This article and the letters that concern it demonstrate once again the real problem with Christianity--no one knows what the f**k the "truth" is, and so every single believer attempts to portray his or her own beliefs as logical, consistent, convincing, and true. But no! Christianity is merely a belief system that happens to be so meaningful to some people that they are willing to die or kill for it. Their willingness has NOTHING to do with the truth or falsity of the system. The passion is within the believer, and is just like any other passion, no better, no worse, no more or less worthy of the respect of those who share it. We think more about Christianity now because our society is undergoing a dangerous wave of rigid conformist belief, but that doesn't make Christianity itself any more true than it ever was. Read about the Reformation in Europe if you want to know how low these Christians can go to defend ideas that are absurd to the naked eye. Yes, we should be afraid of the believers (because in the US they are quite often armed and dangerous) but the actual ideas of Christianity are JUST IDEAS.

Well, Katharine, we have pointed out the inconsistency of rightwing hatefulness with their professed ideas. But they never get it. They don't even see it. My view is that the last two thousand years, and especially the last five hundred, show that humans just can't do Christianity, and probably can't do monotheism at all. Maybe it's genetic, like obesity. For many millennia, humans were hunters and gatherers. Their bodies evolved to survive in the midst of scarcity, and so the sort of plenty we have have all around is is impossible for many people to tolerate without having a life-threatening condition. Similarly, for many millennia, hunters and gatherers had to have a highly developed flight/fight response, so they developed high levels of fear and aggression that are closely linked. When conditions are uncertain, as they have been for the last twenty-five years or so, levels of fear are high, and so levels of aggression are high. Add a basically intolerant belief system, and there you have it, the clash of civilizations. The jury is still out on whether humans can survive monotheism, but it doesn't look good right now, I must say.

Some kids are more affectionate than others. I think after about the age of seven or eight, the parents should let the kids set the pace, but of course gently demur if the kid does something inappropriate. Once my ten-year-old, after watching something on TV, walked over to where I was sitting, bent me back, and gave me a big kiss on the lips, I suppose just to try it out! If he had done that again, I would have said, in a calm tone, that those sort of kisses make me uncomfortable, but I never had to. At thirteen, he still kisses me from time to time and often hugs me, but I've noticed that he is a hugger, and also occasionally gives his teachers a friendly squeeze. Affection is great. We have an affectionate household,and I hope my son grows up to be affectionate with his kids and his spouse, but you also have to model how to tactfully decline affection from time to time. I will say that my relatives persisted in wanting affection after it became uncomfortable for me as a child. Not good. Let the kid decide.

is what you get with Bolton. Aren't you glad that someone is out there who really represents what Americans are like? Not some smooth hypocrite who leads the rest of the world to think that we have manners and morals, but a true blue American jerk! I think he's a blessing in disguise, and the worse he gets, the more he will represent this administration.

The idea that women who bear children early are more economically dependent on men should come as no surprise--that's what they call patriachy! There is no way to solve this equation in order to get what you think you want when you are twenty--that would be independence, children, plenty of money of your own, and a loving husband. Gosh, ladies! Feminism used to be about slicing the pie a little bit differently so that women could get out of this child-bearing/dependency trap because it was seen as the worst of evils. Now I don't know what feminism is about. I had my first child when I was 29. My income is very high. I've been divorced three times. My daughters are grown up and on their own and guess who paid for most of it? I did. You have to decide what your first priority is. If it is independence, then you have to accept the fact that other things are at risk (say traditional marriage). If your priority is traditional marriage, then you have to accept that your husband will provide the money and consider himself the boss (my sister's dilemma). Traditional marriage is exactly that--it means that you stay home, become a maternal figure, and possibly put up with your husband's running around with other women, but you have the kids, the property, and the security. If that's what you want, then you should feel free to have it without shame. But freedom has many pleasures, I must say, and it keeps you on your toes.