Pope backs effort to defund abortion in EU

[J]

Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.








http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-backs-effort-to-gather-1000000-signatures-to-defund-abortion-in-eu






VATICAN CITY, February 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) � In a rare showing
of support for a specific campaign, Pope Benedict XVI gave explicit
backing to an effort to defund abortion launched across Europe.

After his Sunday Angelus, the Pope said, �I salute the Movement for
Life. I wish them success with the initiative called One of Us, so
that Europe is always a place where the dignity of each human being is
protected.

Launched last month by pro-life leaders in 20 EU nations, the �One of
Us� campaign is seeking to gather one million signatures from EU
citizens by November 1, 2013 in order to force the European Parliament
to schedule debate on the matter.

The proposal calls for a ban on the EU�s �financing of activities
which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, in particular in
the areas of research, development aid and public health.�

Speaking with Rome Reports, Gregor Puppinck the Director of the
European Center for Law and Justice explained, �In the U.S. there are
a number of campaigns in order to de-fund Planned Parenthood. We are
in some extent trying to do the same, we ask the EU to stop funding
Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.�










J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh428...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.

Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
will become irrelevant.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh428...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes

Lie noted. He has several times threatened to excommunicate elected
representatives on both sides of the Atlantic who happen to be
Catholic, if they don't vote the Vatican line.

>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>
>
>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>will become irrelevant.

It's none of his business - the Vatican is not a member of the EU.

[Syd M.]

On Feb 7, 1:19 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues

Since when, RCC lover?

PDW

[Cassandra]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh428...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>
>
>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>will become irrelevant.
>

Atheists are killing babies as we speak just to spite him.

[Christopher A. Lee]

What a fucking moron. A multiple liar as well as an idiot.

[Geopelia]

"Christopher A. Lee" <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qd37h8974jojquunv...@4ax.com...

He should be cleaning up the scandals in his own church, not trying to
interfere with the rights of others.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:02:35 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A. Lee" <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:qd37h8974jojquunv...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:18:08 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>> (Cassandra) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh428...@4ax.com>,
>>>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues

Lie noted - he threatens to excommunicate elected representatives on
both sides of the Atlantic who happen to be Catholics, if they don't
vote the way the wants them to.

>>>>> but the stakes
>>>>> here are way too high to ignore.

Lie.

It is merely his religious belief.

And none of his business outside his religion.

>>>>> Babies are dying by the millions and

Lie.

>>>>> their deaths should not be funded by the public.

Lie.

>>>>> Thank you Pope
>>>>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.

Lie.

>>>>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>>>>will become irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>Atheists are killing babies as we speak just to spite him.
>>
>> What a fucking moron. A multiple liar as well as an idiot.

Atheists are doing no such thing. Let alone to spite some senile old
facilitator of pedophilia in Rome.

If the liar means abortion, she should say so - but even then more
Christians than atheists (at least in the USA) have abortions.

>He should be cleaning up the scandals in his own church, not trying to
>interfere with the rights of others.

Exactly.

But in any case what he has to say is irrelevant outside his church
anyway unless he uses real world language, concepts, methods, etc.

And even inside his church, only if its members choose to follow it -
eg in the US the majority of Catholic couples practice contraception
and have small families.

He is arrogant, psychopathic and narcissistic,

[Cassandra]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:02:35 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>

And what church who that be ?

If insults and unfounded presumptions are the best atheists can come
up, not wonder they aren't doing very well in getting rid of religion.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:04:55 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

(Cassandra) wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:02:35 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:qd37h8974jojquunv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:18:08 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>>> (Cassandra) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>>><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh428...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>>>>>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>>>>>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>>>>>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>>>>>will become irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>Atheists are killing babies as we speak just to spite him.
>>>
>>> What a fucking moron. A multiple liar as well as an idiot.
>>
>>He should be cleaning up the scandals in his own church, not trying to
>>interfere with the rights of others.
>>
>>
>And what church who that be ?

Who the fuck do you imagine the Pope is, imbecile?

>If insults and unfounded presumptions are the best atheists can come
>up, not wonder they aren't doing very well in getting rid of religion.

Why can't you stop being such a dishonest, in-your-face liar about
atheists and to atheists, psychopath?

[Syd M.]

On Feb 7, 6:18 am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,

> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> >> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
> >> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> >> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>
> >Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
> >will become irrelevant.
>
> Atheists are killing babies  as we speak just to spite him.

Oh, look... Another rightard liar.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Feb 7, 8:04 am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:02:35 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geope...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Christopher A. Lee" <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:qd37h8974jojquunv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:18:08 GMT, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com

> >> (Cassandra) wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

> >>><hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,

> >>>> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> >>>>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
> >>>>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> >>>>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>
> >>>>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
> >>>>will become irrelevant.
>
> >>>Atheists are killing babies  as we speak just to spite him.
>
> >> What a fucking moron. A multiple liar as well as an idiot.
>
> >He should be cleaning up the scandals in his own church, not trying to
> >interfere with the rights of others.
>
> And what church who that be ?
>
>

The Ponitf, idiot. The Pope. The head of the RCC, idiot.
Good god, don't you know anything?

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Feb 7, 8:15 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:04:55 GMT, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Cassandra) wrote:
> >On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:02:35 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geope...@nowhere.com>
> >wrote:
>

> >>"Christopher A. Lee" <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:qd37h8974jojquunv...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:18:08 GMT, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com

> >>> (Cassandra) wrote:
>
> >>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

> >>>><hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,

> >>>>> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> >>>>>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
> >>>>>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> >>>>>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>
> >>>>>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
> >>>>>will become irrelevant.
>
> >>>>Atheists are killing babies  as we speak just to spite him.
>
> >>> What a fucking moron. A multiple liar as well as an idiot.
>
> >>He should be cleaning up the scandals in his own church, not trying to
> >>interfere with the rights of others.
>
> >And what church who that be ?
>
> Who the fuck do you  imagine the Pope is, imbecile?
>
> >If insults and unfounded presumptions are the  best atheists can come
> >up, not wonder they aren't doing very well in getting rid of religion.
>
> Why can't you stop being such a dishonest, in-your-face liar about
> atheists and to atheists, psychopath?

This person can't. They hate us too much for rational thought.

PDW

[djornsk]

On 07/02/2013 06:19, J wrote:
>
> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-backs-effort-to-gather-1000000-signatures-to-defund-abortion-in-eu
>
>
>
>
>
>

> VATICAN CITY, February 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) � In a rare showing

> of support for a specific campaign, Pope Benedict XVI gave explicit
> backing to an effort to defund abortion launched across Europe.
>

> After his Sunday Angelus, the Pope said, �I salute the Movement for

> Life. I wish them success with the initiative called One of Us, so
> that Europe is always a place where the dignity of each human being is
> protected.
>

> Launched last month by pro-life leaders in 20 EU nations, the �One of
> Us� campaign is seeking to gather one million signatures from EU

> citizens by November 1, 2013 in order to force the European Parliament
> to schedule debate on the matter.
>

> The proposal calls for a ban on the EU�s �financing of activities

> which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, in particular in

> the areas of research, development aid and public health.�

>
> Speaking with Rome Reports, Gregor Puppinck the Director of the

> European Center for Law and Justice explained, �In the U.S. there are

> a number of campaigns in order to de-fund Planned Parenthood. We are
> in some extent trying to do the same, we ask the EU to stop funding

> Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.�
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J Young
> jdyo...@ymail.com


Absolutely right - a country which slaughters it's babies in the womb
has no real concept of the sanctity of human life and is capable of
limitless evil.

j

[Cassandra]

Why would I need to lie to discredit atheists with replies like that ?

[Cassandra]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 06:32:05 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
<pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 8:04=A0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:02:35 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geope...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Christopher A. Lee" <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:qd37h8974jojquunv...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:18:08 GMT, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com
>> >> (Cassandra) wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> >>><hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,
>> >>>> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >>>>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stake=
>s
>> >>>>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions a=

>nd
>> >>>>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>> >>>>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>
>> >>>>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>> >>>>will become irrelevant.
>>

>> >>>Atheists are killing babies =A0as we speak just to spite him.

>>
>> >> What a fucking moron. A multiple liar as well as an idiot.
>>
>> >He should be cleaning up the scandals in his own church, not trying to
>> >interfere with the rights of others.
>>
>> And what church who that be ?
>>
>>
>
>The Ponitf, idiot. The Pope. The head of the RCC, idiot.
>Good god, don't you know anything?

Yes, how not to write in an ambiguous manner

[Cassandra]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 06:30:55 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
<pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 6:18=A0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>
>> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,
>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>> >> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>> >> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>> >> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>
>> >Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>> >will become irrelevant.
>>

>> Atheists are killing babies =A0as we speak just to spite him.

>
>Oh, look... Another rightard liar.
>

Is wanting to kill babies a left wing thing then ?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:50:44 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

(Cassandra) wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:15:31 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
><chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:04:55 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>>(Cassandra) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:02:35 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Christopher A. Lee" <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:qd37h8974jojquunv...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:18:08 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>>>>> (Cassandra) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>>><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh428...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>>>>>>>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>>>>>>>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>>>>>>>will become irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Atheists are killing babies as we speak just to spite him.

That was your first lie.

>>>>> What a fucking moron. A multiple liar as well as an idiot.

And that's all it deserved.

>>>>He should be cleaning up the scandals in his own church, not trying to
>>>>interfere with the rights of others.
>>>>
>>>And what church who that be ?

That was your stupidity.

>>Who the fuck do you imagine the Pope is, imbecile?

Which was all your stupidity deserved.

>>>If insults and unfounded presumptions are the best atheists can come
>>>up, not wonder they aren't doing very well in getting rid of religion.

Those were also lies.

Do you honestly not understand who the Pontiff is?

>>Why can't you stop being such a dishonest, in-your-face liar about
>>atheists and to atheists, psychopath?
>>
>Why would I need to lie to discredit atheists with replies like that ?

So why did you, in both messages?

The reply doesn't discredit atheists - it's merely what an
in-your-face, stupid liar gets when they reap what they sow.

But then you already knew that.

[Christopher A. Lee]

What a fucking moron.

[Cassandra]

As you think the answer is obvious, I'll take that as a yes

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:09:51 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

You just can't stop lying - starting with your "Atheists are killing
babies as we speak just to spite him [the Pope]".

Nobody is "killing babies", let alone for the "reason" you invented.

And even in the USA more Christians than atheists have abortions,
simply because of the demographics.

Try to be less dishonest next time.

[Dakota]

The Pope doesn't have time to clean up the scandals. Each day he's got
to choose what to wear from his huge and magnificent wardrobe. That
can take several hour even before he gets to the funny hats. There's
another few hours gone then it's on to the slipper. Oh my. Shall I
carry the ruby encrusted gold shepherds crook or a silver one with
emeralds? Oh no! The emeralds clash with my silly hat! Back to square one.

[Dakota]

The accusations of scandal are well founded. Decades, at minumum, of
covering up for and enabling pedophiles in the clergy is undeniable.

We atheists don't have to do anything at all for religion to lose
adherents. Religion is doing a fine job of doing that without our help.

[Dakota]

Excellent question. I recommend that you explore your reasons for
doing so at your next session with your mental health professional.

[Dakota]

Okay. your problem is not with writing. It's with reading. You failed
to associate the subject line's reference to the Pope with the Roman
Catholic Church.

[Dakota]

Can you cite some examples of anyone killing babies "as we speak"?

As no baby is involved, abortions don't qualify.

[Geopelia]

"djornsk" <djo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ani04p...@mid.individual.net...

> On 07/02/2013 06:19, J wrote:
>>
>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>
>>
>> http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-backs-effort-to-gather-1000000-signatures-to-defund-abortion-in-eu
>>

>> VATICAN CITY, February 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) � In a rare showing

>> of support for a specific campaign, Pope Benedict XVI gave explicit
>> backing to an effort to defund abortion launched across Europe.
>>

>> After his Sunday Angelus, the Pope said, �I salute the Movement for

>> Life. I wish them success with the initiative called One of Us, so
>> that Europe is always a place where the dignity of each human being is
>> protected.
>>

>> Launched last month by pro-life leaders in 20 EU nations, the �One of
>> Us� campaign is seeking to gather one million signatures from EU

>> citizens by November 1, 2013 in order to force the European Parliament
>> to schedule debate on the matter.
>>

>> The proposal calls for a ban on the EU�s �financing of activities

>> which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, in particular in

>> the areas of research, development aid and public health.�

Wouldn't that ban using surplus embryos for research etc?
Surely that is a good use for embryos not required for implanting.

>>
>> Speaking with Rome Reports, Gregor Puppinck the Director of the

>> European Center for Law and Justice explained, �In the U.S. there are

>> a number of campaigns in order to de-fund Planned Parenthood. We are
>> in some extent trying to do the same, we ask the EU to stop funding

>> Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.�

>>
>> J Young
>> jdyo...@ymail.com
>
>
> Absolutely right - a country which slaughters it's babies in the womb has
> no real concept of the sanctity of human life and is capable of limitless
> evil.
>
> j

All this "sanctity of human life" stuff should prevent wars. It doesn't.
We kill the enemy before he kills us.

Is a murderer's life "sacred"? We used to hang them.
The only problem with that is the possibility that an innocent person could
be found guilty.

Humans are no more sacred than any other life form.
We happen to be the top species on the planet, just now, but we will be
extinct in time, like everything else.
I wouldn't give us another million years, the way we are going.

I remember the days before safe legal abortion.
Who would want to go back to the situation then?

[Syd M.]

On Feb 7, 10:39 am, djornsk <djor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 06:19, J wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> > here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
> > their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> > Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>

> >http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-backs-effort-to-gather-1000000-...
>
> > VATICAN CITY, February 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a rare showing

> > of support for a specific campaign, Pope Benedict XVI gave explicit
> > backing to an effort to defund abortion launched across Europe.
>

> > After his Sunday Angelus, the Pope said, “I salute the Movement for

> > Life. I wish them success with the initiative called One of Us, so
> > that Europe is always a place where the dignity of each human being is
> > protected.
>

> > Launched last month by pro-life leaders in 20 EU nations, the “One of
> > Us” campaign is seeking to gather one million signatures from EU

> > citizens by November 1, 2013 in order to force the European Parliament
> > to schedule debate on the matter.
>

> > The proposal calls for a ban on the EU’s “financing of activities

> > which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, in particular in

> > the areas of research, development aid and public health.”

>
> > Speaking with Rome Reports, Gregor Puppinck the Director of the

> > European Center for Law and Justice explained, “In the U.S. there are

> > a number of campaigns in order to de-fund Planned Parenthood. We are
> > in some extent trying to do the same, we ask the EU to stop funding

> > Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.”
>
> > J Young
> > jdyou...@ymail.com

>
> Absolutely right - a country which slaughters it's babies in the womb
> has no real concept of the sanctity of human life and is capable of
> limitless evil.
>
> j

Too bad (For you) that that does NOT happen in the US.
Or any other nation out there.

PDW

[Syd M.]

So, you can't read.

PDW

[Syd M.]

No baby is killed in an abortion, idiot.

PDW

[MarkA]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:19:28 -0800, J wrote:

>

>
> Speaking with Rome Reports, Gregor Puppinck the Director of the European
> Center for Law and Justice explained, "In the U.S. there are a number of
> campaigns in order to de-fund Planned Parenthood. We are in some extent
> trying to do the same, we ask the EU to stop funding Planned Parenthood
> and similar organizations."
>

Fortunately, the EU is more culturally advanced than the USA, and isn't as
much at the mercy of those who think that science and technology should
take a back seat to the "Rules-o-God", as relayed through pre-literate,
superstitious Bronze Age goat herders.

The Pope can preach to his choir all he likes. It's fun to watch.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kf10q6$qbg$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

Not decades. The first complaints about rapist priests go back 1500
years.

> We atheists don't have to do anything at all for religion to lose
> adherents. Religion is doing a fine job of doing that without our help.

Denial requires a scapegoat.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:51:36 -0600, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
wrote:

>Cassandra wrote:
>
>> If insults and unfounded presumptions are the best atheists can come
>> up, not wonder they aren't doing very well in getting rid of religion.
>

>Now I *know* we just went over this a few weeks ago with you. That you,
>personally, have encountered one regular poster to a.a. who treats you
>harshly, does not mean all the best that the millions of atheists in the
>world can "come up with" are "insults and unfounded presumptions". Take

>yourself, for instance. You wrote:
>
>"Atheists are killing babies as we speak just to spite him."
>

>You are saying that:
>
>Abortion involves a baby (false)
>Abortions are an atheist procedure (false)
>Atheists perform this procedure only to spite the pope (false)
>
>That's three "unfounded presumptions", or if I were less generous, three
>out-n-out lies, on your part. I recognize this is a personal failing of
>YOURS, not of every person who shares whatever philosophy you've adopted
>for yourself.

I'm not as generous as you are.

She has a history of this sort of thing.

>Do you see how that works? One person being an ignorant idiot does not
>equate to a million other people also being ignorant idiots.
>
>You're also a pathetic, whiny hypocrite for obvious reasons, but if you
>can't figure them out, I'll happily go over them with you.

She simply reaps what she sows.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:03:21 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:19:28 -0800, J wrote:
>
>> Speaking with Rome Reports, Gregor Puppinck the Director of the European
>> Center for Law and Justice explained, "In the U.S. there are a number of
>> campaigns in order to de-fund Planned Parenthood. We are in some extent
>> trying to do the same, we ask the EU to stop funding Planned Parenthood
>> and similar organizations."
>
>Fortunately, the EU is more culturally advanced than the USA, and isn't as
>much at the mercy of those who think that science and technology should
>take a back seat to the "Rules-o-God", as relayed through pre-literate,
>superstitious Bronze Age goat herders.
>
>The Pope can preach to his choir all he likes. It's fun to watch.

It's none of his business anyway.

The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.

When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.

This went down like a lead balloon in the secular countries, even
those with a large number of Catholics, and also the Protestant ones.

If the Pope weren't a senile narcissist, he would understand why.

And also why they won't have anything to with his trying to push the
RCC line on abortion or anything else.

He doesn't even try to understand how to talk with people outside his
religion - which is why he has to resort to unethical and dishonest
behaviour like the threat of excommunicating elected representatives
who happen to be Catholic, if they don't vote the Vatican line.

[JNugent]

On 07/02/2013 23:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.

> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.

Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",
though that term did strictly include limited parts of Asia and Africa)
*does* have a Christian heritage?

Or is it a truth which must not be allowed to be told?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 03:04:48 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 07/02/2013 23:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>
>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>
>Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",

Bullshit.

>though that term did strictly include limited parts of Asia and Africa)
>*does* have a Christian heritage?

Failure to address the points, noted.

It also has a Roman heritage, a Germanic heritage, a Norse heritage
etc.

But modern Europe started to be shaped by the enlightenment, post
Reformation when the various church factions were fighting each other.

Since when Christianity has played an increasingly minor part.

The industrial revolution and railways played a greater role in
shaping the Europe of today. Not to mention two world wars which led
to the early trade treaties, part of whose intention was to stop
similar wars between European countries.

>Or is it a truth which must not be allowed to be told?

False dichotomy noted.

What part of SECULAR ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS (that you snipped) was too
hard to understand?

And what part of THE SECULAR AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES WEREN'T GOING TO
BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THE VATICAN?

Try a thought experiment (if thinking isn't too hard).

You join the American Automobile Association. Many years later they
try to change the rules to make it explicitly Hindu.

What is your reaction?

[J]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:01:17 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh428...@4ax.com>,
>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>

>Lie noted. He has several times threatened to excommunicate elected
>representatives on both sides of the Atlantic who happen to be

>Catholic, if they don't vote the Vatican line.
>

>>> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>>> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>>> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>
>>
>>Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>>will become irrelevant.
>

>It's none of his business - the Vatican is not a member of the EU.


Despite revisionist history that denies his heroism, one of Benedict
XVI's predecessors, Pope Pius XII was able to save millions of Jews
from Hitler's death camps. He did this by speaking out, as Pope
Benedict XVI is doing today for the unborn.






J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[nusratr...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:09:51 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

(Cassandra) wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:48:23 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
><chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:54:54 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>>(Cassandra) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 06:30:55 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
>>><pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Feb 7, 6:18=A0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>>
>>>>> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>>>>> >> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>>>>> >> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>>>>> >> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.

Funny thing is preventing pedophilia is not even on his agenda.
Did you know there awaits a subpoena for His Holiness should he step
on the US soil. He will be then taken before a Grand Jury and made to
answer questions about his role in whole sale child molestation in the
US.
Tell me, you still think this is a Church and not a joke.

>>>>> >Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>>>>> >will become irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Atheists are killing babies =A0as we speak just to spite him.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, look... Another rightard liar.
>>>>
>>>Is wanting to kill babies a left wing thing then ?
>>
>>What a fucking moron.
>
>As you think the answer is obvious, I'll take that as a yes

In 1923 after evicting the British all of Ireland fell under RCC
spell.
What they then did to little boys and girls under there care was
simply
blood curdling. Only now the stupid Irish are coming to realize
the evil this miserable church has been.
Funny thing is I have never ever heard a single parent ever hurting
a single priest for molesting their child, have you?

[Cassandra]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:00:44 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

Claiming mental illness in their opponents was of course a policy of
the World's most famous atheists, Soviet Russia.

[Cassandra]

>>If insults and unfounded presumptions are the best atheists can come
>>up, not wonder they aren't doing very well in getting rid of religion.
>>

>Take a look at recent history, two hundred years ago, there were very few
>openly atheist. And they were persecuted by the religious. Slavery was
>legal and supported by most religious women were considered chattel
>property. There was no public education for the poor.

Christians abolished slavery and started education for the poor.

[Cassandra]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:51:36 -0600, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
wrote:

>Cassandra wrote:
>

>> If insults and unfounded presumptions are the best atheists can come
>> up, not wonder they aren't doing very well in getting rid of religion.
>

>Now I *know* we just went over this a few weeks ago with you.

Is alt.atheism.babykillers that empty ?

> That you,
>personally, have encountered one regular poster to a.a. who treats you
>harshly, does not mean all the best that the millions of atheists in the
>world can "come up with" are "insults and unfounded presumptions". Take
>yourself, for instance. You wrote:
>

>"Atheists are killing babies as we speak just to spite him."
>

>You are saying that:
>
>Abortion involves a baby (false)

Try telling that to women traumatised by miscarriage.

[Cassandra]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:06:36 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

A lie abortionists use to justfiy infanticide

[Cassandra]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:55:17 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

God doesn't exist because of homosexuals in the Catholic church.

Atheist theological argument at its finest.

>We atheists don't have to do anything at all for religion to lose
>adherents. Religion is doing a fine job of doing that without our help.
>

So why post to alt.atheism.losers ?

[Cassandra]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:50:18 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
<pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 11:54=A0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 06:30:55 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >On Feb 7, 6:18=3DA0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>
>> >> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >> >> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stake=
>s
>> >> >> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions a=

>nd
>> >> >> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>> >> >> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>
>> >> >Good for him. The more he does shit like this, the faster his church
>> >> >will become irrelevant.
>>

>> >> Atheists are killing babies =3DA0as we speak just to spite him.

>>
>> >Oh, look... Another rightard liar.
>>
>> Is wanting to kill babies a left wing thing then ?
>
>No baby is killed in an abortion, idiot.
>

Keep telling lies to suppress the guilt

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 7, 8:39 am, djornsk <djor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 06:19, J wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> > here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and

> > their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> > Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>

> >http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-backs-effort-to-gather-1000000-...
>
> > VATICAN CITY, February 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a rare showing
> > of support for a specific campaign, Pope Benedict XVI gave explicit
> > backing to an effort to defund abortion launched across Europe.
>
> > After his Sunday Angelus, the Pope said, “I salute the Movement for
> > Life. I wish them success with the initiative called One of Us, so
> > that Europe is always a place where the dignity of each human being is
> > protected.
>
> > Launched last month by pro-life leaders in 20 EU nations, the “One of
> > Us” campaign is seeking to gather one million signatures from EU
> > citizens by November 1, 2013 in order to force the European Parliament
> > to schedule debate on the matter.
>
> > The proposal calls for a ban on the EU’s “financing of activities
> > which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, in particular in
> > the areas of research, development aid and public health.”
>

> > Speaking with Rome Reports, Gregor Puppinck the Director of the
> > European Center for Law and Justice explained, “In the U.S. there are
> > a number of campaigns in order to de-fund Planned Parenthood. We are
> > in some extent trying to do the same, we ask the EU to stop funding

> > Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.”
>
> > J Young
> > jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> Absolutely right - a country which slaughters it's babies in the womb
> has no real concept of the sanctity of human life and is capable of
> limitless evil.
>
> j

Why should there be a concept like the "sanctity of human life."
Isn't *all* life equally sacred?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5114af1d...@news.virginmedia.com>,

Where's the lie?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5114aefd...@news.virginmedia.com>,

Please tell me exactly what words Dakota said said anything like that
enormous straw man you just constructed.

Have you always had this reading comprehension problem?

> Atheist theological argument at its finest.

Who's talking about theology?

The subject is criminal behavior, not theology.

> >We atheists don't have to do anything at all for religion to lose
> >adherents. Religion is doing a fine job of doing that without our help.
> >
> So why post to alt.atheism.losers ?

Did you think that was witty?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5114ae0e...@news.virginmedia.com>,

No. The truth. Both medically AND legally.

Why do you think that Americans who don't believe in your religion
should be forced to live by your religion's rules? I mean, seriously?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5114ad1f...@news.virginmedia.com>,

You mean a woman who wanted a baby?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <hm99h85br10dl6av5...@4ax.com>,

nusratr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:09:51 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
> (Cassandra) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:48:23 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
> ><chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:54:54 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
> >>(Cassandra) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 06:30:55 -0800 (PST), "Syd M."
> >>><pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Feb 7, 6:18=A0am, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:54:49 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
> >>>>> >> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
> >>>>> >> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
> >>>>> >> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>
> Funny thing is preventing pedophilia is not even on his agenda.
> Did you know there awaits a subpoena for His Holiness should he step
> on the US soil. He will be then taken before a Grand Jury and made to
> answer questions about his role in whole sale child molestation in the
> US.

Is this really true? Oh, I hope it is (about the same amount I'm
thrilled that Dubya can't go outside the US and Canada (and probably
Mexico).

But I really need to see a citation for this. Please please please. I
really want to know that this is true.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <hm99h85br10dl6av5...@4ax.com>,

I think a whole lot of people owe Sinead O'Connor a huge apology:

<http://www.examiner.com/article/sinead-o-connor-twenty-years-after-rippi
ng-up-photo-of-pope-on-snl>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:39:08 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

If they were like you, they _were_ mentally ill.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:42:08 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

A FEW Christians, speaking out against what Christians started and the
majority of Christian accepted.

Try to be less dishonest next time.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Why can't you stop lying?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:53:55 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

The liar puts words in people's mouths she knows they never said.

>Atheist theological argument at its finest.

Show us one atheist who ever said that, pathological liar.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:56:01 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
(Cassandra) wrote:
>
>>> >> Atheists are killing babies =3DA0as we speak just to spite him.
>>>
>>> >Oh, look... Another rightard liar.
>>>
>>> Is wanting to kill babies a left wing thing then ?
>>
>>No baby is killed in an abortion, idiot.
>>
>Keep telling lies to suppress the guilt

You're insane.

[MarkA]

Parts of Europe have a Christian Heritage, other parts have a Muslim
Heritage. Neither one is really something to be proud of.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Mitchell Holman]

cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote in
news:5114abee...@news.virginmedia.com:

>
> Christians abolished slavery and started education for the poor.

Care to show us what Jesus said about slavery?

I don't recall him uttering a word against it.

[nusratr...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:36:56 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <hm99h85br10dl6av5...@4ax.com>,
> nusratr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >>>>> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> >In article <m9h6h8pnpoa7kh4283j8aeet0slijb1...@4ax.com>,
>> >>>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> Normally the pontiff stays away from political issues but the stakes
>> >>>>> >> here are way too high to ignore. Babies are dying by the millions and
>> >>>>> >> their deaths should not be funded by the public. Thank you Pope
>> >>>>> >> Benedict XVI for speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
>>
>> Funny thing is preventing pedophilia is not even on his agenda.
>> Did you know there awaits a subpoena for His Holiness should he step
>> on the US soil. He will be then taken before a Grand Jury and made to
>> answer questions about his role in whole sale child molestation in the
>> US.
>
>Is this really true? Oh, I hope it is (about the same amount I'm
>thrilled that Dubya can't go outside the US and Canada (and probably
>Mexico).

The big difference here is that GWB used and army and no children.
Furthermore His actions are not considered acts of war or steps
against humanity.
No country on planet Earth would dare touch him for his actions as
acting US President since this is sure to bring the might of USA to
crush them.

>But I really need to see a citation for this. Please please please. I
>really want to know that this is true.

You have heard of Goggle, have you not.

[Dakota]

I haven't heard of Goggle. Perhaps I should search for it on Google.

[JNugent]

On 08/02/2013 03:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>
>> Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",
>
> Bullshit.

Ah, hello, Mr Lee.

It is reassuring to see that you are writing well up (or is it down?) to
your usual standards.

*So* distinguished and persuasive.

>> though that term did strictly include limited parts of Asia and Africa)
>> *does* have a Christian heritage?

> Failure to address the points, noted.

I was addressing one point only (identified clearly and crisply).

> It also has a Roman heritage, a Germanic heritage, a Norse heritage
> etc.

Indeed, various parts of it *do* have those forms of patrimony and
heritage.

Well done, sir.

*And* it has a Christian heritage - the whole of Europe does (and so do
parts of north Africa and western Asia).

> But modern Europe started to be shaped by the enlightenment, post
> Reformation when the various church factions were fighting each other.
> Since when Christianity has played an increasingly minor part.

But for all that, Europe still has a Christian heritage. That will
always be true, no matter how much it annoys you, I'm afraid.

> The industrial revolution and railways played a greater role in
> shaping the Europe of today. Not to mention two world wars which led
> to the early trade treaties, part of whose intention was to stop
> similar wars between European countries.

>> Or is it a truth which must not be allowed to be told?
>
> False dichotomy noted.

Fair enough, you cannot bear to be reminded of the unassailable fact
that Europe (the major part of Christendom) has a Christian heritage. It
seems that you might even feel forced to dent that obvious and
invincible truth.

People really are funny, none more so than your good self. And I didn't
mean "humorous".

> What part of SECULAR ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS (that you snipped) was too
> hard to understand?

What has it to do with whether Europe has a Christian heritage? Your
little rant fails to speak to that.

> And what part of THE SECULAR AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES WEREN'T GOING TO
> BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THE VATICAN?
> Try a thought experiment (if thinking isn't too hard).
> You join the American Automobile Association. Many years later they
> try to change the rules to make it explicitly Hindu.
> What is your reaction?

*My* reaction?

I'd have been trying to get my money back for years before that. The AAA
provides no services to residents of the UK or the rest of Europe (which
as you may know, has a Christian heritage).

But I already know that and refrain from joining the AAA.

[JNugent]

The truth is that "the Christians" neither started nor abolished
slavery. They abolished it in the territories they (as a group of
nations) controlled, but not everywhere.

According to the United Nations, slavery is still very much alive and
well in some parts of the world (though not parts we think of as Christian).
>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:45:38 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 08/02/2013 03:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>>>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>>>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>>>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>>>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>>>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>>>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>>
>>> Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>Ah, hello, Mr Lee.
>
>It is reassuring to see that you are writing well up (or is it down?) to
>your usual standards.

And you to your usual dishonesty.

>*So* distinguished and persuasive.

Your bullshit got the response it deserved.

>>> though that term did strictly include limited parts of Asia and Africa)
>>> *does* have a Christian heritage?

Christendom also included the European colonies in North and South
America, etc,

It does not equal Europe.

>> Failure to address the points, noted.
>
>I was addressing one point only (identified clearly and crisply).

And ignoring all the rest, because you are dishonest as well as
deluded.

>> It also has a Roman heritage, a Germanic heritage, a Norse heritage
>> etc.
>
>Indeed, various parts of it *do* have those forms of patrimony and
> heritage.

All of which are as irrelevant to the business of the EU as any
Christian heritage.

>Well done, sir.

Idiot.

So why not mention all those as well?

>*And* it has a Christian heritage - the whole of Europe does (and so do
>parts of north Africa and western Asia).

Yet the senile psychopath in Rome want to ignore all the other roots
except Christianity.

So let's include the evils of the Reformation, the extermination of
heretical sects like the Albigenses, the almost two thousand years of
Christian anti-Semitism that culminated in the holocaust, etc,

>> But modern Europe started to be shaped by the enlightenment, post
>> Reformation when the various church factions were fighting each other.
>> Since when Christianity has played an increasingly minor part.
>
>But for all that, Europe still has a Christian heritage.

One that is as irrelevant as the other religious heritages I
mentioned.

They are all part of history, and their legacies in architecture and
music are still with us.

But for every cathedral, there are castles, palaces etc. For every
Bach cantata there are secular opera, And for every "Paradise lost"
there is a secular Shakespeare play.

If you go to Spain or Portugal you see the Moorish influences in their
historic architecture, etc.

> That will
>always be true, no matter how much it annoys you, I'm afraid.

The standard amateur-psychologised lie rather than address the points.

Christianity is largely irrelevant. Its influence has been waning ever
since the Reformation and the enlightenment as its power diminished.

And that's where modern Europe started to emerge.

In spite of Christianity, not because of it.

>> The industrial revolution and railways played a greater role in
>> shaping the Europe of today. Not to mention two world wars which led
>> to the early trade treaties, part of whose intention was to stop
>> similar wars between European countries.
>
>>> Or is it a truth which must not be allowed to be told?
>>
>> False dichotomy noted.
>
>Fair enough, you cannot bear to be reminded of the unassailable fact
>that Europe (the major part of Christendom) has a Christian heritage. It
>seems that you might even feel forced to dent that obvious and
>invincible truth.

The standard amateur-psychologised falsehood rather than address the
points..

>People really are funny, none more so than your good self. And I didn't
>mean "humorous".

What makes so Christians so nastily dishonest?

>> What part of SECULAR ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS (that you snipped) was too
>> hard to understand?
>
>What has it to do with whether Europe has a Christian heritage? Your
>little rant fails to speak to that.

Standard Christian lie - dismiss explanations you don't like as a
rant.

But the fact that it is a secular association of nations, IS the
issue. What a senile Pope in Rome wants to do, is irrelevant to it. As
well as being none of his business BECAUSE THE VATICAN ISN'T EVEN A
MEMBER STATE.

Which word didn't you understand?

The EU accommodates nations of different religions as well as none.
Its members' religions are irrelevant to its business.

Again, which word didn't you understand?

It is not the EU's business to say anything about religion other than
to acknowledge that citizens of its members countries are free to
practice their own religions, or not to if they don't have one.

Why is this so hard to understand?

But in any case, Christianity is ONLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHAPED
EUROPE. Yet you want to single it out for mention as if it were the
only one.

And that included the 2,000 years of Christian anti-Semitism which
culminated in the holocaust, the persecution of early scientists as
heretics, etc.

>> And what part of THE SECULAR AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES WEREN'T GOING TO
>> BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THE VATICAN?

Well?

>> Try a thought experiment (if thinking isn't too hard).
>> You join the American Automobile Association. Many years later they
>> try to change the rules to make it explicitly Hindu.
>> What is your reaction?
>
>*My* reaction?
>
>I'd have been trying to get my money back for years before that. The AAA
>provides no services to residents of the UK or the rest of Europe (which
>as you may know, has a Christian heritage).

So the majority of countries in the EU should leave it because the
world's smallest country which isn't even a member of it, wants to
turn a secular association of nations into an explicitly Christian
one?

All the progress we have had in the last 300 years is due to the
church losing influence - the industrial revolution, railways, 19th
century scientific and medical advances have done more than
Christianity ever did.

Christianity actively obstructed progress until its power waned.

Your "Christian heritage" is a fantasy.

>But I already know that and refrain from joining the AAA.

IDiot.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:48:47 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Yet it was started by Christians, the slave owners and traders were
Christians, it was Biblically justified (look up the descendants of
Ham), and the majority of Christians accepted the practice.

And you want to credit Christianity per se for the positive actions of
a few in the face of a practice the majority either supported or
condoned.

Please try to be less dishonest next time.

> They abolished it in the territories they (as a group of
>nations) controlled, but not everywhere.

It wasn't just SOME Christians who campaigned it, but also
freethinkers like Erasmus Darwin - and there were proportionally more
freethinkers in their demographic than Christians in theirs.

A group of freethinkers and the few concerned Christians persuaded
William Wilberforce to join their campaign and use his position in
parliament to try and change the law - and it took a long time because
the majority of Christians supported slavery.

>According to the United Nations, slavery is still very much alive and
>well in some parts of the world (though not parts we think of as Christian).

Magdalene laundries, anybody?

[JNugent]

On 08/02/2013 17:25, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2013 03:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>>>> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>>>>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>>>>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>>>>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>>>>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>>>>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>>>>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>
>>>> Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",
>
>>> Bullshit.
>
>> Ah, hello, Mr Lee.
>> It is reassuring to see that you are writing well up (or is it down?) to
>> your usual standards.
>
> And you to your usual dishonesty.
>
>> *So* distinguished and persuasive.
>
> Your bullshit got the response it deserved.

You are too kind.

>>>> though that term did strictly include limited parts of Asia and Africa)
>>>> *does* have a Christian heritage?
>
> Christendom also included the European colonies in North and South
> America, etc,

I'd have said that the term "Christendom" was well out of use by 1492,
but if you insist that it wasn't, I shan't argue the point.

> It does not equal Europe.

That's what I said.

>
>>> Failure to address the points, noted.
>
>> I was addressing one point only (identified clearly and crisply).
>
> And ignoring all the rest, because you are dishonest as well as
> deluded.

I ignore parts of threads where I don't wish to contribute or where
there is no point in contributing because attitudes have hardened.

You could try it yourself if you want.

It might lower your blood pressure.

>>> It also has a Roman heritage, a Germanic heritage, a Norse heritage
>>> etc.
>
>> Indeed, various parts of it *do* have those forms of patrimony and
>> heritage.
>
> All of which are as irrelevant to the business of the EU as any
> Christian heritage.
>
>> Well done, sir.
>
> Idiot.
>
> So why not mention all those as well?

Because they are not relevant to the point under discussion.

>
>> *And* it has a Christian heritage - the whole of Europe does (and so do
>> parts of north Africa and western Asia).
>
> Yet the senile psychopath in Rome want to ignore all the other roots
> except Christianity.

Does he?

When did he say that?

> So let's include the evils of the Reformation, the extermination of
> heretical sects like the Albigenses, the almost two thousand years of
> Christian anti-Semitism that culminated in the holocaust, etc,

You'd have a hard job pinning the Reformation on the Pope.

See:
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Reformation-Protestantism/dp/0028642708>

>>> But modern Europe started to be shaped by the enlightenment, post
>>> Reformation when the various church factions were fighting each other.
>>> Since when Christianity has played an increasingly minor part.
>
>> But for all that, Europe still has a Christian heritage.
>
> One that is as irrelevant as the other religious heritages I
> mentioned.

"Irrelevant" to what?

> They are all part of history, and their legacies in architecture and
> music are still with us.
>
> But for every cathedral, there are castles, palaces etc. For every
> Bach cantata there are secular opera, And for every "Paradise lost"
> there is a secular Shakespeare play.

Have you ever read a Shakespeare play?

I ask because you seem unaware that almost every one of them places
Christianity centre stage in one way or another (not the Roman and Greek
plays, of course)

>
> If you go to Spain or Portugal you see the Moorish influences in their
> historic architecture, etc.

Absolutely right. You will (in some parts of Spain).

And Spain has a strong Christian heritage.

>> That will
>> always be true, no matter how much it annoys you, I'm afraid.

> The standard amateur-psychologised lie rather than address the points.

Are you annoyed by the proposition that Europe has a Christian heritage,
or not?

All you have to do is say.

> Christianity is largely irrelevant. Its influence has been waning ever
> since the Reformation and the enlightenment as its power diminished.
> And that's where modern Europe started to emerge.
> In spite of Christianity, not because of it.

You must, of course, believe what you prefer to believe.

For you, clearly, the Protestant work ethic (for a mere example) means
nothing.

>>> The industrial revolution and railways played a greater role in
>>> shaping the Europe of today. Not to mention two world wars which led
>>> to the early trade treaties, part of whose intention was to stop
>>> similar wars between European countries.
>>
>>>> Or is it a truth which must not be allowed to be told?
>
>>> False dichotomy noted.
>>
>> Fair enough, you cannot bear to be reminded of the unassailable fact
>> that Europe (the major part of Christendom) has a Christian heritage. It
>> seems that you might even feel forced to dent that obvious and
>> invincible truth.
>
> The standard amateur-psychologised falsehood rather than address the
> points..
>
>> People really are funny, none more so than your good self. And I didn't
>> mean "humorous".
>
> What makes so Christians so nastily dishonest?
>
>>> What part of SECULAR ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS (that you snipped) was too
>>> hard to understand?
>>
>> What has it to do with whether Europe has a Christian heritage? Your
>> little rant fails to speak to that.
>
> Standard Christian lie - dismiss explanations you don't like as a
> rant.

I "explained" nothing.

I asked a question.

Here it is again (lengthened out for completeness):

What does your belief that the EU is a secular association of nations
have to do with whether or not Europe has a Christian heritage?

> But the fact that it is a secular association of nations, IS the
> issue. What a senile Pope in Rome wants to do, is irrelevant to it. As
> well as being none of his business BECAUSE THE VATICAN ISN'T EVEN A
> MEMBER STATE.
> Which word didn't you understand?

> The EU accommodates nations of different religions as well as none.
> Its members' religions are irrelevant to its business.
> Again, which word didn't you understand?

What are you going on and on and on and on and on and on about?

Even if I were minded to accept every bit of what you have just ranted,
it wouldn't mean that Europe doesn't have a Christian heritage. Would it?

So what's the argument about?

> It is not the EU's business to say anything about religion other than
> to acknowledge that citizens of its members countries are free to
> practice their own religions, or not to if they don't have one.
> Why is this so hard to understand?

It isn't hard to understand that that is your view.

But whether true or not, it still doesn't mean that Europe doesn't have
a Christian tradition and heritage, does it?

> But in any case, Christianity is ONLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHAPED
> EUROPE. Yet you want to single it out for mention as if it were the
> only one.

Did I say that?

I did not.

I merely pointed out that Europe has a Christian tradition and heritage.

It has other things as well, but it certainly a Christian tradition and
heritage.

> And that included the 2,000 years of Christian anti-Semitism which
> culminated in the holocaust, the persecution of early scientists as
> heretics, etc.

>>> And what part of THE SECULAR AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES WEREN'T GOING TO
>>> BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THE VATICAN?

> Well?
>
>>> Try a thought experiment (if thinking isn't too hard).
>>> You join the American Automobile Association. Many years later they
>>> try to change the rules to make it explicitly Hindu.
>>> What is your reaction?
>>
>> *My* reaction?
>>
>> I'd have been trying to get my money back for years before that. The AAA
>> provides no services to residents of the UK or the rest of Europe (which
>> as you may know, has a Christian heritage).

> So the majority of countries in the EU should leave it because the
> world's smallest country which isn't even a member of it, wants to
> turn a secular association of nations into an explicitly Christian
> one?

What?

Are you drunk or something?

It's still the morning where you, isn't it?

> All the progress we have had in the last 300 years is due to the
> church losing influence - the industrial revolution, railways, 19th
> century scientific and medical advances have done more than
> Christianity ever did.
> Christianity actively obstructed progress until its power waned.
> Your "Christian heritage" is a fantasy.

Rubbish. Europe has a Christian heritage and tradition, whether you care
to admit the truth or not.

[JNugent]

Really?

My understanding is that the Romans has slaves in the BC era, and that
they probably weren't the first.

You're not too good at history.

> the slave owners and traders were
> Christians, it was Biblically justified (look up the descendants of
> Ham), and the majority of Christians accepted the practice.
>
> And you want to credit Christianity per se for the positive actions of
> a few in the face of a practice the majority either supported or
> condoned.
>
> Please try to be less dishonest next time.

Please try to be less predictable.

And more intelligent.

I realise that the second one is a "big ask".

>> They abolished it in the territories they (as a group of
>> nations) controlled, but not everywhere.

> It wasn't just SOME Christians who campaigned it, but also
> freethinkers like Erasmus Darwin - and there were proportionally more
> freethinkers in their demographic than Christians in theirs.
>
> A group of freethinkers and the few concerned Christians persuaded
> William Wilberforce to join their campaign and use his position in
> parliament to try and change the law - and it took a long time because
> the majority of Christians supported slavery.
>
>> According to the United Nations, slavery is still very much alive and
>> well in some parts of the world (though not parts we think of as Christian).

> Magdalene laundries, anybody?

???

[Hotblack Desiato]

"JNugent" wrote in message news:anj8af...@mid.individual.net...

On 07/02/2013 23:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>
>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>
>Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",

>though that term did strictly include limited parts of Asia and Africa)
>*does* have a Christian heritage?
>

>Or is it a truth which must not be allowed to be told?

'Heritage' is such a greasy word in this context.. perhaps 'history' would
be more appropriate. We have taken from the Christian religion, the aspects
which serve our society. Through an evolutionary process of whittling out
that which really doesn't fit the modern context - and the modern context
evolving under its own steam - and the interplay between the two, we have
modern society. But that's the way evolution works .. it takes the things of
value, and discards those which have no value. What had value last year may
be horseshit today.. Like Beyonce.

[Cassandra]

Slavery was widespread several hundred years before Christ. It is
impossible for Christians to have started slavery.

>Try to be less dishonest next time.

It is you who are either dishonest and/or not very bright.

[e-recep]

SkyEyes wrote on 08.02.2013 :

> Why should there be a concept like the "sanctity of human life."
> Isn't *all* life equally sacred?

no, in the eyes of the pious bunch humans are superior.

[Cassandra]

It is unknown what Jesus thought of slavery

However the following secularists not only didn't think it worth
mentioning it in the Bill of Rights, but owned them :

Charles Carroll
Samuel Chase
Benjamin Franklin
Button Gwinnett
John Hancock
Patrick Henry
John Jay
Thomas Jefferson
Richard Henry Lee
James Madison
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Benjamin Rush
Edward Rutledge
George Washington




>
>
>
>
>

[Cassandra]

Want a child, its a baby
Don't want one, its a fetus

Oh, the weasel words of the abortionists

[Cassandra]

So parochial

Abortion is illegal in
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, C?te d'Ivoire, Dem.
Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia,
Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman,
Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen,Bangladesh, Indonesia,
Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka Malta, and
Ireland.

>Why do you think that Americans who don't believe in your religion
>should be forced to live by your religion's rules? I mean, seriously?

Murdering children has nothing to do with religion. Its been a big
no-no in all civilisations since the dawn of recorded history. Its
even a big no-no for animals. Atheists appear to have less morality
than a horse.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:52:46 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

wrote:

>On 08/02/2013 17:25, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2013 03:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>>>>>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>>>>>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>>>>>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>>>>>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>>>>>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>>>>>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>>
>>>>> Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",

How the heck did that address what I wrote above in response to what
you snipped, that was one of the examples refuting some Liar For God's
claim that the Pope didn't get involved in politics?

[another was his threatening elected representatives on both sides of
the Atlantic with excommunication if they didn't vote the way the
Vatican wanted]

>>>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> Ah, hello, Mr Lee.
>>> It is reassuring to see that you are writing well up (or is it down?) to
>>> your usual standards.
>>
>> And you to your usual dishonesty.
>>
>>> *So* distinguished and persuasive.
>>
>> Your bullshit got the response it deserved.
>
>You are too kind.
>
>>>>> though that term did strictly include limited parts of Asia and Africa)
>>>>> *does* have a Christian heritage?
>>
>> Christendom also included the European colonies in North and South
>> America, etc,
>
>I'd have said that the term "Christendom" was well out of use by 1492,
>but if you insist that it wasn't, I shan't argue the point.

Do I, liar?

>> It does not equal Europe.
>
>That's what I said.

Then why introduce it other than as more of your dodge ball?

>>>> Failure to address the points, noted.
>>
>>> I was addressing one point only (identified clearly and crisply).
>>
>> And ignoring all the rest, because you are dishonest as well as
>> deluded.
>
>I ignore parts of threads where I don't wish to contribute or where
>there is no point in contributing because attitudes have hardened.

Project much, liar?

>You could try it yourself if you want.
>
>It might lower your blood pressure.

Idiot.

>>>> It also has a Roman heritage, a Germanic heritage, a Norse heritage
>>>> etc.
>>
>>> Indeed, various parts of it *do* have those forms of patrimony and
>>> heritage.
>>
>> All of which are as irrelevant to the business of the EU as any
>> Christian heritage.
>>
>>> Well done, sir.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> So why not mention all those as well?
>
>Because they are not relevant to the point under discussion.

Of course they are, imbecile - until you explain why Christianity was
singled out from that list.

>>> *And* it has a Christian heritage - the whole of Europe does (and so do
>>> parts of north Africa and western Asia).
>>
>> Yet the senile psychopath in Rome want to ignore all the other roots
>> except Christianity.
>
>Does he?

So why did he single out Christianity, in something that was none of
his business anyway?

>When did he say that?

WHEN HE TRIED TO GET IT INCLUDED IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE PROPOSED
EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION, imbecile.

Which was an example refuting one of your fellow liars who claimed he
didn't usually get involved in politics.

Check the subject line.

>> So let's include the evils of the Reformation, the extermination of
>> heretical sects like the Albigenses, the almost two thousand years of
>> Christian anti-Semitism that culminated in the holocaust, etc,
>
>You'd have a hard job pinning the Reformation on the Pope.

CHRISTIANITY, imbecile. You know, the religion whose bad side you
ignore when you talk about "Christian heritage".

But in any case, the RCC and the then Pope were as much part and
parcel of the evil as the Protestants, Luther and Calvin.

Or have you forgotten the mutual slaughter by both sides of those they
considered heretics, ie they were on the wrong side?

>See:
><http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Reformation-Protestantism/dp/0028642708>

Why, imbecile?

>>>> But modern Europe started to be shaped by the enlightenment, post
>>>> Reformation when the various church factions were fighting each other.
>>>> Since when Christianity has played an increasingly minor part.
>>
>>> But for all that, Europe still has a Christian heritage.
>>
>> One that is as irrelevant as the other religious heritages I
>> mentioned.
>
>"Irrelevant" to what?

EUROPE TODAY, imbecile.

>> They are all part of history, and their legacies in architecture and
>> music are still with us.
>>
>> But for every cathedral, there are castles, palaces etc. For every
>> Bach cantata there are secular opera, And for every "Paradise lost"
>> there is a secular Shakespeare play.
>
>Have you ever read a Shakespeare play?

Most of them.

>I ask because you seem unaware that almost every one of them places
>Christianity centre stage in one way or another (not the Roman and Greek
>plays, of course)

Lie noted.

It is mostly mentioned in passing.

>> If you go to Spain or Portugal you see the Moorish influences in their
>> historic architecture, etc.
>
>Absolutely right. You will (in some parts of Spain).
>
>And Spain has a strong Christian heritage.

Sigh.

>>> That will
>>> always be true, no matter how much it annoys you, I'm afraid.
>
>> The standard amateur-psychologised lie rather than address the points.
>
>Are you annoyed by the proposition that Europe has a Christian heritage,
>or not?

I am annoyed by your lies and dishonesty, imbecile.

Stop pretending you don't understand the difference.

>All you have to do is say.

What's wrong with you?

Apart from being a Christian who keeps introducing red herrings as
part of his dodge ball.

>> Christianity is largely irrelevant. Its influence has been waning ever
>> since the Reformation and the enlightenment as its power diminished.
>> And that's where modern Europe started to emerge.
>> In spite of Christianity, not because of it.
>
>You must, of course, believe what you prefer to believe.

The standard lie of the in-denial Christian, to avoid addressing the
point but that is actually a tacit acknowledgement.

>For you, clearly, the Protestant work ethic (for a mere example) means
>nothing.

And again.

>>>> The industrial revolution and railways played a greater role in
>>>> shaping the Europe of today. Not to mention two world wars which led
>>>> to the early trade treaties, part of whose intention was to stop
>>>> similar wars between European countries.

Well?

And the work ethic there was the need to eat.

>>>>> Or is it a truth which must not be allowed to be told?
>>
>>>> False dichotomy noted.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, you cannot bear to be reminded of the unassailable fact
>>> that Europe (the major part of Christendom) has a Christian heritage. It
>>> seems that you might even feel forced to dent that obvious and
>>> invincible truth.
>>
>> The standard amateur-psychologised falsehood rather than address the
>> points..

Tacit admission noted.

>>> People really are funny, none more so than your good self. And I didn't
>>> mean "humorous".
>>
>> What makes so Christians so nastily dishonest?
>>
>>>> What part of SECULAR ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS (that you snipped) was too
>>>> hard to understand?
>>>
>>> What has it to do with whether Europe has a Christian heritage? Your
>>> little rant fails to speak to that.
>>
>> Standard Christian lie - dismiss explanations you don't like as a
>> rant.
>
>I "explained" nothing.

I know. You kept introducing red herrings and demanding I acknowledge
straw men.

>I asked a question.
>
>Here it is again (lengthened out for completeness):
>
>What does your belief that the EU is a secular association of nations
>have to do with whether or not Europe has a Christian heritage?

Fact not belief, liar.

Show me where any of the trade treaties going back to the 1950s which
led up to the formation of the EU even mentioning any religion let
alone as being relevant to its business.

Show me how it is any of the Pope's business to get the preamble to
the proposed EU constitution to include acknowledging a "Christian
heritage" even if there were one.

Show me why it should be included in the preamble of a secular
document whose only mention of religion is to acknowledge that people
in its member countries have the right to practice their own religion
or even none.

>> But the fact that it is a secular association of nations, IS the
>> issue. What a senile Pope in Rome wants to do, is irrelevant to it. As
>> well as being none of his business BECAUSE THE VATICAN ISN'T EVEN A
>> MEMBER STATE.
>> Which word didn't you understand?
>
>> The EU accommodates nations of different religions as well as none.
>> Its members' religions are irrelevant to its business.
>> Again, which word didn't you understand?
>
>What are you going on and on and on and on and on and on about?

I'll remind YOU that YOU leapt into a thread about the Pope involving
himself in EU politics,

I'll remind YOU that YOU leapt into a response where this was pointed
out as an example that refuted one of your fellow Liars For God who
claimed the Pope didn't get involved in politics.

Check the subject line and stop pretending.

>Even if I were minded to accept every bit of what you have just ranted,
>it wouldn't mean that Europe doesn't have a Christian heritage. Would it?

Christianity is part of its history, more often for bad than for good.

Why do you insist it should be more than that?

>So what's the argument about?

Some moron called JNugent who leaped in with a non sequitur response
to a post pointing out what you pretend is a rant, imbecile.

>> It is not the EU's business to say anything about religion other than
>> to acknowledge that citizens of its members countries are free to
>> practice their own religions, or not to if they don't have one.
>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>It isn't hard to understand that that is your view.

Fact not just "my view", liar.

>But whether true or not, it still doesn't mean that Europe doesn't have
>a Christian tradition and heritage, does it?

It doesn't - in the sense deluded Christians imagine.

Christianity is part of its history - with the bad parts having as
much if not more responsibility for what we have today than the good
parts.

Do you see almost two millennia of Christian anti-Semitism as
"Christian heritage"?

Or the crusades against Heretical Christian sects like the Cathars?.

Or the witch-burnings?

Or the persecution of early scientists?

Or wars fought because in-bred Kings, Emperors and Tsars thought they
ruled by divine right, culminating with WW1 in which three of the four
proponents at its start were at least borderline insane, and a
different three were first cousins?

Etc?

>> But in any case, Christianity is ONLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHAPED
>> EUROPE. Yet you want to single it out for mention as if it were the
>> only one.
>
>Did I say that?

So why did both you and the Pope single it out, then?

>I did not.

Yet you singled it out from all the other influences euphemistically
described as heritages.

>I merely pointed out that Europe has a Christian tradition and heritage.

One that is only relevant in the minds of a subset of Christians who
imagine Christianity is more important today than it actually is, and
who see it through rose-tinted spectacles ignoring its bad side.

>It has other things as well, but it certainly a Christian tradition and
>heritage.

Christianity is part of its history.

Including the bad bits that outweigh whatever good bits Christians
think there are.

Heritage implies that it is more important today than it actually is.

>> And that included the 2,000 years of Christian anti-Semitism which
>> culminated in the holocaust, the persecution of early scientists as
>> heretics, etc.

Well?

>>>> And what part of THE SECULAR AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES WEREN'T GOING TO
>>>> BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THE VATICAN?
>
>> Well?

Well?

>>>> Try a thought experiment (if thinking isn't too hard).
>>>> You join the American Automobile Association. Many years later they
>>>> try to change the rules to make it explicitly Hindu.
>>>> What is your reaction?
>>>
>>> *My* reaction?
>>>
>>> I'd have been trying to get my money back for years before that. The AAA
>>> provides no services to residents of the UK or the rest of Europe (which

Someone changed the headers somewhere along the line to add the
British groups and remove the Christian ones.

>>> as you may know, has a Christian heritage).
>
>> So the majority of countries in the EU should leave it because the
>> world's smallest country which isn't even a member of it, wants to
>> turn a secular association of nations into an explicitly Christian
>> one?
>
>What?

That's what they would have to do, to do what you say you would do if
a secular organisation you had been a member of for a long time,
suddenly became overtly Hindu.

>Are you drunk or something?

I'll remind you that the thread was about the Pope interfering in EU
politics and you responded to a perfectly valid point with a question
about "European Christian heritage" that was nothing to do with what
was under discussion - because whether or not it has one, was
irrelevant to the Pope sticking his nose where he had no business to
be.

>It's still the morning where you, isn't it?

Idiot.

>> All the progress we have had in the last 300 years is due to the
>> church losing influence - the industrial revolution, railways, 19th
>> century scientific and medical advances have done more than
>> Christianity ever did.
>> Christianity actively obstructed progress until its power waned.
>> Your "Christian heritage" is a fantasy.
>
>Rubbish. Europe has a Christian heritage and tradition, whether you care
>to admit the truth or not.

Rubbish.

"Christian Heritage" implies a lot more than it actually is.

It implies what it is today as well as what it once was.

No matter what lying religionists imagine, Christianity is largely
irrelevant in much of Europe.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:54:48 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

Did the Christians abolish Roman slavery?

Or are you weaseling out of the fact that you knew we were talking
about the more recent black slavery?

>You're not too good at history.

You're not too honest

.
>> the slave owners and traders were
>> Christians, it was Biblically justified (look up the descendants of
>> Ham), and the majority of Christians accepted the practice.
>>
>> And you want to credit Christianity per se for the positive actions of
>> a few in the face of a practice the majority either supported or
>> condoned.
>>
>> Please try to be less dishonest next time.
>
>Please try to be less predictable.

Stop being dishinest and you won't be told to stop. It's that easy.

>And more intelligent.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

>I realise that the second one is a "big ask".

I realise that honesty isn't your strong point. It isn't among the
kind of believer who keeps doding, intoducing red herrings, ad
hominems etc.

>>> They abolished it in the territories they (as a group of
>>> nations) controlled, but not everywhere.
>
>> It wasn't just SOME Christians who campaigned it, but also
>> freethinkers like Erasmus Darwin - and there were proportionally more
>> freethinkers in their demographic than Christians in theirs.
>>
>> A group of freethinkers and the few concerned Christians persuaded
>> William Wilberforce to join their campaign and use his position in
>> parliament to try and change the law - and it took a long time because
>> the majority of Christians supported slavery.
>>
>>> According to the United Nations, slavery is still very much alive and
>>> well in some parts of the world (though not parts we think of as Christian).
>
>> Magdalene laundries, anybody?
>
>???

That tells me all I need to know.

Run by the Catholic church in Ireland.

http://www.thejournal.ie/magdalene-laundry-true-story-margaret-bullen-samantha-long-614350-Sep2012/

http://laochra.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/05/16852388-irelands-hidden-catholic-slave-system-finally-made-public-the-shaming-of-the-magdalene-laundries

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21326221

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:12:46 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com

The abolishment you dishonestly credit Christianity per se with, when
it was just a few Christians AND OTHERS YOU IGNORE speaking out
against it, was the more recent black slavery.

Which was started by Christians and accepted or condoned by the
majority. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken Wilberforce so long to
campaign for its abolition in parliament.

Heck, even a whole new denomination was founded by the slave owners
for both master and slave each in their own place - you might have
heard of them, Southern Baptists.

They even had Biblical justification by calling their black slaves the
descendents of Ham who were according to the OT condemned to serve
everybody else.

But then you knew all this and were trying to weasel out.

If you were concerned about generic slavery you wouldn't have claimed
it was abolished by Christians, especially in the light of the recent
revelations about the Magdalene laundries where it was practiced by
the RCC in collusion with the Irish government.

I doubt it even fools yourself.

>>Try to be less dishonest next time.
>
>It is you who are either dishonest and/or not very bright.

There goes another irony meter.

But then I'm not the religionist who sees her religion through
rose-tinted glasses and is in denial about the bloodier parts of its
history.

And I don't try to credit an entire religion for the actions of a few
who went against the majority view at the time.

[Christopher A. Lee]

No such thing, liar.

Just people who acknowledge the right of a woman to choose.

"Fetus" is the accurate label for one the stages between fertilisation
and birth.

The weasel language is by the euphemistically labelled "pro-life"
movement when they pretend that all the stages are the same.

[Malygris]

Killing the children of other tribes or even their own as a sacrifice to the
gods was depressingly common in human history. Some of the most disgusting
examples can be found in a book commonly called the bible. Did you ever read
it?

Things got quite a bit better with the rise of more rational civilisations,
the ones leaving religous dogma behind and for example, legalize abortion.

> Its
> even a big no-no for animals.

Quite a lot if animals kill the young of other parents or even their own in
difficult times.



--
Malygris

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 14:07:18 -0600, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
wrote:

>Cassandra wrote:

>> L. Raymond wrote:
>
>> Try telling that to women traumatised by miscarriage.
>

>Miscarriage is quite possibly the single most natural thing that can
>happen to a woman who is pregnant. Anyone who has been "traumatized" by
>one has been taught from birth her life has no value whatsoever unless
>she produces that heir for her man.

There's more to it than that.

My sister had one and was devastated, because she had wanted to be a
mother and had been trying for a long time.

She left her first husband because he didn't want children, and that
became a bone of contention until they separated.

She was 43 when she married her second husband, which is a bit old for
a first child. The miscarriage was when she was 45.

[Geopelia]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1614B8E9CABD...@216.196.121.131...

In his day, it was the accepted system in the Roman world.

It is St Paul who has quite a lot to say about it, in the Epistles.
He gives advice to slaves and their masters on how they should behave to
each other. He doesn't condemn the institution itself.

Good website :
http://voices.yahoo.com/was-apostle-paul-pro-slavery-74443.html

[Geopelia]

"Hotblack Desiato" <trash855...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NZqdnVicYryT3YjM...@bt.com...

What has a female singer got to do with this discussion?

(And horseshit is an excellent manure).

Believe what you like and let others believe what they like.
But don't let your beliefs affect others.

[JNugent]

I merely use the phrase used in the PP's quote.

I agree that it could be put in other ways.

And indeed, I extended it to "tradition and heritage".

[JNugent]

On 08/02/2013 20:11, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> "Fetus" is the accurate label for one the stages between fertilisation
> and birth.

Maybe it is in regions of the world that have difficulties with English
(a Germanic language with a strong Hellenic/Latin heritage).

In places which don't have difficulties with English... like... er the
United Kingdom... we spell it properly: "foetus".

[JNugent]

On 08/02/2013 19:26, L. Raymond wrote:
> Cassandra wrote:
>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
> Have you not noticed that every single country you list as having
> legalized the slavery of women, with the sole exception of Ireland, is
> among the poorest, most crowded, most hellish places on earth to live?
> That is *directly* related to the status of the women.

>
>>> Why do you think that Americans who don't believe in your religion
>>> should be forced to live by your religion's rules? I mean, seriously?
>>
>> Murdering children has nothing to do with religion. Its been a big
>> no-no in all civilisations since the dawn of recorded history. Its
>> even a big no-no for animals. Atheists appear to have less morality
>> than a horse.
>

> You truly redefine ignorant every day of your life. The only person
> involved in an abortion is a woman who is trying to take full control of
> her life. She tries to do this despite that hate-filled scum who think
> she has no more rights than a brood mare, who believe her life is
> worthless unless she produces male offspring. If she produces female
> offspring at some point, she has provided a new generation of brood
> mare, but not anyone whose life is worth protecting.
>
> You name Chile as a country where abortion is illegal. That illegality
> was a last gasp of Pinochet before being forced out. Chile had
> legalized abortion in 1931 until he reduced the status of women to
> second class in 1989. On the other hand, Uruguay, Cuba, Guyana and
> Mexico City have all recently legalized first trimester abortions for
> any reason, allowing women the chance to manage their own lives rather
> than have the state control them.

From the way you try to argue, with no logic even attempted, no basis
given for your unsupported assertions and with a phenomenal rate of
ad-hominems gushing from your keyboard, you must be a Democrat, right?

I'm old enough to remember Kennedy, Stevenson, etc. They weren't like
that. They really didn't.

But the Democrats are like that now.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:26:19 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Both spellings are legitimate, but then that's all you've got in
response, isn't it?

A lame spelling flame that backfired on you.

I simple spelled it the way the previous poster did - and which my
spelling checker recognises.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:29:34 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

A hypocrite as well as a liar.

>I'm old enough to remember Kennedy, Stevenson, etc. They weren't like
>that. They really didn't.
>
>But the Democrats are like that now.

Lie noted

[JNugent]

On 08/02/2013 19:17, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2013 17:25, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2013 03:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>>>>>>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>>>>>>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>>>>>>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>>>>>>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>>>>>>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>>>>>>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>
>>>>>> Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",
>
> How the heck did that address what I wrote above in response to what
> you snipped, that was one of the examples refuting some Liar For God's
> claim that the Pope didn't get involved in politics?

I do not purport to address the totality of all the thoughts that may be
running through your over-febrile mind.

I was addressing the import of what had been written insofar, and only
insofar, as it sneered at the concept that Europe has a Christian heritage.

Of *course* Europe has a Christian heritage.

It is one of the things which defines Europe and has done so for the
better part of two thousand years.

I have snipped at least 300 lines below what is quoted above.

That's because I only wished to address the silly implication that
Europe somehow doesn't have a Christian tradition, whereas the truth is
that Europe (pace the Copts and the Mesopotamian Christians) has been
the centre of Christianity from only a few years after the death of Christ.

If you wish to raise any other points, I will consider addressing them,
but I may not wish to do so and reserve the right not to do so. My
intervention was purely on the denial that there is a Christian heritage
in Europe.

[JNugent]

On 08/02/2013 19:35, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2013 17:38, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

[ ... ]
>>>>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Parker <robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
[ ... ]

>>>>>> Christians abolished slavery and started education for the poor.
>
>>>>> A FEW Christians, speaking out against what Christians started and the
>>>>> majority of Christian accepted.
>>>>> Try to be less dishonest next time.
>
>>>> The truth is that "the Christians" neither started nor abolished
>>>> slavery.
>
>>> Yet it was started by Christians,
>
>> Really?
>> My understanding is that the Romans has slaves in the BC era, and that
>> they probably weren't the first.
>
> Did the Christians abolish Roman slavery?

I doubt that, not least because as you may know (though I suspect that
you don't) "the Christians" were never in charge of the Roman Empire.

> Or are you weaseling out of the fact that you knew we were talking
> about the more recent black slavery?

Oh! You mean *American* slavery, of course.

We never had slavery in modern Christian Europe.

>> You're not too good at history.

> You're not too honest

I don't need lessons in honesty from you.

I don't lessons in anything from you.

>>> Please try to be less dishonest next time.

>> Please try to be less predictable.
>
> Stop being dishinest and you won't be told to stop. It's that easy.

I've just told you: I don't need lessons in honesty from you.

>> And more intelligent.

> Pot. Kettle. Black.

>> I realise that the second one is a "big ask".

> I realise that honesty isn't your strong point. It isn't among the
> kind of believer who keeps doding, intoducing red herrings, ad
> hominems etc.

"Ad hominems"!

LOL!

You are one of the kings of the ad hominem.

You have no other mode of "argument", mainly because you simply don't
know how to argue or debate. Even Mike Corley makes a better job of it.

(That, by the way, is a straightforward assessment of your "debating"
style, and not an ad hominem).

Have a nice day.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:39:21 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

wrote:

>On 08/02/2013 19:17, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2013 17:25, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> On 08/02/2013 03:54, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> The Vatican is not a member state of the EU.
>>>>>>>> When it tried to get the preamble to the proposed European
>>>>>>>> Constitution changed to include "acknowledging Europe's Christian
>>>>>>>> heritage", they used newbies Poland to do their dirty work - they
>>>>>>>> joined and tried to change the rules straight away. The EU and its
>>>>>>>> predecessors had been a secular group of nations that had formed an
>>>>>>>> association for economic reasons for fifty years or more.
>>
>>>>>>> Is it denied that Europe (effectively formerly known as "Christendom",
>>
>> How the heck did that address what I wrote above in response to what
>> you snipped, that was one of the examples refuting some Liar For God's
>> claim that the Pope didn't get involved in politics?
>
>I do not purport to address the totality of all the thoughts that may be
>running through your over-febrile mind.

Non answer noted.

>I was addressing the import of what had been written insofar, and only
>insofar, as it sneered at the concept that Europe has a Christian heritage.

Lie noted.

>Of *course* Europe has a Christian heritage.

But not in the way deluded Christians who only see the rose-tinted
side of their religion, imagine.

>It is one of the things which defines Europe and has done so for the
>better part of two thousand years.

But not for a long time because it has become increasingly irrelevant.

Nobody denies that it is part of our history - but then its bad side
also is. And both of these are only part of it.

>I have snipped at least 300 lines below what is quoted above.

Because you cannot address any of it.

>That's because I only wished to address the silly implication that
>Europe somehow doesn't have a Christian tradition,

Moving the goalposts, noted.

> whereas the truth is
>that Europe (pace the Copts and the Mesopotamian Christians) has been
>the centre of Christianity from only a few years after the death of Christ.

Only according to Christian tradition. But then even Christ is merely
Christian tradition.

ROME, not Europe, became Christian sometime after 300 CE.

Charlemagne converted much of Europe at sword point a few hundred
years later.

>If you wish to raise any other points, I will consider addressing them,
>but I may not wish to do so and reserve the right not to do so. My
>intervention was purely on the denial that there is a Christian heritage
>in Europe.

There isn't - in the sense that in-denial Christians who only see
Christianity through rose-tinted glasses, imagine.

It is part of European history. But then so are a heck of a lot of
other things that contributed much more to the Europe of today.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:26:11 -0600, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>

wrote:

>Cassandra wrote:
>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>Have you not noticed that every single country you list as having
>legalized the slavery of women, with the sole exception of Ireland, is
>among the poorest, most crowded, most hellish places on earth to live?
>That is *directly* related to the status of the women.

Even Ireland, with the recent revelations about the Magdalene
laundries - which were run by the Catholic church.

.

>>>Why do you think that Americans who don't believe in your religion
>>>should be forced to live by your religion's rules? I mean, seriously?
>>
>> Murdering children has nothing to do with religion. Its been a big
>> no-no in all civilisations since the dawn of recorded history. Its
>> even a big no-no for animals. Atheists appear to have less morality
>> than a horse.
>

>You truly redefine ignorant every day of your life. The only person
>involved in an abortion is a woman who is trying to take full control of
>her life. She tries to do this despite that hate-filled scum who think
>she has no more rights than a brood mare, who believe her life is
>worthless unless she produces male offspring. If she produces female
>offspring at some point, she has provided a new generation of brood
>mare, but not anyone whose life is worth protecting.

Morons like this one will have to stop using language like "murdering
children" when it isn't.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:47:50 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

wrote:

>On 08/02/2013 19:35, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2013 17:38, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>[ ... ]
>>>>>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Parker <robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>[ ... ]
>>>>>>> Christians abolished slavery and started education for the poor.
>>
>>>>>> A FEW Christians, speaking out against what Christians started and the
>>>>>> majority of Christian accepted.
>>>>>> Try to be less dishonest next time.
>>
>>>>> The truth is that "the Christians" neither started nor abolished
>>>>> slavery.
>>
>>>> Yet it was started by Christians,
>>
>>> Really?
>>> My understanding is that the Romans has slaves in the BC era, and that
>>> they probably weren't the first.
>>
>> Did the Christians abolish Roman slavery?
>
>I doubt that, not least because as you may know (though I suspect that
>you don't) "the Christians" were never in charge of the Roman Empire.

Idiot.

I was replying to somebody trying to wasel out of Christian
responsibilty for the black slavery that a few Christians (as well as
freethinkers) spoke out against, that was supoorted by the majority of
Chritians.

But then yiou knew that.

>> Or are you weaseling out of the fact that you knew we were talking
>> about the more recent black slavery?
>
>Oh! You mean *American* slavery, of course.
>
>We never had slavery in modern Christian Europe.

Once again, you are ignorant of history.

And you are certainly ignorant of the Magdalene laundies even though
they are currently in the news.

>>> You're not too good at history.
>
>> You're not too honest
>
>I don't need lessons in honesty from you.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha.........

>I don't lessons in anything from you.

You're ignorant of history, including your own religion's contribution
to it.

[JNugent]

"Fetus" is still just wrong, like "nite", "plow" or "mold".

Don't presume to lecture me on the English language. You will always
lose. That's if I can be bothered with you.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:05:17 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

wrote:

>On 08/02/2013 22:36, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:26:19 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/02/2013 20:11, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Fetus" is the accurate label for one the stages between fertilisation
>>>> and birth.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is in regions of the world that have difficulties with English
>>> (a Germanic language with a strong Hellenic/Latin heritage).
>>>
>>> In places which don't have difficulties with English... like... er the
>>> United Kingdom... we spell it properly: "foetus".
>>
>> Both spellings are legitimate, but then that's all you've got in
>> response, isn't it?
>>
>> A lame spelling flame that backfired on you.
>>
>> I simple spelled it the way the previous poster did - and which my
>> spelling checker recognises.
>
>"Fetus" is still just wrong, like "nite", "plow" or "mold".

You can find "fetus" as an alternative spelling in
English (not American) dictionaries.

http://citizendia.org/Fetus

Fśtus is an English variation on the Latin spelling, and has been in
use since at least 1594, according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
which describes "fśtus" as "incorrectly written". The variant fśtus
may have originated with an error by Saint Isidore of Seville, in AD
620. [6] The preferred spelling in the United States is fetus, but the
variants foetus and fśtus persist in other English-speaking countries
and in some medical contexts, as well as in some other languages (e.
g. , French).

>Don't presume to lecture me on the English language. You will always
>lose. That's if I can be bothered with you.

Lie noted.