My (maternal) grandmother was born in WV ...
I missed this little quip in the first read, and confess that I have no idea what you're talking about - but then again, I remember very few of the details in older posts I've made over the past 10 years. However, I'm sure you can refresh my memory, even though the subject matter has nothing to do with life in Appalachia.
As RLENT pointed out, it was Iraq, not Afghanistan. And you're right, it's off topic in this thread. I'm sure it will get brought up again somewhere else.
Because people are people and they have a right, within reason, to make comments or ask questions about things they feel are important. Because it's not an attempt to hijack a thread or change the topic. If we cut people off every time they made a comment that was slightly off topic then these forums would quickly come to a grinding halt. The question you just asked is one that changes the topic, though, because it requires an answer. But it's not one that requires a lot of discussion, so it shouldn't change the topic for very long or derail the thread.
Good - I'd like to see the post I made claiming the invasion of Iraq was "done to protect the US constitution". However, I'm not going to be holding my breath since I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
Actually the so what comment was in reference to Rlent's post. So your facts are wrong on that count. I just don't think because there are no female priests, it isn't a good example of how the Christian religion is abusing women. It's a tradition. Just like nuns are women and friars are men. That is all. Regarding the gay priests abusing little boys. The reason there might be more incidents than gay women priests is because the gay male priests have close proximity to little boys. Regarding not answering questions. You have not answered questions before also in other posts so what does that say about your credibility?
Actually the so what comment was in reference to Rlent's post. So your facts are wrong on that count.
It was Turtle, not RLENT - your facts are wrong. And even though it was Turtle's comment you quoted, it was my question about priests that he was responding to. And you claimed that nuns hit people upside the head with their habits, which begs another question: are they wearing them when they do that?
I just don't think because there are no female priests, it isn't a good example of how the Christian religion is abusing women. It's a tradition. Just like nuns are women and friars are men. That is all.
Please stop saying "abusing" - that's not what I said. What I said is repressing, and that it's just as damaging as Sharia, only the damage isn't so obvious.
Regarding the gay priests abusing little boys. The reason there might be more incidents than gay women priests is because the gay male priests have close proximity to little boys.
The priests who sexually abuse children are not gay. Their proximity to children is their only recourse to the normal human desire for sex, because other adults would shame them. The whole vow of chastity thing is unnatural, which makes pedophiles of men, same as prison makes men gay, because it's the only way to have sex. Otherwise, it wouldn't be their choice.
Regarding not answering questions. You have not answered questions before also in other posts so what does that say about your credibility?
So you would disagree with Cheri's opinion as well that the whole chastity thing is unnatural, and makes pedophiles of men? Having celebate gay priests doesn't sexually repress them enough to eventually act on their impulses in some cases?
Having celibate straight priests does the same thing, clearly.
You're the one who made the public insinuation in this thread about an unrelated post I supposedly made in the not-so-recent past and didn't explain, so it would seem logical that a public clarification would be in order - especially since you and your little friend are having a public conversation about an inaccurate post I may or may not have made. In the meantime I'll continue to wait for my serving of crow, either in the open or by PM if you prefer.
