The overwhelming response to this article shows that Emily Post (or whomever) was partly right. You can now discuss politics in polite company, but NEVER religion!

My midwestern community has seen a microcosm in the past month much like the response of readers to "The Holy Blitz Rolls On" in the "letters" pages of our local newspaper. It began with the now well-worn O'Reilly campaign "the reason for the season" and has now extended to accusations of anti-catholicism, anti-semitism, and requests for prayers for non-believers. Atheists and agnostics have been attacked as having no moral fiber, and have responded accordingly. Both sides have been amply represented and neither has scored a victory. Moreover, it's as silly and close-minded (even those who say they're open minded!) as the comments from writers on both sides of this Salon blog.

Forget the intellectualism, the historic references, and the I've-been-there context. The fact is that most Americans have never been exposed to a variety of religions or religions practices (or even religious traditions). The overwhelming numbers of people who say they belong to a religious group have been born into it and brought up with one-way thinking.

If they don't avail themselves of opportunities to learn about a variety of religions - or none - they will always believe that what they've been taught is the proper way to live. Those who live in urban areas are more fortunate in that they may be exposed to people with other belief systems....or not, depending upon how close-knit their urban communities are (in some of these neighborhoods the people are no more urbane than those living in small, rural communities).

I'm glad you wrote about Chris Hedges' book and will definitely order it, although I don't generally like to read books of this genre. Hopefully, it will interest me enough to read others. But not to understand why people believe what they believe religion-wise, because I've found in my many years on this earth that trying to understand religious beliefs is a lost cause.

Emily Post was right on! And the god that George Bush obeys has a name--it's Richard Cheney, more than likely the anti-Christ.

You weren't wrong to look skeptically at the sudden "successful" firefight in Bagdad, nor were you wrong to be suspicious about the bombing in Somalia.

Wag the dog? OF COURSE!

We've come to expect nothing less from these jerks.

The question was asked "But what does this say about the president's two-month-long listening tour?" It's pretty clear. He was "listening" with cotton in his ears so he couldn't hear.

Besides, the Study Group's report was too long. Shrub needs thing condensed into a single page, or two at the most. Who does that? Probably Vice-Fuhrer Cheney. (And, by the way, where is he hiding out these days?)

Against my better nature, and because they said it was only going to be 20 minutes long, I watched the speech. And I thought I actually heard him say he made a mistake. But today's paper clarified that his apology was for not sending more troops last year.

Oddly, the network we were watching didn't spend more than 5 minutes beyond the speech talking about what was said. It quickly switched to Deal or No Deal.

Come to think of it, perhaps that show is what the Bush administration's foreign policy is designed after. "Let's try suitcase #3." Oops. That one didn't do it. "How about suitcase #20." That one didn't work either. "But heck, Howie, I KNOW the prize (victory in Iraq, and an installation of Bush as a good war president) is in THIS suitcase! So let's go all the way," suffer our defeats, and charge toward the ultimate win.....or not.

The most significant words coming out of Bush's mouth last night were: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria."

Cheney and his cadre of nutcases haven't given up on their career-long goals of gaining control of that part of the world. Bush is nothing more than an empty-brained figurehead. Always was. Always will be. No matter if his entire party turns anti-war and stands on his doorstep shouting "Get out now!" Bush can't and won't change because he's merely a ventriloquist dummy putting voice to someone else's words.

After spending 30 years in behind-the-scenes maniuplating of the political system, Cheney knows how to do it -- and do it well. Plus he has help. Others like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Addington, Libby, Feith, Kristol and others have been there as long as he has and have been striving for the same goal all these years. They know there is little Congress can do to prevent them from keeping-on keeping-on with regard to the war in Iraq, or escalating it like they propose to do now. Moreover, they'll be in Iran and Syria (think Somalia just this past week, folks!) before the Democrats and the general public can even react.

In prior administrations, there was always someone to keep check on Dick Cheney and the others. So most of their goofy ideas never saw the light of day. But there is no one now -- certainly not the weak president who once served in the role of weak governor of Texas -- and so I think we all know what the answer is. Does anyone know what the procedures are for impeaching, then imprisoning, the most unpopular, and most criminal, vice president in our history? Can it be done?

For those who doubt what Cheney has done, or who want to read more about his sickening history, Lou Dubose and Jack Bernstein have a new book out titled VICE: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency. When I finished it, I had to turn to a Stephen King novel for some relief from the frightening stuff I read in VICE.