Salon.com is such a reliable source for news? Right. They are a bit
closer to feeding on the pond scum than NewsMax..com. It may be a tight
race though.

The bottom line is that some folks will believe anything they read as long
as it verifies their personal opinion. How revealing! And how evident in
this thread.

Regardless, why is the selection of a Pope born and raised during the Nazi
regime (forced to join the juvenile Nazi 14 year old youth program) such a
problem with those non-Catholics or those otherwise removed from the
decision?

Grasping at straws.

Regardless, when was the last time (within the last 100 or so years) that
the Pope has had a direct influence on world wide or regional politics?

Some folks here are trying to make a religious issue into a political one.

Arf!

Time for pause.

So lets drop our religious biases when discussing this issue.

Fair enough?




"Yes, it's me" wrote in message
...
Jim,,,,,
What ever happened to your story about Bush investing in Nazi's? Did you
finally realize how silly your cut and paste was?


"Jim," wrote in message
...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument.../tk/print.html

extract

April 21, 2005 | President Bush treated his final visit with Pope John
Paul II in Vatican City on June 4, 2004, as a campaign stop. After
enduring a public rebuke from the pope about the Iraq war, Bush lobbied
Vatican officials to help him win the election. "Not all the American
bishops are with me," he complained, according to the National Catholic
Reporter. He pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops to step up
their activism against abortion and gay marriage in the states during the
campaign season.

About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S.
bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion
were committing a "grave sin" and must be denied Communion. He pointedly
mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and
voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" --
an obvious reference to John Kerry, the Democratic candidate and a Roman
Catholic. If such a Catholic politician sought Communion, Ratzinger
wrote, priests must be ordered to "refuse to distribute it." Any Catholic
who voted for this "Catholic politician," he continued, "would be guilty
of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy
Communion." During the closing weeks of the campaign, a pastoral letter
was read from pulpits in Catholic churches repeating the ominous
suggestion of excommunication. Voting for the Democrat was nothing less
than consorting with the forces of Satan, collaboration with "evil."

In 2004 Bush increased his margin of Catholic support by 6 points from
the 2000 election, rising from 46 to 52 percent. Without this shift,
Kerry would have had a popular majority of a million votes. Three
states -- Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico -- moved into Bush's column on the
votes of the Catholic "faithful." Even with his atmospherics of terrorism
and Sept. 11, Bush required the benediction of the Holy See as his saving
grace. The key to his kingdom was turned by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of
there. I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or
paid political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat
ashamed that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion
and politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is
sinful, it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And
Some Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I
find the Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.


JimH wrote:

Salon.com is such a reliable source for news? Right. They are a bit
closer to feeding on the pond scum than NewsMax..com. It may be a tight
race though.

The bottom line is that some folks will believe anything they read as long
as it verifies their personal opinion. How revealing! And how evident in
this thread.

Regardless, why is the selection of a Pope born and raised during the Nazi
regime (forced to join the juvenile Nazi 14 year old youth program) such a
problem with those non-Catholics or those otherwise removed from the
decision?

Grasping at straws.

Regardless, when was the last time (within the last 100 or so years) that
the Pope has had a direct influence on world wide or regional politics?

Some folks here are trying to make a religious issue into a political one.

Arf!

Time for pause.

So lets drop our religious biases when discussing this issue.

Fair enough?




"Yes, it's me" wrote in message
...

Jim,,,,,
What ever happened to your story about Bush investing in Nazi's? Did you
finally realize how silly your cut and paste was?


"Jim," wrote in message
.. .

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument.../tk/print.html

extract

April 21, 2005 | President Bush treated his final visit with Pope John
Paul II in Vatican City on June 4, 2004, as a campaign stop. After
enduring a public rebuke from the pope about the Iraq war, Bush lobbied
Vatican officials to help him win the election. "Not all the American
bishops are with me," he complained, according to the National Catholic
Reporter. He pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops to step up
their activism against abortion and gay marriage in the states during the
campaign season.

About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S.
bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion
were committing a "grave sin" and must be denied Communion. He pointedly
mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and
voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" --
an obvious reference to John Kerry, the Democratic candidate and a Roman
Catholic. If such a Catholic politician sought Communion, Ratzinger
wrote, priests must be ordered to "refuse to distribute it." Any Catholic
who voted for this "Catholic politician," he continued, "would be guilty
of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy
Communion." During the closing weeks of the campaign, a pastoral letter
was read from pulpits in Catholic churches repeating the ominous
suggestion of excommunication. Voting for the Democrat was nothing less
than consorting with the forces of Satan, collaboration with "evil."

In 2004 Bush increased his margin of Catholic support by 6 points from
the 2000 election, rising from 46 to 52 percent. Without this shift,
Kerry would have had a popular majority of a million votes. Three
states -- Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico -- moved into Bush's column on the
votes of the Catholic "faithful." Even with his atmospherics of terrorism
and Sept. 11, Bush required the benediction of the Holy See as his saving
grace. The key to his kingdom was turned by Cardinal Ratzinger.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is sinful,
it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.

The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church
you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one that
is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and steps
up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to yourself
you hypocrite.

The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind. The
beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can never
be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong side of
the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have just
changed.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is sinful,
it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.


The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church
you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

As I said, I haven't been back

If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one that
is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and steps
up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to yourself
you hypocrite.

So you wish to rewrite the constitution? I *AM* against *ANY* State
approved religion or vis versa.

The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind. The
beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can never
be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong side of
the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have just
changed.

I hold my own beliefs. I can think for myself. Can you?

Can you even express yourself without resorting to personal insults?

George Orwell wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
.. .


Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is sinful,
it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.


The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church
you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

As I said, I haven't been back

If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one that
is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and steps
up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to yourself
you hypocrite.

So you wish to rewrite the constitution? I *AM* against *ANY* State
approved religion or vis versa.

The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind. The
beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can never
be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong side of
the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have just
changed.

I hold my own beliefs. I can think for myself. Can you?

Can you even express yourself without resorting to personal insults?




So what compells you to rise to the stench of an off toic post? Hell, even
a carp with an IQ of 0.00001 wouldn't take the bait.

Are you a spammer and get your rocks off on it or do you just have an IQ
lower than a carp?

This is rec.boats, not wrecked.boats.

Yet you find in necessary to respond.

George Orwell wrote: As did Mr Mellon -- both through remailers.
Hummmmmmm
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
.. .


Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is sinful,
it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.


The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church
you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

As I said, I haven't been back

If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one that
is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and steps
up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to yourself
you hypocrite.

So you wish to rewrite the constitution? I *AM* against *ANY* State
approved religion or vis versa.

The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind. The
beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can never
be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong side of
the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have just
changed.

I hold my own beliefs. I can think for myself. Can you?

Can you even express yourself without resorting to personal insults?




So what compells you to rise to the stench of an off toic post? Hell, even
a carp with an IQ of 0.00001 wouldn't take the bait.

Are you a spammer and get your rocks off on it or do you just have an IQ
lower than a carp?

This is rec.boats, not wrecked.boats.

George Orwell wrote: As did Mr Melon -- both through remailers Hummmmmmmm
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, "Bert Robbins" wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
. ..

Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is sinful,
it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.

The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church
you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one that
is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and steps
up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to yourself
you hypocrite.

The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind. The
beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can never
be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong side of
the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have just
changed.



So what compells you to rise to the stench of an off toic post? Hell, even
a carp with an IQ of 0.00001 wouldn't take the bait.

Are you a spammer and get your rocks off on it or do you just have an IQ
lower than a carp?

This is rec.boats, not wrecked.boats.

Harry.Krause wrote:

Jim, wrote:

George Orwell wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...


Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular
sermon mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been
out of there. I was not aware at the time that the topic for the
"sermon" (or paid political announcement) came from Rome. As it is
I am somewhat ashamed that I didn't stand and challenge the priest
for mixing religion and politics. Needless to say; I haven't been
back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is
sinful, it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics.
And Some Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no
wrong, I find the Salon article entirely believable, based on my
personal experience.




The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began
your pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the
Catholic Church you can go and join another church that is to your
liking.



As I said, I haven't been back

If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics
then you should be outraged anytime a candidate for political
office or some one that is holding a political office appears at a
religious institution and steps up to the pulpit and speaks. Until
then keep your moral outrage to yourself you hypocrite.



So you wish to rewrite the constitution? I *AM* against *ANY* State
approved religion or vis versa.

The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the
wind. The beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of
time so you can never be sure what you are believing in. You can
get caught on the wrong side of the issue because you didn't get
the word that the beliefs have just changed.



I hold my own beliefs. I can think for myself. Can you?

Can you even express yourself without resorting to personal insults?




So what compells you to rise to the stench of an off toic post? Hell,
even
a carp with an IQ of 0.00001 wouldn't take the bait.

Are you a spammer and get your rocks off on it or do you just have an IQ
lower than a carp?

This is rec.boats, not wrecked.boats.



Yet you find in necessary to respond.



Melan-oma is just another Smithers.
All these butts with two dozen IDs here are just Smithers or variations
of Smithers.

Funny thing when Orewell and Melon send the same message -- and both
through remailers. Seems more than a little cowardly to me.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is
sinful, it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.


The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic
Church you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

As I said, I haven't been back

Good, there are many churches that will bend to the wind just down the
street from you.


If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one
that is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and
steps up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to
yourself you hypocrite.

So you wish to rewrite the constitution? I *AM* against *ANY* State
approved religion or vis versa.

Nobody is saying that the Constitution of the US needs to be rewritten. You
just need to remember that if you adhere to the dogma of the religion then
you should consider that when you are voting for people to lead you.

If enough of your neighbors agree with you this is good and if enough of
your neighbors disagree with you then your have more work to do to make them
see the error of their ways.


The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind.
The beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can
never be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong
side of the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have
just changed.

I hold my own beliefs. I can think for myself. Can you?

So, you are not a Catholic, you are a moral relativist.

Can you even express yourself without resorting to personal insults?

You don't like your views being challenged? If you have a strong character
you will enjoy having your moral view challenged due to the fact that you
will be able to defend them.

It is people like you that the pope hopes leave the church or see the error
of your ways and reform your views and get back to the churches teachings.

Good luck with the evangelicals down the street!

"A.Melon" wrote in message
news:551de77c9c309434e562427a68a3a851@melontraffic kers.com...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
. ..
Well, As one observation, I just happened to hear that particular sermon
mentioned. Had I been on an aisle seat, I would have been out of
there.
I was not aware at the time that the topic for the "sermon" (or paid
political announcement) came from Rome. As it is I am somewhat ashamed
that I didn't stand and challenge the priest for mixing religion and
politics. Needless to say; I haven't been back.

When a priest preaches that support for one political candidate is
sinful,
it sure as hell *IS* an attempt to influence politics. And Some
Catholics are conditioned so that the clergy can do no wrong, I find
the
Salon article entirely believable, based on my personal experience.

The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church long before you began your
pitiful life. If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church
you can go and join another church that is to your liking.

If you believe that religions shouldn't be involved in politics then you
should be outraged anytime a candidate for political office or some one
that
is holding a political office appears at a religious institution and steps
up to the pulpit and speaks. Until then keep your moral outrage to
yourself
you hypocrite.

The problem with moral relativism is that its beliefs go with the wind.
The
beliefs never stay the same for any lengthy period of time so you can
never
be sure what you are believing in. You can get caught on the wrong side of
the issue because you didn't get the word that the beliefs have just
changed.


So what compells you to rise to the stench of an off toic post? Hell, even
a carp with an IQ of 0.00001 wouldn't take the bait.

Are you a spammer and get your rocks off on it or do you just have an IQ
lower than a carp?

This is rec.boats, not wrecked.boats.

I am your worst nightmare! Ask, Harry!