🚀 go-pugleaf

Source?


"=> Vox Populi �" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
news:OH7Da.520$vz6.79653@news.uswest.net...
> Priest who doubted God suspended
>
> COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) --A Lutheran priest was suspended Tuesday
> after his remarks that God doesn't exist and there is no eternal life
> rankled many of his peers in Denmark's state church.
>
> Thorkild Grosboel, the pastor of Taarbaek, a town of 51,000 just north
> of the capital, Copenhagen, said in a recent interview that "there is
> no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection."
>
> The claims have mystified church leaders in the Scandinavian country
> of 5.3 million, where about 85 percent of the population belongs to
> the state Evangelical Lutheran Church, yet just 5 percent attend
> church services regularly.
>
> Lise-Lotte Rebel, bishop of the Helsingoer diocese, which includes
> Taarbaek, said Grosboel's comments "caused confusion" within the
> church.
>
> "There should be no doubt that priests have committed themselves to
> act within the church's confession of faith," she said.
>
> After meeting with Grosboel Tuesday, the bishop demanded he retract
> his comments and apologize. She also suspended him from his duties as
> town pastor.
>
> Grosboel declined to comment, but will meet with Rebel again next week
> in her diocese in Helsingoer, 35 kilometers (22 miles) north of
> Copenhagen.
>
> Rebel said it's up to the government's Ministry for Ecclesiastic
> Affairs to decide if Grosboel should be defrocked. In Denmark,
> Lutheran priests are employed by the state and bishops cannot fire
> them.
>
> Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic
> affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible to
> be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the
> resurrection of Christ.
>
> Others, however, including Mogens Lindhardt, the leader of Denmark's
> Theological College of Education, called Grosboel's claims
> "refreshing."
>
>

In alt.atheism on Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:40:52 -0600, "=> Vox Populi �"
<vox@popu.li> wrote:

<snip
>Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic
>affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible to
>be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the
>resurrection of Christ.

Even if you're not a Christian pastor?  :-?
--
L8r,
Avender
- --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
     reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
     he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
     of himself.
- --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --  - --

"Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote in message
news:MR8Da.96869$BA.32971610@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> Source?

See that little "AP" in parenthesis at the dateline?

Guess what that stands for?



>
>
> "=> Vox Populi �" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
> news:OH7Da.520$vz6.79653@news.uswest.net...
> > Priest who doubted God suspended
> >
> > COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) --A Lutheran priest was suspended Tuesday
> > after his remarks that God doesn't exist and there is no eternal
life
> > rankled many of his peers in Denmark's state church.
> >
> > Thorkild Grosboel, the pastor of Taarbaek, a town of 51,000 just
north
> > of the capital, Copenhagen, said in a recent interview that "there
is
> > no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no
resurrection."
> >
> > The claims have mystified church leaders in the Scandinavian
country
> > of 5.3 million, where about 85 percent of the population belongs
to
> > the state Evangelical Lutheran Church, yet just 5 percent attend
> > church services regularly.
> >
> > Lise-Lotte Rebel, bishop of the Helsingoer diocese, which includes
> > Taarbaek, said Grosboel's comments "caused confusion" within the
> > church.
> >
> > "There should be no doubt that priests have committed themselves
to
> > act within the church's confession of faith," she said.
> >
> > After meeting with Grosboel Tuesday, the bishop demanded he
retract
> > his comments and apologize. She also suspended him from his duties
as
> > town pastor.
> >
> > Grosboel declined to comment, but will meet with Rebel again next
week
> > in her diocese in Helsingoer, 35 kilometers (22 miles) north of
> > Copenhagen.
> >
> > Rebel said it's up to the government's Ministry for Ecclesiastic
> > Affairs to decide if Grosboel should be defrocked. In Denmark,
> > Lutheran priests are employed by the state and bishops cannot fire
> > them.
> >
> > Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic
> > affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible
to
> > be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the
> > resurrection of Christ.
> >
> > Others, however, including Mogens Lindhardt, the leader of
Denmark's
> > Theological College of Education, called Grosboel's claims
> > "refreshing."
> >
> >
>
>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but this
definitely surprises me.

"Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>
> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but this
> definitely surprises me.
>
Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace, it's only
right that they should be represented in the churches.

Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

I've always been surprised that they are stupid
enough to have the priests employed by the
state. Not just the scandinavians either.

fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote in message
news:OudDa.125725$ro6.3721046@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.

Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.

He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.

fred wrote in message ...
>
>"Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>>
>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but
this
>> definitely surprises me.
>>
>Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace, it's
only
>right that they should be represented in the churches.

Huh? In the general church membership? Sure. In the people who preach,
teach, and promote the beliefs of that church? Of course not.

Each member of the clergy is required to make a statement of faith. If a
man of principle later changes his beliefs, he has a duty to tell those
he represents and remove himself from his office as Pastor. If he
resolves his conflict of faith, then he should be welcome to return to
his previous good standing in the clergy.

"fred" <yingtong@song.con> wrote in message
news:OudDa.125725$ro6.3721046@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> >
> > I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but
this
> > definitely surprises me.
> >
> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace, it's only
> right that they should be represented in the churches.

Perhaps he can become a Unitarian.  Belief in god is optional for them,
right?

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bbk041$a8uqg$1@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>
> > I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
> > increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
>
> I've always been surprised that they are stupid
> enough to have the priests employed by the
> state. Not just the scandinavians either.

Of course they probably need state funding to survive.  5% regular
attendance leaves a very empty collection plate.

Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:lGiDa.33421$Io.2881694@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

>> I've always been surprised that they are stupid
>> enough to have the priests employed by the
>> state. Not just the scandinavians either.

> Of course they probably need state funding to survive.

They dont deserve to survive.

> 5% regular attendance leaves a very empty collection plate.

And that aint anything even remotely resembling anything like survive.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:58:04 GMT, "Jingo."
<Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote:

>Source?
>

The story has been regularly discussed on Danish television and in
major Danish newspapers - not to mention the "AP" at the beginning of
the story.





>
>"=> Vox Populi �" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
>news:OH7Da.520$vz6.79653@news.uswest.net...
>> Priest who doubted God suspended
>>
>> COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) --A Lutheran priest was suspended Tuesday
>> after his remarks that God doesn't exist and there is no eternal life
>> rankled many of his peers in Denmark's state church.
>>
>> Thorkild Grosboel, the pastor of Taarbaek, a town of 51,000 just north
>> of the capital, Copenhagen, said in a recent interview that "there is
>> no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection."
>>
>> The claims have mystified church leaders in the Scandinavian country
>> of 5.3 million, where about 85 percent of the population belongs to
>> the state Evangelical Lutheran Church, yet just 5 percent attend
>> church services regularly.
>>
>> Lise-Lotte Rebel, bishop of the Helsingoer diocese, which includes
>> Taarbaek, said Grosboel's comments "caused confusion" within the
>> church.
>>
>> "There should be no doubt that priests have committed themselves to
>> act within the church's confession of faith," she said.
>>
>> After meeting with Grosboel Tuesday, the bishop demanded he retract
>> his comments and apologize. She also suspended him from his duties as
>> town pastor.
>>
>> Grosboel declined to comment, but will meet with Rebel again next week
>> in her diocese in Helsingoer, 35 kilometers (22 miles) north of
>> Copenhagen.
>>
>> Rebel said it's up to the government's Ministry for Ecclesiastic
>> Affairs to decide if Grosboel should be defrocked. In Denmark,
>> Lutheran priests are employed by the state and bishops cannot fire
>> them.
>>
>> Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic
>> affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible to
>> be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the
>> resurrection of Christ.
>>
>> Others, however, including Mogens Lindhardt, the leader of Denmark's
>> Theological College of Education, called Grosboel's claims
>> "refreshing."
>>
>>
>

Thomas P.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:11:28 -0600, "=> Vox Populi �" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:

>
>
>"Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote in message
>news:MR8Da.96869$BA.32971610@twister.columbus.rr.com...
>> Source?
>
>See that little "AP" in parenthesis at the dateline?
>
>Guess what that stands for?

Oh!  I thought you just forgot the &.



>
>
>
>>
>>
>> "=> Vox Populi �" <vox@popu.li> wrote in message
>> news:OH7Da.520$vz6.79653@news.uswest.net...
>> > Priest who doubted God suspended
>> >
>> > COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) --A Lutheran priest was suspended Tuesday
>> > after his remarks that God doesn't exist and there is no eternal
>life
>> > rankled many of his peers in Denmark's state church.
>> >
>> > Thorkild Grosboel, the pastor of Taarbaek, a town of 51,000 just
>north
>> > of the capital, Copenhagen, said in a recent interview that "there
>is
>> > no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no
>resurrection."
>> >
>> > The claims have mystified church leaders in the Scandinavian
>country
>> > of 5.3 million, where about 85 percent of the population belongs
>to
>> > the state Evangelical Lutheran Church, yet just 5 percent attend
>> > church services regularly.
>> >
>> > Lise-Lotte Rebel, bishop of the Helsingoer diocese, which includes
>> > Taarbaek, said Grosboel's comments "caused confusion" within the
>> > church.
>> >
>> > "There should be no doubt that priests have committed themselves
>to
>> > act within the church's confession of faith," she said.
>> >
>> > After meeting with Grosboel Tuesday, the bishop demanded he
>retract
>> > his comments and apologize. She also suspended him from his duties
>as
>> > town pastor.
>> >
>> > Grosboel declined to comment, but will meet with Rebel again next
>week
>> > in her diocese in Helsingoer, 35 kilometers (22 miles) north of
>> > Copenhagen.
>> >
>> > Rebel said it's up to the government's Ministry for Ecclesiastic
>> > Affairs to decide if Grosboel should be defrocked. In Denmark,
>> > Lutheran priests are employed by the state and bishops cannot fire
>> > them.
>> >
>> > Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic
>> > affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible
>to
>> > be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the
>> > resurrection of Christ.
>> >
>> > Others, however, including Mogens Lindhardt, the leader of
>Denmark's
>> > Theological College of Education, called Grosboel's claims
>> > "refreshing."
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Thomas P.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:20:09 GMT, "Robert Schneider"
<rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:

>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>
>I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but this
>definitely surprises me.
>

It really shouldn't.  Most of the members of his parish support him
(most of them are also believers) including the parish council.  It is
all very Danish.


Thomas P.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:31:15 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote in message
>news:OudDa.125725$ro6.3721046@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>
>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
>
>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
>
>Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.

The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.


>
>He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.
>

The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated than
that, and the state does not determine doctrine.  Having said that I
would also add that there is a very good chance that he will lose his
post, but it is not certain.


Thomas P.

"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:GOhDa.147665$Vi5.4270898@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> fred wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> >>
> >> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but
> this
> >> definitely surprises me.
> >>
> >Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace, it's
> only
> >right that they should be represented in the churches.
>
> Huh? In the general church membership? Sure. In the people who preach,
> teach, and promote the beliefs of that church? Of course not.
>
> Each member of the clergy is required to make a statement of faith. If a
> man of principle later changes his beliefs, he has a duty to tell those
> he represents and remove himself from his office as Pastor. If he
> resolves his conflict of faith, then he should be welcome to return to
> his previous good standing in the clergy.
>
>
What is this about duty? Who decides?

"Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:

>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>
>I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but this
>definitely surprises me.

The non-belief or the public statement? I would think it's pretty
common for religious professionals to not believe in god. Of course
an illusionist giving away stage secrets will be frowned upon by
peers. It's probably not a good professional move to talk much about
one's lack of belief in the official view.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bbk074$aa5gi$1@ID-
69072.news.dfncis.de:

> 
> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote in message
> news:OudDa.125725$ro6.3721046@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote
> 
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> 
>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
> 
>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
> 
> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.
> 

Quite a number of catholic priests are NOT believers in the Christian 
faith, some are pure deists and others outright atheists.  Several years 
ago a poll was taken amongst priests and the results showed that many 
many were non-catholic in their beliefs, the highest percentage was among 
Jesuits which are the best educated.  There answers to why then were they 
priests, generally were along the lines of"...in order to best help 
people."  or near that.


Always do your homework!  You look less the ass more often! ;)
-- 
~=Monte=~
The solution is both simple and cheap! Send pretzels to the Whitehouse.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bbk041$a8uqg$1@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de>...
> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> 
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>  
> > I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
> > increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
> 
> I've always been surprised that they are stupid
> enough to have the priests employed by the
> state. Not just the scandinavians either.

The churches are very efficient tools for fleecing the
sheep and keeping them under control.  The king who
thought up the notion of co-opting this power for
his own purposes wasn't stupid at all.   

Of course, once the shee^h^h^hpeople get the vote, it's
pretty stupid not to vote away such a system.
But then, sheep can be pretty stupid.

I was born into Church of Sweden - left it ten years ago.
The church was nationalized here in the 1520s, and 
largely (but not completely) de-nationalized in 
the year 2000.

Best regards
Sverker Johansson

gillbates@sicromoft.com (gill) wrote in message news:<3eddc9a7.28050985@news>...
> "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> >
> >I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but this
> >definitely surprises me.
> 
> The non-belief or the public statement? I would think it's pretty
> common for religious professionals to not believe in god. Of course
> an illusionist giving away stage secrets will be frowned upon by
> peers. It's probably not a good professional move to talk much about
> one's lack of belief in the official view.


The very good example was Ortodox priest Vlada Zecevic from
Yugoslavia, who joined to Tito's partisans in 1941 and even become
minister of internal affairs in 1943. He was in the same time atheist
(because he joined to communist party in 1942) and the priest (he
continued to make services, for free, to the people who required
priest serves for confessions, mariages and funerals). When British
mayor Athertone asked him "How can you carry communist red star
together with christian cross?", he replied "Only poor devil is afraid
of cross, and I do not care about him. But every German soldier is
deathly afraid of the red star symbol!"

Samir Ribic wrote in message ...
>gillbates@sicromoft.com (gill) wrote in message
news:<3eddc9a7.28050985@news>...
>> "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>> >
>> >I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular,
but this
>> >definitely surprises me.
>>
>> The non-belief or the public statement? I would think it's pretty
>> common for religious professionals to not believe in god. Of course
>> an illusionist giving away stage secrets will be frowned upon by
>> peers. It's probably not a good professional move to talk much about
>> one's lack of belief in the official view.
>
>
>The very good example was Ortodox priest Vlada Zecevic from
>Yugoslavia, who joined to Tito's partisans in 1941 and even become
>minister of internal affairs in 1943. He was in the same time atheist
>(because he joined to communist party in 1942)

Joining the Communist Party didn't make him an Atheist. An Atheist is
defined as "a person who believes that there are no gods", not "a member
of the communist party".

In talk.atheism Avender Neufonze <KnoxvilleBill@thatsuckyplace.com> wrote:
: In alt.atheism on Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:40:52 -0600, "=> Vox Populi �"
: <vox@popu.li> wrote:

: <snip
:>Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic
:>affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible to
:>be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the
:>resurrection of Christ.

: Even if you're not a Christian pastor?  :-?

The term "pastor" assumes Christianity.  A non-Christian pastor
is like a non-Jewish Rabbi.

In talk.atheism fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote:

: "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
:> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
:>
:> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular, but this
:> definitely surprises me.
:>
: Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace, it's only
: right that they should be represented in the churches.

What??!  No, it's not right for them to be represented in the churches.
It's right for the churches to not be a source of political power if
they only represent 5% of the population.

Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
message news:49grdvkjkleblvoffdc0scqjt75q0kef1s@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.

>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.

> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.

Its much more complicated than that, particularly
when the priest is employed by the state.

>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.

> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.

Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a church.

I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.

> Having said that I would also add that there is a very
> good chance that he will lose his post, but it is not certain.

And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
politicians choose to do in complicated situations like
that, particularly when its got that sort of publicity.

Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the
easy way out and continue his employment by the state.

Makes absolutely no sense tho.

Monte <SendGeeDub@2dumpster.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93903A625B26Emontepemailcom@216.168.3.44...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.

>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.

> Quite a number of catholic priests are NOT believers in the
> Christian faith, some are pure deists and others outright atheists.

Yes, but few as stupid enough to say so so publicly.

> Several years ago a poll was taken amongst priests and the
> results showed that many many were non-catholic in their beliefs,

Separate issue entirely to being certain that there is no god at all.

> the highest percentage was among
> Jesuits which are the best educated.

That last is distinctly arguable.

About as silly as the concept of university degress in 'divinity' etc.

And I know that universitys were initially established by the church.

> There answers to why then were they priests,
> generally were along the lines of"...in order to
> best help people."  or near that.

By filling their 'minds' with stupid religious mumbo jumbo eh ?

Yeah, right.

> Always do your homework!  You look less the ass more often! ;)

Go and fuck yourself.

Sverker Johansson <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0306040300.1b43a709@posting.google.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

>> I've always been surprised that they are stupid
>> enough to have the priests employed by the
>> state. Not just the scandinavians either.

> The churches are very efficient tools for fleecing
> the sheep and keeping them under control.

They were once. Clearly if only 5% bother to attend regularly,
they're nothing like 'efficient' at that anymore. They cant even
con them into showing up regularly anymore.

> The king who thought up the notion of co-opting this
> power for his own purposes wasn't stupid at all.

We've pulled the plug on the vast bulk of the kings and the
few that remain are just completely irrelevant stuffed dummys.

> Of course, once the shee^h^h^hpeople get the vote,
> it's pretty stupid not to vote away such a system.

Yep.

> But then, sheep can be pretty stupid.

Yep. Or just not interested enough in that
particular issue to bother to change it.

> I was born into Church of Sweden - left it ten years ago.
> The church was nationalized here in the 1520s, and largely
> (but not completely) de-nationalized in the year 2000.

Yeah, there's still vestiges of that silly stuff
right thruout most western european countrys.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 09:08:33 GMT, "Robert Schneider"
<rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bbk041$a8uqg$1@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>>
>> > I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>> > increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
>>
>> I've always been surprised that they are stupid
>> enough to have the priests employed by the
>> state. Not just the scandinavians either.
>
>Of course they probably need state funding to survive.  5% regular
>attendance leaves a very empty collection plate.
>

There is no collection plate.   Furthermore, rational or not, the
majority of the voters are absolutely against changing the system.
The reasons are not all religious.






Thomas P.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bblcp8$ala6e$1@ID-
69072.news.dfncis.de:

> 
> Monte <SendGeeDub@2dumpster.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93903A625B26Emontepemailcom@216.168.3.44...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote
> 
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> 
>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
> 
>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
> 
>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.
> 
>> Quite a number of catholic priests are NOT believers in the
>> Christian faith, some are pure deists and others outright atheists.
> 
> Yes, but few as stupid enough to say so so publicly.
> 
>> Several years ago a poll was taken amongst priests and the
>> results showed that many many were non-catholic in their beliefs,
> 
> Separate issue entirely to being certain that there is no god at all.
> 
>> the highest percentage was among
>> Jesuits which are the best educated.
> 
> That last is distinctly arguable.
> 
> About as silly as the concept of university degress in 'divinity' etc.
> 
> And I know that universitys were initially established by the church.
> 
>> There answers to why then were they priests,
>> generally were along the lines of"...in order to
>> best help people."  or near that.
> 
> By filling their 'minds' with stupid religious mumbo jumbo eh ?
> 
> Yeah, right.
> 
>> Always do your homework!  You look less the ass more often! ;)
> 
> Go and fuck yourself.
> 
> 

LOL  Yeah, that'll change the facts alright Bubba!  Save alot of money do 
you an birthday gifts?  Seein'as how your sister, your mother, and your 
aunt are one and the same.  Daddys' family tree have only a few branches, 
back a few generations?  Scientifically though your type has value for 
fraudulent cloning experiments...if it fails they can grab any relative 
and fake it. Hell, any barely sentient primate would fit the bill. ;)

-- 
~=Monte=~
The solution is both simple and cheap! Send pretzels to the Whitehouse.

Steve Mading wrote in message ...
>In talk.atheism fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote:
>
>: "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>: news:tHcDa.29778$rO.2753294@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>:> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>:>
>:> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular,
but this
>:> definitely surprises me.
>:>
>: Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace, it's
only
>: right that they should be represented in the churches.
>
>What??!  No, it's not right for them to be represented in the churches.
>It's right for the churches to not be a source of political power if
>they only represent 5% of the population.

it's not right for the churches -- as instututions -- to be political
powers regardless of numbers.

It is perfectly right for the members/officers of churches to be able to
voice their political opinions, assemble, unite, and do everything
politically that a non-church person has the right to do.

IOW, the Principle of Separation of Church and State applies to the
State giving priority/allegiance to any one group, not to the members of
a group being disenfranchised re the policial process.

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 04:07:33 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
>message news:49grdvkjkleblvoffdc0scqjt75q0kef1s@4ax.com...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>
>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
>
>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
>
>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.
>
>> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.
>

>Its much more complicated than that, particularly
>when the priest is employed by the state.

The priest is employed by the Church.

>
>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.
>
>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.
>

>Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a church.

You would think so, and so would I; but it is the Church that decides
not us.

>
>I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.

Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.  Obviously if a
man is employed by the Church as a priest, he is a priest of the
Church.

>
>> Having said that I would also add that there is a very
>> good chance that he will lose his post, but it is not certain.
>

>And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
>politicians choose to do in complicated situations like
>that, particularly when its got that sort of publicity.
>
>Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the
>easy way out and continue his employment by the state.
>
>Makes absolutely no sense tho.
>

If he is fired (right now he is suspended), it will not be by a
minister.  Judging a story based on information from a newspaper story
is somewhat lacking in sense.




Thomas P.

Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
message news:e9otdv0tl4aujaroahfmtdjudrors02hfg@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

>>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>>>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

>>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.

>>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.

>>> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.

>> Its much more complicated than that, particularly
>> when the priest is employed by the state.

> The priest is employed by the Church.

Thats not what the original AP article claims.

Are you claiming that is wrong ?

>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>>>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.

>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.

>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a church.

> You would think so, and so would I;
> but it is the Church that decides not us.

Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.

> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.

It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.

> Obviously if a man is employed by the Church
> as a priest, he is a priest of the Church.

Thats not what the original AP article claims.

Are you claiming that is wrong ?

>>> Having said that I would also add that there is a very
>>> good chance that he will lose his post, but it is not certain.

>> And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
>> politicians choose to do in complicated situations like
>> that, particularly when its got that sort of publicity.

>> Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the
>> easy way out and continue his employment by the state.

>> Makes absolutely no sense tho.

> If he is fired (right now he is suspended), it will not be by a minister.

Thats not what the original AP article claims.

Are you claiming that is wrong ?

> Judging a story based on information from a
> newspaper story is somewhat lacking in sense.

That particular question, whether he is employed
by the state or not, must be trivial to resolve.

And since no one has denied that, and some, including
you, have said that is something most of the stupid
danish voters endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong.

"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message news:<nDyDa.153477$Vi5.4366079@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> => Vox Populi � wrote in message
> <_DwDa.188$T42.55342@news.uswest.net>...
> >"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
> >news:J0pDa.129011$ro6.3857530@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >> Samir Ribic wrote in message ...
> >> >gillbates@sicromoft.com (gill) wrote in message
>  news:<3eddc9a7.28050985@news>...
> >> >> "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular,
>  but this
> >> >> >definitely surprises me.
> >> >>
> >> >> The non-belief or the public statement? I would think it's pretty
> >> >> common for religious professionals to not believe in god. Of
>  course
> >> >> an illusionist giving away stage secrets will be frowned upon by
> >> >> peers. It's probably not a good professional move to talk much
>  about
> >> >> one's lack of belief in the official view.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The very good example was Ortodox priest Vlada Zecevic from
> >> >Yugoslavia, who joined to Tito's partisans in 1941 and even become
> >> >minister of internal affairs in 1943. He was in the same time
>  atheist
> >> >(because he joined to communist party in 1942)
> >>
> >> Joining the Communist Party didn't make him an Atheist. An Atheist is
> >> defined as "a person who believes that there are no gods",
> >
> >Not quite, the definition is "a person who does not believe in god(s)"
> >Subtle, but important, difference than what you stated.
> 
> Huh? "Atheist" by definition is "a perosn who does not believe in gods".
> "Communist" is a differnet definition. Nothing subtle about it. You
> stated that he was an "atheist" because he joined the communist party.

Being atheist was one of the required conditions to become member of
the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in that time. Other conditions were
moral quality, success in fight against enemy etc.

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>> You would think so, and so would I;
>> but it is the Church that decides not us.
>
>Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

But, as has been pointed out, the Priest is an employee of the Church.
The part you seem to be struggling with is that the Church is funded by
the State.

>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.
>
>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.
>
>It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.

Calling "the Danes" stupid can hardly be called a relevant statement of
fact. Racist or bigoted, yes. Relevant or factual, no.

Samir Ribic wrote in message ...
>"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:<nDyDa.153477$Vi5.4366079@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
>> => Vox Populi � wrote in message
>> <_DwDa.188$T42.55342@news.uswest.net>...
>> >"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
>> >news:J0pDa.129011$ro6.3857530@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> >> Samir Ribic wrote in message ...
>> >> >gillbates@sicromoft.com (gill) wrote in message
>>  news:<3eddc9a7.28050985@news>...
>> >> >> "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly
secular,
>>  but this
>> >> >> >definitely surprises me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The non-belief or the public statement? I would think it's
pretty
>> >> >> common for religious professionals to not believe in god. Of
>>  course
>> >> >> an illusionist giving away stage secrets will be frowned upon
by
>> >> >> peers. It's probably not a good professional move to talk much
>>  about
>> >> >> one's lack of belief in the official view.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The very good example was Ortodox priest Vlada Zecevic from
>> >> >Yugoslavia, who joined to Tito's partisans in 1941 and even
become
>> >> >minister of internal affairs in 1943. He was in the same time
>>  atheist
>> >> >(because he joined to communist party in 1942)
>> >>
>> >> Joining the Communist Party didn't make him an Atheist. An Atheist
is
>> >> defined as "a person who believes that there are no gods",
>> >
>> >Not quite, the definition is "a person who does not believe in
god(s)"
>> >Subtle, but important, difference than what you stated.
>>
>> Huh? "Atheist" by definition is "a perosn who does not believe in
gods".
>> "Communist" is a differnet definition. Nothing subtle about it. You
>> stated that he was an "atheist" because he joined the communist
party.
>
>Being atheist was one of the required conditions to become member of
>the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in that time. Other conditions were
>moral quality, success in fight against enemy etc.

That still doesn't make "becoming a Communist makes you an Atheist" ot
"Communist Party membership is proof you are an Atheist". Many people
joined the Party regardless of their believes in deities.

"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:nDyDa.153477$Vi5.4366079@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> => Vox Populi � wrote in message
> <_DwDa.188$T42.55342@news.uswest.net>...
> >"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
> >news:J0pDa.129011$ro6.3857530@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >> Samir Ribic wrote in message ...
> >> >gillbates@sicromoft.com (gill) wrote in message
> >> news:<3eddc9a7.28050985@news>...
> >> >> "Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly secular,
> >> but this
> >> >> >definitely surprises me.
> >> >>
> >> >> The non-belief or the public statement? I would think it's pretty
> >> >> common for religious professionals to not believe in god. Of
> course
> >> >> an illusionist giving away stage secrets will be frowned upon by
> >> >> peers. It's probably not a good professional move to talk much
> about
> >> >> one's lack of belief in the official view.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The very good example was Ortodox priest Vlada Zecevic from
> >> >Yugoslavia, who joined to Tito's partisans in 1941 and even become
> >> >minister of internal affairs in 1943. He was in the same time
> atheist
> >> >(because he joined to communist party in 1942)
> >>
> >> Joining the Communist Party didn't make him an Atheist. An Atheist is
> >> defined as "a person who believes that there are no gods",
> >
> >Not quite, the definition is "a person who does not believe in god(s)"
> >Subtle, but important, difference than what you stated.
>
> Huh? "Atheist" by definition is "a perosn who does not believe in gods".

Yes, correct.

The earlier statement of  "a person who believes that there are no gods"
is not accurate, neither semantically or factually.


> "Communist" is a differnet definition. Nothing subtle about it. You
> stated that he was an "atheist" because he joined the communist party.

No, I made no such claim.


-- 
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"robert parker" <robpardelete@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:3ee54d5e.20634631@news.airmail.net...
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:40:38 -0400, "Ike Milligan"
> <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> Each member of the clergy is required to make a statement of faith. If
a
> >> man of principle later changes his beliefs, he has a duty to tell those
> >> he represents and remove himself from his office as Pastor. If he
> >> resolves his conflict of faith, then he should be welcome to return to
> >> his previous good standing in the clergy.
> >>
> >>
> >What is this about duty? Who decides?
>
>   A man or woman of principle does indeed have a duty to his
> associates to inform them of his beliefs, if those beliefs have
> any importance to those associates. To pretend to believe in
> order to maintain a relationship is fraud. A person of principle
> will not resort to fraud.
OK but he did inform them, and hsi employer is actually the govt.

Peter D <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:0mHDa.137094$3C2.4453461@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>>>>>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.

>>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.

>>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a church.

>>> You would think so, and so would I;
>>> but it is the Church that decides not us.

>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

> But, as has been pointed out, the Priest is an employee of the Church.

Bullshit. He's paid by the state.

> The part you seem to be struggling with

Its the part I keep rubbing your noses in, actually.

> is that the Church is funded by the State.

If he's paid by the state, its nothing like what was
claimed on the church getting to decide on the basics.

>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.

>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.

>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.

> Calling "the Danes" stupid can hardly
> be called a relevant statement of fact.

Corse it is, they're too stupid to be able to grasp
basic concepts like the separation of church and state.

Corse they are always welcome to be that stupid if they want to.

> Racist

Mindlessly silly, Danes aint a separate race.

> or bigoted,

Mindlessly silly. Pointing out stupidity doesnt qualify as bigotry.

> yes. Relevant or factual, no.

Wrong. As always.

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Peter D <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
>news:0mHDa.137094$3C2.4453461@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>>>>>>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.
>
>>>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>>>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.
>
>>>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a
church.
>
>>>> You would think so, and so would I;
>>>> but it is the Church that decides not us.
>
>>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
>
>> But, as has been pointed out, the Priest is an employee of the
Church.
>
>Bullshit. He's paid by the state.
>
>> The part you seem to be struggling with
>
>Its the part I keep rubbing your noses in, actually.

Huh? The funds may come to the Church via the State, but he's not "paid
by the State" insofar as his immediate employer is the State. It's the
Church. Come to think of it, the people who pay the Church Tax are
actually the original funders. Who are they? the ones that give at least
nominal allegiance to the Church.

Dont' get me wtong, I think the Church should be funded by the members
directly. I don't see a place for government in this. I think their
system is fundamentally flawed and ignores the principle of Separation,
and so I disagree with them.

>> is that the Church is funded by the State.
>
>If he's paid by the state, its nothing like what was
>claimed on the church getting to decide on the basics.

"If". He isn't. So your point is dead, isn't it?

>>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.
>
>>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.
>
>>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.
>
>> Calling "the Danes" stupid can hardly
>> be called a relevant statement of fact.
>
>Corse it is, they're too stupid to be able to grasp
>basic concepts like the separation of church and state.

They may or may not grasp the concept. They are allowed to disagree.
They seem to be happy with their system, flaws and all. Your
characterisation of all Danes is racist and bigoted. And arrogant.

Peter D <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:6qNDa.136384$ro6.4044567@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Peter D <ple@se.ask> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>>>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>>>>>>>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.

>>>>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>>>>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.

>>>>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty
>>>>>> basic to what is or is not a church.

>>>>> You would think so, and so would I;
>>>>> but it is the Church that decides not us.

>>>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

>>> But, as has been pointed out, the
>>> Priest is an employee of the Church.

>> Bullshit. He's paid by the state.

>>> The part you seem to be struggling with

>> Its the part I keep rubbing your noses in, actually.

> Huh?

You deaf ?

> The funds may come to the Church via
> the State, but he's not "paid by the State"

Corse he is, his wages come from the state.

> insofar as his immediate employer is the State. It's the Church.

Completely irrelevant. His wages come from the state.

> Come to think of it, the people who pay the
> Church Tax are actually the original funders.

Mindlessly stupid way to do things.

> Who are they? the ones that give at
> least nominal allegiance to the Church.

> Dont' get me wtong, I think the Church should be funded by
> the members directly. I don't see a place for government in
> this. I think their system is fundamentally flawed and ignores
> the principle of Separation, and so I disagree with them.

Yep, the priests are basically paid for by the state.

>>> is that the Church is funded by the State.

>> If he's paid by the state, its nothing like what was
>> claimed on the church getting to decide on the basics.

> "If". He isn't.

Wrong. As always.

> So your point is dead, isn't it?

Nope.

>>>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>>>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.

>>>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.

>>>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.

>>> Calling "the Danes" stupid can hardly
>>> be called a relevant statement of fact.

>> Corse it is, they're too stupid to be able to grasp
>> basic concepts like the separation of church and state.

> They may or may not grasp the concept. They are allowed to disagree.

They're allowed to be that stupid, too.

> They seem to be happy with their system, flaws and all.

They're allowed to be that stupid, too.

> Your characterisation of all Danes is racist

Cant be, they aint a separate race, stupid.

> and bigoted.

Nothing bigotted about pointing out stupidity, stupid.

> And arrogant.

My choice. You get to like it or lump it.

And it leaves being stupid for dead, stupid.

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:05:20 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
>message news:e9otdv0tl4aujaroahfmtdjudrors02hfg@4ax.com...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
>
>>>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>>>>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.
>
>>>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
>
>>>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.
>
>>>> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.
>
>>> Its much more complicated than that, particularly
>>> when the priest is employed by the state.
>
>> The priest is employed by the Church.
>
>Thats not what the original AP article claims.
>
>Are you claiming that is wrong ?

The story is not complete.  Newspaper stories quite often do not give
a complete picture.  

>
>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>>>>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.
>
>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.
>
>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a church.
>
>> You would think so, and so would I;
>> but it is the Church that decides not us.
>

>Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

Here in Denmark the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church (not
the Danish State Church) receives financial support from the state and
its members pay a voluntary,  ca. 1% tax, collected by the state, to
the Church; but the Church employs its own priests and determines
doctrine.    Parish priests are not employed by the state.  The state
does not determine Church doctrine.

>
>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.
>
>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.
>

>It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.

You consider your statement saying that Danes are stupid to be a
relevant statement of fact?  I would think it could better be
described as an obstacle to rational discussion.

>
>> Obviously if a man is employed by the Church
>> as a priest, he is a priest of the Church.
>
>Thats not what the original AP article claims.
>
>Are you claiming that is wrong ?

Are you saying a priest is not a priest?  Are you claiming that that
is what the AP article said?

>
>>>> Having said that I would also add that there is a very
>>>> good chance that he will lose his post, but it is not certain.
>
>>> And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
>>> politicians choose to do in complicated situations like
>>> that, particularly when its got that sort of publicity.
>
>>> Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the
>>> easy way out and continue his employment by the state.
>
>>> Makes absolutely no sense tho.
>
>> If he is fired (right now he is suspended), it will not be by a minister.
>
>Thats not what the original AP article claims.
>
>Are you claiming that is wrong ?
>
>> Judging a story based on information from a
>> newspaper story is somewhat lacking in sense.
>

>That particular question, whether he is employed
>by the state or not, must be trivial to resolve.

I have tried my best, but you have difficulty with it.

>
>And since no one has denied that, and some, including
>you, have said that is something most of the stupid
>danish voters endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong.
>
>

You do seem attached to that insult.  What is the problem; did you
once buy some bad bacon?   I was referring to the Danish tradition of
tolerance as demonstrated by a congregation fond of and willing to
accept their priest, even though he is an atheist.

One more time:  The Church receives financial support from the state,
but parish priests are not state employees.  The Church employs its
priests and dismisses them not the state.   It is an arrangement
(national church) that can probably not continue for a number of legal
and social reasons.  There really is no point (nor do I care to take
the time) in going into all the historical and social issues involved,
but, even though many of us realize that the present arrangement
cannot continue, the problem is a great deal more complicated than you
seem willing to admit the possibility of.   You are on the outside
looking in; at least be willing to consider the possibility that there
may be aspects that you are not aware of.   


Thomas P.

Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message news:3ph0ev89p4ohnc0tvgk6km2gc5dgmjnn0r@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>>>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

>>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html

>>>>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming
>>>>>>>> increasingly secular, but this definitely surprises me.

>>>>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>>>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.

>>>>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.

>>>>> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.

>>>> Its much more complicated than that, particularly
>>>> when the priest is employed by the state.

>>> The priest is employed by the Church.

>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.

>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?

> The story is not complete.

Waffle. The fact is that the govt pays that fool's wages.

> Newspaper stories quite often do not give a complete picture.

AP aint a 'newspaper'

>>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest
>>>>>> if he doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.

>>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.

>>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a church.

>>> You would think so, and so would I;
>>> but it is the Church that decides not us.

>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

> Here in Denmark the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran
> Church (not the Danish State Church) receives financial
> support from the state and its members pay a voluntary,
> ca. 1% tax, collected by the state, to the Church;

If its a tax, he's paid by the govt.

> but the Church employs its own priests and determines doctrine.

Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

> Parish priests are not employed by the state.

Wrong. As always.

> The state does not determine Church doctrine.

No one ever said the state did.

>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.

>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.

>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.

> You consider your statement saying that Danes
> are stupid to be a relevant statement of fact?

On the particular issue being discussed, yes.

> I would think

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

> it could better be described as an obstacle to rational discussion.

Your problem.

And there aint even the slightest hint of anything like
that with YOUR claim about an insult, eh hypocrite ?

You sure you aint one of those whited sepulchres ?

>>> Obviously if a man is employed by the Church
>>> as a priest, he is a priest of the Church.

>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.

>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?

> Are you saying a priest is not a priest?

Nope.

> Are you claiming that that is what the AP article said?

Nope.

>>>>> Having said that I would also add that there is a very
>>>>> good chance that he will lose his post, but it is not certain.

>>>> And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
>>>> politicians choose to do in complicated situations like
>>>> that, particularly when its got that sort of publicity.

>>>> Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the
>>>> easy way out and continue his employment by the state.

>>>> Makes absolutely no sense tho.

>>> If he is fired (right now he is suspended), it will not be by a minister.

>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.

>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?

>>> Judging a story based on information from a
>>> newspaper story is somewhat lacking in sense.

>> That particular question, whether he is employed
>> by the state or not, must be trivial to resolve.

> I have tried my best,

It aint anything like good enough.

> but you have difficulty with it.

Wrong. As always.

>> And since no one has denied that, and some, including
>> you, have said that is something most of the stupid
>> danish voters endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong.

> You do seem attached to that insult.

It aint an insult. Its a statement of fact.

Those fools cant even manage to work out the
basics on the separation of church and state.

> What is the problem;

No problem whatever.

> did you once buy some bad bacon?

Even you should be able to manage better than that puerile stuff.

> I was referring to the Danish tradition of tolerance

Mindlessly silly...

> as demonstrated by a congregation fond of and willing
> to accept their priest, even though he is an atheist.

You have no way of determining
what 'the congregation' thinks of that.

> One more time:

You can keep spouting this silly stuff till the cows come home...

> The Church receives financial support from the state,

And that is terminally stupid.

> but parish priests are not state employees.

Wrong.

> The Church employs its priests and dismisses them not the state.

Thats not what the original AP article claims.

Are you claiming that is wrong ?

> It is an arrangement (national church) that can probably
> not continue for a number of legal and social reasons.

And the most basic stuff like the separation of church and state.

Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.

> There really is no point (nor do I care to take the time)
> in going into all the historical and social issues involved,

Its completely irrelevant anyway.

> but, even though many of us realize that the present arrangement
> cannot continue, the problem is a great deal more complicated
> than you seem willing to admit the possibility of.

Bullshit.

> You are on the outside looking in; at least be willing to consider the
> possibility that there may be aspects that you are not aware of.

There aint any on the basics of the separate of church and state.

Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bbpm2h$c6ch6$1@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de: 

> 
> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
> news:3ph0ev89p4ohnc0tvgk6km2gc5dgmjnn0r@4ax.com... 
>> Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>>>>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote
> 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> 
>>>>>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly
>>>>>>>>> secular, but this definitely surprises me. 
> 
>>>>>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
>>>>>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
> 
>>>>>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.
> 
>>>>>> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.
> 
>>>>> Its much more complicated than that, particularly when the priest
>>>>> is employed by the state. 
> 
>>>> The priest is employed by the Church.
> 
>>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> 
>>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> 
>> The story is not complete.
> 
> Waffle. The fact is that the govt pays that fool's wages.
> 
>> Newspaper stories quite often do not give a complete picture.
> 
> AP aint a 'newspaper'
> 
>>>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
>>>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest if he
>>>>>>> doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god. 
> 
>>>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
>>>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine. 
> 
>>>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a
>>>>> church. 
> 
>>>> You would think so, and so would I; but it is the Church that
>>>> decides not us. 
> 
>>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
> 
>> Here in Denmark the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran
>> Church (not the Danish State Church) receives financial
>> support from the state and its members pay a voluntary, ca. 1% tax,
>> collected by the state, to the Church; 
> 
> If its a tax, he's paid by the govt.
> 
>> but the Church employs its own priests and determines doctrine.
> 
> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
> 
>> Parish priests are not employed by the state.
> 
> Wrong. As always.
> 
>> The state does not determine Church doctrine.
> 
> No one ever said the state did.
> 
>>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have priests of
>>>>> the church of scientology employed by the state. 
> 
>>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.
> 
>>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.
> 
>> You consider your statement saying that Danes are stupid to be a
>> relevant statement of fact? 
> 
> On the particular issue being discussed, yes.
> 
>> I would think
> 
> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
> 
>> it could better be described as an obstacle to rational discussion.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> And there aint even the slightest hint of anything like
> that with YOUR claim about an insult, eh hypocrite ?
> 
> You sure you aint one of those whited sepulchres ?
> 
>>>> Obviously if a man is employed by the Church as a priest, he is a
>>>> priest of the Church. 
> 
>>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> 
>>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> 
>> Are you saying a priest is not a priest?
> 
> Nope.
> 
>> Are you claiming that that is what the AP article said?
> 
> Nope.
> 
>>>>>> Having said that I would also add that there is a very good chance
>>>>>> that he will lose his post, but it is not certain. 
> 
>>>>> And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
>>>>> politicians choose to do in complicated situations like that,
>>>>> particularly when its got that sort of publicity. 
> 
>>>>> Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the easy way
>>>>> out and continue his employment by the state. 
> 
>>>>> Makes absolutely no sense tho.
> 
>>>> If he is fired (right now he is suspended), it will not be by a
>>>> minister. 
> 
>>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> 
>>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> 
>>>> Judging a story based on information from a newspaper story is
>>>> somewhat lacking in sense. 
> 
>>> That particular question, whether he is employed by the state or not,
>>> must be trivial to resolve. 
> 
>> I have tried my best,
> 
> It aint anything like good enough.
> 
>> but you have difficulty with it.
> 
> Wrong. As always.
> 
>>> And since no one has denied that, and some, including
>>> you, have said that is something most of the stupid danish voters
>>> endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong. 
> 
>> You do seem attached to that insult.
> 
> It aint an insult. Its a statement of fact.
> 
> Those fools cant even manage to work out the
> basics on the separation of church and state.
> 
>> What is the problem;
> 
> No problem whatever.
> 
>> did you once buy some bad bacon?
> 
> Even you should be able to manage better than that puerile stuff.
> 
>> I was referring to the Danish tradition of tolerance
> 
> Mindlessly silly...
> 
>> as demonstrated by a congregation fond of and willing to accept their
>> priest, even though he is an atheist. 
> 
> You have no way of determining
> what 'the congregation' thinks of that.
> 
>> One more time:
> 
> You can keep spouting this silly stuff till the cows come home...
> 
>> The Church receives financial support from the state,
> 
> And that is terminally stupid.
> 
>> but parish priests are not state employees.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> The Church employs its priests and dismisses them not the state.
> 
> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> 
> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> 
>> It is an arrangement (national church) that can probably not continue
>> for a number of legal and social reasons. 
> 
> And the most basic stuff like the separation of church and state.
> 
> Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.
> 
>> There really is no point (nor do I care to take the time)
>> in going into all the historical and social issues involved,
> 
> Its completely irrelevant anyway.
> 
>> but, even though many of us realize that the present arrangement
>> cannot continue, the problem is a great deal more complicated than you
>> seem willing to admit the possibility of. 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
>> You are on the outside looking in; at least be willing to consider the
>> possibility that there may be aspects that you are not aware of. 
> 
> There aint any on the basics of the separate of church and state.
> 
> Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Many democratic countries do not have any principle of separation of 
church and state. This doesn't mean that anyone is compelled to be a 
member of the established church, though. You can't just expect everywhere 
to be like the US. Most don't have such a high jail population or murder 
rate, and do have free health care, so the US is not a paragon in all 
areas of life.

Thomas (and others), presenting facts to "Tod Speed" won't help. He is
incapapble of prcoessing them. He's like a child in a "'tis, 'tis not"
contest. Ignoring his foolishness may be the best way to handle it.
Personally, I thank you for your clarification. it was most helpful.

"Don't mud wrestle with a pig. The pig gets horny and all you get is
dirty."

"Alun Palmer" <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93925DAA0132elektrosmdonet@130.133.1.4...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:bbpm2h$c6ch6$1@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de:
>
> >
> > Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
> > news:3ph0ev89p4ohnc0tvgk6km2gc5dgmjnn0r@4ax.com...
> >> Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
> >>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
> >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
> >>>>>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> >
> >>>>>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly
> >>>>>>>>> secular, but this definitely surprises me.
> >
> >>>>>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
> >>>>>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
> >
> >>>>>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.
> >
> >>>>>> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.
> >
> >>>>> Its much more complicated than that, particularly when the priest
> >>>>> is employed by the state.
> >
> >>>> The priest is employed by the Church.
> >
> >>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> >>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >> The story is not complete.
> >
> > Waffle. The fact is that the govt pays that fool's wages.
> >
> >> Newspaper stories quite often do not give a complete picture.
> >
> > AP aint a 'newspaper'
> >
> >>>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
> >>>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest if he
> >>>>>>> doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.
> >
> >>>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
> >>>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.
> >
> >>>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a
> >>>>> church.
> >
> >>>> You would think so, and so would I; but it is the Church that
> >>>> decides not us.
> >
> >>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
> >
> >> Here in Denmark the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran
> >> Church (not the Danish State Church) receives financial
> >> support from the state and its members pay a voluntary, ca. 1% tax,
> >> collected by the state, to the Church;
> >
> > If its a tax, he's paid by the govt.
> >
> >> but the Church employs its own priests and determines doctrine.
> >
> > Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
> >
> >> Parish priests are not employed by the state.
> >
> > Wrong. As always.
> >
> >> The state does not determine Church doctrine.
> >
> > No one ever said the state did.
> >
> >>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have priests of
> >>>>> the church of scientology employed by the state.
> >
> >>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.
> >
> >>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.
> >
> >> You consider your statement saying that Danes are stupid to be a
> >> relevant statement of fact?
> >
> > On the particular issue being discussed, yes.
> >
> >> I would think
> >
> > Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
> >
> >> it could better be described as an obstacle to rational discussion.
> >
> > Your problem.
> >
> > And there aint even the slightest hint of anything like
> > that with YOUR claim about an insult, eh hypocrite ?
> >
> > You sure you aint one of those whited sepulchres ?
> >
> >>>> Obviously if a man is employed by the Church as a priest, he is a
> >>>> priest of the Church.
> >
> >>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> >>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >> Are you saying a priest is not a priest?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >> Are you claiming that that is what the AP article said?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >>>>>> Having said that I would also add that there is a very good chance
> >>>>>> that he will lose his post, but it is not certain.
> >
> >>>>> And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
> >>>>> politicians choose to do in complicated situations like that,
> >>>>> particularly when its got that sort of publicity.
> >
> >>>>> Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the easy way
> >>>>> out and continue his employment by the state.
> >
> >>>>> Makes absolutely no sense tho.
> >
> >>>> If he is fired (right now he is suspended), it will not be by a
> >>>> minister.
> >
> >>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> >>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >>>> Judging a story based on information from a newspaper story is
> >>>> somewhat lacking in sense.
> >
> >>> That particular question, whether he is employed by the state or not,
> >>> must be trivial to resolve.
> >
> >> I have tried my best,
> >
> > It aint anything like good enough.
> >
> >> but you have difficulty with it.
> >
> > Wrong. As always.
> >
> >>> And since no one has denied that, and some, including
> >>> you, have said that is something most of the stupid danish voters
> >>> endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong.
> >
> >> You do seem attached to that insult.
> >
> > It aint an insult. Its a statement of fact.
> >
> > Those fools cant even manage to work out the
> > basics on the separation of church and state.
> >
> >> What is the problem;
> >
> > No problem whatever.
> >
> >> did you once buy some bad bacon?
> >
> > Even you should be able to manage better than that puerile stuff.
> >
> >> I was referring to the Danish tradition of tolerance
> >
> > Mindlessly silly...
> >
> >> as demonstrated by a congregation fond of and willing to accept their
> >> priest, even though he is an atheist.
> >
> > You have no way of determining
> > what 'the congregation' thinks of that.
> >
> >> One more time:
> >
> > You can keep spouting this silly stuff till the cows come home...
> >
> >> The Church receives financial support from the state,
> >
> > And that is terminally stupid.
> >
> >> but parish priests are not state employees.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> >> The Church employs its priests and dismisses them not the state.
> >
> > Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> > Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >> It is an arrangement (national church) that can probably not continue
> >> for a number of legal and social reasons.
> >
> > And the most basic stuff like the separation of church and state.
> >
> > Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.
> >
> >> There really is no point (nor do I care to take the time)
> >> in going into all the historical and social issues involved,
> >
> > Its completely irrelevant anyway.
> >
> >> but, even though many of us realize that the present arrangement
> >> cannot continue, the problem is a great deal more complicated than you
> >> seem willing to admit the possibility of.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> >> You are on the outside looking in; at least be willing to consider the
> >> possibility that there may be aspects that you are not aware of.
> >
> > There aint any on the basics of the separate of church and state.
> >
> > Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Many democratic countries do not have any principle of separation of
> church and state. This doesn't mean that anyone is compelled to be a
> member of the established church, though. You can't just expect everywhere
> to be like the US. Most don't have such a high jail population or murder
> rate, and do have free health care, so the US is not a paragon in all
> areas of life.

... or any.


-- 

"Naturally, the common people don't  want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

           - Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:15:01 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message news:3ph0ev89p4ohnc0tvgk6km2gc5dgmjnn0r@4ax.com...
snip
>>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
>
>>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
>
>> The story is not complete.
>
>Waffle. The fact is that the govt pays that fool's wages.


No, it is not a waffle, just the truth.
>
>> Newspaper stories quite often do not give a complete picture.
>
>AP aint a 'newspaper'

Yes, I know what it is.  It is irrelevant in any case.

snip
>>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
>
>> Here in Denmark the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran
>> Church (not the Danish State Church) receives financial
>> support from the state and its members pay a voluntary,
>> ca. 1% tax, collected by the state, to the Church;
>

>If its a tax, he's paid by the govt.

No the money is given to the church.  It is a subsidy.  The church
administers the money and does its own employing.

>
>> but the Church employs its own priests and determines doctrine.
>
>Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
>
>> Parish priests are not employed by the state.
>

>Wrong. As always.

Whatever.

>
>> The state does not determine Church doctrine.
>

>No one ever said the state did.
>

Whatever.

>>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.
>
>>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.
>
>>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.
>
>> You consider your statement saying that Danes
>> are stupid to be a relevant statement of fact?
>
>On the particular issue being discussed, yes.
>
>> I would think
>
>Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

What I have done is try to participate in this discussion without
personal, insulting comments.  From the beginning I was not trying to
attack anyone just posting what I thought was neutral information.

>
>> it could better be described as an obstacle to rational discussion.
>

>Your problem.

Yes, that is true.  If one is not interested in rational discussion,
the gratuitous use of personal insults would not be a problem.

>
>And there aint even the slightest hint of anything like
>that with YOUR claim about an insult, eh hypocrite ?
>
>You sure you aint one of those whited sepulchres ?

Perhaps someone understands the above.  I do not.

snip
>>> That particular question, whether he is employed
>>> by the state or not, must be trivial to resolve.
>
>> I have tried my best,
>

>It aint anything like good enough.

That is unfortunate.   I am sorry you are having problems
underestanding.


>
>> but you have difficulty with it.
>

>Wrong. As always.

I see.

>
>>> And since no one has denied that, and some, including
>>> you, have said that is something most of the stupid
>>> danish voters endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong.
>
>> You do seem attached to that insult.
>

>It aint an insult. Its a statement of fact.
>
>Those fools cant even manage to work out the
>basics on the separation of church and state.

How interesting.


>
>> What is the problem;
>
>No problem whatever.
>
>> did you once buy some bad bacon?
>
>Even you should be able to manage better than that puerile stuff.

Even I?  Am I the one repeatedly posting insults?  I was trying a
little humor hoping maybe you would calm down a little - vainly.

>
>> I was referring to the Danish tradition of tolerance
>

>Mindlessly silly...

Wow!

>
>> as demonstrated by a congregation fond of and willing
>> to accept their priest, even though he is an atheist.
>
>You have no way of determining
>what 'the congregation' thinks of that.

Actually I do.  The parish council is elected by the congregation.
The council, as the representative of the congregation has expressed
support for the priest.  The Danish press and Danish television have
also interviewed individual members of the congregation, most of whom
want to keep the priest in question.  Therefore I do have solid
information about the feeling in that parish.

I don't think there is any reason to go on with this, since you are
not interested in anything but your opinion.  Goodbye.





Thomas P.

Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93925DAA0132elektrosmdonet@130.133.1.4...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>> Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> fred <yingtong@song.con> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote

> >>>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88435,00.html
> >
> >>>>>>>>> I knew that the Scandinavians were becoming increasingly
> >>>>>>>>> secular, but this definitely surprises me.
> >
> >>>>>>>> Why?  If atheists comprise a disernible portion of the populace,
> >>>>>>>> it's only right that they should be represented in the churches.
> >
> >>>>>>> Thats completely silly. Churches are for believers, stupid.
> >
> >>>>>> The Danish Church decides who the Danish Church is for.
> >
> >>>>> Its much more complicated than that, particularly when the priest
> >>>>> is employed by the state.
> >
> >>>> The priest is employed by the Church.
> >
> >>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> >>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >> The story is not complete.
> >
> > Waffle. The fact is that the govt pays that fool's wages.
> >
> >> Newspaper stories quite often do not give a complete picture.
> >
> > AP aint a 'newspaper'
> >
> >>>>>>> He's always welcome to say anything he likes, but its
> >>>>>>> a bit rich expecting the state to employ him as a priest if he
> >>>>>>> doesnt believe there is any such thing as a god.
> >
> >>>>>> The Church's relationship to the state is a bit more complicated
> >>>>>> than that, and the state does not determine doctrine.
> >
> >>>>> Yes, but that god stuff is pretty basic to what is or is not a
> >>>>> church.
> >
> >>>> You would think so, and so would I; but it is the Church that
> >>>> decides not us.
> >
> >>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
> >
> >> Here in Denmark the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran
> >> Church (not the Danish State Church) receives financial
> >> support from the state and its members pay a voluntary, ca. 1% tax,
> >> collected by the state, to the Church;
> >
> > If its a tax, he's paid by the govt.
> >
> >> but the Church employs its own priests and determines doctrine.
> >
> > Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.
> >
> >> Parish priests are not employed by the state.
> >
> > Wrong. As always.
> >
> >> The state does not determine Church doctrine.
> >
> > No one ever said the state did.
> >
> >>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have priests of
> >>>>> the church of scientology employed by the state.
> >
> >>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.
> >
> >>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.
> >
> >> You consider your statement saying that Danes are stupid to be a
> >> relevant statement of fact?
> >
> > On the particular issue being discussed, yes.
> >
> >> I would think
> >
> > Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
> >
> >> it could better be described as an obstacle to rational discussion.
> >
> > Your problem.
> >
> > And there aint even the slightest hint of anything like
> > that with YOUR claim about an insult, eh hypocrite ?
> >
> > You sure you aint one of those whited sepulchres ?
> >
> >>>> Obviously if a man is employed by the Church as a priest, he is a
> >>>> priest of the Church.
> >
> >>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> >>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >> Are you saying a priest is not a priest?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >> Are you claiming that that is what the AP article said?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >>>>>> Having said that I would also add that there is a very good chance
> >>>>>> that he will lose his post, but it is not certain.
> >
> >>>>> And thats an entirely separate issue, what stupid
> >>>>> politicians choose to do in complicated situations like that,
> >>>>> particularly when its got that sort of publicity.
> >
> >>>>> Yes, its quite likely that the minister will just take the easy way
> >>>>> out and continue his employment by the state.
> >
> >>>>> Makes absolutely no sense tho.
> >
> >>>> If he is fired (right now he is suspended), it will not be by a
> >>>> minister.
> >
> >>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> >>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >>>> Judging a story based on information from a newspaper story is
> >>>> somewhat lacking in sense.
> >
> >>> That particular question, whether he is employed by the state or not,
> >>> must be trivial to resolve.
> >
> >> I have tried my best,
> >
> > It aint anything like good enough.
> >
> >> but you have difficulty with it.
> >
> > Wrong. As always.
> >
> >>> And since no one has denied that, and some, including
> >>> you, have said that is something most of the stupid danish voters
> >>> endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong.
> >
> >> You do seem attached to that insult.
> >
> > It aint an insult. Its a statement of fact.
> >
> > Those fools cant even manage to work out the
> > basics on the separation of church and state.
> >
> >> What is the problem;
> >
> > No problem whatever.
> >
> >> did you once buy some bad bacon?
> >
> > Even you should be able to manage better than that puerile stuff.
> >
> >> I was referring to the Danish tradition of tolerance
> >
> > Mindlessly silly...
> >
> >> as demonstrated by a congregation fond of and willing to accept their
> >> priest, even though he is an atheist.
> >
> > You have no way of determining
> > what 'the congregation' thinks of that.
> >
> >> One more time:
> >
> > You can keep spouting this silly stuff till the cows come home...
> >
> >> The Church receives financial support from the state,
> >
> > And that is terminally stupid.
> >
> >> but parish priests are not state employees.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> >> The Church employs its priests and dismisses them not the state.
> >
> > Thats not what the original AP article claims.
> >
> > Are you claiming that is wrong ?
> >
> >> It is an arrangement (national church) that can probably not continue
> >> for a number of legal and social reasons.
> >
> > And the most basic stuff like the separation of church and state.
> >
> > Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.
> >
> >> There really is no point (nor do I care to take the time)
> >> in going into all the historical and social issues involved,
> >
> > Its completely irrelevant anyway.
> >
> >> but, even though many of us realize that the present arrangement
> >> cannot continue, the problem is a great deal more complicated than you
> >> seem willing to admit the possibility of.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> >> You are on the outside looking in; at least be willing to consider the
> >> possibility that there may be aspects that you are not aware of.
> >
> > There aint any on the basics of the separate of church and state.
> >
> > Even the stupid danes might eventually work that basic out.

> Many democratic countries do not have any
> principle of separation of church and state.

Yes, there are certainly some that stupid.

Some are stupid enough to have some grossly
inbred fool as a 'king' or 'queen' etc too.

And most have the vast bulk of the population
stupid enough to buy the utterly mindless
bullshit involved with 'churches' of any kind too.

> This doesn't mean that anyone is compelled to
> be a member of the established church, though.

Yes, most democratic countrys to have
some attempt at freedom of religion.

> You can't just expect everywhere to be like the US.

I dont give a damn about what the US does on that stuff
either. They have a higher percentage of fools silly enough
to bother with the pathetic crutch for their pathetically
inadequate 'minds' that any church/religion is about.

> Most don't have such a high jail population or murder rate,

Most modern first world countrys dont have anything
like as big a percentage of the dregs of society either.

> and do have free health care,

Hardly any have that. And its never free,
it always has to be paid for somehow.

> so the US is not a paragon in all areas of life.

Pity no one ever said it was. Having
fun thrashing that straw man are you ?

You're so stupid that you havent even
noticed that I dont even live there.

Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
message news:rmg1evcneou39i8kd67olee6smbg9ijohu@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote

>>>> Thats not what the original AP article claims.

>>>> Are you claiming that is wrong ?

>>> The story is not complete.

>> Waffle. The fact is that the govt pays that fool's wages.

> No, it is not a waffle, just the truth.

No story is EVER complete. So thats waffle.

The fact is that the govt pays that fool's wages.

>>> Newspaper stories quite often do not give a complete picture.

In fact thats hardly ever possible with as complex an issue as that.

>> AP aint a 'newspaper'

> Yes, I know what it is.

So why did you waffle on about newspaper storys ?

> It is irrelevant in any case.

Nope.

>>>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

>>> Here in Denmark the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran
>>> Church (not the Danish State Church) receives financial
>>> support from the state and its members pay a voluntary,
>>> ca. 1% tax, collected by the state, to the Church;

>> If its a tax, he's paid by the govt.

> No the money is given to the church.

Which means he's paid by the govt, using taxes to raise that money.

> It is a subsidy.

He's paid by the govt.

> The church administers the money and does its own employing.

He's paid by the govt.

>>> but the Church employs its own priests and determines doctrine.

>> Bullshit when the priest is employed by the state.

>>> Parish priests are not employed by the state.

>> Wrong. As always.

> Whatever.

>>> The state does not determine Church doctrine.

>> No one ever said the state did.

> Whatever.

>>>>>> I dont expect that even the stupid Danes actually have
>>>>>> priests of the church of scientology employed by the state.

>>>>> Thank you for the irrelevant and unjustified insult.

>>>> It aint an insult, its a relevant statement of fact.

>>> You consider your statement saying that Danes
>>> are stupid to be a relevant statement of fact?

>> On the particular issue being discussed, yes.

>>> I would think

>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

> What I have done is try to participate in this
> discussion without personal, insulting comments.

Liar, you attempted insults.

> From the beginning I was not trying to attack anyone
> just posting what I thought was neutral information.

Obvious lie. You clearly attacked me for what
you stupidly claimed was an insult to the danes.

>>> it could better be described as an obstacle to rational discussion.

>> Your problem.

> Yes, that is true.  If one is not interested in rational discussion,
> the gratuitous use of personal insults would not be a problem.

And here you are attempting another insult.

>> And there aint even the slightest hint of anything like
>> that with YOUR claim about an insult, eh hypocrite ?

>> You sure you aint one of those whited sepulchres ?

> Perhaps someone understands the above.  I do not.

Your ignorance is your problem. You could
try putting "whited sepulchre" into google.

>>>> That particular question, whether he is employed
>>>> by the state or not, must be trivial to resolve.

>>> I have tried my best,

>> It aint anything like good enough.

> That is unfortunate.   I am sorry you
> are having problems underestanding.

Another attempt at an insult.

>>> but you have difficulty with it.

There too.

>> Wrong. As always.

> I see.

Nope, you dont.

>>>> And since no one has denied that, and some, including
>>>> you, have said that is something most of the stupid
>>>> danish voters endorse, its rather unlikely to be wrong.

>>> You do seem attached to that insult.

Another attempt at an insult.

>> It aint an insult. Its a statement of fact.

>> Those fools cant even manage to work out the
>> basics on the separation of church and state.

> How interesting.

More waffle.

>>> What is the problem;

>> No problem whatever.

>>> did you once buy some bad bacon?

And that was completely puerile.

>> Even you should be able to manage better than that puerile stuff.

> Even I?  Am I the one repeatedly posting insults?

Yep.

> I was trying a little humor hoping maybe you would calm down a little

Another attempt at an insult.

> - vainly.

Your inadequacys are your problem. Always were, always will be.

>>> I was referring to the Danish tradition of tolerance

>> Mindlessly silly...

> Wow!

Is that the best you can manage ?  Looks like it.

>>> as demonstrated by a congregation fond of and willing
>>> to accept their priest, even though he is an atheist.

>> You have no way of determining
>> what 'the congregation' thinks of that.

> Actually I do.

Actually, you dont.

> The parish council is elected by the congregation.

Before this particular issue arose. So that is no
indication what so ever on that particular issue.

> The council, as the representative of the congregation
> has expressed support for the priest.

That aint necessarily what 'the congregation' thinks of that.

> The Danish press and Danish television have also
> interviewed individual members of the congregation,
> most of whom want to keep the priest in question.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample.

You dont even know what they would vote in a proper secret ballot.

> Therefore I do have solid information about the feeling in that parish.

Like hell you do.

> I don't think there is any reason to go on with this,

But you did anyway...

> since you are not interested in anything but your opinion.

Another attempt at an insult. Just another whited sepulchre.

> Goodbye.

Good riddance.

Some pathetic little gutless prat desperately cowering behind
Peter D <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:yo1Ea.163243$Vi5.4637394@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
just the puerile silly stuff any 3 year old could leave for dead.

Life your game.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:18:06 GMT, "Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote:

>Thomas (and others), presenting facts to "Tod Speed" won't help. He is
>incapapble of prcoessing them. He's like a child in a "'tis, 'tis not"
>contest. Ignoring his foolishness may be the best way to handle it.
>Personally, I thank you for your clarification. it was most helpful.

Thank you.  It was only offered as background material.  I had no idea
someone would react so violently to it.


>
>"Don't mud wrestle with a pig. The pig gets horny and all you get is
>dirty."
>

Good advice.


Thomas P.

Thomas P <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
message news:qjv1evkg1m0f262veurscddslr6n4hvq0n@4ax.com...

> It was only offered as background material.  I had
> no idea someone would react so violently to it.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.