Back in the late 1950s, I worked in a department store while going to college. The habit in those days was to say to everyone "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year".

First of all, that was a mouthful, and secondly, it didn't address diversity, so "Happy Holidays" killed two birds at once. There was no intention to take Christ out of Christmas. It was simply a recognition that the season had three holidays and people may have had different perceptions about their meanings.

In addition,as long as I can remember you could buy non-religious holiday cards that may or may not have refrenced the word "Christmas".

Lastly, does anyone actualy think that Bill O'Reilly believes a word he says. He's just found a really good-paying gig.

For all the Republicans and other Conservatives talk about bringing morality back to Washington, none of them seems able to tell the plain, unvarnished truth. An explanation from Justice Scalia about the Supreme Court intervention into the 2000 election is only somewhat true. He conveniently leaves out the parts that don't bolster his case and don't make the Dems look bad.

Everyone in this administration has been untruthful about the Iraq war - why we got into it, how it's going and how we'll get out. The Plame case has a lot of evasion and inconsistency about it.

Of course then we have Abramoff and everywhere that will lead. I hope all the evangelical republicans take a good hard look at the people they elected and decide if this is the path they want to stay on. Oh, I forgot, all GW, Dick C. et al have to say is "Abortion bad" and they are doing God's work.

As philulm stated in his letter, pressure from the Democrats and the waning support of the public are causing the Administration to talk about possible troop withdrawal.

However, overarching all considerations, are the elections next year. I think the Administration, along with prominent Republican lawmakers will do or say anything to keep the elections from being a rout of conservatives in 2006.

The problem is that these people are so dishonest that whatever they do may not be intended to last long. I still believe that there are powerful oil interests in this country that want the US to stay in Iraq for a long time to come.

It's ironic that you mention a First Gentleman's role when, recently, on "Commander In Chief" it became clear that a first husband isn't going to settle for that job.

Imagine, 12 years after President Clinton tried to use Hillary, she is still being castigated by the right. But on TV at least, the husband demands to be given a role and he is. He wasn't elected, anymore than Ms Clinton, but it's OK for him work in his wife's administration.

I think this is symptomatic of the double standard being alive and well.

Apparently we have had 2100+ Americans killed in Iraq, and thousands more wounded, so that women in this country can take a giant step backwards. It is foolish to assume that we can actually bring democracy to a country that still thinks in terms of tribal practices. We need to find a way out as soon as possible, a way that won't compromise our troops as they leave the region.

In the 2000 campaign, Bush promised that his administration would bring honor and integrity back to the White House - an obvious slap at President Clinton. But now in 2005, there is NO integrity left in the administration, NO honor, NO honesty. It just keeps getting worse.

Rodgert Lodger's reasonong is quite defective. He states that there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, thereby saying we shouldn't allow it. His fallacy is that the Constitution says nothing about any medical procedure, yet we have laws for the practice of medicine.

On the other hand, the Constitution has a whole lot to say about the three branches of government, their roles and checks and balances on each. There is nothing about the Unitary Executive Theory.

Apparently we have a new foreign policy: "Stop doing this shit".

It's all well and good for the members of his flock to talk about forgiveness and redemption, but when I look back over years and years of preachers being accused of various and sundry illicit activities, I can't remember a single one who actually came forward on his own to admit to transgressing.

Instead, every single one of them was first accused, then denied the allegations, then belatedly admitted to some wrongdoing, and only then asked for forgiveness. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see one of these guys admit sin and seek help and forgiveness all on their own?

The title of this document, "Ministry to Persons With a Homosexual Inclination" is in itself insulting. Does the Church refer to straight people as having "heterosexual leanings" or are they called heterosexuals?

Should be the same for gays. They ARE homosexual, not inclined.

I have three comments about this article. First, My Congressional Representative is the Reverend Emmanuel Cleaver, pastor of St. James Methodist Church in Kansas City. He believes in gay rights!

Second, in 2004, there was an amendment initiative to ban gay marriage. It passed by close to 80%. That wouldn't have happened without a significant black vote from St. Louis on one side of the state and Kansas City on the other.

Third, we have a black columnist on the Kansas City Star and he gets hate mail with every column. So it doesn't surprise me that this author gets letters trying to denigrate her writing whenever she is published in Salon.