betsy

No, but they were claiming to be leaders of the society. Surely their behaviour should set a good example to their constituents, in the same way religious leaders' behaviour should set an example. Both leaders acted wrongly. Only one acted properly after the fact. The fact that you're bigotted against Christianity doesn't change anything. It's some of the participants on this board that are responding to the behaviour inappropriately...just like their political leaders did. I can say with a certain amount of happiness at least that the religious leader was the one who admitted his guilt and responded accordingly.

I meant your, "I'm sorry for hijacking this thread." And then you preceeded to hijack it anyway. Just so to remind you about one of the rules: POSTING CONTENT It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact the Admin and request a new thread. Hence I'm asking you: what's the connection with Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter to this topic. I'm not too familiar about Cheney's family and their story....so, is there a connection to the discussion at hand? If so, can you explain?

That was why this priest had voluntarily resigned. Acknowledging he had sinned....and that, therefore means, he thinks he is no longer fit to preach about morality. And the CEO reiterated the stance of the church in this matter. It is a public reprimand. A public castigation. He said: this behaviour is not condoned. That is the crucial point that is blatantly and deliberately being ignored here. Newbie seized on this story and tried to contort and distort the facts just so it will fit to the story she wants to project. Her irrational tirades only support the fact that she is in a crusade to attack Christianity at all cost. Although I do not question the possiblity that she may actually believe the spin that she's spinning..... I do however have some basis to question her sanity.

This is like saying, "honey Im sorry to hurt you." Then he proceeds to whack his wife anyway. Anyway, is Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter an ordained Minister in a church? Does she wants to be ordained? Are this lesbian couple wanting to get married in a Christian church....or have they been married in a Christian church and then the church decided to take their vows back? Are they being kicked out of a church? What's the connection???

When Belinda Stronach committed adultery, I never heard any apology from this leader. Aren't community leaders supposed to show examples of integrity? Granted that she made an error in judgement....where's the admittance of error? the contriteness? the apology? Do I need to mention Clinton? The leader of the world? Who actually bombed another country and killed people to divert attention from his behaviour. But of course maybe since he insists a blowjob is not sex must mean therefore he did not commit adultery. They had to kick him out! If he was a priest...this is where it would've been appropriate to use the word "defrocked." ha-ha. The ultimate example of hypocrisy. At least Dewert admitted to his sin, humbled himself to admit that because of it, he no longer feels fit to be a preacher....so he voluntarily resigned. This topic is what is actually an example of hypocrisy. And furthermore this topic demonstrates the liberal idea of what's right and wrong - that right and wrong is a matter of opinion. A relative issue. That is moral relativism. Need say no more.

Cybercoma, A child comes to a group of children playing their own game of hide and seek. "Can I play?" asks this child. "Yes!" the children answer. Not long after that, this lone child starts changing the rules of the game. The other kids get upset....and why shouldn't they? They had a good game going. They were nice to let this kid join in. And now this kid is calling the shots and starts messing it up. So I say to this little trouble-maker: if you don't like the way they're playing, and they don't like the changes you're making....why don't you go and play by yourself....and make up your own game? What I'd like to know is why would these homosexuals, who obviously do not believe in the teachings of this religion insist to impose themselves? Why is it so important to join a group who practice what goes against your own belief? No one is stopping these homosexuals from forming their own religion, and have their own interpretation of the bible. So why don't they? For imposing their own interpretation, and distorting what most true Christians believe....what do these homosexuals hope to gain?

Why is anybody surprised about this? And to think that Canada seeks authorisation from this dysfunctional body of dictatorial lunatics for every move its makes, not just in foreign policy but also on human rights.

Before you go let me explain it one more time. Oh....on the other hand, never mind. So thanks for that definitive conclusion to the topic, Newbie. I'm sure you'll be quoted in scholastic publications around the world. As a matter of fact I heard that Benny Hill is looking for new material.

Next thing we'll know will be about their platoon of toddlers suicide bombers with the 72-jar deal of gummy bears!

Or maybe there's something about dwarves that we don't know about? LOL

I wonder the same thing about transubstantiation. Can't we Christians have a moment to ourselves? LOL!

That's funny! LOL.

(Me a bigot? I think not). Read all your statements. And that's the whole point. You THINK...... NOT.

Seems like alliteration is lost on you. That's okay. I keep forgetting you Christian types have to have everything in black and white. The alliteration isn't lost on me, and I'm sure it wouldn't be lost on jefferiah. But the purpose of the alliteration is. A literary devise isn't designed to be used just because it's there, like some mountain with a staircase. It's use should be to some effect. Your's isn't. Anyway, I thought you said it was a play on words. Who finally explained to you what you were saying?? Dada? I guess what we "Christian-types" really have to have is an explanation for the meaningless ramblings of an anti-Christian bigot. We're so demanding!!

Hurry up Figleaf. I'm waiting. What are you doing? Trying on a new outfit??? LOL!

Don't hold your breath. I don't want to prompt another outburst of your Christian values. Okay.

This is just like going to the backwoods of Tenessee and bashing humans. Oh nasty comment, please DELIVERANCE me from evil.... LOL!

Very dignified indeed. Well? What DID you mean he has a nice car? I'm just guessing. Yes, very dignified. Take your time....

Well you must admit Figleaf, it is difficult to know. Especially in this day and age. In my religion two people wore figleaves....LOL

Very dignified indeed. Well? What DID you mean he has a nice car? I'm just guessing.

This is all very funny actually. It serves to show where our secular society WILL lead us. On the one hand, most of the "liberal" posters on this site readily defend the teacher, Ms. Bufford, who not only felt it was her place to expose the young children in her charge to homosexual activity (I'll use that term in an effort to keep an issue that is anything but neutral, neutral) but also felt that it was her place to tell those same children to keep it hush, hush. "Don't tell mommy and daddy, they won't understand. They don't like homosexuals. They don't know anything about morality, right and wrong, and all that stuff that I can teach you." This in spite of the "liberal" pretense that to them the child is the most important, and indeed sacred, element of our society. The truth is that these people actually see the child as the future of their agenda. On the other hand, these same posters want to crucify a man who has made a mistake, acknowledges it and asks for the forgiveness of the community. Even his wife has found it in her heart to stand by him in the face of this media and public witch-hunt. Again, the irony is hilarious. Just a few decades ago, these same "liberals" decided in their collective wisdom to introduce the "progressive" idea of no fault divorce, mainly in an effort to remove the social stigma of adultery. I wonder whether there would be such a reaction if, say, Belinda Stronach had had an affair with a married man. What's that? Oh, she did. Well, I'll be damned. Maybe the deciding factor in the RELIGIOUS LEADER indignation is the "religious" rather than the "leader" component. Just guessing. Of course, these two cases do have a common element. Both are being handled, consciously by the media and unconsciously by most of the mindless "liberal" public, so as to advance the radical secular agenda of control and elimination of opposing views.

Odd then that you are so defensive. Not to mention that other thread where you posted some psychobabble about why atheists don't believe. btw, I used to live down the street from Dick Dewert. He had a nice car. "Who cares what you believe? Not me." You call that being defensive? You DO have some serious comprehension issues. And "psychobabble"? Coining nonsense words (or in your case, using someone else's coined word) only exposes that you either don't understand or you have nothing to say, probably both. The car. Where you taken for a ride? Is that your problem? Or maybe it was YOUR wife. That's it, isn't it??!!

I guess I was right the first time. That I believe in a higher power and a more important day of judgement than my day in court on Main Street in front of some incompetent that probably is there because she proved to be even more incompetent as a lawyer, doesn't mean I don't respect our worldly law. If a crime is committed, the criminal should get his day (or more) in court and Herod the Judge can render his punishment, or more likely, not. Whatever that perverted homosexual child abusing priest gets as punishment on earth will be irrelevent at that later hearing. Who cares what you believe? Not me. Gosh. Now that's shallow. And remember, it's just a matter of time before that homosexual pedophile child abuser that you readily berate yourself now, will be granted the same rights of "Self-Expression" as his only slightly nobler predeccessor, the homosexual straight-up, if you'll excuse the expression, and then you'll be required to defend him too.

What the hell are you on about? You asked what the big deal is and I explained to you that the big deal is that religion is supposed to be the model of morality and this RELIGIOUS LEADER showed a serious error in his moral judgment. Do you not consider it immoral to betray the trust of your spouse? I know I do. And I'm fairly certain, most spouses would agree. The rest of your post about liberal 'this' and Jean Chretien 'that' is complete tripe. All you're doing is trying to call me shallow an unintelligent, simply because I do not believe in your preferred superstitions. Oh suddenly feeling a little self-righteous, are we? The usual version from atheists is "oh I'm very moral and I don't need religion!" Suddenly religion is the "foundation of morals." Well you got it wrong both ways. You do need religion for your morals. If you live in a western society, it IS Judeo-Christian morality that's the basis for your moral standard, assuming you have one. (I'm not saying that to imply you are shallow OR unintelligent, but there is a strong possibility that you follow the modern liberal tendency to adhere to a so-called moral relativism - which simply put means that each person, the self, can decide for himself what moral behaviour he will follow in any particular situation - hardly a "standard" at all). Anyway, how you acquired whatever morality you have is not known to me. Maybe you went to church and learned from a preacher (who may or may not have had a thing for choirboys, or other men's wives); maybe you read it in religious studies at school; or maybe you picked it up from the behaviour of others. Nor do I have any idea as to the quality of your morality, but I do know it's quality depends on its source. But religion is not the FOUNDATION of morality. The Word of God is the foundation of morality, even an atheist's, and the basis of our moral standard. Unless you believe that the priest is an infallible representative of God, why do you expect him to be without sin. Like I said, "You can't seem to differentiate between a human being who is contrite and realizes the error of his ways..." and someone who would suggest that what he did was alright and he owes no contrition to anyone. Just because you "explained" to me "that the big deal is that religion is supposed to be the model of morality..." doesn't make it so. I don't accept that "explanation". Yes "this RELIGIOUS LEADER showed a serious error in his moral judgment". Should we burn him at the stake? And what is the nonsense about whether I consider adultery a sin? Do you doubt that I do? Then you not only didn't read this post, you haven't been reading, or at least understanding, my position all along. One need not be too deep to recognise the reference to John Chretien as a reference to his first denying that adscam existed, then denying that he had anything to do with it, then admitting that he did have things to do with it, then denying that there was anything wrong with it. This was not meant to imply that it had anything to do with religion, but it did have a undeniable parallel to this religious LEADERSHIP and the willingness, or not, to accept responsibility. One leader admitted that he was wrong, the other subbornly denied it. Who's the best leader? There's only one answer.

Carrying a dagger/knife is not an illegal act. It is, in schools. And on planes. And if it's concealed and I think, over 4 inches long, everywhere.