Methodists Fearful of Islamification of their Churches

Resistance Feed ^ | 12-9-2016 | Rhett October

[rhett october]

I didn’t make up the story. There are legit sources for it.

http://www.infowars.com/methodist-churches-converting-to-virtual-mosques-for-muslim-migrants/

http://pamelageller.com/2016/12/local-texas-united-methodist-church-waco-now-embracing-islam.html/

According to Fox News:

From Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/23/trumps-battle-against-illegal-immigrant-sanctuary-may-end-at-church-steps.html

“Hundreds of houses of worship around the nation have pledged to provide safe harbor to illegal immigrants facing deportation, as have cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York City. While Trump may relish a policy and funding fight with the leaders of Democratic strongholds, imposing his administration’s will on churches could be another matter.

“‘There is a long tradition in American law enforcement of not breaking into churches in order to arrest someone unless the person is wanted for an act of violence,’ Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told FoxNews.com. ‘In order for the police or for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter a church against the will of a priest or minister who is running the church, they need an arrest warrant for a specific human being –short of that, they’re not going to go in there.’

“In New York City alone, there are 11 congregations that offer sanctuary for illegal immigrants, and according to the Rev. Donna Schaper, senior minister of Judson Memorial Church, more could follow.

“‘There has been a tremendous increase in interest since the election,” Schaper told FoxNews.com. “The newly elected president is threatening to deport many of them and they want to be safe—churches have a moral mandate to help people in a way that is different than cities in general.’

“Schaper is a founder of New Sanctuary Movement New York, an interfaith network of congregations that help to provide spiritual, financial, emotional and legal support to illegal immigrants. In some cases, those under the church’s protection move into the building and live there indefinitely.”

In Philadelphia, the New Santuary Movement has seen requests to sign up spike in recent days – specifically, since the election.

---

I didn’t make up the story. There are legit sources for it. And I simply asked some Methodists that I know if they’d heard of it, what they thought of it, and what they would do if their church did it.

[rface]

...but as I said, 3 out of 4 that I could get on the phone had already heard about it..

yes the U Methodist Church has some big issues ahead that could well split the denomination. A (false) rumor like this could actually be a good thing, since it may have the power to get members to look and see what may be ahead for the denomination.

The Methodist Church currently does NOT perform Same Sex marriage and it does NOT ordain Pastors who state that they are in sexual relationships outside of marriage...but there are a couple of renegade conferences that ignore part of the Book of Discipline, and in addition San Fran, CA elected as their Bishop a lesbian which has produced a big push back and the International General Conference is going to have to decide which path they will follow.

The African Continent may prove to be America's Godly missionaries within the United Methodist Denomination...

[jsanders2001]

Have the Methodist preachers do a little bit of study on the Quran and they will come away horrified at what they believe. Give them "The Project" and the terms hijraj and Taqiyya to look up as well. It will come to them that this is one of the methods they use to iniltrate, destroy, and take over churches.

http://www.clarionproject.org/Muslim_Brotherhood_Explanatory_Memorandum

[Boogieman]

“I couldn’t believe what was going on inside of a Christian denomination...”

Well, there’s your mistake. Methodists parted ways with Christianity quite some time ago.

[Texan]

Yes, I'd already read your original source for the news.

The ONLY source from the Bosqueville church (membership 44 with average attendance in the low 30s)sited is an anonymous (man).

What are the "other sources" you say that are claiming it legit even when the named sources say it's a lie. I haven't seen any and I've done all the reading on it I could find.

Why would you still think it's true when all the named sources says it's not? Could it be that you WANT it to be true?

[bigbob]

Great. So here’s how things work on FR:

You find a story of interest in a legitimate news channel and post the link to THAT STORY here, not your blogified version of it.

Many of us don’t take kindly to blog-pimping. It serves no purpose, adds no value, and in some views, takes advantage of the free (unless you donate as you should) service provided by the owner of FR.

[rhett october]

Big Bob, I posted the story link in the news section: http://pamelageller.com/2016/12/local-texas-united-methodist-church-waco-now-embracing-islam.html/

Then I did an interview with some people about that story, which 3 out of the 4 people I called had heard already and not from me. I asked them if they’d heard the story, what they thought of it, and what they would do if their church did what the story claimed. I posted that interview on a website that I write for and posted that content in full here. I have stayed within the rules of Free Republic. The writer at the original source is an investigative reporter from The Daily Caller named John Griffing. I have no control over him or contact with him. One source says it’s true, one says it’s false. I interviewed people not asking if it was true or false. I simply asked if they had heard the story, what they thought of it, and what they would do if it happened in their church.

If it’s true, I’m appalled. If it’s not true, and I hope it’s not, I’m relieved.

[rhett october]

And one of the Methodists that I spoke with said that his pastor had emailed the church about the matter. So the story is making it’s rounds and that was long before I posted a link to the story or did an interview the day after I heard about it.

[shibumi]

"Yes, I'd already read your original source for the news.

The ONLY source from the Bosqueville church (membership 44 with average attendance in the low 30s)sited is an anonymous (man).

What are the "other sources" you say that are claiming it legit even when the named sources say it's a lie. I haven't seen any and I've done all the reading on it I could find.

Why would you still think it's true when all the named sources says it's not? Could it be that you WANT it to be true?"

Could it be that Mr October here is manufacturing rather than reporting the news?

Could it be that this is the kind of fakery that gives Conservative journalists (the *real* ones) a bad name and brings on charges of "Fake News?"

Could it be that the pimp-ish blogger wants to break a big story so bad that he's fanning the flames of an "iffy" one?

(See how easy it is to ascribe motives and infer things?)

[rhett october]

So let me get this straight. I provide a source in the news section here. A writer from The Daily Caller, which is linked to very often here as a legitimate source of news/information.

Then, I do an interview asking if people HAD HEARD that story - and 3 out of 4 had. Asking them their thoughts on it and what they would do if it happened in their church. And I’m “fanning the flames of an ‘iffy’ one”?

How so? Were the other people who posted stories by that Daily Caller writer (who has written a ton for The Daily Caller) also “fanning the flames of an iffy story?” Will the same standard be applied to anyone who posts a story from a regularly used source just because someone else thinks another source that says it’s not true is more credible?

The Daily Caller reported information suggesting that Donald Trump would win whereas other places like Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and others said that it wasn’t likely. So does that mean that those other sources are “iffy”?

[shibumi]

"(See how easy it is to ascribe motives and infer things?) "

Ponder these mysteries you must, padawan.

[stocksthatgoup]

Does this mean they haven’t all converted yet?

[MeganC]

The United Church of Christ is doing the same thing.

[Sam Gamgee]

Some churches here are sponsoring refugees. A good friend of mine right now is in a verbal battle with them about it. Something I know I will keep an eye on.

[tiki]

That is where most denominations have gone, social justice, Alinsky-type caring and liberal.

[rface]

SocialJustice is the action that James and Jesus and the early Church taught us to act upon.

This is sometimes (often maybe) different than what the liberal thought of SocialJustice actually is.... SocialJustice does not mean accept evil as good, nor does it mean to act as the world wants you to act, but too often the worldy view of Justice is far different than Godly Justice

[shibumi]

From a later thread here on FR:

"I have posted that refutation on the website I write for. However, as one reader pointed out, if they were doing something like this, they might still try to deny it. People connected to far left ideals often do that. But then again, it could just be something taken way out of context by the Geller website. Either way, I posted the refutation and this is a good find."

So after all this bluster and denial, you found your premise to indeed be "iffy" and you posted a "refutation" (actually I think you mean a "retraction") on your nascent blog but you somehow forgot to mention it here on the thread where you promulgated this rumor.

You're doing a real bang-up job of building a reputation for credibility here on FR.

You thought your blog should be posted in "News".
At this rate you'll be lucky if they let you into "Chat."

As for your blog...See tagline.

[rhett october]

Drudge Report posted a link to the same story and website I did. It was to a website where, even a moderator here noted that she had been very trustworthy in the past and had broken stories that the msm wouldn't until later. I posted a link to that story. It wasn't my website or my story, it was someone else's who is considered trustworthy - Drudge thought so too. To follow up to that story, I interviewed some people, asking them if they had heard the story - I didn't say it was true. I said it had been reported and asked if they had heard it. I even said in my comments that I thought that surely it was likely to be one man and didn't represent the entire denomination. Then, all of the Methodists that I spoke to were against it and I posted their comments. So I showed that even if the story was true that one church was doing this, that it was certainly not representative of Methodists as a whole. So I posted a link to a story here from a writer from The Daily Caller that is regularly posted here. Am I supposed to be able to read a report and know if it's true or not? Is the same standard applied to all FR posters? Several of the websites allowed to be posted in the FR news section, with links back to their websites where they post a few paragraphs and then link to the full story (something I'm been lambasted for doing), several of those websites posted this same story - sourcing the Geller Report and writer from The Daily Caller. I notice that some of them have simply removed the story whereas I went in to the post on the website where I wrote it and posted a link to the report that was posted here refuting the story - which is how it is supposed to be done. Now I still see stories being posted in FR news to those websites (and several were simply a link from FR to the BLOG and then that blog has a few paragraphs and a link to the REAL SOURCE. It's a double standard. One example of an excerpt link was posted to http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=40103. You'll see that they use quite a few paragraphs from the original and then have a link that says "continue reading here." Yet a link, not to the original source, but to that blog, was posted at FR. As I understand it, moderators here have said that is not allowed, and yet it is. Again, I linked to a report from what is considered to be a reliable/allowed source. There's no way I could have known that it wasn't true because I am not a media empire or a detective. I can't imagine that anyone else here is held to such a level and attacked if they post a link to what has been considered a credible news website but is then said by another website to be untrue. The attack is misplaced and it is the website that reported the story and its writer who is to blame. I posted a link on my website to the story saying that the other was false. Someone else posted on the thread of my interview (where I posted comments from people who had already heard the story) with a link saying it was false so it would be redundant fore to do so. Don't you think that, maybe, you're being a tad hard on me?

[rhett october]

This is in addition to my first reply. This is the person who wrote that story (still on The Geller Report with no mention that the story is being denied by other sources):

“Griffing is an Associate Editor with The Daily Caller, an investigative journalist, media relations expert and public speaker who has been instrumental in demanding transparency in the public sphere. His interview credits include Fortune 500 executives, as well as key public officials. He helped run the largest Republican Political Action Committee (PAC) in Texas and served as ‘Executive Director’ of the largest county Republican Party in Texas.”

Wouldn’t you say that is a credible source and that it would make sense for me to post a link to what he wrote? Would you have seen that this person wrote the story and then decided it to be a false story? And then, if that story had been reported by another website as being false, would you feel like it would be justified for people to attack you for posting a link to that story as though you just should have know it to be untrue?

[shibumi]

I’ll read what you have to say when you learn to format.

Till then it’s just so much blather.

Of course, given the history, it may well be just blather no matter how it’s presented.