On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:29:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu... at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:20:21 -0600, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 08:20:10 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:11 am, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:26:37 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:17 pm, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On 31 Oct 2009 03:37:47 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr... at (no spam) io.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:09:23 -0500, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2009 05:15:46 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr... at (no spam) io.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:51:44 -0400, J <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
Perhaps it is time to set a national standard for obscenity. This is one
time when it will be necessary to join church and state.

No, it won't, Junkie.  No News Now has never been known for being honest.
If there's an actual move towards that, I suggest the miscreants have the
Constitution shoved down their throats, whether they consent or not.

If you show inappropriate material on the public waves, you lose your license to
operate.
So, you're going to go after Showtime/Cinemax/HBO, etc.?  Those are cable.
(I doubt you'd avoid all of them, malicious coward that you've been in your
shoddy Usenet history.)

Special paid-for services.

I'm tired of atheist types despoiling our children in public.
And we're tired of you fucking them in private, pedophile earl.

I don't do those things,

Yes, you do earl, each and everytime you protect your pedophile loving
and enabling organization.  It's the same as sticking your dick in
their ass yourself.

I'm one of the one's that demanded that the house be cleaned.

Since you spend your life telling us lies, why would anyone ever listen
to you?

Most know the truth when they hear it.

 What's your problem?

Duke

On Nov 3, 10:06=A0am, r... at (no spam) somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
In article
9875e132-2474-458e-9d82-d4ddeed06... at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Jimb=
o





ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:25=3DA0am, anonymous <anonym... at (no spam) anonymous.com> wrote:
Alex W wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:17:27 +0000, Les Hellawell wrote:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:32:31 -0800, r... at (no spam) somis.org (=3D95R.L.Meas=
ures) =3D
wrote:

In article <reure593la6nc9fhos010pmrf1drt2d... at (no spam) 4ax.com>, duke
duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

Duke's right, the parishioners made their feelings clear by=
aba=3D
ndoning
the church and walking away. Few will return.

ONly a few did. =3DA0And the church continues to grow, and t=
he pri=3D
esthood
returns to
growth with clean young and middle age men.

There is something suspect about young men who take a vow of
celebacy for the rest of their life but we know its is more honou=
red
in the declaration than it is in the breeches. Well whatever it i=
sn't
something healthy young men do.

I'm not sure how strange such a commitment really is. =3DA0After
all, plenty of young men make all manner of dramatic and
often terminal commitments -- from saying "yes, I do" after
the phrase "until death do us part" to blowing themselves up
in crowded marketplaces. =3DA0Young men are like that....

I guess that sooner or later they are ging have to be pragmatic
and allow priests to marry followed by mumbo-jumbo-ising women
priests otherwise they are going to find that they will soon have
no priests. The CofE have already bitten that bullet.

IMO, they are working up to it. =3DA0For some years now, Rome
has very quietly allowed married priests from other
denominations to convert and continue in their office. =3DA0This
experience seems to have been so positive that Ratzinger now
extended anopen invitation to the conservative elements of
the Church of England, up to and including bishops. =3DA0I am
tempted to see this at least parlty as a large-scale field
test of the workability of married priestdom in a Catholic
setting.

I know the official Catholic position is that by a priest being celeb=
ate
and not married , he can be committed to this job and the congregatio=
n.
But priests don't work 24 hours a day. =3DA0And when they are not wor=
king,
they are doing many things and one of them is sex. =3DA0The rest of t=
he
world knows that because they meet priests who have sex. =3DA0I have =
only
met priests who admit to having sex. =3DA0I have never met a priest t=
o said
he no longer has sex. =3DA0I guess they exist. =3DA0The church would =
have to =3D
pay
more if they had to pay a priest enough money to raise a family.- Hid=
e qu=3D
oted text -

- Show quoted text -

More than the $2.1 billion or so than they've had to shell out for
protecting pedophile priests?

** =A0$2.1-billion was probably a bargain compared to the bad press that
would have rained down from over a thousand public trials of altar-boys
testifying as to what the priest inserted where,

--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, and how the church did nothing about it.