The Pope to exclude gay priests

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Keep em stupid . . . Much like the democratic party.

Are you implying that the Democrats place less value on education than the Republican party? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Do you have any evidence to support such a view?

nicely plucked from the rest - let's just say that both parties are accused of feeding off of the uneducated, the poor, both are accused of a policy of keeping the masses 'basefoot and pregnant' (housewive vs welfare mothers), etc.

I don't find either stand out from the other on education. As in all issues, the difference isn't emphasis or intent, it's approach. Your drinking the cool aid if you think otherwise.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

However, I think the assumption on which your premise is based is flawed, that ceremony and religion were created to piggy-back on faith, sort of in a parasitic fashion.

YES that's exactly what I mean, but I'd never verbalized it that way. THANK YOU. It's so clear now.

(Don't feel bad, I think every large organized group attracts the power hungry - despite original good intentions, despite that most people are good hearted and are sincere, they all eventually go through cycles of corruption. Even the DNC)

you're certainly right about that...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Keep em stupid . . . Much like the democratic party.

Are you implying that the Democrats place less value on education than the Republican party? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Do you have any evidence to support such a view?

nicely plucked from the rest - let's just say that both parties are accused of feeding off of the uneducated, the poor, both are accused of a policy of keeping the masses 'basefoot and pregnant' (housewive vs welfare mothers), etc.

I don't find either stand out from the other on education. As in all issues, the difference isn't emphasis or intent, it's approach. Your drinking the cool aid if you think otherwise.

Ummm - it's the Republicans who need voters who believe they will cut government spending, contrary to all the evidence of history.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

nicely plucked from the rest

Sorry, I plucked it from your reply to someone else's reply to your post.

Somewhat unrelated, but the Democratic Party was created as a pro-slavery party, so I'm actually quite glad that they have changed their platform over time to one that promotes equality, education and tolerance.

As far as being "accused of a policy of keeping the masses 'barefoot and pregnant'" as "welfare mothers," perceptions are often proven to be quite false.

Take for example the perception that the Dems are less fiscally reponsible than the Republicans. Many believe this, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, when people are exposed to the lie more than the truth, they tend to believe the lie.

[StevePhelps 0]

Quote

Quote

Keep em stupid . . . Much like the democratic party.

Are you implying that the Democrats place less value on education than the Republican party? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Do you have any evidence to support such a view?

I "think" he may be implying their (democratic) voting base is less educated, stupid, etc. All those people want to make sure they keep on getting their welfare checks for having babies. "Mr. Roosevelt gonna save us alll ..."

[billvon 2,991]

>I didn't hear him say that he would dismiss gay people out of hand as people.

Nor did I. I was talking about rejecting them as teachers. The history of prejudice against any group follows about the same pattern:

1. "Everyone knows" they are inferior. It's simply assumed.

2. "Uppity" activists start making a clamor. They are attacked as immoral, evil, militant, and obnoxious. They are blamed for any problems that arise - "I'd be fine with gays as long as they stay indoors and stop shoving their sexuality down my throat! It's the activists who are causing all the tension."

3. People begin to realize that it _is_ a real issue. No one wants to appear prejudiced, so they start in with halfway measures to 'prove' they are open minded. "Black men working on the docks for pay? Fine, as long as they don't try to marry my daughter." "Women voting? Well, OK, as long as they still know their place." "I have nothing against gays as long as they stay away from my kids."

4. Most people finally realize that the minority (gays, blacks, women, japanese etc) are people like everyone else, and the idea of denying them rights seems silly.

We've reached the fourth step with most minorities, thank god. We are still in the third step with gays. (Some extreme right wingers seem firmly stuck in the second phase, though.)

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Keep em stupid . . . Much like the democratic party.

Are you implying that the Democrats place less value on education than the Republican party? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Do you have any evidence to support such a view?

nicely plucked from the rest - let's just say that both parties are accused of feeding off of the uneducated, the poor, both are accused of a policy of keeping the masses 'basefoot and pregnant' (housewive vs welfare mothers), etc.

I don't find either stand out from the other on education. As in all issues, the difference isn't emphasis or intent, it's approach. Your drinking the cool aid if you think otherwise.

Ummm - it's the Republicans who need voters who believe they will cut government spending, contrary to all the evidence of history.

ALL HAIL THE DNC! SAVIORS OF THE UNIVERSE!

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I "think" he may be implying their voing base is less educated, stupid, etc.

That would be a false implication.

[sinker 0]

4. Most people finally realize that the minority (gays, blacks, women, japanese etc) are people like everyone else, and the idea of denying them rights seems silly. ***

How is not letting an active homosexual priest denying him his "right?" No one has the "right" to be a priest.

How is not letting an active homosexual to teach religion in a Catholic school denying him or her their "right?" No one has the "right" to a particular job is they are not qualified. Living an active homosexual lifestyle is an obvious disqualification here, dontcha think? I wouldn't want a chiropractor performing open heart surgery.

We're not talking life, housing, food, healthcare, etc. here...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 2,991]

>How is not letting an active homosexual priest denying him
>his "right?" No one has the "right" to be a priest.

I didn't claim it was. Gays are currently denied both rights (marriage) and privileges (becoming a priest in most christian religions.) As I've said about a dozen times, churches can have any requirements they want for their priests. Doesn't mean it's right to exclude them, but it doesn't have to be.

> No one has the "right" to a particular job is they are not qualified.
> Living an active homosexual lifestyle is an obvious disqualification
> here, dontcha think?

No more so than someone who lives an active heterosexual lifestyle does, in terms of my morality.

> I wouldn't want a chiropractor performing open
> heart surgery.

More like "I wouldn't want a board-certified gay surgeon performing open heart surgery because he might have AIDS." (Not claiming that you are saying that, but that's the parallel we're talking about.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Ummm - it's the Republicans who need voters who believe they will cut government spending, contrary to all the evidence of history.

I agree. And the DNC counts on minorities believing the DNC has their interests at heart, contrary to all evidence to the history.

It does indicate that the DNC is much more talented at brainwashing since their members tend to argue much more one-sidedly. At least on these boards.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sinker 0]

More like "I wouldn't want a board-certified gay surgeon performing open heart surgery because he might have AIDS." (Not claiming that you are saying that, but that's the parallel we're talking about.) ***

actually, no it's not. when it comes to teaching children the tenets of one's faith/morality, it's of paramount importance that the person doing the teaching, IMO, buy into, believe, accept, live what they are teaching. That isn't possible in the case of an actively homosexual person teaching religion in a catholic school. there is a duplicity there that is irreconcilable and is dangerous to children.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I "think" he may be implying their (democratic) voting base is less educated, stupid, etc. All those people want to make sure they keep on getting their welfare checks for having babies. "Mr. Roosevelt gonna save us alll ..."

Close, I was implying that political parties do that in similar and different ways. It's just a matter of which demographics each parties targets for dependency.

Edit: I think the above, but the post specifically stated DNC, it was just a jab because the DNC defenders get more riled up.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>That isn't possible in the case of an actively homosexual
>person teaching religion in a catholic school.

No one is talking about an actively homosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic school. That's just as bad as an actively heterosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic schools. Both have broken their vows.

What we are talking about here is a _celibate_ priest (of any orientation) teaching religion in a catholic school. And to me that is no worse than a priest who is a former alcoholic, or who used to curse, or who used to not believe in god.

The catholic church places a very high value on forgiveness of sin. Seems odd that violating a commandment of the religion is more easily forgiven than the sin of sodomy.

[sinker 0]

Quote

>That isn't possible in the case of an actively homosexual
>person teaching religion in a catholic school.

No one is talking about an actively homosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic school. That's just as bad as an actively heterosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic schools. Both have broken their vows.

What we are talking about here is a _celibate_ priest (of any orientation) teaching religion in a catholic school. And to me that is no worse than a priest who is a former alcoholic, or who used to curse, or who used to not believe in god.

The catholic church places a very high value on forgiveness of sin. Seems odd that violating a commandment of the religion is more easily forgiven than the sin of sodomy.

ok bill you lost me in the second paragraph... what priest are we talking about?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[JoeyRamone 0]

Quote

> I do not know any of these people . . .

And I suspect you would not want to. They are all gay, so I think you would reject them as quickly as a 1950's Virginian would reject your daughter's godfather - and for as valid a reason.

Who the hell do you think you are? DO NOT EVER make an ASSUMPTION about me like that, every. I do not know you either but I can see your true colors right now and what type of person you are.

I do not like or dislike people if they are gay. I just do not want a gay person, at my church, teaching my kids about religion.

I have 5 gay friends, I would do anything for them. People like you are the reason this word is so messed up, you twist people words and comments to try and discredit them and make yourself look better. MY OPINION

Tim

[JoeyRamone 0]

Quote

Absolutely correct. And the pope can exclude whomever he wants from his organization. No-one is compelled to join. Even if they share the same imaginary friends as Roman Catholics, there are other denominations who will accept them.

Kallend,

give yourself a High 5. Right on the money

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Ummm - it's the Republicans who need voters who believe they will cut government spending, contrary to all the evidence of history.

I agree. And the DNC counts on minorities believing the DNC has their interests at heart, contrary to all evidence to the history.

It does indicate that the DNC is much more talented at brainwashing since their members tend to argue much more one-sidedly. At least on these boards.

I dunno man, I think the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats here. Pretty much the same tactics applied to different sides.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

> I do not know any of these people . . .

And I suspect you would not want to. They are all gay, so I think you would reject them as quickly as a 1950's Virginian would reject your daughter's godfather - and for as valid a reason.

Who the hell do you think you are? DO NOT EVER make an ASSUMPTION about me like that, every. I do not know you either but I can see your true colors right now and what type of person you are.

I do not like or dislike people if they are gay. I just do not want a gay person, at my church, teaching my kids about religion.

I have 5 gay friends, I would do anything for them. People like you are the reason this word is so messed up, you twist people words and comments to try and discredit them and make yourself look better. MY OPINION

Tim

down boy! down! easy now, that's it. there, that's better. whew.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ummm - it's the Republicans who need voters who believe they will cut government spending, contrary to all the evidence of history.

I agree. And the DNC counts on minorities believing the DNC has their interests at heart, contrary to all evidence to the history.

It does indicate that the DNC is much more talented at brainwashing since their members tend to argue much more one-sidedly. At least on these boards.

I dunno man, I think the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats here. Pretty much the same tactics applied to different sides.

ya know, you and I are starting to agree on things a little TOO frequently... starting to freak me out -fellow toolman

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I dunno man, I think the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats here. Pretty much the same tactics applied to different sides.

In general, yes. But on these boards?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

>That isn't possible in the case of an actively homosexual
>person teaching religion in a catholic school.

No one is talking about an actively homosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic school. That's just as bad as an actively heterosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic schools. Both have broken their vows.

What we are talking about here is a _celibate_ priest (of any orientation) teaching religion in a catholic school. And to me that is no worse than a priest who is a former alcoholic, or who used to curse, or who used to not believe in god.

The catholic church places a very high value on forgiveness of sin. Seems odd that violating a commandment of the religion is more easily forgiven than the sin of sodomy.

ok bill you lost me in the second paragraph... what priest are we talking about?

I got it.

You keep saying ACTIVE homosexual. If a man is a priest then he is not ACTIVE is he? He is celibate.

Would you want an ACTIVE heterosexual priest? No, the key is INACTIVITY in sex.

But then you say that you don't want an active homsexual teaching about morality.

Funny, the Father at my church used to tell us all about how married people should be...even though he was not married and never was.

As your group Courage said, it is not BEING homosexual in mind that is the problem...it is ACTING upon it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[JoeyRamone 0]

Quote

down boy! down! easy now, that's it. there, that's better. whew.

I do not people who do not know me at all making assumptions about what I think or feel. In 1997 I watched one of my best friends die of AIDS and he was gay. I loved him and always will. SO as I said know should ever put words in another persons mouth until they have waked a day in my shoes.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

I dunno man, I think the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats here. Pretty much the same tactics applied to different sides.

In general, yes. But on these boards?

Yeah.

How many times have you read this:

"Bush sucks my balls and is creating huge debt!"

'Oh yeah, well that is no thanks to Clinton. Try seaching on xxx and yyy about him"

Variations on a theme. All the left does is Bash everything Bush does and all the right does is divert that to Clinton.

Yes, the democrats seems to start more threads bashing Bush, but that is what the minority party does...they feel more threatened (unless you are the Christian right and then you feel threatened being a majority).

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>That isn't possible in the case of an actively homosexual
>person teaching religion in a catholic school.

No one is talking about an actively homosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic school. That's just as bad as an actively heterosexual priest teaching religion in a catholic schools. Both have broken their vows.

What we are talking about here is a _celibate_ priest (of any orientation) teaching religion in a catholic school. And to me that is no worse than a priest who is a former alcoholic, or who used to curse, or who used to not believe in god.

The catholic church places a very high value on forgiveness of sin. Seems odd that violating a commandment of the religion is more easily forgiven than the sin of sodomy.

ok bill you lost me in the second paragraph... what priest are we talking about?

I got it.

You keep saying ACTIVE homosexual. If a man is a priest then he is not ACTIVE is he? He is celibate.

Would you want an ACTIVE heterosexual priest? No, the key is INACTIVITY in sex.

But then you say that you don't want an active homsexual teaching about morality.

Funny, the Father at my church used to tell us all about how married people should be...even though he was not married and never was.

As your group Courage said, it is not BEING homosexual in mind that is the problem...it is ACTING upon it.

we're on the same page here...

-the artist formerly known as sinker