Search for posts by bmxninja357

Kevin Annett. wearing collars and taking dollars.

lets start by going back to the 90's. as good a place to start as any. here we have kevin getting defrocked and its as good a place to start as any.

Responses to claims made by Kevin Annett

The following are the official BC Conference responses to claims made by Kevin Annett and articles in community newspapers.

June 25, 2001 "letter from Deb Bowman to churches in BC Conference"

April 17, 2001 "letter from Deb Bowman to members of BC Conference"

July 18, 2000 "Holocaust Denial In Canada", Times Colonist, July 16, 2000

September 26, 1997 letter from Roger Clark, Secretary General of Amnesty International stating that Amnesty International is in no way involved in the "case" of the Rev. Kevin Annett.

September 24, 1997 letter to the Vancouver Courier by Keith Howard.

September 16, 1997 letter of Brian Thorpe

September 16, 1997 letter of Brian Thorpe to the Vancouver Sun.

Formal Hearing Panel, August 1996 re: Kevin Annett

from the last link: "Then I knew, without a doubt, Kevin had a serious problem that was out of control. Kevin's letter of resignation was bizarre and irrational. I asked him how he could say that working with us jeopardized his personal and spiritual integrity and then closed by saying that he'd be with us for another six months. He said he needed the wages. I couldn't see where his argument for integrity stood up when money took the upper hand."-(Ms. Bernadette Wyton)

more to come. much, much more.

peace,

ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

This Woman Was Fined for Feeding the Homeless

This Woman Was Fined for Feeding the Homeless — And Her Response Was Legendary
April 16, 2015

"Joan Cheever, a San Antonio woman, accused police of infringing on her religious liberty after authorities issued her a citation Tuesday for feeding the homeless. She may now face a penalty of up to $2,000.

"I have a legal right to do this," Cheever told police officer Mike Marrota, Texas Public Radio reported. When Marrota asked what she meant, Cheever dropped none other than the state's own Religious Freedom and Restoration Law.

"I have a law degree, I gave them, memorandums of law telling them why they can't do this," Cheever told Mic."

read the whole item: http://mic.com/articles/115664/a-texas-woman-is-using-the-religious-freedom-law-in-the-best-way-possible

an interesting item. personally i have an iron in the fire on such things due to an ongoing project. what are your thoughts on this?

peace,

ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: Santos Bonacci

thanks for the recap on the current santos situation. when i get some spare time im going to go back and see if i can find what lead santos(sam) down his current path and at what point people started listening to him and why. he is kind of an anomaly to me as he has flocks in other fields of 'astrotheology', ufology and flamenco guitar.

good recap and im sure more will be added as time passes. so far he has gotten further convictions in his absence so when he is caught he has made it worse for himself.

but again its a case of 'its unfair to me' instead of what it should be, 'its unfair to the people'. he should have fought the legislation itself (for the good of all involved if that is what he truly belives) without getting into very expensive trouble.

peace,
ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: The Basic Definition

good to see you wessera, and congrats. you broke the ice and made the first post on this site!

i find your question to be a very good one and it just might be more complex than any one thinks it is. the difference, i belive should (note i said should) lay in the activism. the willingness to not stand by when others are abused by any of the arms of government (or anyone else). the willingness to find a issue and attempt to make changes so it is no longer an issue. presenting actual evidence researched from valid sources so as to change the current situation for a more free, peaceful, fair and just society. there are many things that require taking a stand. the catch is many are unwilling or unable to do that. the world does a good job at keeping folks in general either to ignorant or to scared to even try to effect any change or even draw attention to the problem. i belive the original intent was for the freeman on the land movement to be the ones willing to empower others to stand up against a seemingly endless string of legal, political, financial, military, etc. systems that are not good for the people in general; many also restricting what can be seen as basic rights and freedoms. in short, it started with good intentions.

and then it went down hill....

what we have now is a very few with the original intent. many want a free ride. many think the world owes them a living. many think they should enjoy more freedoms than their neighbours. it really should be about changing things for everyone, not how do i get a free (insert thing here).

i will leave it at that for now and continue this further as it pops into my head.

thanks for the question!
peace,
ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining