Anti-Semitism In France!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Well, let's see. I did see the footage of HIM helping them dig up my cousin's head and hands under newly planted rose bushes. That's pretty exact evidence and I DID see that with my own eyes. Perhaps by taking them to the evidence, they cut him some slack?

Then, I stood outside the room when my aunt went in and identified her daughter by birthmarks on her torso and was shown a separate bag with her head in it.

I'm really sorry I even tried to share this point of view. I don't think I have one single time written a post on any of these threads that I haven't had to plea my case. Amazing...

As I said, I wanted to understand how the crime could be so gruesome and the penalty so light. Though you have gone through Hell regarding this case, I still do not know the answer. I even tried to Google for an article about it, but had no luck.

If it was a plea bargain, as I said, then maybe 7 years was better than no time at all. I doubt that if they have enough evidence to prove all that you said, that he would only get 7 years.

My condolences.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Just got a joke from a Christian friend of mine that I thought I'd share to lighten the atmosphere a little. Hope you don't find it too irreverent.

The story is told of a man who got a permit to open the first tavern (bar) in a small town. The members of a local church were strongly opposed to the bar, so they began to pray that God would intervene.

A few days before the tavern was scheduled to open, lightning hit the structure and it burned to the ground. The people of the church were surprised but pleased - until they received notice that the would-be tavern owner was suing them. He contended that their prayers were responsible for the burning of the building. They denied the charge. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the judge wryly remarked, "At this point I don't know what my decision will be, but it seems that the tavern owner believes in the power of prayer and these church people don't."

It is hard to be on both sides of an issue at the same time.:faint:

[leatha_g 4]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Well, you're the authority. I'm sure you know best.

I'm most certainly mistaken. lol.

Google wasn't around in the 80's when this happened, but I'll see what I can do to provide you proof of evidence.

Would you like the name and number of the rancher who saw this man dumping the garbage back over the guardrail. I'll lay odds he still has the license plate he wrote down before he took his son home and returned to scene to see what was in the bag.

I wonder, how does one get to be an authority on every single subject?

You are reading questions as if they were statements.

I am trying to figure out why the disparity between crime and sentence.

If I was an authority on this case, I would not be asking you for more info, nor looking for more info. Google can find many stories of things that happened way before Google was around.

[gadgetlady 4]

I've been absent from this thread today because I haven't had time, but I just wanted to say to leatha_g, Sunta, and BJean, thank you for posting experiences out of your personal life that have influenced your opinions on a variety of subjects. I am truly sorry all of you have experienced such pain in your life. I think when we expose ourselves like you all have, while we do open ourselves up to potential ridicule or challenge (and leatha_g, I'm especially sorry this has happened to you tonight) the upside is we have the potential to open people's eyes to things they may have never considered before.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I've been absent from this thread today because I haven't had time, but I just wanted to say to leatha_g, Sunta, and BJean, thank you for posting experiences out of your personal life that have influenced your opinions on a variety of subjects. I am truly sorry all of you have experienced such pain in your life. I think when we expose ourselves like you all have, while we do open ourselves up to potential ridicule or challenge (and leatha_g, I'm especially sorry this has happened to you tonight) the upside is we have the potential to open people's eyes to things they may have never considered before.

It was mighty Christian of you to assume that I was ridiculing her because I tried to find out why such a gruesome crime only had a 7 year sentence.

[gadgetlady 4]

It was mighty Christian of you to assume that I was ridiculing her because I tried to find out why such a gruesome crime only had a 7 year sentence.

And I'm glad I'm back so I can deflect your challenges from her to me. She's been through enough recounting that gruesome story to have to then be challenged about its veracity.

I'm sure you know that the punishment doesn't always fit the crime. You can find many examples of that just as easily in 2006 or 2007 as you can in the 1980's. And I didn't say you were ridiculing her. You assumed I did. I said ridicule or challenge. And I believe what you were doing was challenging her.

[leatha_g 4]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Gadgetlady: I was trying to find out why it happened (sentence vs crime).

She hasn't said that she knows if there was a plea bargain or not.

If she doesn't have all the information, fine.

But I wasn't challanging her. I was questioning her to learn more.

*

Leatha: I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. But I was being inquisitive.

I should have been a little more sensitive, but no ill will was intended.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Clergy are entitled to have political views just like you and me, but legally and morally, they are prohibited from expressing them from the pulpit. Some like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have seperate political organizations they belong to which are no church's, and who's function is political. That is not a church telling you how to vote. As far a Billy Graham, he sat with many president's from both parties, but to my knowledge has never endorsed any canidate or party.

Church's do and are legally and morally permitted to say how they feel on politcal issues, especially if they involve morality and/or church dogma, but they may not endorse any canidate or political party. I run a not-for-profit Christian Ministry which is held to those same rules. As an individual, I am entitles to my own political views and opinions, but if I were to express them coming from my ministry, I would lose my tax exempt status.

If what you say you heard is true, it was legally and morally wrong, and by far the exception rather that the rule. You can't paint the majority of church's with that brush.

Hey folks. I have no way of proving this, but I can tell you for certain that there are sermons and homilies, from pulpits of churches all over the country that very defnitely directly relate to politics. If you have not been witness to it, I am not only surprised I am not sure I believe you.

There is a chance that because you agreed with the sermon, and the directive from the pulpit, you did not recognize it as being politically driven.

My father attended a First Christian Church in Florida that told people exactly how to vote. He invited me to come and listen because I thought he was exaggerating. I did and he wasn't. He finally started going to another church that wasn't as close to his home. The Methodist Church he transferred to was much less direct in politics. They were more concerned with the interpersonal relationships and problems their congregation faced every day in society.

I attended Catholic Church for many years in several different states. The priests always told parishoners how the Church viewed certain political issues. And they all told parishoners that they would be violating the Pope's wishes if they did not vote or believe what the letter from the Bishop said.

Pat Robertson mean anything to you? Jerry Falwell? They are both two of the most political animals on the planet. They have millions of followers who hang on their every word.

Billy Graham was very political. He was not as political in his sermons, for sure, but he sat at the right hand of many presidents.

I personally did not hear George W. say it, but I have read that he said that he believes that he was directed by God Himself to become president and to do what he has done and is doing in the White House.

[BJean 16]

Churches may not endorse political candidates by name in order to keep their tax exempt status, but they can certainly address political issues in the context of church doctrine. That's what some churches and clergy are all about. Unless there is someone in the congregation who is willing to turn them in, or who is an official church policeman, no one knows how often it has happened. Many preachers are passionate enough to take the risk of leading the congregation in a certain direction with regard to politics. Although speaking the name of the candidate who is running who shares that direction, is not necessary. Everyone knows who they are.

I am not painting all churches with the same brush. You are doing that!!

Has no one else here been witness to what I'm talking about? Ever?

I have listened to Pat Robertson speak from his TV pulpit and nearly everytime I have heard him, he has addressed a political issue. Maybe his televangelical church dosen't claim tax exempt status. Maybe it is a for profit organization. Enlighten me on that will ya?

[lisah25 3]

Huh? :faint:

I agree!

I work in software development. One of the first steps in the lifecycle of a project is defining requirements. Defining the problem to be solved, how it will be addressed and how we will measure if we did so.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

My wife and I have a friend of over 20. We were neighbors in Brooklyn before we moved to Florida 3 years ago and I was her co-worker when we met in 1984. She also moved to Florida about 5 years ago and now lives 100 miles from us.

She is a 45 year old Black woman who goes to a Protestant church. Her sister lives within 5 miles of her and also attends the same church along with many of their friends As you may or may not know, Black women voted over 95% in the last two presidential elections for the Democratic candidate and Blacks in general were about 80%.

On the Sunday before the 2004 BuSh-Kerry election, their minister had a guest minister give the sermon. That minister told the congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan because of Kerry's pro-choice, pro-Gay union stance.

It would have been ok to talk about the immorality of abortion and of gay sexual activity, but it was not ok to mention either Kerry or BuSh by name or to suggest that a sermon is a voting instruction.

Both our friend and her sister have been life long Democrats, but the sister voted for BuSh. Our friend did the right thing. The sisters still debate their choices to this day. Many of the congregation voted for BuSh based on the sermon.

My minister talks about politics all the time, but our whole congregation, 100% unanimous has voted for the church to not take a IRS deduction and we are therefor allowed to discuss these things. Money is regulation. Religion should not be regulated by the government, but religion should not regulation the government either. If we wanted a tax deduction for our weekly contributions, we can't be politically active. If my minister wanted to avoid tax, he could stop talking from the pulpit about politics. It is ironic that the extra tax we pay to be politically active helps to finance the wars that we speak against. But at least we are honest about it.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I can't play for a while. My minister is bringing his car over to my house in a few minutes so that I can try to fix it for him. Helping each other is the Christian thing to do IMHO.

I'll post again later.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Addressing political issues that effect the moral or doctrinal teaching of a church is not against the law or immoral. If a pastor see's a specific social/political issue as effecting or threatening the wellbeing of his congregation or society, he would be remiss in not addressing it. Suggesting that his flock vote for canidates that support moral issues that are dupportive of their their beliefs is a far cry from telling people who to vote for. There are ofter many canidates that support or oppose different views. Pat Roberts TV show is a far cry from a church or congregation, and is not covered by such regulations.

As far as what goes on in other church's, unless you have some first hand information, all you are doing is speculating and guessing. As someone who is part and parcel of the church world, I can tell you first hand that I have NEVER experienced what you are alleging, and it certainly is not common or the norm. That is just not the way it is!

Churches may not endorse political candidates by name in order to keep their tax exempt status, but they can certainly address political issues in the context of church doctrine. That's what some churches and clergy are all about. Unless there is someone in the congregation who is willing to turn them in, or who is an official church policeman, no one knows how often it has happened. Many preachers are passionate enough to take the risk of leading the congregation in a certain direction with regard to politics. Although speaking the name of the candidate who is running who shares that direction, is not necessary. Everyone knows who they are.

I am not painting all churches with the same brush. You are doing that!!

Has no one else here been witness to what I'm talking about? Ever?

I have listened to Pat Robertson speak from his TV pulpit and nearly everytime I have heard him, he has addressed a political issue. Maybe his televangelical church dosen't claim tax exempt status. Maybe it is a for profit organization. Enlighten me on that will ya?