draggonlaady

Ann Coulter's damnramblings are indented. My comments aren't.

Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.

What's the proper word for irrational hatred of a religion? The equivalent of racism?
We could dispense with airport security; nobody who's not a Muslim has EVER done anything bad on an airplane, I'm certain of it. Wouldn't it make more sense to re-structure airport security into something that shows some signs of being effective?

Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" -- coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.

Quite coincidentally--since thousands of Muslims say their evening prayers every evening without blowing anything up.

Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.

As if half of the people in this country HAVEN'T been talking about Saddam Hussein? He's been all over the news again since the trial passed judgement. And in case Ms. Coulter hasn't noticed, a very large section of the population regularly denounces the president, the government, and the war in Iraq. Also--interesting sidenote: I know several people who DO file wills before travelling, I've even been the witness signature for a few--not because they were planning to go out in a blaze of glory, but just in case the boat sank or the engine fell off the plane.

After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.

Also they were Muslims.

Every airline I've ridden on assigns seating--you don't get to pick who you sit with unless you bought the tickets together. So how is this the imam's doing?
What does she think they're going to do with seatbelt extensions? turn them into a giant sling shot to fling bodies at the cockpit door? A little paranoia is a healthy thing, but that's just crazy.
Most likely they had one way tickets because they were on their way home from a convention. OOOH! scary. I'm more confused by the three who had round trip tickets, myself.
As for the baggage thing--so fucking what? It's a pain to get baggage checked, and the majority of times I've flown, I didn't check any. And I have yet to hijack a single plane.

The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.

How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? we can't--which is why there's no reasoning with Ann Coulter.

Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways.

It worked with me. US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline.

Hmm. I think I shall have to start referring to people as "God-spouting" now. Doesn't that just make you want to sing the Little Teapot song? Remind me when I'm feeling creative to re-write that song in honor of AC.

The clerics had been attending an imam conference in Minneapolis (imam conference slogan: "What Happens in Minneapolis -- Actually, Nothing Happened in Minneapolis"). But instead of investigating the conference, the government is now investigating my favorite airline.

OH! there's the childish insult I've been waiting for! She's slow in this rant--usually she's dropped to 3rd grade taunts by the second paragraph.
But what I think she's saying here is that the governement should be sending people to investigate religious conferences. We have to play fair here, this is Land of the Free and all... so lets get right on that; start a department to do nothing but investigate all the religious conferences in the country.

What threat could Muslims flying from Minnesota to Arizona be?

Three of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 received their flight training in Arizona. Long before the attacks, an FBI agent in Phoenix found it curious that so many Arabs were enrolled in flight school. But the FBI rebuffed his request for an investigation on the grounds that his suspicions were based on the same invidious racial profiling that has brought US Airways under investigation and into my good graces.

Hmm. So... 16 of them DIDN'T go to Arizona. yup. definitely Arizona's a suspicious destination. On a sort of related note: there was a distinct statisical anomaly in my graduating class--a much higher than could be expected number of Mormons from Idaho. By AC's logic, I guess that means that Mormons are going to start bombing vetschools soons.

Lynne Stewart's client, the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is serving life in prison in a maximum security lock-up in Minnesota. One of the six imams removed from the US Airways plane was blind, so Lynne Stewart was the one missing clue that would have sent all the passengers screaming from the plane.

Actually, I think the thing keeping people from running screaming from the plane is called "sanity".

Wholly apart from the issue of terrorism, don't we have a seller's market for new immigrants? How does a blind Muslim get to the top of the visa list? Is there a shortage of blind, fanatical clerics in this country that I haven't noticed? Couldn't we get some Burmese with leprosy instead? A 4-year-old could do a better job choosing visa applicants than the U.S. Department of Immigration.

How does someone make themselves so completely blind to rationality as AC has? Does she really think there are no US born Muslims?

One of the stunt-imams in US Airways' advertising scheme, Omar Shahin, complained about being removed from the plane, saying: "Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."

Yes, especially when there was a whole conference of them! Six out of 150 is called "poor law enforcement." How did the other 144 "scholars" get off so easy?

I'll second the "poor law enforcement" but in exactly the opposite direction of AC's intent--since when did discussing politics and praying become cause for arrest? Guess there could be advantages to it though; AC herself ought to land in a cell soon. Maybe she can share one with Mr. Phelps.

Shahin's own "scholarship" consisted of continuing to deny Muslims were behind 9/11 nearly two months after the attacks. On Nov. 4, 2001, the Arizona Republic cited Shahin's "skepticism that Muslims or bin Laden carried out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon." Shahin complained that the government was "focusing on the Arabs, the Muslims. And all the evidence shows that the Muslims are not involved in this terrorist act."

She's got nothing more recent than 5 years ago? Well hello; how many things that "all the evidence" pointed towards at that time have since been proved false? Lets start with the list of things Mr. President Bush was spouting, shall we?

In case your memory of that time is hazy, within three days of the attack, the Justice Department had released the names of all 19 hijackers -- names like Majed Moqed, Ahmed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi and Ahmed Alnami. The government had excluded all but 19 passengers as possible hijackers based on extensive interviews with friends and family of nearly every passenger on all four flights. Some of the hijackers' seat numbers had been called in by flight attendants on the planes.

Newsflash for Ms. Coulter: Arab does not equal Muslim. US does not equal Christian. Asian does not equal Buddhist. And if I recall, the Muslim churches by and large stood out to denounce the actions of the hijackers.

By early October, bin Laden had produced a videotape claiming credit for the attacks. And by Nov. 4, 2001, the New York Times had run well over 100 articles on the connections between bin Laden and the hijackers -- even more detailed and sinister than the Times' flowcharts on neoconservatives!

Also, if I remember correctly, al Qaeda had taken out full-page ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter thanking their agents for the attacks.

Oh, crap! an advertisement definitely prooves everything. I'm sorry I doubted!
Back to the generalizations: most Muslims don't support al Qaeda, so once again, I'm doubting that the imams in question consider the hijackers or any other follower of bin Laden to be members of their church.

But now, on the eve of the busiest travel day in America, these "scholars" have ginned up America's PC victim machinery to intimidate airlines and passengers from noticing six imams chanting "Allah" before boarding a commercial jet.

Yeah, because why should they notice that? Any more than I should call the cops everytime the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door?
If I lived closer to an airport, I'd be very tempted to try and organize a group of people from as many different religions as I could find to sit in the terminal and pray aloud. See how many of us got arrested for daring to wish good blessings and safe travel on everybody there over thanksgiving.
And honestly--if the fuss and mess after 9/11 didn't put all the airlines out of business, I seriously doubt that there will be enough "intimadated airlines and passengers" to make a detectable dent in the typical holiday traffic this year.

On that note--I'm off to my folks' for dinner. Hope you all have a great day!

So by signing up for Ann Coulter's email thingo, I also apparently signed myself up as a member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." No, really, they call themselves that. And the VRWC sends out MANY adverts about books they think you should be reading. The following is one of the emails I got today, and the thoughts I had on it...because, you know, I had a strong father and I'd like to think I'm a strong daughter. My comments are indented.

( <bStrong Fathers, Strong Daughters: Ten Secrets Every Father Should Know</b> )

Any other daughters out there got comments on the influence their fathers had? Hell, let's not be sexist...sons, you can comment too!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756611/site/newsweek/

Politics: 'St. Jack' Examines His Conscience—And Party

Sept. 18, 2006 issue - Jack Danforth once stood at the intersection of religion and politics. He was a moderate Republican, three-term senator, diplomat. He is also an Episcopal priest, so pious that his Senate colleagues called him "St. Jack." With his new book "Faith and Politics," in stores next week, Danforth—now 70 and retired—positions himself as an outsider. He takes his own beloved party to task for allowing itself to be hijacked by the Christian right.

This conviction took hold the spring of 2005 as he watched the coverage of the Terri Schiavo case on TV. "The idea that religious groups were having rallies and that the members of Congress were considering legislation and that the president was very much involved—I remember watching that and thinking, This is just wrong," he told NEWSWEEK. Danforth quickly wrote two controversial opinion pieces for The New York Times, rebuking his party for adopting the agenda of the religious right and for using wedge issues—Schiavo, but also stem-cell research, gay marriage and public prayer—to gain votes. Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them, he says, and "an assumption that ... I am God's chosen messenger to deliver a certain political message is divisive."

It's hard to see his book as anything but a condemnation, but he denies that it's an attack on the religious rhetoric of President George W. Bush or his administration. "I like President Bush," he says. "I don't think it's helpful to try to blame one person or another or try to accuse one person of being a liar or another of being a coward."

The book is surprisingly confessional. He writes of his personal anguish as a young man over whether to become a priest when he thought he really wanted to be a lawyer; he wound up doing both. Danforth tells of being insensitive in public (mentioning the Holy Spirit during a speech at Yale graduation) and in private (hurrying his wife to a black-tie dinner minutes after she'd had a terrifying run-in with thugs). Most revelatory are his recollections of his role in the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991. A devoted friend and supporter of Thomas's, Danforth did everything he could to discredit Anita Hill. "I am a real admirer of Clarence Thomas," he says, "and ... I found myself in this fight and I felt really beleaguered. It was a fight without any rules. It was a brawl, and I'm sorry I was involved in it, but I was. Would I have done it differently? I don't know. It was.... It was the worst thing I've ever done in my life." He's not taking it back, but he is taking a hard look at his conscience, which is some-thing he wishes his peers would do as well.

—Lisa Miller
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

The sentence in this that most caught my attention was: "Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them". I truely wish more Christians (for that matter, people of ANY religion) would come to realize this as truth.

If you follow the above through the Newseek site, there is a link to an excerpt from Mr. Danforth's book. I'm not cut-and-pasting the whole thing, but it is worth going and reading. Below is a statement that I think is worth repeating and spreading about. All credit, of course, to Mr. Danforth for the phrasing.

Moderate Christians have failed to follow that advice to the point of being oddly silent in response to the Christian Right. It is time for a clear statement of what we believe, a statement we repeat relentlessly and a statement that expresses the strength of our convictions:

* We believe in a large God, a transcendent God, a God who cannot be shrunken by political activists and stuffed into their own agendas.
* We believe that no one should presume to embody God’s truth, including ourselves. We acknowledge that our political programs, however prayerfully inspired, are no more than our best efforts to be faithful to God, and that we should pursue them with humility.
* We believe that God’s truth is expansive enough to embrace conflicting opinions, even on hot-button issues, even of people with whom we vehemently disagree.

From the July 31 Newsweek. Article by Jonathan Alter.

( Once the 'pro-cure' movement clarifies and penetrates, it will be hard to stand firm against saving the lives of your constituents. )

Fred Phelps and his crew of psychotically conservative christians have been protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers because they think that God is killing the soldiers in Iraq for the sin of fighting in the name of a country that harbors gay people. How does this make sense in ANY logic, even logic as obviously tortured as Phelps'? Does he seriously think that any country can start a war and NOT get back dead soldiers?

So thanks and thoughts out for the bikers who're getting organized and standing up to Phelps' minions.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21/funeral.motorcyclists.ap/index.html

This is the same s&*!head that protested at Mr. Rogers' memorial service and Matthew Shepard's funeral. Also the genius behind the "thank God for 9/11" demonstrators. Apparently he's got a long-standing feud with people "morally corrupt" enough to die. I wonder if that means he thinks he's immortal.

This man, by the way, thinks that BUSH is too liberal, and refers to him as a "fag-pimp".

http://www.blacktable.com/daulerio030401.htm

More words of wisdom from one of my heros. Any typos are my fault.

The Last Word
Anna Quindlen

From Newsweek, Dec 26-Jan 2

According to the story, a little more than 2,000 years ago a baby was born in a stable in Bethlehem while his young parents were in town for a nationwide census. Because of the influx of visitors, there were no rooms available in the more traditional places. Humble beginnings notwithstanding, the story continues, the baby grew to be a man who healed the sick, raised at least one friend from the dead, was crucified by the ruling powers and was then himself resurrected. His name was Jesus.

Depending on where you stand, that story is the tale of a prophet, a political agitator or the Messiah, the son of God made man. It is either a myth or the great news, either ancient history, fiction or Gospel. What's beyond dispute is that it has endured through the ages, while the pantheistic stories of other great civilizations became lost to all except those studying the classics. Horrific wrongdoing by the people who embraced the story has not been able to kill it: the Inquisition, the Holocaust. The many schisms among its followers have not destroyed it: Luther's manifesto, Henry VIII's marriages. And today it cannot be tarnished by sheer foolishness, much as some of its loudest champions seem willing to try.

If God is watching us, as some believers suggest, as though we were a television show and God had a lot of free time, the deity would surely be bemused by how dumbed-down devotion has sometimes become in this so-called modern era. How might an omnipotent being with the long view of history respond to those who visit the traveling exhibit of a grilled-cheese sandwich, sold on eBay, that is said to bear the image of the Virgin Mary? It certainly argues against intelligent design, or at least intelligent design in humans.

Or what about the statue in California currently said to be crying bloody tears? On the Gulf Coast thousands are still living with wrenching dislocation during this holiday season, and throughout the country the cold and hungry will pour into soup kitchens and shelters for a Christmas meal. Why worry about the alleged weeping of a plaster effigy when so many actual human beings have reason to cry?

According to the story, the Messiah was sent to save us from our sins, but clearly not our silliness. Right after Election Day, which apparently is a holiday you can find in Leviticus, Pat Robertson, the host of "The 700 Club," rained down rage on the citizens of Dover, Pa. The townspeople had elected a slate of school-board members who supported the teaching of evolution, apparently believing that science should be taught in science classes. Robertson brought dire warnings of devine tit for tat: "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God; you just rejected him from your city." I wonder: if God were to deign to speak to us through a cable-TV-show host, would it be Pat Robertson, who once predicted Orlando, Fla. could be hit by a meteor for flying the gay-pride flag? Wouldn't it be more likely to be Jon Stewart, or even Rachael Ray? Surely the audience share would be larger.

The cycle of the devotional year has once again wound around to the anniversary of the Nativity, and now the foolishness is all fa-la-la-la. It is surprising to discover that some believe the enduring power of the story of the child born in Bethlehem to be so shaky that it must be shored up by plastic creches in town squares and middle-school concerts. Apparently, conservative critics are also exercised by the fact that various discount stores have failed to pay homage to the baby in the manger, in their advertisements, their labeling and even their in-store greetings.

It is hard for me to figure out how a snub by a home-improvement center can diminsh Christmas one iota. A flu epidemic carried off as many as 50 million people around the world in the early part of the 20th century, surely a disaster to shake the faith of even the most devout. Yet the holy day endured. Through plague and war, famine and invasion, the tale was told and the lesson learned, of love for neighbors, of charity toward the poor. Carols were sung in foxholes and prisons.

O ye of little faith, who believe that somehow the birth of Christ is dependent upon acknowledgement in a circular from OfficeMax! According to the story, Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple, saying that they'd made his father's house into a den of thieves. By any stretch of the imagination, does that person sound like someone who would hanker to be formally recognized at Sears and Walgreens, as though his legacy depended upon being given pride of place among redundant hand appliances and teddy bears in Santa hats?

Target is not a temple (although I do pray that the Isaac Mezrahi ling of cheap chic will be expanded), and the star of Bethlehem was nothing like a blue-light special. As the pope recently noted, "commercial pollution" is contrary to the spirit of the season and the message of Christmas. For those things, see Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the greatest story never sold. It's an insult to the power and the glory of faith to seek it in fried foods, statuary or the perfunctory greetings of overworked store clerks. If I ever go to Costco looking for religion, I'll know my Christmas goose is cooked.

None of this is by me, all credit to Dan Savage... just thought I'd toss it up here for any of you that don't follow his column (my opinion...you should. check it out at theonionavclub.com or look for The Stranger in paper or online.)


STRAIGHT RIGHTS UPDATE: As I mentioned a few months ago, a vaccine for two of the most common strains of HPV, the virus that causes genital warts, is currently moving through the federal approval process. HPV can also cause cervical cancer in women, and the cancers caused by the virus kill 4,000 American women every year. Who could possibly be against the introduction of a vaccine—one that has proven 100 percent effective in clinical tests!—that will save thousands of women's lives every year? Those "culture of life" assfucks, that's who.

"A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates [and] social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity," the Washington Post reported last week. Doctors want teenage girls to receive the vaccine as a matter of routine when they hit puberty, something the religious right opposes. "Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage... 'I've talked to some who have said, "This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,"' said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations." (To his credit, Rudd said he would want his daughters vaccinated.)

The right's abstinence message has bigger problems than this vaccine. Studies have shown that young men and women are still having premarital sex—no shit—despite the billions of dollars the Bush administration has poured into abstinence education. A study conducted at Texas A&M University found that kids who've been subjected to abstinence-only sex education, the right's preferred brand, have more sex than kids who aren't subjected to abstinence-only sex education. So what the right is saying is this: We're willing to kill American women in order to avoid "sabotaging" our ineffectual abstinence-only message. Nice.

Who ultimately gets to determine the government's position on the HPV vaccine? Thanks to George W. Bush, the Christian fundies do. From the Washington Post: "The jockeying [around the HPV vaccine] reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus On The Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used." W stands for women—that's what he told us when he ran for president. But, hey, it wasn't a lie. George W. Bush never said anything about standing for live women.

I've said it before, straight folks, and I'll say it again: The right-wingers and the fundies and the sex-phobes don't just have it in for the queers. They're coming for your asses too.

Copyright 2005, Onion Inc. All Rights Reserved

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and GREG MYRE DraggonLaady's comments in italics

From New York Times online

Published: March 31, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/international/worldspecial/31gay.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=194620d9287464bc&ex=1269925200&partner=rssuserland

International gay leaders are planning a 10-day WorldPride festival and parade in Jerusalem in August, saying they want to make a statement about tolerance and diversity in the Holy City, home to three great religious traditions.

Now major leaders of the three faiths - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - are making a rare show of unity to try to stop the festival. They say the event would desecrate the city and convey the erroneous impression that homosexuality is acceptable.

"They are creating a deep and terrible sorrow that is unbearable," Shlomo Amar, Israel's Sephardic chief rabbi, said yesterday at a news conference in Jerusalem attended by Israel's two chief rabbis, the patriarchs of the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian churches, and three senior Muslim prayer leaders. "It hurts all of the religions. We are all against it."

Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik, added: "We can't permit anybody to come and make the Holy City dirty. This is very ugly and very nasty to have these people come to Jerusalem."

Israeli authorities have not indicated what action, if any, they might take to limit the events. Banning the festival would seem unlikely, though the government could withhold the required permits for specific events, like a parade.

Interfaith agreement is unusual in Israel. The leaders' joint opposition was initially generated by the Rev. Leo Giovinetti, an evangelical pastor from San Diego who is both a veteran of the American culture war over homosexuality and a frequent visitor to Israel, where he has formed relationships with rabbis and politicians.

Organizers of the gay pride event, Jerusalem WorldPride 2005, said that 75 non-Orthodox rabbis had signed a statement of support for the event, and that Christian and Muslim leaders as well as Israeli politicians were expected to announce their support soon. They said they were dismayed to see that what united their opponents was their objection to homosexuality.

"That is something new I've never witnessed before, such an attempt to globalize bigotry," said Hagai El-Ad, the executive director of Jerusalem Open House, a gay and lesbian group that is the host for the festival. "It's quite sad and ironic that these religious figures are coming together around such a negative message."

Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, co-chairwoman of the festival and the rabbi of Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, a gay synagogue in New York City, said the controversy was another sign that each religion had become polarized between its liberal and conservative wings.

The global Anglican Communion split deeply over homosexuality in the last two years after its American affiliate ordained an openly gay bishop and the Canada affiliate decided to allow blessings of same-sex unions.

"I reject that they have the right to define religion in such a narrow way," Rabbi Kleinbaum said of religious leaders who denounce homosexuality. "Gay and lesbian people are saying we are equal partners in religious communities, and we believe in a religious world in which all are created in God's image."

The festival is planned for Aug. 18-28 and is expected to draw thousands of visitors from dozens of countries. The theme is "Love Without Borders," and a centerpiece will be a parade on Aug. 25 through Jerusalem, a city that remains deeply conservative, though other parts of Israel have become increasingly accepting of gays in recent years. Other events include a film festival, art exhibits and a conference for clerics.

When the first WorldPride festival was held five years ago in Rome, religious opposition came from the Vatican, while secular opposition came from a neo-Fascist group that vowed to hold a counterdemonstration. But the neo-Fascists canceled their demonstration, the march came off peacefully, and even a few center-right politicians joined many thousands of marchers.

One day later, however, Pope John Paul II appeared on a balcony over St. Peter's Square and delivered a message expressing his "bitterness" that the gay festival had gone forward, calling it an "offense to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics across the world."

Both WorldPride festivals were initiated by an umbrella group, InterPride, that says its mission is to promote gay rights internationally.

The outcry over the 2005 festival will not be confined to Israel. The American evangelical leader who helped to galvanize the opposition, Mr. Giovinetti, is the senior pastor of Mission Valley Christian Fellowship, an independent church that meets in a hotel in Southern California. A former band leader in Las Vegas, he is also host of a radio program heard on stations around the United States.

Neither he nor other evangelical American leaders were at the news conference in Jerusalem, which was called by the chief rabbinate of Israel. But by all accounts Mr. Giovinetti played a crucial role in spreading the first alarms among religious leaders about the gay festival.

He said he had first heard about WorldPride from a congregation member who had told Mr. Giovinetti that he was gay for many years and still monitored gay Web sites. Mr. Giovinetti said he alerted Israeli politicians and religious leaders.

Mr. Giovinetti circulated a petition against the festival, titled "Homosexuals to Desecrate Jerusalem," which he said had been signed by every member of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party in the Israeli Parliament. Another American who helped bring together the opposition was Rabbi Yehuda Levin, of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, which says it represents more than 1,000 American Orthodox rabbis. At the news conference in Jerusalem, he called the festival "the spiritual rape of the Holy City." He said, "This is not the homo land, this is the Holy Land."

Annual marches by homosexuals have become routine in Tel Aviv, a secular coastal city. For the past three years, gay parades have also been staged in Jerusalem. Religious groups have complained, but the police have issued permits for the events, which have been held without any serious incidents.

Laurie Goodstein reported from New York for this article and Greg Myre from Jerusalem.

Do they actually think that their religions are so unstable and the city so delicate that having homosexuals walk down the street will do more damage than the years of war that have been fought over who gets to claim the place? How come religions which are based on preachings of tolerance and love can only come together in agreement to condemn others? In what way does this hurt any, let alone all, religions? For that matter, how does it hurt anything? Although I am glad to see that there were several religious leaders involved in the planning of the festival. Maybe if I could find one of the more liberal-minded pastors and congregations, I'd start going back to church.

Ok. So here's a webpage some of you may care to check out: http://www.answersingenesis.com

It's run by a Christian group that's currently working on a Creation Science Museum. Anyway, there are lots of articles about all kinds of stuff, so plenty of fodder for discussions... I haven't read them all (I don't have that much time!) but would happily read any that someone wants to talk about... and to start stuff off, here's a paragraph from the article on Evolution...

"I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions."

I find it entertaining that the author seems to feel that when a Christian looks at things from the evolutionist point of view they are being understanding, but when an evolutionist looks at things from a creationist point of view they are questioning themselves. Also, why is it that they use Christian and creationist interchangeably? Because I know a lot of Christians who have managed to understand/believe evolution without dropping out of the church.

Anyway... lunch break's over, off I go to look at bacteria!