All the News That's Fit to Print

Rain · Oct 7, 2009

piggit said: ↑

Those guys kinda turn me on ...
Click to expand...

Yeah...you're not the only one.

Maddie's Slave · Oct 7, 2009

And WHY do we have a secular state? This is why.

Distant Lover · Oct 7, 2009

the First Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court

ShakeZula said: ↑

Since you repeat it constantly that there's no praying in schools, I'd like to you show me where this is so.

-S-
Click to expand...

No one stops the students from praying, but the Constitution does not stop official prayers in school. There are valid arguments against such prayers, but the Constitution does not prohibit them. It prohibits the creation of an established church in the United States.

As a general principle, I dislike it when the Supreme Court declares that a popular law that has been in effect for a long time is unconstitutional. If it violates the Constitution, someone should have noticed that earlier. Also, I dislike the fact that a five to four majority can decide any Constitutional issue. It should be unanimous, or at least six to three. If the Constitution does not clearly say something, we should assume that it says nothing, and leaves the issue up to the legislative process.

As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one approves of it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages who spend their days pouring over ancient manuscripts in search of the absolute truth. The reality is that the judges project their personal values into the vague wordings of the Constitution.

They can even pretend to have one set of values during confirmation hearings, and reveal a different set after they are confirmed. The Supreme Court is a loose cannon that can roll in any direction doing a lot of damage. If the Supreme Court can find a right to abortion from a right to privacy from a document that mentions neither word, it can decide that the Tenth Amendment means exactly what it says, and Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, and a host of other federal laws are unconstitutional. I, of course, hope that it does not, but it can and it might.

There are any number of right wing organizations that hope that does happen. Here is one:
*not_secure_link*www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

ShakeZula · Oct 7, 2009

Distant Lover said: ↑

No one stops the students from praying, but the Constitution does not stop official prayers in school. There are valid arguments against such prayers, but the Constitution does not prohibit them. It prohibits the creation of an established church in the United States.
Click to expand...

If taxes are paying to fund a sectarian service, how is that not establishing a religion?

As a general principle, I dislike it when the Supreme Court declares that a popular law that has been in effect for a long time is unconstitutional. If it violates the Constitution, someone should have noticed that earlier. Also, I dislike the fact that a five to four majority can decide any Constitutional issue. It should be unanimous, or at least six to three. If the Constitution does not clearly say something, we should assume that it says nothing, and leaves the issue up to the legislative process.
Click to expand...

Why six to three? Why not seven to two or eight to one? Unanimous? You get nine random individuals in a room and see if you can get them to decide unanimously on what to have for dinner, let alone decide unanimously on what course a country should take through the interpretation of 200 year old law and precedent. Your idea here is not only pedantic, but it's completely unrealistic. Your 'all or nothing' idea is the reason this country is being pulled apart at the seams.

As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one approves of it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages who spend their days pouring over ancient manuscripts in search of the absolute truth. The reality is that the judges project their personal values into the vague wordings of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

As opposed to what? As stumbler mentioned, the idea of the Constitution is that it was flexible and could be altered to meet the needs of a growing nation. They could not have made notes on every possible eventuality that we should know what their mind was on the matter. If we are to have a fluid constitution it must be subject to interpretation by later generations. To not do so is to wind up in a situation similar to that of Islamic nations that hold to Sharia law.

They can even pretend to have one set of values during confirmation hearings, and reveal a different set after they are confirmed. The Supreme Court is a loose cannon that can roll in any direction doing a lot of damage. If the Supreme Court can find a right to abortion from a right to privacy from a document that mentions neither word, it can decide that the Tenth Amendment means exactly what it says, and Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, and a host of other federal laws are unconstitutional. I, of course, hope that it does not, but it can and it might. [/QUOTE]

And what is the Legislative Branch if left unchecked if not a loose cannon? What your talking about isn't a complaint against "activist judges", it's an indictment of our entire system. You want to complain about the Supreme Court but apparently have no problem with the Legislative powers that can run about unchecked. As I mentioned before, someone must bring suit against the government and challenge the constitutionality of things like Social Security before the Supreme Court will rule on it, if they even do. If no one does, the Supreme Court doesn't intervene.

There was no abortion in the time of the founders. Not in any official or institutionalized capacity. It is the job of the Supreme Court to decide if such things were in the intent of the Founders. You would see an entire branch of our government done away with all because they resist your Christianity.

Which, as far as I can tell, is exactly why it needs to be there.

-S-

ShakeZula · Oct 8, 2009

Dear lord, if you're out there, if you could see fit to just... I dunno, let the lower southern states like Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama just sorta drop in to the Gulf Of Mexico or be taken up early in your divine rapture, the rest of us sane and literate folks down here in Your nation would certainly be thankful. I can almost guarantee church attendance to jump by double digits and they'll be of a much higher caliber than you're used to getting from those states anyway. Blind faith is great and all, I totally get why you dig that, but you've got to be sick of the embarrassment and the constant damage control.

Anyway, just something to mull over. Oh, and just incase you forgot (I mean I know your god and everything but even you can get a little overwhelmed, right?) I just wanted to remind you that I'm still waiting on that Daily Blow Job Service I asked you about. You know the one, where I get to request a daily blow job from the hotty of my choice and they're delivered by angelic messenger with cute little red bows on their nipples? Just... you know, whenever you get around to it.

Thanks God :mrgreen:

OH oh! And say hi to little baby Jebus for me!

*not_secure_link*www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/sex-and-sin_b_308732.html

In 1568 Montgomery Highway v. City of Hoover, the Supreme Court of Alabama this week upheld the constitutionality of an Alabama statute prohibiting the sale of "any device designed ... primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." The law was targeted primarily at the sale of such objects as vibrators and dildos.

In a thoughtful opinion, the Alabama court concluded that because the United States Supreme Court has not yet expressly recognized a constitutional right to sexual freedom, analogous to the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the freedom to use contraceptives, the law must be upheld as long as it has a rational justification. And, applying that test, the court held that the statute could rationally be justified as an effort to enforce the "public morality."

The Alabama court's understanding of the governing precedents of the United States Supreme Court is reasonable. Although the Supreme Court has held that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit the sale of contraceptives, it grounded that doctrine in the fundamental right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to "bear or beget" a child. That doctrine concerns reproductive rather than sexual freedom.

And although the Supreme Court has held that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit private homosexual conduct, it arguably grounded that doctrine in part on concerns about discrimination against homosexuals, rather than on a doctrine of sexual freedom.

Thus, it was reasonable for the Alabama Supreme Court to conclude that the United States Supreme Court has not yet expressly recognized a right of sexual freedom.
At the same time, though, the Alabama Supreme Court acknowledged that a more aggressive version of the anti-sex aid statute might well be unconstitutional. For example, if the law prohibited not only the sale of such devices, but also their use, it might so intrude on the individual's right of personal privacy as to violate the Constitution.

Or, to take the point even a step further, suppose the state made it a crime to masturbate. It is difficult to believe that a nation dedicated to "the pursuit of happiness" and the freedom, autonomy and privacy of the individual could possibly allow such a law.

But is there really a difference?

The fear of masturbation, by the way, is nothing new. In the 1830s and '40s, a masturbation panic hit the United States, as Christian evangelicals and medical quacks warned that those who fell victim to the practice would be reduced to a state of utter degradation. Parents were cautioned to be on the lookout for early signs of self-abuse in their children. If they were not attentive, their sons would face lives of failure, debility, violence, and confinement in an asylum, and their daughters would suffer terrible illness, rampant fornication, and ultimately a life of prostitution. Sylvester Graham, who believed that masturbation was both sinful and dangerous, invented the Graham Cracker as a food designed to dampen sexual desire. (Think of that the next time you eat one.)

The more interesting question to me, though, is whether the invocation of the "public morality" can constitutionally justify even the law at issue in the 1568 Montgomery Highway case. What, precisely, is the "public morality" that is being promoted by a law forbidding the sale of sex aids? It cannot be sufficient merely to invoke the "public morality" to sustain a law, because virtually every law can be said to promote the "public morality."

So, we should ask more precisely: Why does the sale of vibrators and dildos undermine the "public morality"? It is worth noting that sex aids have been commonplace throughout human history. In classical Greece, for example, the literature often described women playfully masturbating with the assistance of a device adapted to the purpose, which the Greeks called olisbos. In Herondas's The Two Friends, or Confidential Talk, two young women converse excitedly about these olisboi. At the end of the conversation, the girl without one hurries off to acquire such a "treasure" for herself. In Aristophanes' Lysistrata, the women grieve the loss of the special leather olisboi that used to be made to perfection by the women of Miletus. Greek vases depict the use of olisboi in every possible manner, position, and combination.

In what sense, then, is the sale of such devices an affront to "the public morality"? Do they cause "bad" behavior, such as adultery or fornication? If anything, they would seem to cut in the opposite direction.

In any event, the invocation of "the public morality" is more basic than that. It asserts not that the use of these devices might cause bad behavior, but that their use is itself "immoral."

So, what is it about the use of a vibrator or a dildo that affronts the "public morality"? Why is a person who uses such a device "immoral"? The answer, I submit, turns entirely on religion. The pivotal shift from the world of the classical Greeks to our contemporary world, in this respect, was the advent of Christianity, with its emphasis on sexual pleasure as sinful.

Much of this can be traced to Augustine, who reasoned in the fifth century that sexual pleasure was integrally related to Adam's Fall from Grace. Adam's original sin, he argued, had not been one of pride or disobedience, but of sex. Thus, sexual pleasure was born out of evil, and man's best hope for redemption lay in repudiating the sexual impulse and, with it, the burden of guilt inherited from Adam. Sexual pleasure was therefore deemed defiling and shameful.

Of course, Christian doctrine has evolved in many ways since then, but it is this core attitude about sex that underlies the claim the sale of sex aids undermines the "public morality." Indeed, if we ask why the use of a sex aid is immoral, the only really plausible answer must be rooted in this set of religious beliefs.

Of course, people have a right to believe whatever their religion commands. If they wish not to use a sex aid, or to be celibate, that's their own business. But can this set of beliefs serve as a constitutionally permissible definition of the "public morality" in a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state?
Click to expand...

And, on a completely unrelated note, did you see that part about the Graham Crackers? Holy fuck!

-S-

ShakeZula · Oct 8, 2009

It's nice to see that Alaska has it's priorities sorted out.

*not_secure_link*www.themudflats.ne...-serial-rapist-receives-overwhelming-support/

This summer, the Anchorage Assembly met to hear public testimony for Ordinance 64, which would add the words “sexual orientation” to the city’s non-discrimination policy in matters of housing, employment, education and use of public facilities. This matter brought hundreds from the Anchorage Baptist Temple and other conservative churches in the area to testify against the ordinance. The Anchorage Assembly passed the ordinance to include the new wording, but new Mayor Dan Sullivan vetoed it.

There were many who attended these meetings who were in favor of the ordinance, as was the majority of Anchorage. But, it was difficult to sit and listen to the misinformation, the fear, the insults, and the Bible readings from what felt like an endless parade of people clad in red shirts, worn to symbolically tout their conservative credentials.

And of course there were those who wore blue shirts, in support of the ordinance. And there were those who didn’t wear any particular color, knowing that people were more likely to listen to what they had to say if they didn’t literally wear their opinions on their sleeves.

Those who spoke up in favor of the ordinance were brave. They were usually the minority group in the room. They told stories that were very human. Long-time partners, mothers and fathers, sisters, uncles, all told stories of the pain and fear they had experienced, and their desire to just be treated like people, with the same basic rights as everyone else. Sharing these stories could not have been easy, knowing that the next person up at the podium was likely to tell them that they were pedophiles, and sexual deviants, and predators that were going to burn in Hell.

It felt like watching vulnerable people, people who had been on the receiving end of injustice, and were brave enough to stand in front of people, getting kicked in the gut. And this went on for hours, for days, for weeks. Those who survived those meetings look at each other now, knowingly. They are a band of brothers, and sisters.

Fast forward to today.

Anchorage police officer Anthony Rollins stands accused. He has been indicted and is charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault, six counts of second-degree sexual assault, four counts of criminal use of a computer and six counts of official misconduct, all while on duty.

A woman who identified herself as one of the victims said in a telephone interview that Rollins picked her up in Mountain View on a cold December night and offered her a ride home. But instead of taking her to her home, he took her to the police substation and assaulted her.

She was 20 years old at the time.

So far, six women have come forward and accused the officer of rape, or other acts of sexual assault, while he was on patrol.

Nancy Haag, executive director of Standing Together Against Rape, said the group does not comment on specific individuals or cases.

“Any sexual assault is traumatic and I’m sure an authority figure only compounds that trauma, fear and hopelessness,” she said. “In general, the issues that need to be recognized here are those who perpetrate these crimes need to be held accountable and the survivors need deserve to be heard, believed and offered support.”

Yesterday, Rollins had his second bail hearing and the courtroom was packed. It was standing room only with those who had come to show their support. They had not, however, as Nancy Haag hoped, come to support the victims. They had come from a local Baptist church to support their fellow church-goer and indicted serial rapist, Anthony Rollins.

At least this time the victims that showed up for the hearing were able to sit in a chair. At the first hearing, according to a source at STAR, two victims were forced to fight their way through the mass of people and stand, “crushed against the back wall” by the crowds that had come to give moral support to the man they say sexually assaulted them. “They couldn’t even see,” she said. “The mood of the people who came was like it was some kind of social event. It was appalling.”

The court room was packed to overflowing, with Rollins’ church supporters filling the defendant’s side of the room, the seats in the jury box, the side of the coutroom usually reserved for the plaintiff, and spilling out into the hall when the room reached capacity.

This time, knowing what awaited them, arrangements were made in advance for the victims and their families to have access to the courtroom and a place to sit down. What that experience must have been like, facing your accused rapist in a room full of his supporters is to most of us, unimaginable.

Today, Anthony Rollins is out on $100,000 bail, after having been told by the judge that he understood how important it was that he attend church on Sundays. Hopefully as this case progresses, the seats on the plaintiff’s side of the courthouse will be filled to support six very brave women who deserve to know that people care about them, and about seeing justice served.
Click to expand...

-S-

Penny_Lane · Oct 8, 2009

Of course, if courts started ruling on things like sexual freedom, then that's just a slippery slope to acknowledging the rights of sexual minorities, and we all know where that takes us ---> humans marrying pigs.

But seriously, folks, all heterosexism aside, this article is wonderfully indicative of how consenting adults have no fucking privacy. Even more so, the sexuality of women is constantly controlled by a bunch of repressed old men. It seems to me that these religious types have always been terrified of women in control of their own pleasure, because their "logical" conclusion is that women will no longer need men. But the truth is that the more women become in touch with their sexuality, the happier everyone is! :excited:

Penny_Lane · Oct 8, 2009

Surprise, surprise, we don't take rape seriously. This should be obvious with the whole Polanski bullshit -- "Oh, sure, he drugged and raped a child, but have you seen his movies? They're fucking sweet!"

Distant Lover · Oct 8, 2009

ShakeZula said: ↑

If taxes are paying to fund a sectarian service, how is that not establishing a religion?
Click to expand...

An established religion is what the English have.

Distant Lover · Oct 8, 2009

ShakeZula said: ↑

As stumbler mentioned, the idea of the Constitution is that it was flexible and could be altered to meet the needs of a growing nation.
Click to expand...

I would rather the Constitution flex in the direction of public opinion, rather than in the direction of nine judges who may have concealed what they really believe during confirmation hearings. That is why I want the Tenth Amendment to be ignored, and why I fear it might not be.

Distant Lover · Oct 8, 2009

abortion in the time of the founders...

ShakeZula said: ↑

There was no abortion in the time of the founders.
Click to expand...

The Atlantic Monthly, May 1997

UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade")

*not_secure_link*www.theatlantic.com/issues/97may/abortion.htm

ShakeZula · Oct 16, 2009

You have to love the irony of this one.

*not_secure_link*www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistnews/forum/topics/porn-and-conservatives

As far as online adult entertainment is concerned, the Red states are also the red light states. Eight of the top ten pornography consuming states went for McCain in the presidential election (the two exceptions, Florida and Hawaii went democratic).

The biggest consumer of Internet pornography was Utah with 5.47 subscriptions per thousand home broadband users compared to Montana the lowest state with 1.92 subscribers per thousand (1). Study author, Benjamin Edelman of Harvard Business School focused on broadband users because pornography is a bandwidth hog. Edelman was also careful to rule out the age distribution of the population, income, education, population density, marriage rates and other characteristics that might make state comparisons unfair. Utah still wound up at the top of the heap.

Utah's top ranking surprises many. One can think of many adjectives to describe the state: religious, conservative, family-oriented, outdoorsy, clean-living, but few would have guessed top-pornography-consuming. Many would find it easier to attribute such interests to western neighbor Nevada, a center for gambling and prostitution. Ironically, Nevada doesn't even make it to the top ten.

States that banned gay marriage had 11 percent more porn subscribers. The level of agreement in a state with the statement that "Even today miracles are performed by the power of God" predicted higher pornography consumption. States claiming to have old-fashioned values about family and marriage purchased substantially more adult-content subscriptions.

In addition to the conservative states' avid consumption of Internet pornography, there have been numerous examples of prominent conservative politicians and public figures whose lofty statement of values in sexual matters was cruelly undercut by their own actions: Larry Craig; Newt Gingrich; Mark Foley, Jimmy Swaggart; Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Ted Haggard, and Bob Packwood, among scores of less recognizable names.

Many words have been used to explain the apparent contradiction between ideals and practices. Hypocrisy is the obvious one. Edelman cites repression, pointing out that if people are told they can't have something they want it more.

Although his findings might appear new and shocking, not much is genuinely new under the sun. Many decades ago, sociologist Laud Humphreys (2,3) wondered what kind of men would stop off in a public restroom for a few minutes of oral sex with other men, on the way home from work. He jotted down their car license numbers and tricked the local motor vehicles department into divulging the men's addresses. Without mentioning the true intent of his study, Humphreys interviewed the men in their homes. Most seemed happily married. Their homes often had the U.S. flag on the wall and a Bible on the mantelpiece. Humphreys had the impression that their aura of respectability was overdone. He referred to this as the "breastplate of righteousness," or a defense against accusations of sexual deviancy by seeming super normal.

Really cracking down on sexual nonconformity is remarkably tough. The early Christian monks who were constantly on their guard against sexual thoughts ended up being obsessed with it. Pachomius of Tabennisi, Egypt, prepared a system of rules to maintain fourth-century monastic chastity that has an almost pornographic specificity in its details explicitly designed to prevent homosexual encounters (4). Monks had to be careful to cover their knees when they sat down together. Never hold hands. Never lend a book. Never pull a thorn from another's foot. Never help him to oil his body.

Reporting on Iraq, in 2006, John Hendren of NPR related the problems of some unfortunate people who were subject to the sexual paranoia of religious conservatives (listen). Shepherds outside Baghdad had been killed by Islamic militants for failing to diaper their goats. This was felt to be too great a sexual temptation for local men. The militants also slaughtered some grocers because the arrangement of their vegetables was considered too provocative. Evidently the celery was getting too familiar with the tomatoes contrary to their explicit guidelines for vegetable modesty.
Click to expand...

Mormons are #1. Ha!

Also, if you want to view the actual study, go here:

*not_secure_link*people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

-S-

ShakeZula · Oct 16, 2009

I thought about posting this in the current death penalty thread started by Incubus, but after reading the first couple of pages, I decided that that thread was turning in to a big circle jerk.

So, let's see what the Bible is being used for in Texas these days...

*not_secure_link*www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

Texas execution looms after jury consult Bible
9 October 2009

As the international community prepares to mark the World Day Against the Death Penalty on 10 October, Amnesty International has highlighted two cases of people facing execution - one in the USA, one in Iran.

A Texas man who faces execution after jurors at his trial consulted the Bible when deliberating his fate should have his death sentence commuted, Amnesty International said on Friday.

Khristian Oliver, 32, is set to be killed on 5 November after jurors used Biblical passages supporting the death penalty to help them decide whether he should live or die.

Amnesty International is calling on the Texas authorities to commute Khristian Oliver's death sentence. The organization considers that the jurors' use of the Bible during their sentencing deliberations raises serious questions about their impartiality.

A US federal appeals court acknowledged last year that the jurors' use of the Bible amounted to an "external influence" prohibited under the US Constitution, but nonetheless upheld the death sentence.

Khristian Oliver was sentenced to death in 1999 for a murder committed during a burglary. According to accomplice testimony at the trial, 20-year-old Oliver shot the victim before striking him on the head with a rifle butt.

After the trial, evidence emerged that jurors had consulted the Bible during their sentencing deliberations. At a hearing in June 1999, four of the jurors recalled that several Bibles had been present and highlighted passages had been passed around.

One juror had read aloud from the Bible to a group of fellow jurors, including the passage, "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death".

The judge ruled that the jury had not acted improperly and this was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In 2002, a Danish journalist interviewed a fifth juror. The latter said that "about 80 per cent" of the jurors had "brought scripture into the deliberation", and that the jurors had consulted the Bible "long before we ever reached a verdict".

He told the journalist he believed "the Bible is truth from page 1 to the last page", and that if civil law and biblical law were in conflict, the latter should prevail. He said that if he had been told he could not consult the Bible, "I would have left the courtroom". He described himself as a death penalty supporter, saying life imprisonment was a "burden" on the taxpayer.

In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the jurors had "crossed an important line" by consulting specific passages in the Bible that described the very facts at issue in the case. This amounted to an "external influence" on the jury prohibited under the US Constitution.

However, it concluded that under the "highly deferential standard" by which federal courts should review state court decisions, Oliver had failed to prove that he had been prejudiced by this unconstitutional juror conduct. In April 2009, the US Supreme Court refused to take the case, despite being urged to take it by nearly 50 former US federal and state prosecutors.
Click to expand...

The bible is truth from page 1 to the last page... One wonders if he is currently on trial for wearing mixed fabrics or eating shellfish or if he just admitted his wrong doing and volunteered to be stoned to death in the village square.

-S-

ShakeZula · Oct 19, 2009

I wonder what the percentage of stories I post here are of Catholic misdeeds. It's got to be pretty high. Let's add to that number.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

It details the story of a philandering priest, the woman who fell for him and an ongoing battle with cancer now being fought by the illegitimate son. Also that such activity by priests has long been known, accepted and covered up.

-S-

stumbler · Oct 19, 2009

ShakeZula said: ↑

You have to love the irony of this one.

*not_secure_link*www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistnews/forum/topics/porn-and-conservatives

Mormons are #1. Ha!

Also, if you want to view the actual study, go here:

*not_secure_link*people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

-S-
Click to expand...

I loved this one Shake. Mormons are #1:excited:

ShakeZula said: ↑

I thought about posting this in the current death penalty thread started by Incubus, but after reading the first couple of pages, I decided that that thread was turning in to a big circle jerk.

So, let's see what the Bible is being used for in Texas these days...

*not_secure_link*www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

The bible is truth from page 1 to the last page... One wonders if he is currently on trial for wearing mixed fabrics or eating shellfish or if he just admitted his wrong doing and volunteered to be stoned to death in the village square.

-S-
Click to expand...

This one made me sick. And not just because some Texans did it, but because the Feds didn't correct it when they had the chance.

ShakeZula said: ↑

I wonder what the percentage of stories I post here are of Catholic misdeeds. It's got to be pretty high. Let's add to that number.

*not_secure_link*www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

It details the story of a philandering priest, the woman who fell for him and an ongoing battle with cancer now being fought by the illegitimate son. Also that such activity by priests has long been known, accepted and covered up.

-S-
Click to expand...

M. Scott Peck observed that the Catholic Religion with its emphasis on guilt associated with sex is a constant source of income for counselors and therapists.

ShakeZula · Oct 26, 2009

It appears that Christians are killing and torturing a great many children in Africa. I'm only posting the link as the story is very long.

*not_secure_link*www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33356826/ns/world_news-africa/

I guess the Pope was right a few weeks ago when he said all Africa needed was more Christ.

-S-

ShakeZula · Oct 26, 2009

More Catholic Madness!

The Arch Diocese in Maine has thus far contributed $550,000 to anti-gay marriage groups in Maine who are seeking to overturn their marriage amendment.

*not_secure_link*gay.americablog.com/2009/10/maines-catholic-church-donations-to.html

Today, we have more evidence of just how much the Catholic Church, led by Bishop Richard Malone, is funding the anti-gay campaign in Maine, meaning the Bishop is funding the lies. The campaign director for the anti-gay campaign in Maine, Marc Mutty, recently admitted that his side has been misleading the people of Maine. (Mutty is actually an employee of the Catholic Diocese on Maine, who is on leave to run the campaign.) Here's the latest, via AP:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland has given another $152,600 to the group that's trying to overturn Maine's gay-marriage law.

A spokeswoman said the new contributions were transferred from a "rainy day" fund to the Stand for Marriage Maine political action committee.

That brings total Roman Catholic contributions to more than $550,000. That includes more than $180,000 from the Diocese of Portland, $141,300 from individual parishioners in Maine and $214,000 from other dioceses and bishops across the U.S.
Click to expand...

This is shocking. The Diocese of Maine is shutting down parishes. The Bishop couldn't use his "rainy day" fund for that? And, who the hell knew the Bishop had a "rainy day" fund? This anti-gay effort is clearly more important to the Bishop.

The Catholic Diocese of Maine is to Yes on 1 as the Mormons were to Yes on Prop. 8.

I can't wait to tell this news to my mother. She is not going to be happy. Many, many Catholics in Maine won't be happy.
Click to expand...

So, lets think of what else this money could be used for.

Food for the needy. X

Shelter and supplies for the homeless. X

Medical care for the uninsured. X

Oppressing people based on their choice of consensual sex partners.

*not_secure_link*www.law.columbia.edu/ipimages/Information_technology/images/checkmark.png

-S-

stumbler · Oct 26, 2009

ShakeZula said: ↑

It appears that Christians are killing and torturing a great many children in Africa. I'm only posting the link as the story is very long.

*not_secure_link*www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33356826/ns/world_news-africa/

I guess the Pope was right a few weeks ago when he said all Africa needed was more Christ.

-S-
Click to expand...

This is horrifying. I can't believe any church that claims to follow the teaching's of Jesus would hurt little children. And personally I hold the missionaries who started all this responsible.

ShakeZula · Oct 26, 2009

stumbler said: ↑

This is horrifying. I can't believe any church that claims to follow the teaching's of Jesus would hurt little children. And personally I hold the missionaries who started all this responsible.
Click to expand...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, Stumbler.

-S-

stumbler · Oct 26, 2009

ShakeZula said: ↑

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, Stumbler.

-S-
Click to expand...

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
All are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Log in or Sign up

Rain Femme Fatale

Maddie's Slave Sex Lover

Distant Lover Master of Facts

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

Penny_Lane Porno Junky

Penny_Lane Porno Junky

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Distant Lover Master of Facts

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

stumbler Porn Star

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

stumbler Porn Star

ShakeZula The Master Shake

stumbler Porn Star

All the News That's Fit to Print

nproxy.org

Log in or Sign up

Rain Femme Fatale

Maddie's Slave Sex Lover

Distant Lover Master of Facts

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

Penny_Lane Porno Junky

Penny_Lane Porno Junky

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Distant Lover Master of Facts

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

stumbler Porn Star

ShakeZula The Master Shake

ShakeZula The Master Shake

stumbler Porn Star

ShakeZula The Master Shake

stumbler Porn Star

Useful Searches

nproxy.org