Blogging is like email writ large. One should never be surprised if messages thought at the time to be clever look quite different later. Memo to bloggers: just like everyone else, if you can't predict the future think twice about your behavior today. It can come back to haunt you. It can close doors.

I take note of Salon's comment policy, "Salon reserves the right to delete any letter at its discretion; for example, we may remove letters that are far off-topic or excessively rude, or that violate the law or common decency".

Would Salon allow a post that included the worst of your commentary? I doubt it.

In sum, your writings were vulgar, violative of common decency, nasty and wholly tasteless. Is it a wonder that a politician who wants to win would distance himself from your stuff?

Come clean, did you jump or were you pushed?

"Again, care to point out where I threatened violence, rape or death? I've never posted on her "site", so it obviously can't be quoted there. Please, enlighten us and show me, again, where I ever did any such thing?"

Oh I see, you want to know where *YOU* posted threats. Because, if *YOU* didn't post any, then what? No one else did? Or, because you didn't then the rest simply don't matter? What?

Other so-called "Christians" have done so. It was uncalled for. This may be shocking, but you are irrelevent.

Quick recap: Yes, I made a mistake and thought you were asking to see proof of any threats. But, I didn't realize at the time that you only want to talk about yourself.

"Let me ask you this: Do you even know how to read? Because it seems to me you can't comprehend the question I'm asking."

Obviously, I can't read. Clearly, I mean, it's not like I'm typing words out at this very moment. Let me ask you: do you make a living out of asking stupid questions? I think it would be a lucrative career for you.

(get ready for another post from Todd about himself!)

"Although people should not send nasty threatening emails, people like Amanda should not whine when others who dislike their point of view use their words against them. Its called the First Amendment and it applies to people who disagree with you."

The First Amendment, as it has been pointed out already, applies to GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP. Not to unhinged christian hate speech and threats of violence.

You have ever right to be offended, to disagree, and to worship any goofy gods you like. You do not have the right to threaten, slander and lie in hopes of ruining someone's life. It's really that simple. Be offended. Speak out, organize, whatever. If you get your "free speech" we get ours.

Holy hot sticky spooge just isn't all that sacred to some of us. Get over it.

Once again, if it hurts your tender sensibilities and fragile faith - DON'T READ IT.

I could care less about what the catholic church thinks or what o'reilly thinks and in private conversations i can be frighteningly insulting toward both.

That said, a blog is not a personal conversation, and if you don't want to be seen as a foul-mouthed little twit that nobody takes seriously for your entire life you have to learn when to let loose and when to be professional and *gasp even respectful sometimes. so, it's your personal blog. it's still a blog and it still says a lot about you . don't write it on the internet if you can't take responsibility for it.

is "taking no responsibility for actions while blaming everybody else" some sort of gen-x disease?

deal with it.

Of course, being secular doesn't preclude a person's ability to seriously study the Bible or theology. The fact is, though, that graduate school in Biblical studies is actually seminary. To seriously study Bible and religion requires an interest, which in most cases comes through faith and the desire to know God's Word the best way possible with our human reason and intellect. Of all the religious scholars I have read, only one was an atheist, and he was largely commenting through his own Judaic background.

It has been my experience that secular liberals make vain attempts to "disprove" religion without understanding the actual relationship between the faithful and their faith. I should know... I didn't come to faith until college, and throughout high school it was all I could do to try to "convert" my religious friends to my brand of secular agnosticism. The fact is, I didn't and couldn't understand what they believed or why they believed it, because all I saw was the dusty myth and not the real core of the faith. This, I assert, is the flaw of the non-religious person attempting to criticize religion. They simply don't get it... they think that if they can prove a historical inaccuracy in the Bible, they will have brought Christianity crashing down around the ears of its followers. For those of us who read the Bible in an enlightened, allegorical, historical-critical fashion, we would only raise our eyebrows at such a degree of shameless literalism.

As for Republicans being the party of the religious... what a bunch of hogwash. Fundamentalist Christianity constitutes the single biggest attack on Christianity itself in the past century. People with the Dr. Dobson-style of faith are not true Christians. They focus completely on themselves and their own gain, without looking at serious social issues such as poverty, injustice, racism, and sexism. Republicans may have claimed "Christians," but the sort of "Christian" they adopt is no pillar of the true faith in my eyes.

The church I attend is much different than this. My pastor, who is also my good friend, is an ardent feminist and social progressive with a Ph.D in Biblical rhetoric from Northwestern University's Garrett Seminary. Our church's youth group consists not of guitar-playing, upper-middle-class jocks, but of dirt-poor rural Minnesota kids who we are desperately trying to keep out of jail. Our church recently adopted the "Reconciled in Christ" resolution which embraces and affirms people of all sexual orientations as beloved children of God and brothers and sisters of Christ.

And every single adult member of my church is a registered Democrat.

So, you might have a better idea of why I identify myself more with the "liberal" Democrats than with the "religious" Republicans.