I always took every opportunity to hate on rich people, even before the economy went south. I need to work on that.

What exactly did they mean by "exposing Britian to serious danger?" If revealing the details of the citizen's treatment could inflame public distaste for the U.S. and potentially contribute to violent reprisals from groups in the U.K., I suppose its a wrongheaded but not particularly offensive argument. On the other hand, if the U.S. was insinuating that we would withhold security aid or intelligence in retaliation for airing the dirty laundry, that's just reprehensible.

One more thing:

The statute of limitations will not expire on war crimes, and should the esteemed Mr. Cheney manage to leave this world unpunished for his crimes against it and nearly every living creature that inhabits it, as every good Puritan knows, the good Lord reserves the right to toll the statute until he can get around to making a final judgment. The old man should repent while he can. There are no plea agreements.

"Of course, Wanak, you realize that farnsworth is right -- the deaths that communism caused were not carried out for atheism, and cannot be ascribed to atheism per se. Just as they were not carried out for industrialization, and industries cannot be considered responsible for them -- despite the fact that Communism also professed belief in industrialization, as in atheism, as its goal."

Granted. But just because "advancing Christianity" is a stated goal of any enterprise doesn't mean it actually is. A case in point is the war in Iraq. As an earlier LW said, its all about oil and any spiritual argument for our middle eastern misadventures is purely smokescreen. So if you're going to dispute the deaths/wars attributable to atheism, you can expect crazy fundies like me to dispute deaths/wars attributable to Christianity. The simple fact of the matter is that when people realize they can exercise moral authority over people and influence them to do things that are against their better judgment, the potential for corruption is there. Hence my belief in the separation of church and state, which exacerbates the situation, as well as the old-fashioned Protestant belief in reading the word for yourself so you can call BS on religious leaders when necessary.

"Then there's slavery. What mainstream religions besides the ones mentioned above said it was wrong?"

I'm assuming you're not familiar with the history of abolition in Britian or the story behind the song "Amazing Grace."

"Anyway, if I'm critical of Christians, you should LOVE me and be GRATEFUL my criticism, for the Bible says so: the Bible says that there is no better moment when you're denigrated for your faith. Don't complain. Fall to your knees and thank me...unless, of course, you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God."

--bigguns

As CS Lewis said, we are commanded to "love," but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to "like." Love means wanting the best for people and being kind and meeting needs and so forth, it doesn't mean error can't be pointed out. And we should be grateful to God for "suffering," a weird belief I concede. I would also assert that a random guy making fun of you on the internet isn't quite "suffering." Unless you're a real wimp.

Further...death is an unnatural condition brought about by the presence of sin in the world. Therefore Christians mourn when loved ones die because they are unnaturally separated, if only for a time, from the ones they love. That should not be a difficult concept. At the same time, we are happy that the person who has passed on is no longer suffering and is at peace. It is of course possible to believe this as an atheist as well. Also, Jesus got mad more than once. He was mad quite a bit. I find it hard to believe you were raised in the church and are unaware of his frequent frustrations. He only picked up a whip once, but that doens't mean it was the only time he was mad.

FINALLY, I remain somewhat conservative, my parents and extended family moreso, but I guarantee you that we all agree that any woman being abused is well within her "spiritual" rights to DTMFA. Like the previous LW said, the husband has failed his duty if he abuses his wife. The contract is broken, the woman can/should leave. End of story.

Change will never come from the top. The inhabitants of the top already have an ideal setup. No risk, all reward, all the money. You couldn't keep a job at McDonald's with the performance level some CEOs, yet they get millions of dollars just to leave.

Change will only come from the bottom. Washington needs to understand that people will not tolerate being screwed over. In order for this to happen, people need to stop tolerating getting screwed over. The bottom needs to take ownership of the political process. If we can't get good leaders from the two parties, we need new ones. We can elect monkeys if we need to, but no more settling for the lesser of two evils.

Simple fact of the matter, if you love this country, you can pay to keep it afloat. The Republicans need to be called on the carpet: you can't corner the market on patriotism if you're playing your fiddle while middle america is burning. And it is. And yet they play politics, and nobody has the nerve to say they might just not give a crap about anyone but themselves.

Panetta's saying there won't be extraordinary renditions, according to the page before I get my email on Yahoo. Discuss.

On my way to whitehouse.gov. Let's do our job on this one, and raise a hell of a ruckus.