GarthP2000

Remember, Geer was widely regarded as VPW's 'right hand man' at the time. Basically, since it was shortly after VPW's death, Geer was successful in manipulating the grief and uncertainty into one helluva guilt trip for the TWI leadership, particularly since he evidently convinced them of VPW's 'displeasure' in their 'worldliness' while running TWI while poor ol' VP was left out in the cold (so to speak). That, (and a good violin background music), and you have them eating out of his hand, .... until Craiggers one day said "Waittaminute! This crap has gone on long enough!" and kicked Geer out. Ie., basically it wound up being a successful, altho' brief, and manipulative power play. <_<

Know what interesting tidbits of information I found in MarkOMalley's authority source, and his usage of it to show that homosexuality is indeed linked to priests molesting children? First off, there were only 2 usages of the word 'homosexual' found in that entire source, and here they are: and Now, based on reading and comprehending those two statements, can anybody tell me how they effectively communicate that homosexuality and pedophelia are invariably linked and causely related? Me neither. If anything, they (from statement 1) help to dismantle the relationship, and (from statement 2) show some of the outdated means of dealing with homosexual desires. Yet, we are to believe, from the single reference to some 86% number bandied about, that that is the conclusive proof of the relationship between homosexuality and child molesting done by the priests. Here's acouple of other jewels I found in that source: John Jay's research deals with, mainly if not exclusively, with the child molesting travesty in the Catholic Church (and that's as far as it really goes), and he does state outright that this study was/is limited by scope, even when it came to just the child molesting problem. To take it then and extrapolate that into this topic here? Even with the 86% so called percentage? ... I think the term 'sloppy' fits the bill. Oh, and I'm posting this with a straight face. <_<

Anybody notice that at PETA's and associated websites, there is no link for email or form pages to give feedback? Pages that have FAQs and of course, to donate moeny to their cause, but no pages that allow for dialog. Hhmmmmm, ... what other organization does this remind you of, hmmmmm?

I've heard an interview with somebody of PETA's mindset (he might have been with PETA, but I'm not sure), and his rationale in response to the points like Rascal brought up is because we humans are moral animals, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, and morals forbid us to eat meat because we "know and can reason better", while animals go entirely by instinct and can't think their actions through. Of course the flaw in this (lack of) thinking is that if there is something that is universally moral, then wouldn't it be moral and true throughout nature? Or for those who believe in God/the spiritual world, wouldn't God have engrained that 'moral' into creation itself? No doubt fish/animals feel pain when they die/are killed. That's part of the nervous system that exists in all animals at one level or another. ... That alone doesn't make it 'immoral' to hunt animals. Now humanity is in a constant process of learning what is right and wrong. But PETA's example of figuring out morality and right and wrong is not only so tunnel-visioned, but they came up with their Rule in such an arbitrary and "We are the ones to determine this rule ourselves" manner, w/o even consulting anybody else on this (particularly those who don't always agree with them). Which explains one reason why they are so anal-retentive and abusively controlling in their practices.

Next up on the insanity hit parade, ... Your Mommy Kills Tomatoes, with an 'indepth' article pointing out ((cough)) 'research' on how "tomatoes have shown to be very cabable of learning and remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would surprise many people". One researcher put it, "I would no more eat a tomato than I would my cocker spaniel. ... Altho' I would probably smoke a tomato plant. Man, I get almost as high off of one of those doobies as I would a marijuana reefer!" Don't laugh. They just might do it, as insane as these comics are. :wacko:

Why Raf, everybody knows that a Tab isn't a _real_ Diet Coke. You add the Tab label on it, and it ceases being a Diet Coke. :lol:

Too Gray Now, First you say yet you (inadvertantly perhaps) start heading down that road when you say thusly: and the clue that I think is pushing you in that direction is given here: Have you ever read any of Carl Sagan's works? No 'mystical ability' to see beyond himself? His entire _life_ illustrates how wonderous, and even mystical he views life to be. Yet he is an atheist. Not a strong atheist mind you, but one nonetheless (ie., an unbeliever).Here are a few of his quotes that gives you a clue to where his mindset was, and how free from himself he was: As different from the likes of Jeffery Dahmar as day is from night. No need to be afraid of what was in his freezer.

I can bring along my Alabama Road Kill Special. Happy Birthday Ronmeister! What is your age now, ... 78? :D And who's that in your icon pic? Uncle Jessie decked out as Santa Claus?

(Homer Simpson mode) C-o-f-f-e-e!! MMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmm!!! B)

You know that somebody is in trouble when Paw weighs in on a topic. :o :o :o ;)

<_< Coolchef, my ten will get your one that you don't have the guts to say what you posted here to the parents of the kids who got molested, ... not to their face anyway. And I *know* that your reaction would be a lot different if it was YOUR kid that got hit on by a priest.

Now, now Cynic, don't be like that. Besides, he probably didn't feel a thing. :wacko: ..... Have another beer. Mark Clarke, What the heck. This thread is pretty much baptised in beer anyway. B)

Hhmmmm, interesting that the ecclesiastical authorities publically focus on and outright condemn the homosexuality with such dedication, and yet when it comes to dealing with child molesters, where they were often shuttled over to another church, and a lid of loyal silence was strongly applied, ... until the public stink about that became so strong, that then they 'came down heavy' against child molesters among the priests. And even then, when Pope John Paul II was dead and buried, who was among the cardinals giving their sermons at his funeral? None other than the same guy who did the sizeable amount of shuttling the molesting priests himself; Bernard Law. And he's still a cardinal! Now why are there no Official Documents of Doctrine ruling against (and being enforced) these activities? Or, what if Law was a practicing homosexual? Would he still be a cardinal then?

(this Unitarian miscreant orders more Calvinus beer to go all around, as apparently more merriment is needed) B)

You can always use the propane torch method. :blink: :wacko: ... then, after totally ruining the turkey, just go out for a beer. You can tell that I'm not allowed in the family kitchen for the holidays.

Cynic, From this particular Unitarian miscreant, ... I love that Calvinus commercial! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ron, No doubt he made that quote. And yet its interesting that despite the quote from Adams that you post, he also signed the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) that clearly stated "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." Is that 'rewriting of history'? Oh, by the way, I found where that quote was embedded in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts itself (in Articles II and III): basically giving Massachusetts a distinct place in having its own 'state church'. Fortunately, such laws were stricken and rendered *unconstitutional*, as in federally unconstitutional, that is. See, here is one prime example of where the national Constitution out trumps the state one (as well it should). Now, under the Articles of the Confederation, that wouldn't have happened, and any state would have been free to set up their own state church. ... Which means, so much for religious freedom! Tell me something. Do you actually think about and scrutinize those opposing viewpoints you see here, or do you automatically render them as 'secular/atheist/statist ridicule' out of hand?

... but, what if we want to INformally attack Mark? Okay, okay, you got a point. It is getting hot in here. That being the case, mea cupla Mark. My bad. I'll back away from this argument. (Wow! I actually said a Latin phrase, and here I thought that Latin was a dead language.)

Marchie, errr Mark, Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? :unsure: You misread what I said in your latest reply to me. Nowhere am I suggesting that Catholics should not run for office, not vote, etc. But when the pope puts forth suggestions (which apparently to you is excathedera, it seems) about in order to be a good Catholic, their loyalty to the Church must come above their loyalty to the Constitution when and where the two conflict, (kinda funny that it's coming from Ratzinger; yet I sorta expected as much from him) and folks like you take it at least semi-seriously, people are going to wonder about the points that I brought up. And yeah, folks like me are going to scream 'separation of church and state' (a position that the Church never supported fully and officially by the way, and you can look all thru Wikopedia for evidence to the contrary; you won't find it), because while the denomination headed in the Vatican has no official and legal authority over here, folks like me don't appreciate the Church endeavoring to 'take the back door in' by way of guilt tripping, and even using the "You cannot take communion while you support laws and bills that contradict the Church's teachings" tactic (currently it deals just with abortion, but hey, it can be used just as effectively on other issues important to the Church as well) to get the lawmakers to bend to the Church's will. Basically, I think that your point should be reversed. In that, if you cannot reconcile your Catholic teachings with our laws and secular lawmaking process, maybe you should not run for office. That way, you can still be a 'good Catholic', and our legal system can be free of your church's ecclesiastical meddling. And if this point is 'Archie Bunker' type of bigotry, its no more than yours is. <_< P.S., and biblically, the only thing that I notice that is commanded in whatever church/government conflict appears, is that you should not worship any other gods, nor stop "preaching in His name" (I think its in Acts). Nothing about remaining faithful to the Church's teachings, a good number of which undoubtedly conflict with the Constitution, particularly the one about 'Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion". ALL Catholic governments throughout history made laws with regard to the establishment of (orthodox) religion. As did many Protestant governments.

I take it that it'll be thru the Dictates of the Catholic church, right? That being the case, wouldn't that strengthen the anti-Catholic's argument that Catholics shouldn't run for office? That the silly fears that people had re: John Kennedy aren't so ill-founded? Which also brings up another question: Since John Kennedy promised the American people that the Catholic Church wasn't going to hold political sway over his office, was he less 'loyal to his (read 'Catholic') God' because of that?... Doncha just LUV these 'pain in the arse' type questions? ... and I am glad I 'acted' like that too. I keep consistant with what I believe in. That way, you know where I'm coming from. B)

Now what happens then, should what the Church teaches runs smack against what the Constitution requires, hmmm? What/who should the Catholic politician be loyal to then? ... The Constitution? Or the Church? See, this is Yet Another Reason why we need to enforce separation of Church and State. For those who want 'God back in the public square', it then begs the question: Which God? According to which 'right and orthodox' religion? Remember reading about the concerns that people had when John Kennedy (our first Catholic president) was elected? That he was going to be somehow a 'vassal' or otherwise subject to the Pope? (He said & proved that that wasn't going to be the case) Kind of silly and unsubstantiated (even based on some anti-Catholic bigotry) fears, weren't they? Well, you have Catholic politicians seriously implement what you have indicated here, and those fears won't be so silly after all, hmmm? And the same principle goes for any form of Protestantism as well.

The Energizer Nostrel, ... he just keep on sneezing and sneezing and sneezing .....

Ronmiester, I *love* it! ... Now why didn't they teach us this stuff when we were 'young'uns'? B)

Wacky, You can always go work for Micro$oft. ((ducking))

If you're the creative sort, web and graphics design can be a pretty good business to get into. But you MUST be at least pretty good, not only in the creative sense, but also in the understanding of what makes for a good website; one that is easy to navigate and use, and where the design and content work together well to communicate what the client wants. That, and GOOD customer and client support and rapport. You master all that Grasshopper, :) and folks *will* spread your name around.