Drea

Iraq is (was) not the most repressive fanatical Muslim country. Saudi Arabia is far more fundamental yet Bush is still holding hands with them. The alleged highjackers were Saudi, yet Bush is still holding hands with them. Why is the rightwing not up in arms about this? You'd rather slam liberals than look the facts in the face. And that, my friends, is the insanity of the rightwing. The fact is that the rightwing prefers to be kept in the dark and told what to think.

ooooopsie -- I did mean the rotation of the earth... but that's moot anyway because its gawwwwwd. Can't you see his fingers stretched across the world? And the mid Atlantic ridge is how gawd sewed the earth together -- just like a baseball. (cool huh! Gawd likes baseball!) Whatsa matter with you aren't you enough of a "believer" to see the fingers? Only those with "faith" can see them so obviously you are a heathen sinning evangelical fanatical atheist -- off with yer head! LOL I've been watching The God Delusion... it boggles the mind how people, in the face of scientific fact, still believe in the invisible judge.

YES! A "Pro-D" Day for parents... it is so hard to find time for just each other. We should probably set aside 3 or 4 of these "special" days for parents to reconnect.

I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for a man to have custody of his little daughter(s). "did daddy touch your bum?" "Yes, I was on the toilet" (says 2 1/2 year old) Now was daddy being a pedophile or a parent? Parents wipe their children's bums. It's kinda necessary and if daddy is the only parent available, I guess he's gotta get out that tissue and wipe that bum. Unfortunately, there are idiots out there that can't tell the difference between wiping poop off a toddler's bum and "touching" the bum. What is the father to do? Let her run around with poop all over her butt? I cannot imagine how difficult this type of thing is for men. So, with this fellow, he went to court last June and the judge said "You can have supervised visits". The father declined because by allowing supervised visits he would be essentially admitting to molesting her (which he didn't). He said to the judge "I guess I will see her when she is 18 -- I will not confess to doing something I didn't do". Sad for both father and daughter that the bitch is able to holler out an unfounded accusation and get the father removed from his child's life. Friggin' sad IMO.

It would taste even better if you pitched in! When a family is devoted to one another they all pitch in with the drugery, the "one off stuff" (siding the house, for example), and the fun. Family is about.. well, life! And life involves human beings who like to have fun, moms included. You seem to think that moms are workhorses whose idea of "fun" is cooking a big meal while dad and the kids go play. Methinks you have a skewed view of women and what makes them happy. And there is nothing wrong with going out for pizza or chinese once a week. If human beings were so frail that their health would fail after one "unhealthy" meal... there sure wouldn't be many people alive LOL.

Agreed to disagree Leafless. You believe a stay at home mom is vital to maintaining the "traditional" family unit. I believe a well rounded mom (and well rounded dad and kids) are vital to the health of society as a whole. S'all good.

Absolutely! Shouldn't mom get a reward for working hard all week too? If kids and dad deserve a fun day so does mom. Huh? Are you saying the family that plays together is "dissasociated"? One would hope so. We are not the exception. We do not microwave dinners. We cook a meat, a starch and a veggie -- every night. Many times on Fridays we order Pizza though. You seem to have a perception that dinner takes hours upon hours to prepare. It doesn't. I can have chicken cut up, spuds in the pot and salad on the way in about 20 minutes... For whom? Oh, so children should have no outside activities in case they run into a "bad" kid? LOL Ah what the hell, pull them out of their activities and drop them off at the mall... You are just po'd because a family DOES do better when EVERYONE is involved and daddy isn't just some stranger that walks in the door at 5pm. You just want to keep fathers distant from their children. You work for the court system or sumpthin'?

Someone very close to me is going through a bitch of a time with his ex so I am well aware of how the courts favour the mother (not so aware if there are no kidlets involved). To make a long story short -- she* lied to him said she was on birthcontrol. (*herein referred to as the bitch) They had a fling. 2 years later she shows up with a year old baby girl. He sees her every weekend up until she is 3. At one visit baby girl decides she wants to stay with daddy "Nooooo! Mommy I want to stay with daddy" -- this upset the bitch so much that she made a wild accusation. Accusation was investigated and found false. It was found out that the bitch had been living with a convicted pedohphile from Alberta. Social services found the baby girl in a beat up old trailer... she had no panties and no shoes. Social services took the child into care. Then they went to court. Bitch bawled her eyes out in court and got to keep the child. Child is now going on 8 and her father has yet to see her since the accusation. I do not know whether the child molester is still in the picutre. Is our court system fair to men? Not a bit.

Most moms today work at a job outside the home. For the weekends why not have the whole family go sledding and then out for pizza? And on one of those weekend days the whole family should pitch in to get the home maintenance done... laundry, vacuuming, lawn mowing, etc. People manage to eat balanced meals throughout the week even when two parents are working. We do, and I certainly don't think we are the exception. Most of my male coworkers are very involved in the day to day lives of their children. They are the ones picking them up after school (sometimes bringing them to the office), driving them to hockey, dance, etc. In my opinion, this is an added benefit to the whole family. The children not only get to see their mother as a well-rounded person with interests, they also get to see their father in a nurturing everyday role.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't alimony a thing of the past? I look at it this way -- if you marry a woman and you both decide she is going to stay home then you are financially responsible for her for life even if you divorce. The financial responsibility should end, however, if the woman remarries or cohabitates. -- if you marry a woman and decide that you will both work then you are not finanically responsible for her for life. My advise to young men (and old men LOL) is to marry a woman with a career and learn to share in the household and the raising of the children.

Which is it Leafless? Religion should not be the business of government. It is a private matter between the believer and his/her particular belief. These beliefs have nothing to do with the laws of society which should remain secular regardless of the "faith" of the population.

AW, I went back through the whole thread... Looking for that elusive question. Post #34 AW Wrote: This is your first response to my postings in this thread… you called me a fundamentalist. Heck you called the woman in my office a fundy and you don’t even know her. I said she was a lovely human being and you called her a fundy! This was my response: As far as that goes, it doesn’t seem to me that I was insulting you at all… Then in post #39 you wrote: To which I responded with: Post #40 I You then wrote: I repeat from an above post : And I am not asking people to give up their beliefs -- I am asking only that govt and the public be spared from religious interference. Is that too much too ask. *ideally I would LIKE for the whole world to give up the notion of religion and concentrate on the life we have rather than "the next one" which may or may not be real. So I waded through the first four pages.... for the rest you have to do the copying and pasting! Now, do you have any direct questions? I would be happy to give you a direct answer to a direct question. So far the only question you have asked is "How else would you describe someone who wants the whole world to believe as they do?"

I will try to answer.... please rephrase the question(s) and I promise I will have an answer for you. Those posts you linked to don't really have a "question" and as far as I can tell you have not asked me a direct question so I am wondering what on earth you are talking about... Sorry.

When you refuse to read a link to a relatively unbiased (nothing is completely unbiased) site, I can only conclude that you fear some type of retritbution for doing so. Curiosity would've gotten the better of me and I would've read it... Religiousness by it's nature, tries to squelch curiosity, so I understand how you, raised under the thumb of religion, would be reluctant.

Ah but there's the rub! Conception depends on the male having an orgasm it does not depend on the female's orgasm. While the male orgasm indicates a possible creation of life, the orgasm of the woman does not. So we women can rub and tickle all we want (penetration not required) and not worry about "wasting" god's precious seed.

AW you are afraid to read the link -- understandable. But really, it's a nice site with info on all religions, creeds, non creeds etc. But I don't blame you for your fear -- it is not your fault as it's been indocrinated into your mind since childhood to fear what "goes against god". Cheers! edited to add: and God Bless!

Oh, so masturbation is not sex? Oral pleasure is not sex? Using one's hands is not sex? Tell that to your 15 year old daughter -- it's okay hon, you can give him a blowjob, it's not sex anyway... The nonbreeders get their kids by holding their noses and either a.) using a real penis from a real man or b.) turkeybaster c.) adoption. But of course, unwanted children are much better off raised in orphanages as I stated before -- raising children in institutions has been proven to be much better for them than raising them in a same gender household. This has been studied for the past 750 years. We have seen 10 generations now, who have been raised by gays and the proof is in those studies -- those who were raised by gays turned out badly. We know that kids do better when raised without individual interaction. They do better when treated like yesterday's garbage.

You might wanna clarify which "sect" of Christianity corners the market on morals... Sects of Christianity Which one of these is the "right" one -- the "one true path" to "god"?

I agree, it is much better for a child to be raised by foster care parents or an orphanage than in a household of two people of the same sex. I cannot imagine anything more detrimental to a child's welfare than seeing two samesex people love one another. It's incredible how some people can think that it would be a safe environment for children because gay people don't save sex for the bedroom after the kids are in bed! Oh no! They do it right there in the open on the living room couch during Oprah, or in the middle of dinner, one of them will throw the other on the table (right as the kid is eating his/her KD!) and go at it. They are shameless, utterly shameless! They are sexcrazed maniacs who cannot control their lust -- unlike opposite sex partners who only have sex after the children are in bed, in silence, in the dark -- those gays are horrid, they ooze sex and as a result cannot hide it from chilren. Because SEX is the worst thing humans do. It's worse than blowing people up, worse than street racing, worse than cop killing, worse than shooting everyone at your work or school. And seeing a penis, breasts or vulva will certainly turn good children into wanton killers/sex maniacs... Seriously, it's true!

click the link! click the link! click the link! click the link! I am trying to stop the goddamn arguing. I am reaching out in order to do so... are you able to do the same?

Please check out the link. Its a good, informative site... There is a link for pretty much every belief humans have come up with. I am done arguing with you. Just check out the site -- maybe we can even find something we can agree on! Religious Tolerance Org

AW, please go back and reread my post. Also, check out the link ... it seems to be an unbiased site. From your posts I gather that you cannot tolerate anyone telling you that your notion of a judge in the sky is not real. You simply will not accept an opinion differing from your own. You said: " you are not tolerant, you are just the opposite side of the coin. And you just don't see it" You call people fundamentalists and tell them that their "non belief" is exactly the same as the funamentalist who straps on a bomb.

Well your belief certainly doesn't stop you from mocking those who don't believe. And telling them what they feel. Found this interesting site last night. All this atheist is asking is that our public institutions not have reference to "god" as it is an unproven concept. Proven concepts only, please, in our government and our schools. I would like for there to be no religion (I think people would be more tolerant of one another if they realized this was our only life and we'd better make the best of it), but I am not calling for religious folks to be killed, or exiled, or their meetings banned. I would also like a million dollars... I'm probably not going to get it, but that doesn't stop me from wishing for it. You act like I have some sort of "group" behind me that is almost ready to eradicate religion off the face of the earth -- sorry to disappoint, but I am just one person on an earth of billions. So quit being so scared, so virilantly afraid of life without your "god" -- you and your beliefs are completely safe I assure you. Watched "Rendition" last night -- excellent movie... now if those young people didn't believe in some heaven after death they would not be willing to martyr themselves.

Point proven. Nuff said

You depend on Wikipedia? Wiki might be fine for looking up the meaning of "idiot" but not for a topic such as this. Wikipedia is great dictionary, but a lousy encyclopedia. And how does being a "quack who used religion to manipulate" make him different than any other moron who uses religion to control people? He believed "his" people were the only ones worthy of "god". All religious people think they are the "only ones worthy". So how is he different again? LOL you folk are too funny. "but he wasn't a "real" Christian" you say. "But he killed people" you say. Whatever. He still purported to believe in the invisible entity same as you. The same invisible entity that drives Islam, drives Christianity, and the same entity that drove Hitler to do what he did. Do you think he wanted to rid the earth of Jews because of their big noses?