In article <rxDFh.187$68.29@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

In news:010320070836128966%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com,
David W. Barnes <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> typed:

In article <hZCFh.160$68.136@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

Simple. You cannot fire someone that you are not employing. The
priest was employed by the church, and was high profile, and he
broke the rules that pertained to his employment. He was not,
however, banished from the church, and thus can still attend
services. The woman was a parishioner and not employed by the
church. They could not fire her or reprimand her an any
significant way.

Perhaps you might try explaining what you think the church should
have done, or could have done.

If she invited/initiated the relationship, which oftenttimes
happens in these scandals designed to discredit Churches,

There is no logical reason to think that she initiated the
relationship,

An complete and utter idiot's statement of ignorance.
There is no logical reason to assume that she did not contribute to
this scandal.

And maybe she was a terrorist! Lets speculate about all kinds of
things!

You are making excuses.

Excuses?
You forgot that I am not for killing living in utero humans via a sexist
policy.

What sexist policy is that?

In article <rxDFh.187$68.29@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

In news:010320070836128966%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com,
David W. Barnes <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> typed:

In article <hZCFh.160$68.136@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

Simple. You cannot fire someone that you are not employing. The
priest was employed by the church, and was high profile, and he
broke the rules that pertained to his employment. He was not,
however, banished from the church, and thus can still attend
services. The woman was a parishioner and not employed by the
church. They could not fire her or reprimand her an any
significant way.

Perhaps you might try explaining what you think the church
should have done, or could have done.

If she invited/initiated the relationship, which oftenttimes
happens in these scandals designed to discredit Churches,

There is no logical reason to think that she initiated the
relationship,

An complete and utter idiot's statement of ignorance.
There is no logical reason to assume that she did not contribute to
this scandal.

And maybe she was a terrorist! Lets speculate about all kinds of
things!

You are making excuses.

Excuses?
You forgot that I am not for killing living in utero humans via a
sexist policy.

What sexist policy is that?

On Mar 1, 8:26 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:

Innews:1172782584.537727.30440@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> typed:

On Mar 1, 11:13 am, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

Innews:1172765023.558161.134860@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> typed:

On Mar 1, 8:24 am, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

Innews:1172728863.954581.104620@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> typed:

On Feb 28, 11:58 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

Innews:jlaau2lu4r35mj83iil6sfd24ldre98ure@4ax.com,
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> typed:

A rightwing hypocrite?

Noooooooo

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacksonv...

An Orange Park priest and leading voice in the theologically
conservative Anglican movement in America has been stripped of
his clerical credentials after having "an inappropriate
relationship" with an adult female church member, the parish's
top lay leader said Monday.

What did they do to the female consensual participant?

Chances are, nothing since she did not work for the church.

Irrelevant, and there is no legal basis to prosecute someone
based on their religion.

Then it is a good thing that nobody was prosecuted. The priest
was fired, not charged with any crime.

There is nothing that they could do to her.

Wrong, illegally anti-religion, hypocritical sexist.

Then please explain what the church could have done to her. You
asked a question, and I answered. There was nothing illegal,
anti-religion, hypocritical, or sexist in my statements. Unlike
you, I deal with the facts.

The priest violated the "rules of his employment", the woman did
not since she was not employed by the church.

The woman, if she consented to this 'inappropriate relationship',
is subject to every law that the church member is subject to.

No laws were broken. And you cannot fire someone that you do not
employ.

And, if the Anglicans do not treat her similarly, according to
their free exercise code, how is that showing them to be
non-hypocritical?

Simple. You cannot fire someone that you are not employing. The
priest was employed by the church, and was high profile, and he
broke the rules that pertained to his employment. He was not,
however, banished from the church, and thus can still attend
services. The woman was a parishioner and not employed by the
church. They could not fire her or reprimand her an any
significant way.

Perhaps you might try explaining what you think the church
should have done, or could have done.

If she invited/initiated the relationship, which oftenttimes
happens in these scandals designed to discredit Churches,

There is no logical reason to think that she initiated the
relationship,

An complete and utter idiot's statement of ignorance.

No, my statement, which according to your next statement you did not
understand, was a statement made by someone that is intelligent and
worldly.

There is no logical reason to assume that she did not contribute to
this scandal.

That was not what I said. I said that she may not have initiated or
invited the relationship. Try reading what was actually written.

You said there was no 'logical' reason to think that she contributed
to the relationship.

No, I did not. What I actually said is still in the thread and
plainly visible. I said "There is no logical reason to think that she
initiated the relationship,". Please learn to read and understand
what you read. It is plainly obvious that I did not say what you
thought I said, even though what I said is clearly visible.

and he was always free to refuse her anyway,

Meaning that her continued advances on behalf of pro-choice and
gayblade criminals were somehow to be avoided?

No, that is not what I mean.

Of course it isn't.

That is because you have a reading comprehension problem, and you like
trying to change what people say to match your delusions and hatred.\

None of you criminal pro-choicer or gay extortionists
want anyone to know your wicked schemes.

I have no "wicked schemes".

Those only exist in your imagination.

What's more, there are no "criminal pro-choicer or gay extortionists"
in evidence,

nor am I criminal, nor would I belong to any criminal
organization nor any organization that specializes in extortion.

You are again stating that I belong to imaginary groups that only
exist in your delusions.

There is no evidence of "continue
advances",

No one cares about your criminal allegiance.

I have no criminal allegiance.

And you ad hominem does nothing to
support your assertions.

and there is no evidence that she was seeing him for any
reason besides because she wanted to. Since there are no
"pro-choice and gayblade criminals" in existence in reality, she
could not have been working for them as you have suggested. In
fact, there is no "gayblade" listed in the dictionary, which means
that the word is meaningless in the first place. Your delusions
have no bearing in the discussion. Try paying attention and
reading what is actually written and not introducing your own
strawmen.

People are not forced to have personal relationships with anyone
that they do not want to. He was married, which means that he
should have avoided her advances, assuming that she was the one
that approached him. He could have just as easily been the one
that approached her and initiated the relationship.

There were no criminals in evidence, he was vehemently
anti-homosexual rights, and was she in all likelihood, and there is
no evidence that either of them were pro-choice.

What do you think the Clergyman woulda done?

Refused her,

After continued advances and temptation via her confessions geared to
dethrone him?

Yes.

And there is nothing that suggests that she was trying to
"dethrone him".

Apparently, your misogyny is coloring your perceptions again as well as
your comprehension abilities.

And what "confessions"are you talking about?

There were no confessions mentioned by me or in the news story.

It looks like another of your
delusions again.

and told her that he was married and not interested.
Just like most people do in such a situation. Not that you would
ever know or understand.

You are pro-choice and pro-gay.

That is because I am intelligent, compassionate, educated, and
egalitarian.

I work to make the world a better place for everyone.

No one belives your infantile ***** that you revel in.

Many people do believe me because I am not infantile like you are, nor
do I specialize in ***** like you do. Your ad hominems only serve
to show that you are the one that is behaving in an infantile manner.

Called the hypocritical pro-choice gooney boy tax leech idiot
squad?

No such thing exists except in your delusions.

Nah, you liar.

I am not lying, not have I been lying any time that I have written
you. There is no reason to think that any such thing as you describe
exists except in your paranoia and delusions.