| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2007 10:09:12 AM |
| Object: |
NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest |
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=24028
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a Catholic
priest.
A registered sex offender was also charged, according to an article
posted yesterday by the Lower Hudson Online.
Among others, the operation also stung a Rotary Club president and a
man of 72 years.
<snip>
The charge of forcible touching was brought against the Rev. Gary
Mead, a Catholic priest who allegedly fondled an officer who was at
the site in an undercover capacity. The article said that Mead was
assigned to a Garnerville parish, St. Gregory Barbarigo.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
31 Oct 2007 11:57:12 AM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=24028
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ON THE
OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 08:38:13 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:kt2Wi.45662$8G5.19895@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc
3=&id=24028
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ON
THE OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
Truth hurts, you drunk-driving cop-slugger.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
31 Oct 2007 12:19:53 PM |
|
|
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ON THE
OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites. The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post. That would be very obvious if you had
bother to actually read the story.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
31 Oct 2007 12:37:12 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193851193.794353.206600@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ON
THE
OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites.
LOL!
His bias, if you are thinking of it in that manner, goes against himself
then; because he is hypocritically biased against those who he assumes are
religious persons.
The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post.
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself only with
those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is PROFOUNDLY
pro-relgion in its Constitution?
That would be very obvious if you had
bother to actually read the story.
What a joke.
His bias is blatantly obvious.
Your insistence to contest and to go against religion in the USA is one of
your big problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 09:32:57 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:Q23Wi.45682$8G5.37273@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself
only with those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is
PROFOUNDLY pro-relgion in its Constitution?
Moron. The words "god" and "christ" appear NOWHERE in the Constitution or
the Bill of Rights. The word "religious" appears in the Constitution in
Article VI--and even then, only to say:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States."
No religious test. Doesn't sound like "profoundly pro-religion," you
brainless, drunk-driving, cop-hitting prat.
The only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is in the First
Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That being said, stupidity as completely all-encompassing as yours should
be profoundly physically painful, you festering imbecile.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
03 Nov 2007 11:18:41 AM |
|
|
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99DCDB3BE54B1askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:Q23Wi.45682$8G5.37273@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself
only with those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is
PROFOUNDLY pro-relgion in its Constitution?
Moron. The words "god" and "christ" appear NOWHERE in the Constitution or
the Bill of Rights.
As if they need to, huh?
The word "religious" appears in the Constitution in
Article VI--and even then, only to say:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States."
No religious test.
Yes. Which means no religious person can be excluded from government
service.
Doesn't sound like "profoundly pro-religion," you
brainless, drunk-driving, cop-hitting prat.
Only to those who ignore the First Amendment.
Secondly, your reliance on insulting language in that form shows your
predilection for unproveable fantasy.
The only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is in the First
Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
True.
That being said, stupidity as completely all-encompassing as yours should
be profoundly physically painful, you festering imbecile.
Meaning that those who are not against the Constitution cause you problems?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
03 Nov 2007 06:39:20 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:Jb1Xi.26329$N7.17496@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99DCDB3BE54B1askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:Q23Wi.45682$8G5.37273@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself
only with those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is
PROFOUNDLY pro-relgion in its Constitution?
Moron. The words "god" and "christ" appear NOWHERE in the
Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
As if they need to, huh?
Yes, they would need to be there, if your assertion were correct. They're
not. You're not. QED.
The word "religious" appears in the Constitution in
Article VI--and even then, only to say:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States."
No religious test.
Yes. Which means no religious person can be excluded from government
service.
No. It means that religion cannot be used to determine whether someone
may serve in an office or not.
Doesn't sound like "profoundly pro-religion," you
brainless, drunk-driving, cop-hitting prat.
Only to those who ignore the First Amendment.
Secondly, your reliance on insulting language in that form shows your
predilection for unproveable fantasy.
I can't help if my being brutally honest about your condition bothers
you.
The only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is in the First
Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
True.
That being said, stupidity as completely all-encompassing as yours
should be profoundly physically painful, you festering imbecile.
Meaning that those who are not against the Constitution cause you
problems?
People who don't know what they're talking about cause me problems.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
31 Oct 2007 05:49:26 PM |
|
|
On Oct 31, 1:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193851193.794353.206600@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ON
THE
OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites.
LOL!
His bias, if you are thinking of it in that manner, goes against himself
then; because he is hypocritically biased against those who he assumes are
religious persons.
An assumption that is usually borne out in his posts. What is wrong
with assuming that a priest is religious? The position pretty much
shows that he is supposed to be religious, and he certainly can be
taken to be a representative of his religion and religious
organization.
The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post.
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself only with
those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is PROFOUNDLY
pro-relgion in its Constitution?
The Constitution is not "pro-religious". If fact, it makes sure that
religion stays out of the government, and government stays out of
religion. The ONLY places in the Constitution where religion is even
mentioned is the prohibition against a religious test of public office
and the prohibition against the government from favoring any religion
or treating any religion differently from all others. That is
certainly NOT a "pro-religious" stance.
That would be very obvious if you had
bother to actually read the story.
What a joke.
His bias is blatantly obvious.
And that bias is against hypocrites and those that want to force their
religions onto everyone else.
Your insistence to contest and to go against religion in the USA is one of
your big problems.
Then I do not have a big problem, since I do not go against religion
in the USA. What I go against is religion CONTROLLING the USA as a
number of them want to, which itself is against the US Constitution.
However, you are not likely to appreciate the difference.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 11:37:46 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193870966.697336.295280@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 1:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193851193.794353.206600@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a
Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ON
THE
OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites.
LOL!
His bias, if you are thinking of it in that manner, goes against himself
then; because he is hypocritically biased against those who he assumes
are
religious persons.
An assumption that is usually borne out in his posts. What is wrong
with assuming that a priest is religious? The position pretty much
shows that he is supposed to be religious, and he certainly can be
taken to be a representative of his religion and religious
organization.
More anti-religous rants.
Where is the information with regard to thbe other 19 persons?
Why can't you see Yang's blatant anti-religious intent?
The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post.
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself only
with
those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is PROFOUNDLY
pro-relgion in its Constitution?
The Constitution is not "pro-religious".
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION contradicts you.
If fact, it makes sure that religion stays out of the government,
It never says that.
and government stays out of religion.
It does require that.
The ONLY places in the Constitution where religion is even
mentioned is the prohibition against a religious test of public office
and the prohibition against the government from favoring any religion
or treating any religion differently from all others. That is
certainly NOT a "pro-religious" stance.
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
The Constitution is very much pro-religion.
It is so pro-religion that it tells you verbatim that the people have FREE
EXERCISE of RELIGION rights and that the government is forbidden from
transgressing those rights.
You have to be illiterate to deny those facts.
That would be very obvious if you had
bother to actually read the story.
What a joke.
His bias is blatantly obvious.
And that bias is against hypocrites and those that want to force their
religions onto everyone else.
*****.
His bias is against the religious.
His is hypocritical by failing to expose persons other than the religious.
Your insistence to contest and to go against religion in the USA is one
of
your big problems.
Then I do not have a big problem, since I do not go against religion
in the USA.
You are deceived by your own mind then, because you routinley constest free
exercise of religion in the USA.
What I go against is religion CONTROLLING the USA as a
number of them want to, which itself is against the US Constitution.
Actually, it isn't against the constitution at all for religion to control
the USA.
However, you are not likely to appreciate the difference.
Your treasonous, unrepresentative beliefs are trounced by the verbatim
Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 09:35:44 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:AhnWi.24870$N7.20918@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193870966.697336.295280@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 1:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193851193.794353.206600@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=ne
ws&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate
684 has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including
a Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE
INFORMATION ON THE
OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites.
LOL!
His bias, if you are thinking of it in that manner, goes against
himself then; because he is hypocritically biased against those who
he assumes are
religious persons.
An assumption that is usually borne out in his posts. What is wrong
with assuming that a priest is religious? The position pretty much
shows that he is supposed to be religious, and he certainly can be
taken to be a representative of his religion and religious
organization.
More anti-religous rants.
Where is the information with regard to thbe other 19 persons?
Why can't you see Yang's blatant anti-religious intent?
The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post.
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself
only with
those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is PROFOUNDLY
pro-relgion in its Constitution?
The Constitution is not "pro-religious".
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION contradicts you.
If fact, it makes sure that religion stays out of the government,
It never says that.
and government stays out of religion.
It does require that.
The ONLY places in the Constitution where religion is even
mentioned is the prohibition against a religious test of public
office and the prohibition against the government from favoring any
religion or treating any religion differently from all others. That
is certainly NOT a "pro-religious" stance.
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
The Constitution is very much pro-religion.
It is so pro-religion that it tells you verbatim that the people have
FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION rights and that the government is forbidden
from transgressing those rights.
You have to be illiterate to deny those facts.
No. You have to be illiterate, ignorant, or just an imbecile to believe
that the Constitution is "pro-religion." You've been proven to be all
three.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
03 Nov 2007 11:19:14 AM |
|
|
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99DCDBB46415Aaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:AhnWi.24870$N7.20918@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193870966.697336.295280@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 1:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193851193.794353.206600@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=ne
ws&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate
684 has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including
a Catholic
priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE
INFORMATION ON THE
OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites.
LOL!
His bias, if you are thinking of it in that manner, goes against
himself then; because he is hypocritically biased against those who
he assumes are
religious persons.
An assumption that is usually borne out in his posts. What is wrong
with assuming that a priest is religious? The position pretty much
shows that he is supposed to be religious, and he certainly can be
taken to be a representative of his religion and religious
organization.
More anti-religous rants.
Where is the information with regard to thbe other 19 persons?
Why can't you see Yang's blatant anti-religious intent?
The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post.
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself
only with
those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is PROFOUNDLY
pro-relgion in its Constitution?
The Constitution is not "pro-religious".
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION contradicts you.
If fact, it makes sure that religion stays out of the government,
It never says that.
and government stays out of religion.
It does require that.
The ONLY places in the Constitution where religion is even
mentioned is the prohibition against a religious test of public
office and the prohibition against the government from favoring any
religion or treating any religion differently from all others. That
is certainly NOT a "pro-religious" stance.
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
The Constitution is very much pro-religion.
It is so pro-religion that it tells you verbatim that the people have
FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION rights and that the government is forbidden
from transgressing those rights.
You have to be illiterate to deny those facts.
No. You have to be illiterate, ignorant, or just an imbecile to believe
that the Constitution is "pro-religion." You've been proven to be all
three.
Spoken like a taxation addict.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
03 Nov 2007 06:40:39 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:ec1Xi.26331
$N7.16525@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99DCDBB46415Aaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
No. You have to be illiterate, ignorant, or just an imbecile to believe
that the Constitution is "pro-religion." You've been proven to be all
three.
Spoken like a taxation addict.
Coming from you, Welfare Boy, that's rich. Get a job and stop wasting my
taxes, you leech.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
03 Nov 2007 11:28:26 AM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:Xe1Xi.46$TR5.41@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ec1Xi.26331$N7.16525@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
No. You have to be illiterate, ignorant, or just an imbecile to believe
that the Constitution is "pro-religion." You've been proven to be all
three.
Spoken like a taxation addict.
Spoken like a religious freak who ignores Jesus commandment to pay your
taxes.
Caesar is emperor of the USA?
Anyway, you are wrong in your assessment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 12:06:24 PM |
|
|
On Nov 1, 12:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193870966.697336.295280@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 1:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193851193.794353.206600@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate 684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a
Catholic priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ON
THE OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites.
LOL!
His bias, if you are thinking of it in that manner, goes against himself
then; because he is hypocritically biased against those who he assumes
are religious persons.
An assumption that is usually borne out in his posts. What is wrong
with assuming that a priest is religious? The position pretty much
shows that he is supposed to be religious, and he certainly can be
taken to be a representative of his religion and religious
organization.
More anti-religous rants.
Nope.
Where is the information with regard to thbe other 19 persons?
The source article did not mention them. You cannot blame Yang for
not relaying information that was not available.
Why can't you see Yang's blatant anti-religious intent?
Because it is not there.
The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post.
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself only
with
those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is PROFOUNDLY
pro-relgion in its Constitution?
The Constitution is not "pro-religious".
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION contradicts you.
The Constitution supports me. Making sure that the government does
not endorse any religious beliefs and does not interfere with the
freedom of people to follow their own religions does not make the
Constitution "pro-religion".
If fact, it makes sure that religion stays out of the government,
It never says that.
Yes, it does. The First Amendment.
and government stays out of religion.
It does require that.
Which means that religious must stay out of the government since if
religion interferes with the government, then the government will
start interfering with religions and start favoring a single religion
or set of religions.
The ONLY places in the Constitution where religion is even
mentioned is the prohibition against a religious test of public office
and the prohibition against the government from favoring any religion
or treating any religion differently from all others. That is
certainly NOT a "pro-religious" stance.
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
I am not doing so. Unlike you, I understand what it means.
The Constitution is very much pro-religion.
Nope. It is very much hands off religion.
It is so pro-religion that it tells you verbatim that the people have FREE
EXERCISE of RELIGION rights and that the government is forbidden from
transgressing those rights.
That means that it is not pro-religion, since it cannot promote
religion or religious views. It also cannot use religion as a test
for any public or government office. All it does is protect the
people's right to worship any belief system that they choose to, or no
belief system at all, without being forced to follow any religious
beliefs that the people do not subscribe to. That means that it is
neutral towards religion since it will neither help nor hinder it or
the people that follow it. The First Amendment makes it clear that
the government is hands off religion.
You have to be illiterate to deny those facts.
Actually, I have to be intelligent to deny your delusions and
ignorance and lack of understanding. Which I am.
That would be very obvious if you had
bother to actually read the story.
What a joke.
His bias is blatantly obvious.
And that bias is against hypocrites and those that want to force their
religions onto everyone else.
*****.
Nope.
His bias is against the religious.
No, his bias is against the hypocrites.
His is hypocritical by failing to expose persons other than the religious.
Not at all. He is exposing the people that claim that they and their
religion is better than anyone else because of their religious
beliefs. These people often demand that people follow their beliefs,
and they refuse to take no for an answer. He is showing that they are
being hypocrites. These people denounce homosexuality, and they are
secretly homosexual, for example. He is exposing the hypocrites as
being hypocrites.
Your insistence to contest and to go against religion in the USA is one
of your big problems.
Then I do not have a big problem, since I do not go against religion
in the USA.
You are deceived by your own mind then, because you routinley constest free
exercise of religion in the USA.
Actually, you are the one that is deceived in your mind. I DEFEND the
right of people to freely exercise their religious beliefs. What I
contest are the people that want to force their beliefs onto everyone
else and that want to take over the government and turn this country
into a theocracy.
What I go against is religion CONTROLLING the USA as a
number of them want to, which itself is against the US Constitution.
Actually, it isn't against the constitution at all for religion to control
the USA.
Yes, it is. You just refuse to see it and understand it. If a
religion takes over control of the country, they will start passing
laws that favor their religion and their beliefs, thereby promoting
their religious beliefs. These laws will almost certainly have no
secular purpose, and will interfere with the general populous's right
to practice their own beliefs without interference. That would be in
violation of the First Amendment which prohibits such actions by the
government.
However, you are not likely to appreciate the difference.
Your treasonous, unrepresentative beliefs are trounced by the verbatim
Constitution.
Nope. The Constitution protects my right to say them as well as to
hold what beliefs I have. My beliefs do not have to be representative
of anyone. And none of my beliefs are treasonous, no matter how much
you lie about me.
As I said, you do not appreciate the difference between being against
religion in the USA and religion controlling the USA. Keep in mind
that if a religion takes control of the USA and turns this country
into a theocracy, it will not likely be your religion, and this
country will changes from a representative republic to an autocracy or
oligarchy where freedom is a distant memory and oppression and tyranny
rules.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 01:44:46 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193936784.269772.221740@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 12:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193870966.697336.295280@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 1:37 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1193851193.794353.206600@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:gl6hi3l5l87q95oglbgvhiqgsd7vk97ljd@4ax.com...
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&s...
A public sex sting at a New York state rest area off Interstate
684
has resulted in 20 men being charged in a month--including a
Catholic priest.
Yang, discriminator against the religious, WHERE IS THE INFORMATION
ON
THE OTHER !( PERSONS?
LOL!
Your bias is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
If it is, it is against hypocrites.
LOL!
His bias, if you are thinking of it in that manner, goes against
himself
then; because he is hypocritically biased against those who he assumes
are religious persons.
An assumption that is usually borne out in his posts. What is wrong
with assuming that a priest is religious? The position pretty much
shows that he is supposed to be religious, and he certainly can be
taken to be a representative of his religion and religious
organization.
More anti-religous rants.
Nope.
Where is the information with regard to the other 19 persons?
The source article did not mention them. You cannot blame Yang for
not relaying information that was not available.
You think that is really a pertinent remark?
Yang's total agenda seems to be against religion.
Your denial of it shows your bias to be against religion.
Why can't you see Yang's blatant anti-religious intent?
Because it is not there.
Denial contrary to what is seen so often.
The news story that he cited did
not contain the information that you are requesting, so he was not
able to relate it in his post.
So, why does he choose to act so hypocritically by allying himself
only
with
those who are blatantly anti-religion in a nation that is PROFOUNDLY
pro-relgion in its Constitution?
The Constitution is not "pro-religious".
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION contradicts you.
The Constitution supports me. Making sure that the government does
not endorse any religious beliefs and does not interfere with the
freedom of people to follow their own religions does not make the
Constitution "pro-religion".
Ridiculous.
If fact, it makes sure that religion stays out of the government,
It never says that.
Yes, it does. The First Amendment.
It doesn't say that.
You are illiterate to think it says that.
and government stays out of religion.
It does require that.
Which means that religious must stay out of the government
It doesn't say that.
since if religion interferes with the government, then the government will
start interfering with religions and start favoring a single religion
or set of religions.
How so?
No religious test means that persons of any religion may serve in
government.
The ONLY places in the Constitution where religion is even
mentioned is the prohibition against a religious test of public office
and the prohibition against the government from favoring any religion
or treating any religion differently from all others. That is
certainly NOT a "pro-religious" stance.
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
I am not doing so. Unlike you, I understand what it means.
You failed to cite FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
Your partiality is obvious.
You are partial to something that has zero constitutional support,
secularism.
The Constitution is very much pro-religion.
Nope. It is very much hands off religion.
Ridiculous.
It does instruct the government to stay out of religion matters, but it does
nothing to exclude religion from affecting government.
It is so pro-religion that it tells you verbatim that the people have
FREE
EXERCISE of RELIGION rights and that the government is forbidden from
transgressing those rights.
That means that it is not pro-religion, since it cannot promote
religion or religious views.
It doesn't say that it can not promote religion iof religious views.
It says that the U.S. Congress can not make a law that respects an
ESTABLISHMENT of religion.
It also cannot use religion as a test
for any public or government office.
Which means that no person can be excluded from government service who is a
religious person.
All it does is protect the people's right to worship any belief system
that they choose to, or no
belief system at all, without being forced to follow any religious
beliefs that the people do not subscribe to.
Which isn't being disputed I would hope, unless you want to observe the
homosexuals who seek to deny people their free exercise of religion rights
so often.
That means that it is
neutral towards religion since it will neither help nor hinder it or
the people that follow it. The First Amendment makes it clear that
the government is hands off religion.
Is that why there is a homosexual movement that seeks to classify religious
free speech as hate speech?
Is that why there are censorship movements that go against the peoples'
right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion?
You have to be illiterate to deny those facts.
Actually, I have to be intelligent to deny your delusions and
ignorance and lack of understanding. Which I am.
Is that why you depart from the verbatim language of the Constitution and
side with opinions?
That would be very obvious if you had
bother to actually read the story.
What a joke.
His bias is blatantly obvious.
And that bias is against hypocrites and those that want to force their
religions onto everyone else.
*****.
Nope.
I thought you were in favor of choice.
Why is it you seek to force others to adapt to an unconstitutional
secularist opinion when you are free to choose not to be part of that which
you do not agree with; that which is protected by the Constitution itself in
these matters?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 04:46:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:37:46 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
We're not. You just don't understand the difference between freedom
and license.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 04:56:50 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:i7iki3h9c7vjgqa6kmis105g2fs98cet1p@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:37:46 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
We're not. You just don't understand the difference between freedom
and license.
"License" isn't in the Constitution.
LOL!
Why are you against freedom?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Onias" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 05:29:17 PM |
|
|
On Nov 1, 9:56 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:i7iki3h9c7vjgqa6kmis105g2fs98cet1p@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:37:46 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
We're not. You just don't understand the difference between freedom
and license.
"License" isn't in the Constitution.
LOL!
Why are you against freedom?
I sincerely doubt you have any expertise in this area.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated in their private
correspondence that the intention was to erect a wall between Church
and State.
Of course, if you really have that much disdain for the Constitution,
why not let all the religions have a say in government along with
Christians? Like Gnostics, Satanists or Pastafarians?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
01 Nov 2007 09:50:03 PM |
|
|
"Onias" <onias16@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193956157.831393.5670@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 9:56 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:i7iki3h9c7vjgqa6kmis105g2fs98cet1p@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:37:46 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
We're not. You just don't understand the difference between freedom
and license.
"License" isn't in the Constitution.
LOL!
Why are you against freedom?
I sincerely doubt you have any expertise in this area.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated in their private
correspondence that the intention was to erect a wall between Church
and State.
A wall that can not encroach on religious freedom.
Of course, if you really have that much disdain for the Constitution,
It isn't me that has a disdain for the Constitution.
Properly applied, the Constitution makes an excellent nation.
To say it doesn't is to assert that the USA did not become as great as it
did.
why not let all the religions have a say in government along with
Christians? Like Gnostics, Satanists or Pastafarians?
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Onias" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 07:07:55 AM |
|
|
On Nov 2, 2:50 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Onias" <onia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193956157.831393.5670@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 9:56 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:i7iki3h9c7vjgqa6kmis105g2fs98cet1p@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:37:46 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why are you IGNORING the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION component?
We're not. You just don't understand the difference between freedom
and license.
"License" isn't in the Constitution.
LOL!
Why are you against freedom?
I sincerely doubt you have any expertise in this area.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated in their private
correspondence that the intention was to erect a wall between Church
and State.
A wall that can not encroach on religious freedom.
Of course, if you really have that much disdain for the Constitution,
It isn't me that has a disdain for the Constitution.
Properly applied, the Constitution makes an excellent nation.
To say it doesn't is to assert that the USA did not become as great as it
did.
why not let all the religions have a say in government along with
Christians? Like Gnostics, Satanists or Pastafarians?
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
I wasn't talking about people, I was talking about policy.
To answer your question, my dear John, I was just highlighting how
absurd it was to have government policy run on religious principles.
That's the trouble with unverifiable truth-claims: There are just so
many of them!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 09:25:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Onias" <onias16@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193956157.831393.5670@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 9:56 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why are you against freedom?
I sincerely doubt you have any expertise in this area.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated in their private
correspondence that the intention was to erect a wall between Church
and State.
A wall that can not encroach on religious freedom.
Your religious freedom ends where my religious freedom begins.
Of course, if you really have that much disdain for the Constitution,
It isn't me that has a disdain for the Constitution.
Properly applied, the Constitution makes an excellent nation.
One way in which it's being properly applied is to get you off the
streets and into a nice warm cell.
why not let all the religions have a say in government along with
Christians? Like Gnostics, Satanists or Pastafarians?
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 10:53:12 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Onias" <onias16@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193956157.831393.5670@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 9:56 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Why are you against freedom?
I sincerely doubt you have any expertise in this area.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated in their private
correspondence that the intention was to erect a wall between Church
and State.
A wall that can not encroach on religious freedom.
Your religious freedom ends where my religious freedom begins.
Where would that be in your mind, fool?
Of course, if you really have that much disdain for the Constitution,
It isn't me that has a disdain for the Constitution.
Properly applied, the Constitution makes an excellent nation.
One way in which it's being properly applied is to get you off the
streets
I not on the streets now, you predatory street roaming criminal.
and into a nice warm cell.
I hope those cells cave in so you paranoid asswipes can't sleep.
why not let all the religions have a say in government along with
Christians? Like Gnostics, Satanists or Pastafarians?
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 12:14:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:53:12 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
Office of Faith-Based (meaning CHRISTISN faith-based) Initiatives
tells me that.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 12:22:11 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qlmmi311mkjp6bivf8p2jh6lq1rr6j7213@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:53:12 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
Office of Faith-Based (meaning CHRISTISN faith-based) Initiatives
tells me that.
Are you serious?
Aren't Catholics considered Christians though?
And, this is the very thing the First Amendment's exclusion against congress
making a law that respects an establishment of religion was designed to
avoid, if you are telling me the truth about that.
Recall the war between the Catholics and Protestants and King William of
Orange.
The Protestants won, and Catholicism was segregated to Ireland.
Make sense to you that the USA would try to ensure that such a conflict did
not recur?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 03:10:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:22:11 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qlmmi311mkjp6bivf8p2jh6lq1rr6j7213@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:53:12 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
Office of Faith-Based (meaning CHRISTISN faith-based) Initiatives
tells me that.
Are you serious?
Aren't Catholics considered Christians though?
And, this is the very thing the First Amendment's exclusion against congress
making a law that respects an establishment of religion was designed to
avoid, if you are telling me the truth about that.
Recall the war between the Catholics and Protestants and King William of
Orange.
The Protestants won, and Catholicism was segregated to Ireland.
Make sense to you that the USA would try to ensure that such a conflict did
not recur?
On paper. OFBI is making sure it DOES occur.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 03:19:48 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:u01ni3t29u4k5baa19ju0ch4eq35ihnmj3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:22:11 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qlmmi311mkjp6bivf8p2jh6lq1rr6j7213@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:53:12 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
Office of Faith-Based (meaning CHRISTISN faith-based) Initiatives
tells me that.
Are you serious?
Aren't Catholics considered Christians though?
And, this is the very thing the First Amendment's exclusion against
congress
making a law that respects an establishment of religion was designed to
avoid, if you are telling me the truth about that.
Recall the war between the Catholics and Protestants and King William of
Orange.
The Protestants won, and Catholicism was segregated to Ireland.
Make sense to you that the USA would try to ensure that such a conflict
did
not recur?
On paper.
Agreement appreciated.
OFBI is making sure it DOES occur.
OFBI?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 07:06:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:19:48 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:u01ni3t29u4k5baa19ju0ch4eq35ihnmj3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:22:11 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qlmmi311mkjp6bivf8p2jh6lq1rr6j7213@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:53:12 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
Office of Faith-Based (meaning CHRISTISN faith-based) Initiatives
tells me that.
Are you serious?
Aren't Catholics considered Christians though?
And, this is the very thing the First Amendment's exclusion against
congress
making a law that respects an establishment of religion was designed to
avoid, if you are telling me the truth about that.
Recall the war between the Catholics and Protestants and King William of
Orange.
The Protestants won, and Catholicism was segregated to Ireland.
Make sense to you that the USA would try to ensure that such a conflict
did
not recur?
On paper.
Agreement appreciated.
OFBI is making sure it DOES occur.
OFBI?
Take another short-term-memory pill. It's about 2 seconds north of
here.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Onias" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 03:26:43 PM |
|
|
On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qlmmi311mkjp6bivf8p2jh6lq1rr6j7213@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:53:12 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
Office of Faith-Based (meaning CHRISTISN faith-based) Initiatives
tells me that.
Are you serious?
Aren't Catholics considered Christians though?
And, this is the very thing the First Amendment's exclusion against congress
making a law that respects an establishment of religion was designed to
avoid, if you are telling me the truth about that.
Recall the war between the Catholics and Protestants and King William of
Orange.
The Protestants won, and Catholicism was segregated to Ireland.
Make sense to you that the USA would try to ensure that such a conflict did
not recur?
Well John, in a country with far more Protestants than Catholics and
far more Christians than non-Christians, this does mean that
Protestant interests will be represented more than Catholics ones, and
Christian interests more than non-Christian ones. This is hardly fair,
is it? Conflict could result from this imbalance of power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 03:36:04 PM |
|
|
"Onias" <onias16@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194035203.451840.275700@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qlmmi311mkjp6bivf8p2jh6lq1rr6j7213@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:53:12 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmcmi3dl6eorhfm8j6246rflh7i8c02afl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:50:03 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Currently, there is no exclusion for any person of any religion.
So, what is your contention?
That there is a practical exclusion for all non-Protestants.
How so?
No religious test does not tell me that.
Office of Faith-Based (meaning CHRISTISN faith-based) Initiatives
tells me that.
Are you serious?
Aren't Catholics considered Christians though?
And, this is the very thing the First Amendment's exclusion against
congress
making a law that respects an establishment of religion was designed to
avoid, if you are telling me the truth about that.
Recall the war between the Catholics and Protestants and King William of
Orange.
The Protestants won, and Catholicism was segregated to Ireland.
Make sense to you that the USA would try to ensure that such a conflict
did
not recur?
Well John, in a country with far more Protestants than Catholics and
far more Christians than non-Christians, this does mean that
Protestant interests will be represented more than Catholics ones, and
Christian interests more than non-Christian ones.
According to the democratic republic framework that would be a logical
conclusion.
This is hardly fair, is it?
Depends on the policy, imo.
Conflict could result from this imbalance of power.
As long as no religion can be seen as being discriminated against and as
long as no one's constitutional rights are violated by such policies there
should be no dispute.
But, the issue of the non-respecter clause being written to avoid conflict
between Catholics and protestants has inherent in it an intent not to
discriminate on the basis of a denomination of Christianity.
In my opinion, the founders were not including such religions as Islam and
Buddhism or Hindu or Shinto or Bantu.
Be that as it may, if there were any religions other than Christianity being
practiced at all, possibly they would have been aware of it and decided to
use the term religion rather than 'denomination/branch of Christianity'.
I assume it would be easier to operate a nation where there were very little
dispute to the meaning of the Constitution itself.
That is why I try to adhere to the verbatim wording of the Constitution as
much as I can.
Deviating from the verbatim meaning when there is no deviation permitted
seems to be treasonous to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Onias" |
|
| Title: Re: NY Sex Sting Nets... A Catholic Priest (Yang's BLATANT anti-religion persepctive) |
02 Nov 2007 04:28:28 PM |
|
|
As long as no religion can be seen as being discriminated against and as
long as no one's constitutional rights are violated by such policies there
should be no dispute.
Making policies based on a particular religion is discrimination
against persons of other religions, or no religion at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
