[$tinkle]

Oh please. Now the ACLU and the Democrats are the same? The Dems don't go far enough. I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently against the Ninth Circuit's ruling about having "Under god" stricken from the pledge.

you mean the pledge protection act? the senate hasn't voted on it (as you claim), but has until oct 6th. perhaps you meant the house of reps? they have already voted on it, and the dems were anything but unanimous to preserve 'under god' (in all fairness, they were almost unanimous in "sandblasting" it).

here's a summary of the legislation:

"Legislation [Pledge Protection Act aka H. R. 2389] to bar federal courts from ruling on constitutional issues arising from the Pledge of Allegiance, including the 'one nation, under God' reference, passed the House after lawmakers argued that the pledge is linked to the nation's spiritual history.

here's the summary of the roll call:

The bill passed the House of Representatives on July 19, 2006 with:

# 260 Ayes
# 167 Nays
# 5 Not Voting

ayes, nays, & not voting, by party:
Democrat------39------158-----4
Republican-----221------8------1
Independent-----0------1-------0

here's a nice pic for posterity:

you were saying....

 

[N8 v2.0]

BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

pwn3d!!!

 

[Secret Squirrel]

You were saying?

Seems that only a small portion of Illinois is on the ball.

 

[Transcend]

People who want to change the constitution because they don't like the wording are annoying F**ks. You would think that they have better issues to waste their time on with the monumental amount of problems the US either has or is causing.

 

[Echo]

Bravo LL, by the far the best post you've ever made in this forum. Maybe we should piss you off more often

We can only hope that LL doesn't get frustrated by OMFG's constant taking quotes out of context, and continues to hand him his ass.

 

[$tinkle]

So, what? You are saying the Dems are better defenders of the First Amendment? Good job.

i'm sorry, could you please play the role of a potential democrat office holder & explain to me how allowing a powerful minority to abuse their access to the courts in order to incrementally prohibit my first amendment right to freely exercise my choice of religion is defending the first amendment?

do you seriously believe this?

 

[llkoolkeg]

You might not be parroting words specifically, but parroting party lines for sure.

The parties establish their own lines through published platforms, words and deeds.

Oh please. Now the ACLU and the Democrats are the same? The Dems don't go far enough. I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently against the Ninth Circuit's ruling about having "Under god" stricken from the pledge. Oh yeah, those godless Dems must have been lying when they voted for it and when they sang "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps. Oh, and let's not mention the ACLU lawsuits in favor of student groups that wanted to pray in school and were illegally told not to, even though they were doing it on their own time.

They are not the same, but are much more closely linked than are the Repubs with the ACLU. The ACLU in some cases is a perfect example of a good thing gone bad by overstepping its mandate. I did not say ALL Dems are godless, as many are not, particularly those from the "bible belt". The "God Bless America" chorus and vote, however, was but a small publicity show for the assembled cameras and should be weighted accordingly.

One of the platforms of the Dem. party is to push for more gun control. That's a far cry different from saying that every Dem is in favor of it, or that they want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Where did I say EVERY Dem was in favor of it? Many Dems are NRA lifetime members and deplore their party's established platform regarding gun control. When you look at who is most fervently in favor of repealing gun rights, what letter is next to their name? Charles Schumer? Diane Feinstein? Teddy Kennedy? Henry Waxman? Would you like me to continue?

See above, only substitute pro-choice into the argument.

Same retort as above. Patrick Leahy? Edward Kennedy? Joe Biden? Richard Durbin? Shall I go on?

I definitely think that the way you have presented yourself makes you come off as uncritical and uninformed. From other posts you have made in other threads I don't believe that is the case.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I have a question of you-
Are you a registered member or do you identify in particular with any political party, and if so, WHICH?

Both houses are so dirty that not only would I never eat off the floor, I don't even want to step inside. That still doesn't excuse painting with such a broad brush. Just as I don't think it is right to say all Dems this or all Dems that, it's also not right to say all Reps this all Reps that. If you want to critique the current state of the policies fought for and enacted by certain parties, that is one thing, but that's not what you are doing.

I paint with a broad brush because I notice trends. I look at the forest and the picture, not the trees and the pixels. I do not, however, use the words ALL or EVERY loosely and challenge you to find an example of where I do. The error is in your interpretation and extrapolation of my intent from tone.

I also deplore the state of our country's politics. I deplore the fact that I realistically have only 2 choices in any given election.

Rant away, but let's not devolve into sound byte spouting know-nothings simply because we are disenchanted with the current political climate.

I speak only for myself and kindly suggest you do the same.

 

[Silver]

I didn't repeat or parrot a word! I typed that sentence based on beliefs I hold as true! Google away if you fancy me a plagiarist! Are you telling me that you weren't aware of Democratic candidate, appointee and ACLU lawsuits aimed at sanitizing the country in accordance with agnostic/atheist precepts?

Aww. You must feel so put down.

It's hard to be a Christian in this country. I think you even had it worse than Jesus did in his time, to be honest with you. After all, he did get tortured and crucified, but you might have to put up with not being able to walk into court and see the 10 commandments on the wall. The horror!

 

[llkoolkeg]

Aww. You must feel so put down.

It's hard to be a Christian in this country. I think you even had it worse than Jesus did in his time, to be honest with you. After all, he did get tortured and crucified, but you might have to put up with not being able to walk into court and see the 10 commandments on the wall. The horror!

I appreciate your kind concern for my feelings, Silver, and believe your compassion far exceeds its measure by reputation.

This is probably the easiest country in which to be a Christian. I am quite able to walk into court to pay my speeding tickets w/o seeing the 10 Commandments on the wall and were they not there, I'd likely not miss them. That being said, I do not agree with removing them once they are already there. Hell, I don't even care if future courthouses do not include references to God or the Commandments anywhere, but I will not stand for erasing them from where they have peaceably existed for years. Doing so is inflammatory, revisionist and petty...pitifully small and petty.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I appreciate your kind concern for my feelings, Silver, and believe your compassion far exceeds its measure by reputation.

This is probably the easiest country in which to be a Christian. I am quite able to walk into court to pay my speeding tickets w/o seeing the 10 Commandments on the wall and were they not there, I'd likely not miss them. That being said, I do not agree with removing them once they are already there. Hell, I don't even care if future courthouses do not include references to God or the Commandments anywhere, but I will not stand for erasing them from where they have peaceably existed for years. Doing so is inflammatory, revisionist and petty...pitifully small and petty.

Does this surprise you??

Welcome to America!!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you mean the pledge protection act?

No, I was talking about this.

Before you puff up your chest, you might want to make sure you know what both of us are talking about.

And that goes double for you N8.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

We can only hope that LL doesn't get frustrated by OMFG's constant taking quotes out of context, and continues to hand him his ass.

Whatever man. He's the one that started in with the Dems are god-hatin', gun-hatin', abortion drive-thru worshippers.

All I'm saying is that when he resorts to mindless sound bytes put out by the right (and the same is true in the other direction) that it negatively affects the political discourse of this country. Either that, or it just shows how negative the discourse is.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

i'm sorry, could you please play the role of a potential democrat office holder & explain to me how allowing a powerful minority to abuse their access to the courts in order to incrementally prohibit my first amendment right to freely exercise my choice of religion is defending the first amendment?

do you seriously believe this?

You are the one that said that they defend the rights of those who oppose those things. So, they don't have the first amendment right to oppose those policies, is that what YOU seriously believe?

Also, yes, making the government god/religion-neutral protects all of our rights. No one is saying you can't worship the way you want. What I'm saying is that you don't have the right to make me worship the way you want, and neither does the government.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Whatever man.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The parties establish their own lines through published platforms, words and deeds.

Fine. Show me where all or even any of the Dems. have advocated drive-thru abortions, sandblasting god out of everything, etc.

They are not the same, but are much more closely linked than are the Repubs with the ACLU. The ACLU in some cases is a perfect example of a good thing gone bad by overstepping its mandate. I did not say ALL Dems are godless, as many are not, particularly those from the "bible belt". The "God Bless America" chorus and vote, however, was but a small publicity show for the assembled cameras and should be weighted accordingly.

The ACLU does not have a mandate.

Find me one Dem. from Congress that is not religious.

Where did I say EVERY Dem was in favor of it? Many Dems are NRA lifetime members and deplore their party's established platform regarding gun control. When you look at who is most fervently in favor of repealing gun rights, what letter is next to their name? Charles Schumer? Diane Feinstein? Teddy Kennedy? Henry Waxman? Would you like me to continue?

I've already said that gun control is a platform of the party. I've also already said that it does NOT equate to wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. Got it?

Same retort as above. Patrick Leahy? Edward Kennedy? Joe Biden? Richard Durbin? Shall I go on?

Then I too shall retort same as above.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I have a question of you-
Are you a registered member or do you identify in particular with any political party, and if so, WHICH?

I am not a member of any party. I thought I made that pretty clear when I talked about how dirty both parties are. I am very liberal however. Take that as you will.

I paint with a broad brush because I notice trends. I look at the forest and the picture, not the trees and the pixels. I do not, however, use the words ALL or EVERY loosely and challenge you to find an example of where I do. The error is in your interpretation and extrapolation of my intent from tone.

Fine, if I misinterpreted from your tone so be it. You certainly meant to condemn with a broad brush, however. I stand by that interpretation.

I speak only for myself and kindly suggest you do the same.

What? You aren't disenchanted? It certainly sounds as if you are.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

This is probably the easiest country in which to be a Christian. I am quite able to walk into court to pay my speeding tickets w/o seeing the 10 Commandments on the wall and were they not there, I'd likely not miss them. That being said, I do not agree with removing them once they are already there. Hell, I don't even care if future courthouses do not include references to God or the Commandments anywhere, but I will not stand for erasing them from where they have peaceably existed for years. Doing so is inflammatory, revisionist and petty...pitifully small and petty.

So, as long as the Commandments get put up, then they don't come down because taking them down is inflamatory, revisionist, and petty? Sorry, but the prohibition on government endorsing religion is enshrined in the First Amendment. I hardly think that "inflamatory, revisionist, and petty" accurately describes the First Amendment or my rights as a citizen of this country.

 

[$tinkle]

No, I was talking about this.

Before you puff up your chest, you might want to make sure you know what both of us are talking about.

when you type:

I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently...

i take you at your pledge. 3.5 years may be recent when compared to the paleozoic era, but when there have been "recent" roll calls on this topic, i tend to look for just that.

so now that we cleared that up, do you still hold so fast to your position that "the Dems don't go far enough"? certainly seems they're making inroads. [to be fair, i'll add that pledging to a flag seems silly at best, and indoctrination at worst]

i'll close w/ a fitting quote from someone who certainly wasn't a christian apologist: “He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” —Thomas Paine

 

[Old Man G Funk]

so now that we cleared that up, do you still hold so fast to your position that "the Dems don't go far enough"? certainly seems they're making inroads. [to be fair, i'll add that pledging to a flag seems silly at best, and indoctrination at worst]

i'll close w/ a fitting quote from someone who certainly wasn't a christian apologist: “He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” —Thomas Paine

The thing is that that vote doesn't deal with just the "Under god" portion, nor is it clear that they are voting against "Under god." Actually, it's clear that that's not what they are voting against. They are voting against the idea that the Legislature has the ability to tell the Supreme Court that the Courts are not allowed to hear cases on certain issues.

And, no, it's still not far enough. Why do we have to pledge allegiance to a country "Under god"? That was NOT part of the original pledge and it is divisive.

Why do you think that Paine's quote is fitting? If it is, it's only because I'm the one who is truly trying to guard both of us from oppression. Or, do you think that you will have been oppressed if this country removes "Under god" from the pledge?

 

[llkoolkeg]

Fine. Show me where all or even any of the Dems. have advocated drive-thru abortions, sandblasting god out of everything, etc.

The ACLU does not have a mandate.

Find me one Dem. from Congress that is not religious.

I've already said that gun control is a platform of the party. I've also already said that it does NOT equate to wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. Got it?

Then I too shall retort same as above.

I am not a member of any party. I thought I made that pretty clear when I talked about how dirty both parties are. I am very liberal however. Take that as you will.

Fine, if I misinterpreted from your tone so be it. You certainly meant to condemn with a broad brush, however. I stand by that interpretation.

What? You aren't disenchanted? It certainly sounds as if you are.

I can see that we are not likely to reach many mutually acceptable conclusions here, have explained my viewpoint as concisely as possible and have clarified interpretive/semantic differences sufficiently for one workday...more than sufficiently were my boss to be polled. If you consider yourself very liberal, we'll have plenty to argue about in the upcoming months just as if you were professed to be very conservative. A prejudice of mine is that I don't like it when I believe someone has given up a portion of their objectivity in order to belong and voting the party or liberal/conservative line is prima facie evidence of thoughtlessness. I favor the Rep position on some issues and the Dem position on others; the conservative position sometimes and the liberal one in other cases. As I said before, the closest a pidgeonholer will ever get to pinning me down is to call me a libertarian, but just to futher muddy the waters, can you guess how many times I've voted libertarian in a presidential election?













You got it...precisely zero. :biggrin:

 

[$tinkle]

The ACLU does not have a mandate.

by their members they most certainly do.
but if you mean by edict of the fed'l gov't, then no.

Find me one Dem. from Congress that is not religious.

how 'bout 4?

• rush holt (d-NJ)
• di fi (d-CA)
• pete stark (d-CA)
• jim mcdermott (d-WA)

(we keep a list of infidels, you should know)

You aren't disenchanted? It certainly sounds as if you are.

“Everything that deceives may be said to enchant.” —Plato

 

[Transcend]

I favor the Rep position on some issues and the Dem position on others; the conservative position sometimes and the liberal one in other cases.

And this is precisely why a 2 party system sucks.

For what it's worth, i feel the same way - only our liberal party in canada is pretty much right in the middle of your 2 parties. well, that and our 2 extremes are pretty damn close anyways. Like political cousins or something.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

A prejudice of mine is that I don't like it when I believe someone has given up a portion of their objectivity in order to belong and voting the party or liberal/conservative line is prima facie evidence of thoughtlessness.

Wait. So because I'm liberal, then I've given up a portion of my objectivity?

I don't tow any party line, and liberal is not a party. Hence I don't "belong" to anything.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

by their members they most certainly do.
but if you mean by edict of the fed'l gov't, then no.

Even if you talk about their membership. People are still donating money, so they must not have exceeded their mandate too badly.

how 'bout 4?

• rush holt (d-NJ)
• di fi (d-CA)
• pete stark (d-CA)
• jim mcdermott (d-WA)

(we keep a list of infidels, you should know)

And, you got this list from?

 

[$tinkle]

And, you got this list from?

leaflets dropped over fundyville. (i'm using one now as a bookmarker in 'Godless' by high priestess ann coulter)

as for jim mcdermott: McDermott leads pledge in House, omits 'under God'

need the cock crow thrice???

 

[llkoolkeg]

So, as long as the Commandments get put up, then they don't come down because taking them down is inflamatory, revisionist, and petty? Sorry, but the prohibition on government endorsing religion is enshrined in the First Amendment. I hardly think that "inflamatory, revisionist, and petty" accurately describes the First Amendment or my rights as a citizen of this country.

Please see Exhibit 1==> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

God knows why I'm bothering to help revive this dead horse, but engraving the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public courthouse does NOT establish an official state religion any more than sandblasting it off prohibits the free exercise thereof. Perhaps I'm overly permissive, but I could care less if the Islamic version of the same thing or the Code of Hammurabi or whatever similar code had been engraved there initially instead. With all the bigger and more crucial issues facing our country, getting your panties all twisted up over laying eyes upon the Ten Commandments really speaks to the misplaced sense of direction and priorities of some.

For more on this issue, please use the "advanced search" option, as this one has been rehashed fully several times over the years.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

leaflets dropped over fundyville. (i'm using one now as a bookmarker in 'Godless' by high priestess ann coulter)

as for jim mcdermott: McDermott leads pledge in House, omits 'under God'

need the cock crow thrice???

That doesn't prove anything. Maybe it proves that he is a fair individual and doesn't find it moral to impose his beliefs on others. You'll have to do better.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Please see Exhibit 1==> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

God knows why I'm bothering to help revive this dead horse, but engraving the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public courthouse does NOT establish an official state religion any more than sandblasting it off prohibits the free exercise thereof. Perhaps I'm overly permissive, but I could care less if the Islamic version of the same thing or the Code of Hammurabi or whatever similar code had been engraved there initially instead. With all the bigger and more crucial issues facing our country, getting your panties all twisted up over laying eyes upon the Ten Commandments really speaks to the misplaced sense of direction and priorities of some.

For more on this issue, please use the "advanced search" option, as this one has been rehashed fully several times over the years.

Oh, the old "There's bigger issues so don't mind the fact that I'm trampling all over your first amendment rights" cannard. I could counter with, "What's more important than the First Amendment?" But, where would that get us?

But, I find it humorous that you would cite the very amendment that was enacted to protect me from having to go to courthouses where the 10 Commandments is prominently displayed. By the government posting religious texts, it shows a clear preferrence for one over another, or even religion over non-religion. One does not have freedom of religion unless one has freedom from religion.

 

[Silver]

Perhaps I'm overly permissive, but I could care less if the Islamic version of the same thing or the Code of Hammurabi or whatever similar code had been engraved there initially instead.

So, just to make it clear, you'd feel comfortable heading into court where the judge was a Muslim who just happened to have the Koran engraved on the wall? You'd feel like you'd get a fair hearing, right? No concerns at all?

It's easy to say you wouldn't care, because you know damn well if someone tried to get "One Nation, under Allah" into the pledge of allegiance or huge Koran monuments in courthouses there would be a deafening outcry...as there should be.

 

[Silver]

leaflets dropped over fundyville. (i'm using one now as a bookmarker in 'Godless' by high priestess ann coulter)

as for jim mcdermott: McDermott leads pledge in House, omits 'under God'

need the cock crow thrice???

"I was a 6-year-old boy when I gave my heart to Jesus Christ," said McDermott, a member of St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle. "I went to Wheaton College with Billy Graham. But religion shouldn't be worn on your sleeve. I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. I don't think my relationship with God has any place in this."

Sounds like a committed atheist to me.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Wait. So because I'm liberal, then I've given up a portion of my objectivity?

I don't tow any party line, and liberal is not a party. Hence I don't "belong" to anything.

All at once now class- who said this==> "I am very liberal however."

If you label yourself "very liberal", you have identified yourself as one favoring to a large degree the positions consistent with liberalism over those of conservatism. How does that not sound to you like you have given up a portion of your objectivity? I never said you were a member of a particular party(how the hell would I know that?) and I agree that "liberal" is NOT a significant political party here in the U.S. at this time. Again, you have identified yourself as very liberal, therefore your membership is with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals who also label themselves as such.

 

[Transcend]

All at once now class- who said this==> "I am very liberal however."

If you label yourself "very liberal", you have identified yourself as one favoring to a large degree the positions consistent with liberalism over those of conservatism. How does that not sound to you like you have given up a portion of your objectivity? I never said you were a member of a particular party(how the hell would I know that?) and I agree that "liberal" is NOT a significant political party here in the U.S. at this time. Again, you have identified yourself as very liberal, therefore your membership is with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals who also label themselves as such.

How so? I completely disagree. Because one has liberal (small L) tendencies, does not mean they are a part of any group whatsoever.

I believe in gay marriage, drive through abortions and the seperation of church and state. I also think guns can be fun, small government and responsible spending is important and that controlling immigration is crucial to the well being of the social programs available in the US today.

So the question then is; am I "with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals" ? Or asm I perhaps, just a dreamer who finds it absurd that Americans feel the need to label themselves members of one party or the other, while at the same time giving up part of their belief structure? (BTW, where have I heard that last part before?)

 

[$tinkle]

So, just to make it clear, you'd feel comfortable heading into court where the judge was a Muslim who just happened to have the Koran engraved on the wall? You'd feel like you'd get a fair hearing, right? No concerns at all?

he doesn't have a vagina, so it would be more than fair.

It's easy to say you wouldn't care, because you know damn well if someone tried to get "One Nation, under Allah" into the pledge of allegiance or huge Koran monuments in courthouses there would be a deafening outcry...as there should be.

speaking of deafening outcries, 2 years ago in hamtramck, michigan, the city council voted unanimously to sound muslim calls to prayer from a mosque 5 times per day, while church bells have been silenced in reston, virginia.

 

[Transcend]

speaking of deafening outcries, 2 years ago in hamtramck, michigan, the city council voted unanimously to sound muslim calls to prayer from a mosque 5 times per day, while church bells have been silenced in reston, virginia.

Ah, the insanity that is city level politics.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

All at once now class- who said this==> "I am very liberal however."

If you label yourself "very liberal", you have identified yourself as one favoring to a large degree the positions consistent with liberalism over those of conservatism. How does that not sound to you like you have given up a portion of your objectivity? I never said you were a member of a particular party(how the hell would I know that?) and I agree that "liberal" is NOT a significant political party here in the U.S. at this time. Again, you have identified yourself as very liberal, therefore your membership is with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals who also label themselves as such.

Oh, I get it now. Guilt by supposed association. You throw around ad hominems that liberals must be nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals. Nice work. While you are at it, why don't you call me a heathen (that would at least be accurate.)

I could run through the list of things that I believe in, but for brevity it is often easier to say that I am liberal. Ah, but since I have accepted that I am more liberal than mainstream by quite a bit, I have given up my objectivity. Whatever. I make my decisions on what I believe and I have chosen regardless of labels.

Of course, this coming from the guy who throws out sound bytes.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

How so? I completely disagree. Because one has liberal (small L) tendencies, does not mean they are a part of any group whatsoever.

I believe in gay marriage, drive through abortions and the seperation of church and state. I also think guns can be fun, small government and responsible spending is important and that controlling immigration is crucial to the well being of the social programs available in the US today.

So the question then is; am I "with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals" ? Or asm I perhaps, just a dreamer who finds it absurd that Americans feel the need to label themselves members of one party or the other, while at the same time giving up part of their belief structure? (BTW, where have I heard that last part before?)

Nah...you're just an eBully....

 

[Transcend]

Nah...you're just and eBully....

In the flesh. Ps: i call it like it is in real life as well. Just ask my past poli sci professors. Incuding the one who went mental in class when i told him I wasn't about to tow HIS party line.

 

[$tinkle]

In the flesh. Ps: i call it like it is in real life as well. Just ask my past poli sci professors. Incuding the one who went mental in class when i told him I wasn't about to tow HIS party line.

i can more easily picture richard simmons bangin' april lawyer than what you describe.

 

[Transcend]

i can more easily picture richard simmons bangin' april lawyer than what you describe.

Now that would be a site and a half. They can share outfits.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

i can more easily picture bangin' april lawyer than what you describe.

Fixed....

I do, at least once a day.

 

[Silver]

speaking of deafening outcries, 2 years ago in hamtramck, michigan, the city council voted unanimously to sound muslim calls to prayer from a mosque 5 times per day, while church bells have been silenced in reston, virginia.

The bells were a first for St. John Neumann -- the old chapel didn't have any. When they started ringing in three-minute bursts -- three times weekdays, once Saturdays and before each of five Sunday Masses, beginning at 7:30 a.m. -- neighbors complained. County inspectors found that the bells broke the county noise limit of 55 decibels by a wide margin, registering about 75, roughly equivalent to the noise of a vacuum cleaner.

That's pretty goddamn annoying. That call to prayer thing is crazy as well. I notice the Christians seem to think that's an intrustion onto their faith. Oh, the irony...