Bert Robbins wrote:

"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!


I don't mind, in fact I enjoy discussion -- but as gentlemen. Resorting
to name calling and/or profanity is a sign of a poor vocabulary.

As to my beliefs, I don't believe that Any church has a direct line to
god, and am more than a little suspicious of all of them.

The pope choses to shelter (Cardinal Law) and defend child molesters,
and you want to tell me he represents god?

From
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...canchurch.html

–Ratzinger's office also was responsible for reviewing cases of priests
accused of child molesting. Clohessy's group has complained that the new
pope apparently scuttled a request to investigate the Rev. Marciel
Macial, founder of the Legionaries of Christ – though it was encouraged
that the Vatican recently reopened the investigation.

Ratzinger was seen in some circles as minimizing the abuse crisis when
he told Catholic News Service in 2002 that "less than 1 percent of
priests are guilty of acts of this type." A 2004 survey commissioned by
the U.S. bishops showed that about 4 percent of the priests who served
over a half-century were accused of abuse, though it did not pin down
the percentage of guilty priests.

Jimcomma,
You appear to have the IQ of a vegetable. Of course the two are the same,
everyone knows that. Damn are you sure you are not Bassy.


"Jim," wrote in message
...
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,
you are not being nice.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes, it's me wrote:
Jimcomma,
You appear to have the IQ of a vegetable. Of course the two are the same,
everyone knows that. Damn are you sure you are not Bassy.

Yep the phony address cowards have to resort to insults when they have
no argument


"Jim," wrote in message
...

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.

"""" Bush owes his election to stupidity on the part of American
voters."''''


krause you moron,, o ya,, of course you are from Germany, where prostitution
is legal. But that is not where you go of course for your requirements.

I know in Germany they cut women off of the unemployment insurance benefit
because there are jobs open in prostitution industry. krause, you are a real
class act. You come from one culture and criticize this one.
lol,,,,,,hmmmmmmm O ya,, did you come over on a boat with an outboard motor
like you said your dad did?,,,lol,,,






"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim, wrote:
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.



Bush owes his election to stupidity on the part of American voters.

"''''"That's correct. Prescott Bush, the late U.S. Senator from Connecticut,
played footsie with the Nazis."''""""



ya,, this coming from krause the german,, lol,,,,, I thought you were a 2
card carrying union slob krause,,, how can you let that happen to the woman
of germany,, krause no wonder your such a hated fool.













"harry.krause" wrote in message
...
Jim, wrote:
Yes, it's me wrote:

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


He didn't invest with, they paid him to invest For them -- and it was
grandpa bush Prescott. Had assets seized under the "trading with the
enemy act"




That's correct. Prescott Bush, the late U.S. Senator from Connecticut,
played footsie with the Nazis. I remember reading about it in the New
Haven Register in the 1950s.

Be careful here, Jim, Smithers is here only to disrupt this newsgroup.


And remember, when you shop:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...al-Mart300.gif

''''"Nah. I only feel compassion for you in your suffering,""'''''


That explains why you shipped your mother to a home on the east coast of
florida, just far enough away to discourage visits. She gave you her money
but you wouldn't visit,, lol,,krause that doesn't surprise me at all about
you krause. You would prefer to feed the critters, rats, coons, tourists who
walk your acreage than your own mother. I mean even your puppets take care
of their own mothers.






"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"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!


Nah. I only feel compassion for you in your suffering, Bert.

Jimcomma,
That was not an insult, it was an observation. Besides what kind of
argument can one give that you are 3 steps (ok maybe 20) behind everyone
else? You are the only one who didn't realize George Orwell and Mr Melon
are the same person.

By the way, this person has many other handles, if it comes through an
anonymous remailer, uses the same writing style, talks about the exact same
subject, uses the exact same insults, it probably is the same person.

Are you having someone else read and summarize your cut and paste before
posting them?


"Jim," wrote in message
...
Yes, it's me wrote:
Jimcomma,
You appear to have the IQ of a vegetable. Of course the two are the
same, everyone knows that. Damn are you sure you are not Bassy.

Yep the phony address cowards have to resort to insults when they have no
argument


"Jim," wrote in message
...

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.

ps - my address is not phony. If you want to email me your post so I can
proof read them, feel free.


"Jim," wrote in message
...
Yes, it's me wrote:
Jimcomma,
You appear to have the IQ of a vegetable. Of course the two are the
same, everyone knows that. Damn are you sure you are not Bassy.

Yep the phony address cowards have to resort to insults when they have no
argument


"Jim," wrote in message
...

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.