"How to Properly Field Dress a Moose "
Ummmmmmmm. Shouldn't that be a Donkey,Greek?

I watched Fred Thompson's speech. It truly was impressive, a good ole fashion stumper. (Now if Harper can give a speech like that!)

Joe Lieberman had a tough act to follow but he didn't pull any punches.

Boy, when Fred Thompson is 'on' is he ever 'ON'! He'd been lacklustre as a foot-dragging candidate leading up to the primaries but he redeemed himself tonight with a barnburner of a speech.

*sigh* I'm so split. On the one side, McCain/Palin have intelligence, experience, character, and good economic sense. On the other side, they're hardcore bible-thumpers, especially Palin, whose recent comments (particularly about sex-education and abortion) make Bush look like an Atheist. I know that more religious brainwashing in the US can only be a negative thing for everyone ... but Obama's brand of brainwashing isn't any better.

Luckily I don't get to vote in their elections anyway - otherwise I'd probably just say screw it and vote for Ralph Nader. When you're faced with a choice between pretty crazy, more crazy, and REALLY crazy, you may as well make things interesting and go with the worst.

Outstanding speech!

Thompson was amazing. Why don't we have passionate speakers like that in Canada? Sigh.

I heard Lieberman speak and he tore into Obama. Wow, the Dems won't like that. And he sits in their caucus!!! Blitzer was dumbfounded. He's sure to blabber on about that for days.

Can't wait for McCain and Palin speeches.

I just watched it. Fred was hot. Great tribute. Well done.

"Obama's brand of brainwashing" means dispensing with any higher standard of behavior than human behavior itself. Obama represents the side that self-servingly sets the bar low. You can have it.

I agree with your point about the level of their religious faith, Alex, but respectfully point out that McCain and Palin seem to have "intelligence, experience, character, and good economic sense", using your words, despite the handicap of "religious brainwashing". So how bad could it be? And what is your estimation of Obama's "intelligence, experience, character, and good economic sense"?

the Obama, pelosi, and reid present the most target rich environment for th gop since, well, ever - not even McGovern in'72 had as many flaws.

on the flip side, mccain and palin cannot be atacked for the sins of the GOP senate and congress as they were both outsiders fighting to change them (as were most of the conservative base hence the huge levels of support for this ticket). And to criticize the gop on iraq, AGW and drilling is to cut off one's nose to spite one's face - you lose as many voters as you gain.

And the promises that BO made his speech last thursday are either wholly laughably unachieveable - being independent from mid-east oil in ten years - or simple retreads of the same socialist/pro-union and other special interests dem policies like more $$ for education (I found this comment on another site and frankly it blew my mind:

"He wants to improve schools by doing nothing more than adding money to a failing system. The Baltimore school system spends more than $1.6 million per child before they enter the 9th grade yet less than 1% meet the state standard for Algebra -- keep in mind this means the school is spending more than $43 million per a class of 300 students. How much more money will ensure success?")

These next few weeks could be great fun (both north and) south of the border.

On the other side, they're hardcore bible-thumpers...

Seriously? They make bush look like an atheist??!! What are you on? Palin's an evangelical, more or less same category as Bush. McCain considers himself Christian, but from this interview:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/180/story_18040_1.html
he sounds closer to deism than Christian orthodoxy.

Mike James:

As long as they maintain Bush's policy of keeping government and religion mostly separate, I won't have a problem with them. I'm just worried that, with the resurgence of evangelism in the US, they might try to do something really stupid like replacing all sex-ed programs with "abstinence only" nonsense, outlawing abortion, or creating a federal mandate to teach "intelligent design" in science classrooms. Plus with them in office we're unlikely to see much headway on other issues, such as stem-cell research.

Other than that, I think they're both great people, and have good goals and intentions. But even the best of intentions can go horribly wrong when they're based on blind faith.

As for Obama, I think he's got the substance and personal appeal of a fart. The word "Obamessiah" was a perfect description - all rhetoric and proselytizing, with zero thought or substance. He mostly worries me because NOBODY knows what he'll do when he gets into office. Even the democrats have no clue what he stands for.

Amazing speech. God bless America and John McCain and Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson and, well Joe Lieberman too!!

McCain/Palin '08

Video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKMH0XvFXDs

Link here for some Sarah pics...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/the_real_american_idol/article1640770.ece

What is this mysterious "abstinence-only" thing? I keep hearing about this 'scary' idea, but I have no idea what it means. Do they tell the kids not to have sex without explaining what it is? Can anybody explain what it actually entails instead of just sneering that it 'obviously' won't work because "ha, ha, this sounds like some sort of oppressive religious idea"?

I hardly ever watch CNN. Are those guys for real. Democrat journalists criticizing (what I saw) Lieberman's speech, then turn it over to Larry King for the Democrat reaction.

Taber and Oliver have nothing on this bunch.

Lieberman's speech was special because, while certainly partisan, it reached across party lines, within and without the GOP. He actually got the crowd to cheer Clinton. No doubt, as far as Dems concerned, he went over the line, and has lost his keys to caucuses.

He kind of stung Obama with his remark about voting against appropriations for the military while troops were on the ground in Iraq.

Maybe the truth hurts; expect to see much more of this theme as the campaign gears up.

The hyper critical CNN crowd meandered on about, you guessed it, Palin. After all, he hardly knew her and, hey lookie here, they disagree about some issues. There you go, better throw out the whole thing as partisan hogwash. Now over to Larry King to see what the Democrats think.

Gag me with a spoon. I hardly watch conventions and just caught the Lieberman speech, and thought it was brilliant, within its partisan intent, and only the most biased observer couldn't see it was an excellent speech.

Lierberman is right, American political parties have got to stop the bickering and learn to work together.

He could tell us a thing or two on that subject.

BTW, were the CNN gang as tough on the DNC speakers?

Don't worry about the bible thing. We have freedom 'from' religion too.

Consider that it is people like McCain who will fight to make sure you continue to have that right. His party does represent more individual freedom. That means you don't have to put up with anyone who is trying to beat you over the head with the 'good book'.

On the other hand, Obama would reign over a collective of collectives ... all rated and treated as such. It's an ugly gray world that Socialist collective and only close friends of government will prosper. Just like in Russia.

"Thompson was amazing. Why don't we have passionate speakers like that in Canada? Sigh." Louise at 11:21
We do; It's just that like Fred, the MSM will never reveal them. Let me drop a few names: Stockwell Day, Myron Thompson, Jack Ramsay, John Diefenbaker, all attacked by our MSM and sidelined.

My apologies Louise, I forgot to mention one of our best and most inspiring speakers. That is of course, Preston Manning.

I like Fred Thompson, but please - the man's an actor. He had a part to play tonight, and he played it very well. He could drum up the fire and enthusiasm for half-an-hour, but during the primaries, when he had the chance to be the next Ronald Reagan, he couldn't summon up the fire, and admitted as much.

The ability to make a great speech isn't as important to me as the ability to make great decisions. I'm sore afraid of the day when Justin Trudeau decides to enter politics. For all that I detested his father, I'll admit that PET could speak very well, in either language. Mulroney came close, but could never quite resist the urge for hyperbole. Clark, Chretien, Campbell, Martin, Turner - all of them were embarrassments to me each time they opened their mouths. Harper doesn't embarrass me, but he doesn't exactly inspire me, either. But Justin - I have no doubt that he'll be a good speaker, and the media will fawn all over him.

Remember that line from "Back to the Future" where Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown) exclaims: "No wonder the president is an actor; he's got to look good on TV!"? We've got to get away from demagoguery as a focus, and back to the important things: policy, integrity, and honesty. Otherwise, in another 8-10 years, we're going to be subjected to (and I mean that in every sense of the word) another Trudeau reign.

Ronald Reagan was an actor too... The best political orator Canada has had this century, most of you never heard, and that was John Diefenbacher.

And where do you get that Palin is an "evangelical"? She's simply a practicing Christian, unlike the majority of the Sunday only crowd, or is being an "evangelical" simply the newest slur for a regular church goer, and someone who lives by what they believe. How is it that the fundamental values still held by most of middle America, that founded and underpin the civilizations of North America have become so alien as to be scorned and derided by the "mainstream"?

Fantastic speech.

"Strength. Courage. Humility. Wisdom. Duty. Honour."

Why, oh why, are these not Canadian values?

No cognitive dissonance for Alex:

>On the one side, McCain/Palin have intelligence, experience, character, and good economic sense. On the other side, they're hardcore bible-thumpers...

Not to mention "crazy".

Atheists: remember, they're the smart, logical ones!

My wife and I are laying in bed, watching the speeches. When the "field dress a moose" line comes, i yell at the TV, "You think Teddy Roosevelt couldn't field dress a moose??". So then, after the applause, Thompson says "except for maybe Teddy Roosevelt". My wife does the usual "Calm down" but I felt vindicated!

Oh ya, I loved the part about taxes:

"They say 'We won't tax you, we won't tax your family. We'll tax businesses'. So unless you buy things from a business, like gas or groceries, or work for a business, large or small, you won't be affected".

I thought that was classic, until the bucket line.

Maybe somebody here could give us a "label" for the church that Mr. Barrack attends.I'm thinking some pretty strong preaching was going on there.Would they also be evangelicals?

We don't get them because they are not bilingual. John Crosbie would have been a fantastic prime minister.

I also loved Deborah Grey as a person (can't remember her as a speaker) who would have made a great prime minister.

"My wife and I are laying in bed,...i yell at the TV,... I felt vindicated!
Posted by: DAryl at September 3, 2008 7:46 AM"

Has it occurred to you yet that the GOP and the Bush administration have your bedroom bugged? Somewhere there are probably video tapes, too.

I always assume both parties have the room bugged. I yell at the Dem speeches also just in case, although my comments never seemed to made the grade and get in the speech.

Alex: "But even the best of intentions can go horribly wrong when they're based on blind faith."

What makes you think that McCain and Palin are going on "blind faith"? What makes you think that McCain's and Palin' having, in your very own words, "intelligence, experience, character, and good economic sense" isn't completely connected to their Christian faith, isn't BECAUSE of their Christian faith?

Christian faith is anything but "blind faith."

You're the one, Alex, who seems to be stumbling around in the dark, bumping into all kinds of cognitive dissonance (good one, Kathy).

"I always assume both parties have the room bugged. I yell at the Dem speeches also just in case, although my comments never seemed to made the grade and get in the speech.

Posted by: daryl at September 3, 2008 8:32 AM"

Your next visitor will be a representative from the Writers Union. You owe them some dues. Demand that your name gets into the credit roll at the end.

"How is it that the fundamental values still held by most of middle America, that founded and underpin the civilizations of North America have become so alien as to be scorned and derided by the "mainstream"?"

I don't think it's the mainstream. Athiest fundamentalists like Alex, certainly aren't. He equates Christian faith with "crazy," yet he's too myopic to realize that he belongs to a minority. A minority that many in the Christian majority might think is irrational, if not "crazy."

Wonder if Alex exhibited symptoms of Tourettes during the opening "Christian" prayer?

Robert Duval did a nice job narrating the opening film. Many truths pointed out about the history of the Republican party, including their beginnings as the "Anti-Slavery Party," which, of course, rightfully positions the Democrat beginnings: Racist, slave owners and proud sponsors of the KKK up until the late 1920's. A different kind of racism and bigotry prevails today, though cleverly disguised.

History = culture = destiny

DAryl - I can find more fun things to do when lying in my bed with my wife than listen to political speeches. That said, after 38 years of marriage, she has told me to settle down a time or two also.

"I don't think it's the mainstream."

That's the reason for my quote marks around the word. Somehow, a vast media conglomerate presumes to speak and define for an entire culture, values that most of the culture don't subscribe to. How does that come about? At the end of this campaign, a great many Americans may begin to say, as Kate has (and Palin likely will), "you don't speak for me".

Alex, I needed a laugh today and you've given it to me: "I'm just worried that, with the resurgence of evangelism in the US, they might try to do something really stupid like replacing all sex-ed programs with "abstinence only" nonsense, outlawing abortion, or creating a federal mandate to teach "intelligent design" in science classrooms. Plus with them in office we're unlikely to see much headway on other issues, such as stem-cell research."
Your personal antipathy to the message of Jesus Christ is your business but the 'worry' you are expressing is over the top fear mongering. The President and VP don't make those decisions, as you know.
Abstinence should be taught, only because it was removed by the free love lefties.
Abortion is the killing of unborn and now newborn babies, and was always considered murder. Encouraging young women to abort their babies is another gift from the free love/no responsibility lefties.
Evolution isn't a scientific theory but rather is taught at such and creation, which is supported by a large number of scientists, is banned. And the left love to ban what they fear. No intelligent discourse allowed.
Stem-cell research can be done without killing a baby. Problem is, lefties prefer to ignore the alternatives.
Your real fear will be when the entire congress and senate become fundamental, evangelical, bible believing, spirit-filled revivalists. Now, that's 'scary'.

Gellen, you're not helping. Evolution certainly is a scientific theory, (real theory, not some flippant hypothesis -learn the difference). Gov Palin's position isn't creationist; she endorses the teaching of competitive viewpoints, a point she corrected the same day the discussion came up, and which all of the leftogynists blithely chose to ignore.

McCain and Palin seem to have "intelligence, experience, character, and good economic sense", using your words, despite the handicap of "religious brainwashing".

The most startling sentence I ever read by the genius F.A. Hayek contained the supposition that perhaps religious people are more likely to accept free markets and capitalism. Why? Because much as "god works in mysterious ways" so does the unorganized chaos of the free market in delivering spontaneous order and the abundance that flows from this. It's a mystery you need a certain amount of humility to accept. Religious people have this humility.

I say that despite being a atheist myself.

So Fred's an actor,so what,Obama acts like he knows what he's talking about all the time.

Thompson and Palin 2008 !

Great speech, it "blows" Slick Willies gasbag pontification out of the water.

McCain "respect he is given is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appease America's critics abroad"

Obbamesiah "Most liberal, most inexperienced, nominee to ever run for president"

Where are Canada's politicians?
Where are our speech givers beyond the lofty "Da Proof is da proof" nonsense.

God Bless America for showing us what real politicians should be.

"On the other side, they're hardcore bible-thumpers,"

Like the people who founded the country you live in. Maybe alex could move to Russia just to be safe.

"Christian faith is anything but 'blind faith.'"

lol

That was cute :)

Re:

Posted by: Skip at September 3, 2008 12:45 PM

Skip, your comment was really the only one worth addressing. First, thank you for sticking up for evolutionary theory ... but take it from me, those fanatical enough to hold "Gellen's" views aren't usually open to logic. As far as they're concerned, if it's not in the bible, it didn't happen - end of story.

Since you're obviously religious yourself, I'm not surprised that you've bought into the "teach the controversy" line. I will however appeal to you to think about the matter rationally. Do you truly believe that there is a scientific controversy over Evolutionary Theory? Or is the "Intelligent Design" argument, rather, a poorly masked attempt to quell the encroachment of science into what many people see as the domain of religion? Can you truly, as a rational and intelligent human being, state that you believe Intelligent Design to be a scientific theory which deserves equal time in the classrooms?

Lastly, regarding your earlier comment ... it's a misnomer to state that Christian values "founded and underpin the civilizations of North America". The US has never been more Christian than it is TODAY. That's a historical fact. The current "resurgence" didn't really begin until after WW2 - that's why the words "under God" weren't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. It's also why the constitution originally guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion - because the US population at the time was so varied in it's beliefs, this fundamental freedom was seen as crucial to having all communities and all people support the constitution. Christianity may have been the majority religion at the time of the founding of the US, but frankly, so what? England, France, and Spain were also mainly Christian, yet they continued to be imperialist monarchies for a LONG time after the US was founded. It's simply foolish to assume that Christianity was solely (or even mostly) responsible for the freedom and prosperity of the US.

Oh, and one more thing. You asked why I thought Gov. Palin was "evangelical" and the answer is ... well a number of things:

1. The first 5 sentences I ever heard her say included the words "this is God's country". Not really a good start.
2. She's in favor of institutionalized "abstinence education", which has been repeatedly shown to have no effect when added to the curriculum, and has been shown to correspond with an increase in teen pregnancy rates in places where it has replaced real sex-ed courses.
3. She's opposed to gay marriage.
4. She wants creationism taught in schools (although she did later reverse her opinion on this ... or so she says).

No matter what your opinion on any one of those views, when you combine them together they just scream "evangelist". I could be wrong about her ... but no matter what, she's clearly not going to be a big driving force for logic and critical thinking. As I said earlier, I like her as a person and I think she's quite intelligent ... I'm just worried she'll do some really stupid things because of her faith.

And for those of you who think they see some "dissonance" there ... I'm not going to call you idiots, but you're certainly being foolish. The 9/11 Hijackers were also very intelligent, well educated individuals. Religion is a great way to get people who are otherwise good and intelligent do do things which are evil and stupid.

"The 9/11 Hijackers were also very intelligent, well educated individuals. Religion is a great way to get people who are otherwise good and intelligent do do things which are evil and stupid."

So is moral and cultural equivalence.

Who's equivocating? It's called an "example". Please put your righteous indignation aside for a second, and read what I wrote instead of what you want to see.

alex. tell me what is wrong with the bible?

You're not serious, are you? Have you ever actually read it?

As literature, it's mediocre. As a historical document, it's an utter sham. And as any sort of moral guide, it's abhorrent. The Old Testament is the worst, but the new isn't exactly a shining beacon of morality either. Between them, they encourage slavery, the oppression of women, senseless murder, genocide, and the persecution of anyone who disagrees with your faith. A man is working on Sunday? Stone him. A woman commits adultery? Stone her. A crowd shows up at your door looking to rape your male guests? Offer them your virgin daughters instead.

Seriously, if you can honestly tell me that you think the bible is 100% correct, and that it should be the basis of modern morality, then you've either never read the dam thing or you're the most immoral person I've ever met. I find with most Christians it's the former - they truly have no idea what these books really say.

Alex,I am not religious in any sense. But I do believe what you are professing about the hard turn to fundemantalism is pure fear-mongering,playing the hidden agenda card. It works well because it is impossible to refute,but it is the refuge of the weak-minded.That's why the liberals in Canada are dusting it off again.

Fundemantalism? I wish I knew how to use spielcheck.

1. The stats don't lie - check them yourself.
2. Common sense tells you the same. Never in history have there been creationist museums; now we have two.
3. A "hidden agenda" is not a "card" - that sentence was nonsensical.
4. "Liberals in Canada" have been complaining about US fundamentalism for a long, LONG time. That they're worried about having Evangelical presidents in the White House is no surprise, nor is it the sign of a "weak mind". It's simple common sense.

And before you go accusing me of being a "libtard" or whatever the newest idiotic insult is, you should probably know that I voted for Harper, and intend to vote for him again as soon as he calls an election.

Cheers.

Alex, you mustn't think that those who don't support your views as expressed in your comments are fanatical.
In all my years, I can honestly say that the most fanatical people I've met (in the west) since Hitler and his party are the group now classified as leftoids, or any version of the extreme "left'.
The election in the U.S. is revealing the dirty underbelly of the left. Obama's supporters are seemingly capable of anything, and this must be a painful revelation to those who don't fully appreciate the depths to which the 'fanatical' left will go.
I'm expecting the Clintons to follow Lieberman and vote for the McCain/Palin team. Even they have standards.

KevinB: "but please - the man's an actor". Yes, but what was he before he was an actor? There is true substance to Fred Thompson...dismissing him as an actor is ignorant foolishness. Check out his resume.

Alex: You say that both the old and new testaments are filled with abhorrent things (presumably based on your personal reading of them) and then you give examples ONLY from the old testament...completely without context, too. Please, if you have read the old and new testament (as I have, multiple times), then provide examples from the new testament that are not beacons of morality. I'm fairly confident that whatever example you provide can be shown to be taken out of context.

Read it carefully before you criticize what it says. Otherwise it is just blind ignorance.

Alex said: they might try to do something really stupid like replacing all sex-ed programs with "abstinence only" nonsense, outlawing abortion, or creating a federal mandate to teach "intelligent design" in science classrooms

As an atheist I would certainly share your concerns, but there is no concern. The Pres/VP simply do not have the power to legislate that sort of thing. Congress could try I suppose, but the Supremes would quickly kill such an attempt, and a good majority of Congresscritters would not support it anyway.

The only way to bring about such things would be a Constitutional Amendment. This is a very difficult process and the odds of it happening are 0. They can't even get any enthusiasm for an amendment to define that a marriage is between a man and a woman, even though a clear majority of Americans agree with it.

Go McCain/Palin !

"Who's equivocating?'

You equivocated fundamentalist Islamic violence with "Religion is a great way to get people who are otherwise good and intelligent do do things which are evil and stupid."

"Religion" in this case being Christianity which, for some irrational reason, you have a vile hate-on towards.

As for your 'summary' of the Bible and the relationship between the OT and NT, you obviously haven't read it, or can't comprehend it, as Eeyore pointed out.

Regardless, nothing less would be expected from a rabid and fundamentalist athiest. Odd how one often becomes the thing they most hate.

Skip, I just saw your comment: Gellen, you're not helping. Evolution certainly is a scientific theory, (real theory, not some flippant hypothesis -learn the difference). Gov Palin's position isn't creationist; she endorses the teaching of competitive viewpoints,
No. 1 - I'm not helping. Ouch, My humble apologies.
No. 2 - Evolution CERTAINLY IS a scientific theory. My challenge to you is: Prove it.
No. 3 - Gov Palin's position isn't creationist; she endorses the teaching of competitive viewpoints. My reply to you is: So do I. It is actually the evolutionists who have banned "competitive viewpoints". (Which, I humbly suggest, you know.)

I am puzzled at how the "enlightened" athiests posting here can add 1 + 1 and get 27. Teaching abstenance doesn't mean that they don't teach about sex and reproduction. It is mearly telling the kids that the only sure 100% method of birth control is abstenance. The "enlightened" folk also fear that someone who believes in God and Christ will somehow shove it down their throats.

The fact is that in the last eight years there has been more bending over backwards by government to appease the whiners who take offence to anything. Things like holiday trees, winter festival, changing a city logo because it has a cross on it even if the city logo is hundreds of years old. Or old statues and plaques with the ten commandments have been targeted. All has been done with GWB at the helm in the US.

And lest we think we are any better than our souithern cousins: Cap badges of military Chaplin corps having to change, prime ministers dictating that chaplins cannot refer to God at memorial services (Swissair 111), all this stuff and gay marriage too.

So Palin and McCain go to church, big deal. I don't personally care one way or the other but I will tell you this: They go to church because they believe, not for the photo op. Can you say the same about Crouton or Martinno?

Our countries have been built on Judeo-Christian principles and after a few hundred years, they haven't turned out all that bad.

Well said, Texas Canuck. Points that should be obvious, once the rational turbo charger is properly affixed to the brain.

Thanks, Texas Canuck. Like irwin daisy says, well said.

It's true: the Judeo-Christian values upon which all of our Western democracies have been built--through the sacrifice, blood, sweat, and tears of our forbears--haven't turned out all that bad.

We turn our backs on them at our peril.

"Eeyore": Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a context in which turning your virgin daughters over to be raped by a mob would be a GOOD thing. Can you explain that one to me? Contextualize it a bit?

While you're thinking about that, enjoy some quotes from the new testament, as per your request:

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Collosians 3:5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Collosians 3:6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience

Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire

Of course, the very idea of sending people to hell for not believing in your nonsense is in itself immoral, and the Bible is FULL of that. But you're right, the New Testament isn't as bad as the old. That doesn't make it good, though, and it's irrelevant anyway since the Christian church still clings to the validity of the Old Testament.

"Randall G": I certainly hope you're right. I know that the president can't legislate such matters, but he certainly can influence congress, and has certain legislative powers when it comes to passing bills.

"Irwin": No.

"Texas Canuck": I'm not suggesting that abstinence and sex-ed are mutually exclusive - it's the religious fundies who do that. That's why they call it "Abstinence only education", and not "Abstinence advocacy and sexual education". If you want to tell kids not to have sex, go for it. I think it's an exercise in futility, but you're welcome to waste your breath. Just don't stop us from teaching them the things they need to know if they DO decide to have sex.

As for our country being built on Judeo-Christian values ... so was Nazi Germany. Does the phrase "Gott mit uns" ring a bell? You're mistaking correlation with causation, which makes a farce of your attempt at making a reasoned argument.

Gosh, Alex...a bit vitriolic, aren't you? Please give the chapter and verse for the raping the virgin daughters bit and I'll try to get back to you.

Regarding Colossians 3:22 - Does it say "it is good to be slaves"? It doesn't. Slavery was a fact of life 2000 years ago...as a Christian, you are instructed to submit to the government, to your masters, to God...your earthly body is just a shell that will be cast off...it is your soul/spirit that matters. Paul didn't condone slavery...he acknowledged its existence. What did you want it to say? "Slaves, cast off your chains and kill your master"? Hardly meek and loving, is it.

Regarding Colossians 3:5, Paul is speaking figuratively about a believer "killing" his/her evil WAYS...not killing evil people. And 3:6 is talking about GOD inflicting the wrath...because 3:8 tells Christians to not be bad, but be good. You are reading it out of context.

Regarding Jude 1:7, again Jude is pointing out that GOD will inflict the punishment, not the believer.

Christians are to be the living example of Christ on earth and be meek, loving, kind, forgiving. And that is what the New Testament teaches completely and absolutely.

All your quotes are taken out of context. If you've got a problem with God passing judgment, then take it up with God, not the Christians. To put it in perspective, you are an ant who has a problem the kid with the magnifying glass but takes out his anger on the other ants.

To explain the old testament would take too long and I highly doubt you'd try to understand anyway.

I'm not a practicing Christian anymore, so I don't care what you believe...but please don't exhibit your ignorance so brazenly, its embarrassing for you.

Sorry Kate...off-topic, I know.

Ah, I see. So your idea of morality is that instead of telling people not to own slaves, we should tell slaves to behave themselves.

Makes perfect sense!

Sorry, wrong answer. If you'd have shown yourself to be a reasonable individual, perhaps we could have continued this. As it is, it's clear that you'll perform any feat of mental gymnastics required to justify your beliefs, and I'm just not interested in hearing your excuses.

Oh, and the quote you requested? Judges 19:

22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

He then goes on to talk about the man killing and carving up his concubine into 12 pieces. Some awesome moral guidance there.

As I said, I'm really not interested in your excuses, but I'm wondering how you're going to "contextualize" this one. Should be good for a laugh.

Oh and I loved the "kid with a magnifying glass" analogy :)

Just to correct you a bit:

My problem is with the kid with the magnifying glass. My problem is with the ants who insist that they can talk to the kid with the magnifying glass, that his will has been put down in a crappy set of books, and that he will come and burn me if I don't do what those books say.

Maybe ants can believe such ridiculous things, but no rational human being can.

Thanks for the laughs, though :)

Gee, Alex, it took a while but you managed to invoke Godwin's Law. I never said that ALL countries based in a Jude-Christian values turn out perfect and actually your Uncle Adolf isn't exactly representative of all of German history.

There are more democracies with a J-C background than say, Islamic ones.

I see that the bit about correlation vs. causation went right over your head. Somehow I'm not surprised.

You know, I'd really like to be able to go more than a few comments without having to either insult you or just give up in disgust ... but it's so goddamn difficult when you don't even seem to comprehend what I'm saying. I'd like to believe that I'm not surrounded by mental midgets, but you're making it REALLY difficult.

For the record, I KNOW that you weren't saying that "ALL countries based in a Jude-Christian values turn out perfect". I wasn't suggesting that that's what you were saying. What I was saying is that you've taken a correlation - the fact that the US happens to be largely Christian - and assumed that it's a causation, that it CAUSED the prosperity of the US.

That IN ITSELF is a logical fallacy. Just like it would be a logical fallacy if I stated that Nazi Germany turned out the way it did because it was based on Judeo-Christian values. Or if I were to notice that many dictators happen to have mustaches, and therefore conclude that their mustaches make them evil. That would be me assuming an invalid causation.

Are you getting the picture yet? Do you see why comments like your earlier one are invalid?

Alex, as I suspected, you aren't interested in discussing or debating. You've already made your mind up and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

You are quite wrong in your views, but I don't care. Flame away in ignorance. In case no one has told you lately, you're an ignorant a**hole.

Yeah, the Muslims also think that I'm an ignorant a**hole :) Thanks for the compliment.

Oh, it's not just the Muslims, Alex. And you're welcome.