim Davinci, and caught out lying in the process. Given your history of misrepresenting others on this blog by claiming to “paraphrase” them, I can dismiss your allegation accordingly.

        “I don’t even recall using the words KKK or make any reference to KKK to support it in any shape or form.”

        Do you really expect anyone to believe you couldn’t remember what you wrote about the KKK a week earlier?

        “Have another look at everything I said after my alleged sympathy for KKK.”

        Nothing that came after your KKK reference justifies what you wrote (and which you apparently couldn’t recall). If you need the bible to tell you that KKK sympathies are wrong (let alone “burning with hatred for blacks”) then there is something wrong with you. No amount of proselytising will get you out of this one Davinci.

        Like

    • There is nothing particularly spiritual about a dress or a coat and tie. God is scarcely impressed by such things. “People look at the outward appearance,” we are reminded, “but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7).

      Like

      • Hi Kerry

        I just wanted to correct you on that.

        Deuteronomy 22:5

        “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

        Like

      • A careful consideration of Deuteronomy, chapter 22, reveals a number of commands that are strange to the modern mind. For example, if a man discovered a bird sitting upon eggs, he might take the eggs but not the bird (22:6-7). Different kinds of seeds could not be planted in one’s vineyard (9). The Hebrew farmer was not to yoke together an ox and a donkey for plowing (10). A Jew was forbidden to wear a garment containing two types of cloth (e.g., wool and linen – 11), and so on.

        One must remember, that in biblical times, clothing for males and females was different only in styles and details, not in kind. Men did not wear trousers, and women did not adorn themselves with skirts and blouses. While it undoubtedly is true that God wants some sexual distinction apparent in men’s and women’s garments, it is not legitimate to say that all women’s “pants” are wrong, or, for that matter, that Scottish “kilts” are sinful for the men of that culture.

        A woman can be feminine in a modest pant-suit (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-10), and men can still be masculine in a robe-like garment (as in some Near Eastern countries today).

        Like

      • No worries Kerry. I was just addressing the statement that God does not look at the outward appearance. God has some expectation on how people should dress.

        Like

      • Those particular books of the bible were written addressing the culture of their respective times, and I think quite appropriate for those eras. Not contemporary times.

        Questions.
        Why on earth would God want to use those recommendations for an entirely different culture?
        Could he not have more concerns about our present culture, like greed?
        Why do we limit Him to limited and often contradictory words?

        IMO the only things we should take from the bible are those things that are constantly reiterated, and the things that speak personally to us. Note, only in my opinion. 😉

        Like

      • Hi Strewth

        IMO the only things we should take from the bible are those things that are constantly reiterated, and the things that speak personally to us. Note, only in my opinion.

        Abomination is a fairly strong word. It may not have been reiterated because the message was heeded back then, so no need for reinforcement. Similar to not eating unclean meat. Being selective in what you take out of the bible gets into the dangerous territory of which parts of the bible is to be ignored.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Here’s a picture of what one of my ancestors would have looked like, wearing the clan tartan.

        And back in the day if you told him he was dressed like a woman he might have fed you that claymore. 😉

        Like

      • Dom, a well thought out comment from you.:-)
        It does raise the question of which parts of the bible can be ignored, and I guess we are all aware of some.

        If you consider the bible as a text book for multiple class subjects at multiple levels, you will find the parts meant for you. Open yourself to God’s guidance. Don’t limit Him to being unable to deal with multiple streams.

        Again, my opinion only!

        Like

      • Hey Bubba

        My wife’s family get around in sarongs.

        If you say something to them I don’t think they would do anything.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Well the highlander temperament was never know for being overly genteel.

        The Fijian national dress doesn’t seem to make much of a distinction between the genders either. And back in the day the Roman’s wore toga’s.

        Kinda makes you wonder what the whole mens / womens clothing thing is all about.

        Like

      • Yes gets you thinking Bubba that culture is stronger than scripture in many cases.

        The sarong is generally something you wrap over your everyday trousers so you don’t get the carpet dirty when you pray.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Actually it got me thinking that whoever wrote that passage of the bible sure had a limited view of the cultures and peoples of the world.

        It’s almost like an omniscient deity had absolutely nothing to do with it 🙂

        Like

      • General a Malaysian or Indonesian Muslim would walk to the mosque with his sarong over his shoulder then put it on at the mosque.

        Like


      • Actually it got me thinking that whoever wrote that passage of the bible sure had a limited view of the cultures and peoples of the world.

        Actually none of those cultures you mentioned existed when this verse was stated.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Well if the bible is only relevant to the cultures at the time it was written I guess we might as well just classify it as an historical oddity and not needed by 21st century humanity.

        Like

      • Hey again Dom,

        You sure there were none of those toga wearing Romans around when Deuteronomy was written ??

        Like

      • I stand corrected. I assumed you meant the short toga that crept in 100 AD.

        Men would wear the Toga and Women would wear the Stola.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Well according to Wikipedia the Stola only dates to 2nd century BC and previously to that the Toga was a unisex garment, from about the time of Numa Pompilius (715–673 BC) which would probably predate Deuteronomy.

        And it’s possible that a lot of the unisex kind of clothing worn by many polynesian cultures dates well back into the bc era as well. Although I don’t know how you’d check it.

        But it would appear that whoever the author was they missed all of that (and probably a lot more besides).

        Like

      • “It does raise the question of which parts of the bible can be ignored, ”

        ALL OF IT.

        Like

      • These people trace Duet back to 1406 BC.

        Ignore all parts of the bible. Even the bits about thou shalt not murder ?

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        No murder – Well if you can’t work that one out for yourself it’s a bit of a worry.

        Like

  2. “Everyone who wants to live according to Scripture is branded a bigot…”

    No. People who want to force others to live according to their interpretation of scripture are bigots. You are a bigot because you think your interpretation of scripture gives you the right to tell women how to dress, judge how a church in the Sudan conducts its affairs and justify the circumstances in which you would sympathise with the KKK.

    Like

    • I am astonished that this person who calls herself/himself davinci claims to be a Christian. The attitude and the words are anything but Christian.

      Like

      • Pam let me make a similar statement of my own, in response to yours.

        I am astonished that the person who wrote the statement below is so ignorant and deceitful whilst claiming to be a Christian:

        “Davinci, it was you who a few days admitted some sympathy with the Ku Klux Klan. Funny how you can just ignore that bigotry.” (Bryan Patterson)

        Actually the word that I used was “tempted”. Just as Jesus was tempted in all points yet without sin (remember that verse?)

        Bryan and Stu seem to be unable to distinguish between temptation and sympathy. Temptation and Sympathy are not the same thing.

        Furthermore the Bible does not consider being tempted a sin (otherwise Jesus would have sinned when He was tempted in the wilderness).

        The Bible does consider being the TEMPTER or AGENT OF TEMPTATION through which temptation occurs, a sin (remember the verse in which Jesus talks about hanging a millstone around someone’s neck and throwing that person in the sea?)

        If there is someone who isn’t exhibiting the actions and words of a Christian it is Bryan and Stu.

        Like

      • At 2015/07/09 at 17:27 you wrote:
        After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.

        Nothing about being tempted.. Just “IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY”…etc
        ie SYMPATHY
        You ain’t Jesus davinci. Not even close.

        Like

      • Davinci:

        “Actually the word that I used was “tempted”.”

        Actually, anyone can go to your original post referencing the KKK (9 July 2015 at 17.27) and see that the word “tempted” does not appear. For the record, you first denied even using the term KKK, now you are trying to revise what you said and compare yourself to Jesus in the process.

        Like

      • Strewth,

        Let me clarify something for you about that whole passage in Deuteronomy, that has been brought into this discussion.

        1) Many Christian theologians believe that they are under no obligation to follow the Old Testament, because the rules and regulations revealed to us in the Old Testament have been allegedly done away at the cross. Yet in the examples quoted above, I have shown that not only have they not been done away at the cross, but they have been recognised as being in force today, because they make common sense. Not because they are a foreshadowing of something that happened at the cross.

        2) Others believe that the Deuteronomical regulations described above, were just for that culture alone. Yet here we have examples where the modern world and modern culture follow similar practices to those shown in the Deuteronomical law, not because the Jewish culture imposed them on us, but because the principles laid in them are common sense.

        3) The verses brought into the discussion above, were a diversionary tactic that is used to divert people from discussing the hypocrisy of women and effeminate men who refuse God’s command’s to maintain the distinction in garments between the sexes (Deut. 22:5).

        In fact they follow this command in spite of themselves. You go into any department store and you will find a limited variety of appearance in men’s or kids underwear, whilst the range of women’s underwear is quite large and varied. In fact if you tried to dress a kid or a man in the same underwear that is on display for women, that man would be regarded as a pervert (remember Alexander Downer embarrassment when he thought he would be exposed for wearing women’s undergarments?). If you dressed up your kids in some of the underwear that some women wear, you would be arrested for sexualisation of children.

        Bubba Ray mentioned men wearing kilts, but he failed to mention that the woman’s equivalent of the kilt is much longer. Someone else mentioned that both the Roman men and women wore togas. But that person failed to mention that the romans eventually forbade women from wearing a toga, because it was seen as the uniform of a prostitute.

        Like

      • OK davinci/Hassan/KKK sympathiser,

        In light of what you have just posted I’ll ask you again

        Deuteronomy, chapter 22

        DO YOU FOLLOW THESE COMMANDS??

        11 “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

        12 “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

        OR DO YOU ONLY FOLLOW THE COMMANDS THAT SUIT YOU?

        Like

      • Bryan,

        Regarding your comment:

        “Nothing about being tempted.. Just “IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY”…etc
        ie SYMPATHY
        You ain’t Jesus davinci. Not even close.”

        You were the one the other day talking about spiritual discernment.

        How is it that you cannot recognise and understand that one of the tactics that the Devil uses to tempt people to sin, is to use lawful feelings as grounds for temptation to start yielding to sin?

        No I am not Jesus, but looking at Jesus the Author and Finisher of my Faith (Hebrews 13:1-3) and I realised that the same thing that had happened to Jesus in the wilderness was happening to me. Namely twisting one’s legitimate feelings and sympathies to tempt to do evil.

        Not even close to Jesus, you say? Jesus’ feelings to be accepted by the world as its King and Ruler were used against Him to make Him yield to Satan if possible. Were Jesus’ feelings legitimate? They were. Was using the Devil’s methods to obtain the kingdoms of the world legitimate? If one was governed by what God says, they were. If one was governed by his feelings they weren’t.

        Not even close to Jesus, you say? Jesus felt extremely hungry when He was first tempted. Were his feelings of hunger legitimate? They were. Would His justification to use the Devil’s methods to assuage His hunger have been legitimate? If one was governed by what God says, they were. If one was governed by his feelings they weren’t.

        My feelings of outrage against the atrocities perpetuated in Rwanda (of which I had first hand knowledge) were fuelled in Australia by members of KKK (who eventually went on to influence the policies of the One Nation Party). And the reason why these feelings of outrage were fuelled, was because the foundation of the KKK’s racism against the blacks was based on the same logic that the Rwandan blacks were using to kill each other.

        Is it right to feel incensed and outraged at injustices? Yet it is. Is it right to use the Devil’s methods to combat evil? If one was governed by what God says, they were. If one was governed by his feelings they weren’t.

        You say I don’t come even close to Jesus? I believe that I come pretty close.

        Just as in the case of this particular blog. The reason why the Baptist Church in Sudan (or anywhere else for that matter) did not say or do anything about safeguarding those girls from meriting arrests and lashing is because many people shape their faith by feelings, not what the word of God actually says.

        The reason I am accused of not being Christian is because my accusers are actuated by feelings rather than what the word of God says.

        I am surprised that as a Christian that has so much to say about Discernment you did not realise that.

        As Jesus said to Nicodemus “Are you a master in Israel and you don’t know these things?”

        Like

      • Pam, I don’t think it’s hypocrisy so much as stupidity. I think he’s a few bob short if you know what I mean.

        Like

      • Davinci.

        “You say I don’t come even close to Jesus? I believe that I come pretty close.”

        Did you “come even close to Jesus” when you lied about even using the term KKK? Are you lying about “first hand” knowledge of events in Rwanda?

        Like

      • Bryan,

        You ask what is my first hand knowledge of Rwandan Atrocities? I was there. As part of an international peace keeping force. Where were you?

        Like

    • Where did I sympathise with the KKK? Please provide quote, date, etc. I don’t even recall using the words KKK or make any reference to KKK to support it in any shape or form.

      All I have said on this particular blog is that the whole situation might have been averted if:
      – The Baptist Church in question had adhered to the Bible instructions governing appearance, especially in the church.
      – The Baptist Church in question had not encouraged a blatant disregard for the government, given that the government itself had laws regarding correct attire for women just as the Bible does.

      Like

      • I don’t even recall using the words KKK or make any reference to KKK to support it in any shape or form.

        YOU HAVE SELECTIVE MEMORY DAVINCI/HASSAN. THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO

        After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.

        Like

      • Davinci:

        “Where did I sympathise with the KKK? Please provide quote, date, etc. I don’t even recall using the words KKK or make any reference to KKK to support it in any shape or form.”

        Here you go:

        On July 9, 2015 at 17:27 you wrote: “After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.”

        It is disingenuous (at best) to claim you can’t you remember what you wrote last week and all the subsequent comments by myself and others, but then you have the gall to complain that I am “misrepresenting the position of my “enemies””.

        Like

      • Bryan and Stu

        In order to make look like a KKK sympathiser you had to deliberately falsify my statements.

        The words I said were “It would have been easy”… indicating temptation to sympathise with the KKK, not that I ever ended up joining them.

        I then said:

        “Until I remember that Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world. And Paul said that God judges those things outside the church, not the church. We as Christians deal with the things inside the Church.’

        So I never supported the KKK, because their policy is to enforce their view on outsiders.

        Back to my original statement. In order to support your position you both need to resort to falsifying people’s statements and records.

        Which raises the question for you Bryan, what Scriptural statements are you willing to falsify to sustain your position?

        This one perhaps?
        “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.”

        If this was only relevant to those ancient cultures, why:
        – Do homes that have a balcony need a railing?
        – Why do Australian Standards require us to provide railing for platforms higher than about 1.5m off the ground?
        – Why is “eliminating potential dangers” part of building designs today? Ask any architect, builder or building designer and they will tell you that having a parapet or balustrade is one way of eliminating potential designers for trafficable areas that are above ground.

        Notwithstanding the fact that there are levitical laws that are still relevant today, idiots still push the idea that everything in the old testament was written for a certain age and culture and are irrelevant today.

        Like

      • “In order to make me look like a KKK sympathiser you had to deliberately falsify my statements.”

        Take responsibility for what you wrote, accept the fact that Bryan and I quoted you verbatim and admit you lied about not even using the term KKK.

        “The words I said were “It would have been easy”… indicating temptation to sympathise with the KKK, not that I ever ended up joining them.”

        Nobody said you joined the KKK. And nothing you said subsequently remotely justifies events in Rwanda making “it easy for you to be tempted to sympathise with the KKK”. And a far as I’m concerned nothing could ever justify such a thing.

        Like

      • Stu

        “Nobody said you joined the KKK.” writes Stu. But one of your comments to “Sudan detains 10 women for wearing miniskirts and trousers to church” was:

        “Maybe you could put this on the agenda at your next Klan meeting. Not strictly race related, I know, but I’m sure that organisation must have some views on what women wear.”

        If you knew anything about Klan “meetings” you would have known that they do not allow non – members to participate let alone put anything on their meeting agendas.

        If you knew anything about how an organisation works, you would know that nobody who is not a member of the particular organisation, can put any item on the aforesaid organisation’s agenda.

        So you did say I joined the Klan.

        So I ask you and Bryan again to supply my quote mentioning “Klan” or any of its derivatives in connection with the blog “Sudan detains 10 women for wearing miniskirts and trousers to church”.

        You have the timelines when each posting was made. Stu made the posting about my Klan Membership on July 15 2015, whilst Bryan wrote the article earlier on that day. It would be easy to find the quote I made between Bryan’s writing of the article and Stu’s mention of the word “Klan”.

        Like

      • So I ask you and Bryan again to supply my quote mentioning “Klan” or any of its derivatives in connection with the blog “Sudan detains 10 women for wearing miniskirts and trousers to church”.

        OK AGAIN>>>>

        At 2015/07/09 at 17:27 you wrote:
        After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.

        Like

      • Davinci, re balcony railings. Are you suggesting we have them only because of a warning on heights in the Old Testament?

        And you said “Notwithstanding the fact that there are levitical laws that are still relevant today, idiots still push the idea that everything in the old testament was written for a certain age and culture and are irrelevant today.”

        Who said EVERYTHING in the Old Testament is irrelevant today? There is much wisdom there applicable to us now, just as there is in the works of Shakespeare.

        I am happy for you to believe what seems right to you. There is nothing but good in your beliefs, as far as they go, but not one of us knows God’s mind. It is not knowledge but faith that convinces me He is leading you aright, faith that He gives us each of us our own leading.

        Like

      • Davinci:

        “Maybe you could put this on the agenda at your next Klan meeting.” When I wrote this, I was being sarcastic. I thought this would have been obvious to anyone. I should have known better.

        “If you knew anything about Klan “meetings” …”

        I don’t really know anything about Klan meetings. Thanks for the information.

        “So I ask you and Bryan again to supply my quote mentioning “Klan” or any of its derivatives…”

        I refer you to the direct quoting of your words referencing the KKK, together with the date and time, as provided by Bryan, myself and others many times on this blog entry and a previous entry. I have also referred to the fact that you denied even having used used the term KKK. You refuse to address this. Instead you have tried to play the victim by claiming misrepresentation, despite being quoted verbatim.

        Like

      • Over to you Bryan

        “So I ask you and Bryan again to supply my quote mentioning “Klan” or any of its derivatives in connection with the blog “Sudan detains 10 women for wearing miniskirts and trousers to church”.

        OK AGAIN>>>>

        At 2015/07/09 at 17:27 you wrote:
        After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.”

        So you can’t find the reference where I was the first to mention “Klan” or any of its derivatives in connection with the blog “Sudan detains 10 women for wearing miniskirts and trousers to church”.

        You have to troll through postings that I have made in connection with a totally different conversation and in a totally different context altogether to sustain your position of my alleged KKK membership.

        If I trolled through every internet posting you ever wrote, and picked out the words “Bryan” and “sucks” would that be fair or unfair to say that “Bryan sucks”?

        Like

      • Davinci.Hassan,

        Don’t be a fool. You posted this under the That Judgmental Thing heading. The point is you said it. But you won’t own up to it.

        After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of KKK and burn with hatred towards blackss

        It seems pretty clear you have racist tendencies as well as being a hypocrite and you don’t seem at all ashamed by that. Now you even deny using saying it. The Nazis did that too.

        Like

      • Davinci.

        “You have to troll through postings that I have made in connection with a totally different conversation and in a totally different context altogether to sustain your position of my alleged KKK membership.”

        Troll through? You made that comment two weeks ago and then expected people to forget you did so and not hold you to account on subsequent threads. You then lied about making any reference to the KKK, ignored criticism from multiple parties and then tried to revise your original comment with words you never used.

        Here are your words again. Verbatim:

        “After seeing the atrocities of Rwanda, it would have been very easy for me to sympathise with the ideology of the KKK and burn with hatred towards blacks.”

        I could never think of a reason to “sympathise with the ideology of the KKK” or “burn with hatred towards blacks.” What are your “reasons” Davinci?

        Like

      • Hey, Bubba.

        Death Star railings.

        I see what you did there.

        I’m calling it “Bubba’s Law”: whoever brings in a relevant Family Guy Star Wars reference wins the debate. It’s a kinda reverse Godwin’s Law.

        Like

      • Proverbs 29:20

        Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

        Like

      • Davinci Your hypocrisy insults my intelligence.
        I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you post

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s