( OT) Appears Bush owes Ratzinger for reelection
 

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,,,,,
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.

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"


"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.

harry.krause wrote:

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


Close Harry, New Hampshire Gazette

see
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHG..._Bush_ Nazi_2

It sure was nice of Prescott to help someone who rallied against the Nazi's
wasn't it. Prescott was a true patriot.


"Jim," wrote in message
...
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"


"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.

Harry,
Besides your political trolls, what purpose do you have here? You have
always said the only reason you come to rec.boats is to **** of the
ReichWing Trash.

You are just upset because now you can not play your "my wife the doctor"
told me you were paranoid and delusional. Why are you ashamed of your wife
working as a social worker? Do you think that is not an acceptable
profession? Is it because she is paid a salary and you can no longer say
"My wife does 70% of her work pro bono?

What is the real reason you are so upset?


"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

Yes, it's me wrote:

It sure was nice of Prescott to help someone who rallied against the Nazi's
wasn't it. Prescott was a true patriot.

That's why some of his assets were seized


"Jim," wrote in message
...

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"


"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,,,,
The Nazi's stated he was trying to overthrow the Nazi government, and
imprisoned him for his antigovernment activities. According to The Simon
Wiesthanthal Center " Soviet pact of 23 August 1939 and the aggressive war
policy of the regime had been the last straw for Thyssen, who wrote to
Hitler as 'a free and upright German', claiming to be the 'voice of the
tormented German nation' calling for a restoration of 'freedom, right and
humanity' in the German Reich. Thyssen's appeal was ignored, he was stripped
in absentia of his German citizenship and his property was confiscated. In
1941, his memoirs, I Paid Hitler, first appeared in English, an anguished
settling of accounts with the Nazi regime which 'has ruined Germany' but
singularly unreliable in its recounting of his financial relationship with
the National Socialists. Thyssen was arrested and turned over to the Nazis
by the Vichy police for return to Germany, where he was imprisoned for the
rest of the war. He died in Buenos Aires on 8 February 1951."

I for one am glad a major German industrialist was doing everything he
could to hurt the Nazi's war machine. I am also glad Prescott had enough
class and integrity to assist someone who was doing everything he could to
overthrow Hitler.


Don't you feel like an idiot for reprinting that biased propaganda, you
LiberalTrash Borgnuts are so predictable.


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

It sure was nice of Prescott to help someone who rallied against the
Nazi's wasn't it. Prescott was a true patriot.

That's why some of his assets were seized


"Jim," wrote in message
...

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"


"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.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:27:37 GMT, "Jim," cut'n'pasted some
more stuff:

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.


Thank God for the Cardinal. Look what we'd have been stuck with otherwise.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Yes, it's me wrote:
But still hasn't explained *WHY* the US government seized Prescott
Bushes assets both during and post WW2

Jim,,,,
The Nazi's stated he was trying to overthrow the Nazi government, and
imprisoned him for his antigovernment activities. According to The Simon
Wiesthanthal Center " Soviet pact of 23 August 1939 and the aggressive war
policy of the regime had been the last straw for Thyssen, who wrote to
Hitler as 'a free and upright German', claiming to be the 'voice of the
tormented German nation' calling for a restoration of 'freedom, right and
humanity' in the German Reich. Thyssen's appeal was ignored, he was stripped
in absentia of his German citizenship and his property was confiscated. In
1941, his memoirs, I Paid Hitler, first appeared in English, an anguished
settling of accounts with the Nazi regime which 'has ruined Germany' but
singularly unreliable in its recounting of his financial relationship with
the National Socialists. Thyssen was arrested and turned over to the Nazis
by the Vichy police for return to Germany, where he was imprisoned for the
rest of the war. He died in Buenos Aires on 8 February 1951."

I for one am glad a major German industrialist was doing everything he
could to hurt the Nazi's war machine. I am also glad Prescott had enough
class and integrity to assist someone who was doing everything he could to
overthrow Hitler.


Don't you feel like an idiot for reprinting that biased propaganda, you
LiberalTrash Borgnuts are so predictable.


"Jim," wrote in message
...

Yes, it's me wrote:


It sure was nice of Prescott to help someone who rallied against the
Nazi's wasn't it. Prescott was a true patriot.

That's why some of his assets were seized


"Jim," wrote in message
.. .


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"


"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.

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!

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.