Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays

“Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role”

Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that pharmacists have a right to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing emergency contraception or euthanasia drugs - and told them they should also inform patients of the ... via Fables of the reconstruction

Read more

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#241602 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
The ONLY time a fetus would have any importance to Bitner is if she wanted a baby.
Once out of the womb, the "baby" would be perceived as a divine link to the goddess in conjunction with Bitner's religious belief.
And because she WANTED the baby ... while it was growing in her womb, she would place HIGH value on the fetus.
We are indeed a selfish lot of animals.
You're lyinng again. You don't know what I think, and nothing in my posts have ever indicated such.

You're just deflecting, because I hit a nerve.

You're disgusting, and don't care about anything OTHER than your agenda.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241603 Nov 16, 2012
Through the centuries the popes preached about the divine value "god" places on fetuses.

I don't believe for one moment that those popes perceived the fetuses (for instance) in Muslim women were "divine."

NOT A CHANCE!!!

My guess is that as the Catholics were killing the Protestants and vice versa, they were not trying to protect fetuses in the women they perceived were the "enemies" of "god."

Humans often pride themselves as owning wisdom ... but history suggests ONLY ignorance and more ignorance.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241604 Nov 16, 2012
The study of religion makes it plain that leaders of cults are intent and often fickle in their quests to be perceived a "RIGHT."
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

History of Religious Ideas, by Mircea Eliade.

Muhammad and the Unfolding of Islam.

For quite a long time, Muhammad showed a certain sympathy toward the Christians:‘We are Christians,’ that, because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud, and when they hear what has been sent down to the Messenger, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of the truth they recognize. They say:‘Our Lord, we believe, so do Thou write us down among the witnesses’”(5:85—90).

It was only after the conquest of Mecca, when he clashed with the resistance of the Syrian Christians, that Muhammad changed his attitude; of 9:29—35 (They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God and the Messiah, Mary’s son—and they were commanded to serve but one God”[9:31]).

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241605 Nov 16, 2012
Note the word "authority."
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

From the book,“A History of Christianity”… volume 2 Clyde L. Manschreck, Editor, comes the following………

For better or for worse, Christianity was launched in the world. By the end of the second century it had a set and fluid authority—canon, creed, and clergy—

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#241606 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
If you didn't believe the physicians were culpible of intent to harm ... WHY would you want to sue the physicians?
What part of "for medical malpractice" is giving you so much trouble, Moron?

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241607 Nov 16, 2012
And today the Christian and Muslim leaders of the cults are ONLY intent on the religious "conversion" of each other.

And to make matters even more ridicuous ... the Christians slander each other as offenders of god's will, while in Muslim countries, the Muslims slander each other as offenders of Allah's will.

And they call the ridiculous nonsense they promote as truth ... LOVE!!!

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241608 Nov 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "for medical malpractice" is giving you so much trouble, Moron?
You adore your special little phrases Bitner, but within the phrases is YOUR malpractise concerning DISHONESTY.

You are one of the most deceptive people I have ever encountered.

You can phrase it any way you desire ... but you believe the physicians intentionally caused her death ... which (if that were true) would be murder in the first degree!!!

“Don't forget to”

Since: Sep 09

smile

#241609 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You adore your special little phrases Bitner, but within the phrases is YOUR malpractise concerning DISHONESTY.
You are one of the most deceptive people I have ever encountered.
You can phrase it any way you desire ... but you believe the physicians intentionally caused her death ... which (if that were true) would be murder in the first degree!!!
June, many malpractice suits do not involve premeditation.
I haven't read all of the current batch of posts, but I don't think Sis used the word "intentional".

Did you read the article in its entirety?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#241610 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You adore your special little phrases Bitner, but within the phrases is YOUR malpractise concerning DISHONESTY.
You are one of the most deceptive people I have ever encountered.
You can phrase it any way you desire ... but you believe the physicians intentionally caused her death ... which (if that were true) would be murder in the first degree!!!
No, that is not my position. The dishonesty is all yours.

My position is that they allowed her to die by deliberately NOT doing everything medically in their power to save her. That is not "murder", nor did I ever imply that it is. It is medical malpractice, and it is not my "special phrase". It's a legal and medical phrase, but I can see that it's yet ANOTHER phrase YOU are too stupid to use properly, or even understand.

You're a fricken moron.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241611 Nov 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not my position. The dishonesty is all yours.
My position is that they allowed her to die by deliberately NOT doing everything medically in their power to save her. That is not "murder", nor did I ever imply that it is. It is medical malpractice, and it is not my "special phrase". It's a legal and medical phrase, but I can see that it's yet ANOTHER phrase YOU are too stupid to use properly, or even understand.
You're a fricken moron.
I disagree.

Your attitude toward the physicians indicated that they chose to let the woman die, when they knew they could have saved her ... which would be murder ... no matter how you now try to pretty up your harsh judgment concerning the physicians.

I believe their intent was to save the woman.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241612 Nov 16, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
June, many malpractice suits do not involve premeditation.
I understand that. I am referring ONLY to Bitner's attitude toward the INTENT of the physicians.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241613 Nov 16, 2012
Malpractice most certainly does not indicate intentional harm.

Bitner's attitude toward the idea that the physicians intended to harm the woman by depriving her of necessary care, is an attitude that irritates the bejeepers out of me!

Such an attitude could cause harm to the physicians that I believe did their best within very trying circumstances.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241614 Nov 16, 2012
When in NEED to prove religious "truths" ... always fall back on the words written by others.

If the gullible believers can be persuaded that the words of ancient peoples contain absolute truth ... YOU, as a leader of a religious cult will have it made.

Again and again, history proves it is so.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

From the book,“A History of Christianity”… volume 2 Clyde L. Manschreck, Editor, comes the following………

In addition to the need for a canon and a creed, the early church also felt the need for the authority of authentic leadership. With so many voices being raised, some of them claiming direct and superior revelation, it was only natural to turn to the apostles for a way out of the confusion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#241615 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
Your attitude toward the physicians indicated that they chose to let the woman die, when they knew they could have saved her ... which would be murder ... no matter how you now try to pretty up your harsh judgment concerning the physicians.
I believe their intent was to save the woman.
You are wrong. It would not be murder at all, but medical malpractice. Just because YOU are too stupid to understand that, doesn't change the facts.

I'm not trying to "pretty up" anything, you lying piece of shit.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241616 Nov 16, 2012
Without Gerald Gardner and his cohorts preaching and writing words about ancient witches, etc., modern Paganism would not exist.

The modern Pagans mentally ingested SOME of those words in a very serious manner in deed ... but they threw away Gerald's words that the "goddess curses homosexuals."

It was and is to the advantage of the modern Pagans to distance themselves from that specific "nasty" teaching of Gerald, as other religions already taught such nonsense.

You will see the deceptions of the modern Pagans ... only if you choose to see!

They no-doubt value their ritual silliness as did and do all people of religion ... but the silliness of ALL religion stems ONLY from fantasy ... PERIOD ... and Gerald Gardner's fantasies and written words are from my perspective of no more value than were the words of the hairy ape-like, ignorant ancient peoples.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241617 Nov 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. It would not be murder at all.
Of course it wouldn't! But if you had your way ... it WOULD!

My guess is, you would have no mercy on those physicians ... NONE!!!

"How DARE they," is your attitude!

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241618 Nov 16, 2012
My guess is, if one such as Bitner went into law, she would be a prosecutor, NOT a defense lawyer.

Everyone would be guilty until proven by further testimony of countless witnesses as innocent ... unless they were Wiccan.

Bitner would let other prosecutors take those cases, as she wouldn't want to appear to favor her own religion.{{{snicker}}}

Atheists do not favor those in any religion, so a lawyer who is Atheist, whether a prosecutor, or a defense lawyer would be best to keep quiet about his/her Atheism.

Very quiet indeed.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241619 Nov 16, 2012
Observe the hard features of the prosecutor Nancy Grace, and through his religion, the prosecuting pope (concerning who will burn in hell)... and you will see that harsh judgment takes its toll on the facial features of those who KNOW such certain answers!

But sometimes there IS a backlash.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

Nancy Grace will likely get sued for her unprofessional crusade to deny Casey Anthony a fair trial, put her to death, and gin up public hatred against her

The prosecution’s case fell apart by overcharging Casey Anthony and trying to put her to death.

Had they charged her with manslaughter or some lesser murder charge, they might well have gotten a conviction. The prosecution made a strong circumstantial case that Casey Anthony had something to do with the death of her daughter.

http://www.escapetyranny.com/2011/07/05/nancy...

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241620 Nov 16, 2012
Nancy Grace's fiance of many years past was "murdered."

My guess is, Nancy had her "reasons" for becoming a prosecutor!

Note her mention of how "god" ultimately gave her "something good."

Whether her aggression to make her fiance's death meaningful is "good" ... is a matter of opinion.

I believe she "could be" dangerous to those that she believes gets in "her" way of settling an over-due debt to HER.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241621 Nov 16, 2012
The Catholic "church" has been sued many times for the cover-up of the pope in the sex-abuse scandal.

But the pope has not been sued!

Religion often protects criminals that otherwise would have to answer to an earthly judge.

Whether real justice will ensue is any body's guess, but if there is simply more of the same after death ... the pope will be sitting on a throne, still claiming he IS in deed preaching "truth."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 min Graham Cracker 51,896
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 3 min Pietro Armando 1,964
News Governor Cuomo bans non-essential state travel ... 4 min SouthWedgeTardedP... 2
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 6 min WeTheSheeple 1,664
News Indiana backlash: What you need to know 7 min Str8 talk 115
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 10 min Frankie Rizzo 17,854
News Kentucky argues gay marriage ban not biased 10 min NorCal Native 19
News Indiana lawmakers try to quiet firestorm surrou... 18 min Str8 talk 130
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 50 min NorCal Native 58,961
News U.S. corporations pressure two states accused o... 54 min NorCal Native 26
More from around the web